Would they necessarily know, though? Does the ability to create a universe obviously imply that the creator therefore has absolute knowledge about their creation? What if they created the universe as an experiment, because they didn’t know if it could be done? What if the creator’s intelligence isn’t directly related to their universe-creating ability? After all, a cow can create a calf without knowing about embryogenesis. What if the creator of the universe is a cow?
I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of the question. Since I’ve just replied to someone in the twin thread (s/atheist/theist/) who had a similar objection as you, and my reply was perhaps more suitable for THIS thread, I’ll repeat and elaborate it here.
The OP is not asking how they can change someone’s mind. They’re asking what would have to happen to change an atheist’s mind. The difference is important. To answer the first question with ‘there’s no way’ would be a perfectably reasonable response. To answer the second question (the OPs) with ‘there’s no way’ would NOT be a reasonable response.
The statement “God exists” is a proposition, either true or false. We may not know NOW whether it is true or false, perhaps we shall NEVER know whether it is true or false. But that doesn’t stop the fact that it is one of those two (unless you’re a postmodernist I suppose… blech).
Actually, more correctly, “God exists” is a propositional function - either true or false depending on what definition of God is used. It’s just as important for atheists to understand what they mean by God as it is for theists. My atheism is lack of belief in the existence of a sentient creator of the Universe. Naturally I disbelieve the various religions’ gods as subsets of this concept.
Q: What could YOU do to change my mind?
A: Nothing
Q: What would it take to change my mind?
A: Move all the stars in the sky, in a clearly perceptible process, observable by astronomers the world over, and the camera on the New Horizons probe, to spell out the Goldbach conjecture and its proof in Serbo-Croat.
Of course it wouldn’t discount the possibility that it was just very clever aliens doing it, but I think it would shift the burden of proof. I might be wrong about it being due to God, but as someone with a scientific frame of mind, I don’t mind being wrong at all. I just want evidence to be wrong with.
well, if He microwaved a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it, and then He eats it…
nope, sorry, still not convinced
One of the traditional, logical arguments, perhaps, but definitely nothing else. But none of those arguments would have any slightest relevance to any point of Christian, Jewish or Islamic doctrine, other than the bare existence of God. I.e., they would not bear on original sin, redemption, or any element of revelation.
A debate with theists (note plural) about the existence of the thing they believe in very often makes obvious that there is no consensus as to what the precise nature of that thing is anyway.
A debate with a theist (note singular) about the existence of the thing they believe in very often (maybe even always) makes obvious that they don’t know what the precise nature of that thing is anyway.
If a theist could tell me the precise physical nature of their god, or even precisely what their god could do, and then showed me (and sufficient other people to confirm we were in the realm of consensus reality) something of that nature or that could do the relevant things, then I’d accept that there was, within that theist’s definition and no more, a god.
Whether that was anything more than a big yawn (given that their definition might be something as trivial as “a person who can appear to make wine appear in some casks”) is a different issue.
IME about 99.9% of arguments on the 'dope and elsewhere about whether there is a god are vacuous because they do not start of by defining WTF this “god” thing is that is being spoken of.
But an alien with mysterious mind control powers could do the same, in a fairly simple extrapolation from our existing technology. Now who’s the credulous fool?
If an alien could do what a god could do, I guess we would just have to call the alien a “god”, wouldn’t we?
Miracles would not suffice…as David Hume pointed out a couple hundred years ago, miracles cannot be known to happen. A rational being is more likely to think that his perception is in error than that there has been a violation of nature.
If we define “God” in the common JudeoChristian tradition, however, his local Presence would be sufficient to change an atheist’s mind. In that tradition the Presence of God alone compels belief. Should he actually show up one day in the manner described in various Biblical passages, you’d see a lot of rational arrogance dissipate on the spot. No one will turn down Pascal’s wager in that circumstance, and in any case JudeoChristian theology says they will be unable to do so.
The likelihood of that happening, of course, is another thread. (I rather suspect some Dopers secretly hope for the day Der Trihs gets his comeuppance. Boy oh boy oh boy is that gonna be the day…may it happen Real Soon Now…)
I’d rather die than be turned into the mind controlled slave you describe.
As for Pascal’s Wager, if your monster-god didn’t rape my brain, of course I’d turn it down. I still wouldn’t believe that it was God ( or probably anything but a sign that I need medical help ), or that it deserved worship, so what would be the point ? It would know I was lying.
And of course “some Dopers secretly hope for the day Der Trihs gets his comeuppance”. I’m not a Christian, and a basic part of Christianity is the desire to destroy all individual personalities and opinions, everything that makes us human or different from one another, and turn us all into identical, mindless God-puppets like you describe.
Analiendidit. 
But you haven’t demonstrated that this hypothetical alien can do anything but mind-control you into belief. Hence “credulous fool”. (The name applies only in the circumstances that you actually have been duped by an alien, which I do not for a moment suppose to be the case.)
