What would you do if you found out God existed

[Cyberman]

And if God does exist and provided guidance - then our answers lie in his clarification and guidance, even the very proofs of his existence we are looking for.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But they're not horses. First establish the "if", then you can speculate about the "then".

[NickPercent]

7-I imagine a British person saying "arse"; and it's hilarious.

It's better - and more accurate - than an American saying "herbs". The "h" isn't just decoration, guys.

Oh, and what's with the soft "th" in "Anthony"? Especially when the diminutive is "Tony". Nobody seems to have a problem with "Thomas", so what gives?

(Incidentally, I'm not British. I'm English.)

It just sounds wrong to include the H in herbs...

[Cyberman]

As in herbaceous? As a horticultural term, it's a bit like saying "nukular".

[Mystic]

And if God does exist and provided guidance - then our answers lie in his clarification and guidance, even the very proofs of his existence we are looking for.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But they're not horses. First establish the "if", then you can speculate about the "then".

But if you are trying to establish this "if" - the searching for who be his representatives and a revelation from him, might be the best and easiest means to prove it and establish it.

[Astreja]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But they're not horses. First establish the "if", then you can speculate about the "then".

But if you are trying to establish this "if" - the searching for who be his representatives and a revelation from him, might be the best and easiest means to prove it and establish it.

But what if the "representatives" are phony and the "revelation" is from their imaginations?  It proves nothing at all.

[Mystic]

But if you are trying to establish this "if" - the searching for who be his representatives and a revelation from him, might be the best and easiest means to prove it and establish it.

But what if the "representatives" are phony and the "revelation" is from their imaginations?  It proves nothing at all.

What's your point?

[Astreja]

CL, to answer your original post, I'm not sure how I would react to such an encounter. I'm not averse to meeting a superhuman being that is genuinely good, but if that being bore too great a resemblance to the god of the Bible there's a reasonable chance that alarm bells would be going off. Lacking omniscience, I wouldn't be able to know for sure what the being really was or what it wanted of me, and at a minimum it would take some time before I felt at ease with the situation.

---

But what if the "representatives" are phony and the "revelation" is from their imaginations?  It proves nothing at all.

What's your point?

The point is that in all probability, neither you nor I possess the ability to determine if the revelations are genuine.  You have religious faith, and accept certain things as revelations.  I have no religious faith and am unlikely to acquire it in my lifetime, and question all scriptures and all revelations.

[drfuzzy]

But what if the "representatives" are phony and the "revelation" is from their imaginations?  It proves nothing at all.

What's your point?

Are you kidding?  We've said it dozens of times - if gawd is only one-thousandth as capable, knowing, and powerful as theists claim, then no representative is needed.  Religion is the ultimate club for con-men.  And you can have a revelation about absolutely anything.  It's called imagination.  Preachers and "revelations" will never be proof, unless they do something like . . . oh, fly, re-grow amputated limbs, and raise the dead - all at the same time.  On camera.  Surrounded by scientists who are studying the phenomenon.

[Cyberman]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But they're not horses. First establish the "if", then you can speculate about the "then".

But if you are trying to establish this "if" - the searching for who be his representatives and a revelation from him, might be the best and easiest means to prove it and establish it.

That might be a good place to start; but without a working evidence filter in your toolkit, you're at risk of leaving yourself open to every predator and new age woo salesman who tells you what already fits your preconceptions.

See, if you tell me there's an angel standing behind me, the first thing I'm going to do is turn round and look. It's no good your telling me that the angel is invisible, or always moves to be just out of my sight, I'm going to want to know how you know it's there at all. I'm certainly not interested in a list of testimonials from other people who saw the angel, especially when I'm getting - at best - third-hand accounts by a friend of a friend who once heard someone telling someone else etc.

I can provide mutually compelling evidence that a rock exists, or that I exist. First do that basic thing for your god, then we have something to talk about.

[WinterHold]