What it would take for me to believe

This thread is not to argue whether there are any miracles in the Quran, nor is it to argue whether or not there is a god...

There are really two separate issues. The issue of whether our universe was created by a conscious act, and if it was then also the issue of whether or not this consciousness has sent us instructions (theism) or is non intervening (deism.)

I'll start from the bottom up.

RELIGION

Why I don't accept a religion

What I observe in the world though is that many people make up many religions, it still happens today - I think Muslims will agree that Mormonism is man made. The technique used is that an individual will claim that god is speaking through them (directly or indirectly) and that on that authority everyone else should listen to them. When asked to present evidence of supernatural intervention they implore people to "believe out of faith" and "to demand proof is wicked and arrogant" - because natural beings cannot provide supernatural evidence.

Keeping in mind that this is the standard strategy by which humans create religion it is therefore impossible for me to believe any religion that came about in a similar fashion. It makes no sense to me that god would create a religion by utilising the exact same techniques of fraudsters.

What would it take me to accept a religion?

If I had opened the Quran and the first thing I saw was 299,792,458 I would today be a Muslim. This is the speed of light in a vacuum. Although there are alternative extraordinary explanations as to how this information could have arrived

God told Muhammad
An alien told Muhammad
A time traveller told Muhammad

I wouldn't really see any way of deciding which was the case, but the fact that the rest of the book claimed to be authored by the creator of the universe I think I could give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was from god Apart from knowing the speed of light in a vacuum it would also demonstrate knowledge of the future, because the number is presented in kilometres per hour, a unit of measurement which was not created at the time - so it would be a kind of "two birds with one stone" scenario.

GOD

Why I don't accept there is a god
To determine the cause of something we gather evidence. In nature this is simple as we have many instances from which to gather information, but with the universe we currently only have one to gather data from. We cannot see how this universe started, if it is the first universe, the only universe, and so on.

The answer to the question "How did the universe get here" for me is a resounding "I do not know", and I'd rather have no answer than the wrong answer. Not knowing is acceptable, accepting answers as truth without evidence ("truth without proof") is unacceptable.

For example, it's easy for someone to conclude that the universe was created, but why does this automatically mean it was created by "god"? There is no more or less evidence to suggest the origin of the universe was

One god
Two gods
Lots of gods
Another universe
Energy from some other dimension
etc

And if we say that whatever created it should be named "God" because god is a role rather than a being then we have no more evidence to suggest that

God was a conscious being rather than some natural process that creates universes.
God gave up its own existence in order to create the universe (the ultimate selfless sacrifice)

So with a lack of religious conviction there is no reason for me to say there is/isn't a god, or what the attributes of such a god should be. My atheism is merely a reflection of having a complete lack of conclusive evidence. All we have is an argument from ignorance - "I don't know how the universe got here.....therefore (insert religious belief of your choice)".


What would it take me to believe in a conscious creator of the universe?

If a being appeared in front of me and resurrected the dead body of my grandmother who said "Accept that this is god" I would accept that this is a very powerful being, but I would not also automatically accept it was responsible for creating the universe. As Arthur C Clarke once put it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

The only evidence I can think of that would convince me that a concious being created the universe (if I have no evidence of a credible religion) would be a message within the creation itself. There might be a way to embed a message within the fabric of the universe after the fact, but I'd expect there would be a way of determining that any slight alteration to the message would result in an infeasible universe.

If we were to find a universal law of physic for example, and it was based entirely on a binary pattern which translated to "I am the creator" then I would accept intelligence created our universe. If the message went as far as to say "I am the creator, and (religious leader of your choice) was my messenger" then needless to say I would accept that religion too.


What about you?

My position is that I have no preference as to what the truth is, I only care that I possess it. Given the right level of evidence to match the incredibility of the claim I will accept anything.

Are you also more interested in possessing the truth than you are satisfying your preference for what format the truth should take? If so, what kind of evidence do you think would convince you that

Atheists
A: The universe was created by intelligence
B: This intelligence has sent us instructions in the form of a religion

Theists
A: You are following a false religion.
B: There is no god.

PS: In the interests of interesting discussion I'm only interested from hearing from atheists and theists who do not answer that there is nothing that could convince them that they are wrong.