Imagine Jesus as your brother, always hanging around the house. “Will you stop turning the water into wine already? I’m trying to take a shower.”
– Steven Wright
In my OP I never said that the creator required your worship, obedience or even your respect. Hell, you could tell him to f off if you wanted (though it wouldn’t be a wise thing to piss off a being that can create a universe. Getting turned into a pillar of salt ruins your complexion).
I am simply trying to figure out what level of proof would be necessary for you to say, “OK, I accept that you are the being, commonly referred to as God, which created the known universe.” Since I have always seen atheists say that they cannot accept hearsay or subjective views (people having a change of heart or feeling like they were emotionally changed) I was interested in what would be their final sticking point.
I find it fascinating the people who say that nothing will convince them short of having their mind changed for them (brainwashing, mind control, etc). I know it’s not what they mean but it sounds like they just have a stubborn streak a mile wide. “Nope, I refuse to accept any proof you might show me no matter what it is. I won’t change my mind. You’ll have to change it for me. Nyahh, nyahh.*<stick fingers in ears>*la, la, la, la, la, I’m not listening! La, la, la…”
That is an incredibly dishonest way to cast those arguments. I’ll leave you to make up things on your own. Sheesh.
There are a couple of problems with your question. How are you defining “God”? Is it some omniscient, omnipotent being who controls the Universe from his throne up in heaven? Is it just a general “spirit of goodness” or Karma? Is God a metaphore for the vast unknown secrets of the Universe? Is he some supernatural being that arbitrarily decides the fate of us puny humans?
An alien race with sufficiently advanced technology would appear godlike to us. Unlike God, they would still be bound by the physical laws of the universe. No supernatural explanation.
Mental illness or drug hallucinations also do not require a supernatural explanation and are far more likely.
I suppose I could be convinced if you actually made me God for awhile. Of course, there would still be the question of whether I am actually suffering from a dillusion or drug induced hallucination.
That’s the beauty of God. If you believe in him, he doesn’t need to prove he exists to you. If things turn out well, you can thank him and if they turn out badly you can ask him for support. And if you don’t believe in him, what’s the difference?
You are absolutely right. Of course, this argument works for everyone else and their respective gods, too. Maybe atheists are just better at resisting mind control.
And I was responding to Chief Pedant’s post, not your OP.
No, it’s that the idea of God is just that foolish, and just that unprovable. It makes little to no sense, it poorly defined at best, and there’s no way to distinguish a “real” God, whatever that might be, from a superhuman but less than divine impostor. I’m willing to believe in my own insanity over believing in a god who appears to me, because history teaches that insanity is BY FAR the more likely explanation. Millions of lunatics have “seen God” or various other supernatural critters; not one has ever had proof.
What would it take to convince you that the Star Wars movies are a documentary ? Anything ? Well, them being a documentary is far more plausible than God.
Only the now-dominant form of C’tian theology says they will be unable to do so. Jewish thought is much more flexible as are some strains of C’tian thought. I am
of the flexible sort. Yes, there will be many who are fleeing to the mountains, calling on the rocks to crush them & hide them “from the Wrath of the Lamb”, but there may well be some who will see God/Christ & think “THIS is Who I’ve been denying or fighting?!?! WOW!” and rush headlong to Him and, I believe, be embraced. Thus, when the Uppance does come, I am hoping for a happy resolution for many.
Please look at what I said again. I have bolded parts of it.
Obviously I’m not saying that this is what atheists are thinking. I was being a smartass (hence the tag).
If there is no proof you would accept outside of your brain being physically altered, then that is your level of proof. You are the ultimate denier who would refuse to change your mind and must have it changed for you. Good for you, I’m glad that you can stick to your guns and not waiver in your [del]beliefs[/del] knowledge. I admire your confidence. I, on the other hand, am willing to change my mind if I see convincing proof.
In my OP I said
I personally cannot imagine seeing a definitive proof of a “spirit of goodness” or how it would be conveyed. An actual being would be a different matter.
I understand but other people besides you had made similar statements about worship and obedience.
To convice me that the Star Wars movies are a documentary would require me to be able to travel to the various planets that the events occurred on, interview the beings involved (of course checking for hidden puppeteers and makeup goes without saying), examine the vehicles and weapons and test them out, bringing along various scientists and engineers to examine all of the variables to determine that they are real. Plus I would have to interview the filmmakers to determine how they first learned about the rebellion against the empire since it occurred a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Even then I would still be skeptical about any claims of the documentary status.
You see, I am willing to put things to a test and am willing to question a claim. Instead of just saying that the idea of God is “foolish”, tell me what it would take to convince you that he exists. What tests would he have to pass in order for you to just say he exists?
I generally am. 
Well, that “maybe” would be more valid if we hypothesised that I was indeed mind-controlled, but since it’s my thesis that God will not mind-control, even though such is easily within his power, it may fall by default. Or, of course, I may have just been mind-controlled to say that.