"I guess you don't want to play 'what if there is a God' then."
I can play that game. I just didn't know you were playing a game. I thought you were actually trying to make reasonable arguments.
Not trying to 'game' you or anyone else, Just using 'game' as a metaphor for the intellectual exercise of considering what the implications of a God existing are. And I'm sure you knew that, so it is you that are attempting to make a game of this discussion.
If we're going to play the "what if there's a god" game, then you will need to describe exactly which god we are playing with.
I answered that awhile back so again it shows you are not taking the discussion seriously. The " a God" in the premise implies that there is only one God as I explained before.
Also, if we're going to follow the premise of the thread, then we have to assume that all the gods of all the religions are incorrect. So what does that leave us with exactly?
As I explained before, assuming there is a God, religions are merely attempts to understand or codify what that means. All religions that I am aware of have done a very poor job of doing that. They don't even conform to the documents that they presumably believe were from or inspired by God.
Where does that leave us? In my view, it leaves us exactly where God intended -
God does not recognize membership in a religion as an adequate response to his existence, for indeed they are not 'correct'.
Each and every man or woman must seek God for themselves as individuals.