Sorry, I thought you were presenting something that could realistically happen. I do not answer fantasy suppositions. That's like asking me what I would think if a pink unicorn walked into my living room. I've had a "vision" which by definition is a hallucination. I would be treated for hallucinations, end of story.
I'm not taking your bait.
I'm presenting something that I think could realistically happen.
But you've very nicely answered my questions, thank you. You would disbelieve the evidence of your own senses, rather than have them contradict your faith.
It also means that you lied when you answered ArGee's "Have you looked?" with "Yep. I knocked. Nobody answered." Since you've now demonstrated that you would not believe even your own experience, if it went against your assumptions, you cannot have knocked.
This also calls into doubt that you'd even believe reproducible, falsifiable evidence. After all, if you're unwilling to admit a scenario where the evidence of your senses was that God existed, it seems likely you'd give the same lack of credence to the possibility of falsifiable evidence, even if presented to you. If nothing else, you could be having a hallucination that such evidence has been falsified.
It is one thing to say, "I don't believe in God, because I don't see the evidence." It is another to say that, even if showed the evidence, you would dismiss it.
You were right that I baited you, but you took the bait. You have provided for me the evidential proof of what I had long thought had existed. A form of Atheism, that was not based on lack of belief, but based in faith that God cannot exist and therefore any evidence of Him is to be dismissed without consideration.