If using the definition of god being the supreme ruler and creator of the universe, I don't think I could be convinced no matter what. Let's say a being proved to me that they were the creators of everything, and even that they ruled everything, how could I consider them supreme, much less perfect (as some of the definitions also include)? Supreme and perfect would be my opinions. I don't think that things, if created, are good enough. They are certainly good enough for what they are, which is existence without expectations of perfection or of some weirdo grand purpose of greater meaning or whatever the fuck, but if there really were some ruler/creator, than they really could have done a better job.
They could not convince me of their supremacy, their perfection, and other things too, like all the logical contradictions in the various god/theism/deity definitions. After explaining which definition of god they are, they would have to answer to whatever contradictions/impossibilities that definition has.
For instance, if the definition includes the one sole deity requirement, how are they going to prove to me that there are not other gods out there? Maybe I'm being lied to. And so on for the other definitions. Even the ones that try to narrow it down to god being the universe itself, well, I already believe in the universe - I'm part of it. That's not a god. If it has a mass consciousness that I'm not aware of because I'm a mere cell in its body? Well that's not a god either, that would be a very complex organism.
Some definitions mention supernatural powers. Well, I consider any and all powers to be natural as soon as they appear or affect nature/the universe, etc. So, how can it be proven to me that a being has supernatural powers that don't fit into natural laws? It can't. I will consider the power/ability to simply be something that I don't understand how it works. There is no reason for me to think these powers are somehow outside of everything/nature completely. How could I know that? Even if the being teleported me to outside the universe or whatever, well, that new spot is now a part of everything/nature (the universe and beyond) to me, so anything that happens there is now part of being natural too, not supernatural. As soon as something is real and perceivable, it is no longer supernatural to me, so nothing could ever prove to me it is.
They could not convince me of their supremacy, their perfection, and other things too, like all the logical contradictions in the various god/theism/deity definitions. After explaining which definition of god they are, they would have to answer to whatever contradictions/impossibilities that definition has.
For instance, if the definition includes the one sole deity requirement, how are they going to prove to me that there are not other gods out there? Maybe I'm being lied to. And so on for the other definitions. Even the ones that try to narrow it down to god being the universe itself, well, I already believe in the universe - I'm part of it. That's not a god. If it has a mass consciousness that I'm not aware of because I'm a mere cell in its body? Well that's not a god either, that would be a very complex organism.
Some definitions mention supernatural powers. Well, I consider any and all powers to be natural as soon as they appear or affect nature/the universe, etc. So, how can it be proven to me that a being has supernatural powers that don't fit into natural laws? It can't. I will consider the power/ability to simply be something that I don't understand how it works. There is no reason for me to think these powers are somehow outside of everything/nature completely. How could I know that? Even if the being teleported me to outside the universe or whatever, well, that new spot is now a part of everything/nature (the universe and beyond) to me, so anything that happens there is now part of being natural too, not supernatural. As soon as something is real and perceivable, it is no longer supernatural to me, so nothing could ever prove to me it is.
I'm really shitty at giving kudos and rep. That's because I would be inconsistent in remembering to do them, and also I don't really want it to show if any favouritism is happening. Even worse would be inconsistencies causing false favouritisms to show. So, fuck it. Just assume that I've given you some good rep and a number of kudos, and everyone should be happy...
