Z
zro_x
Guest
to the second question, I’d accept it, since that has not been irrevocably proven. It is logically possible for the earth to be a cube.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Eleve
Guest
I see what you mean. I guess I balk at the idea that there are reasons to believe in God as definitively convincing as the reasons we have for believing in arithmetic and in a round Earth. Above someone talked about how it’s very common for theists to have doubts. On the other hand, you rarely see people fretting about whether two and two are really four.Once more, how would you respond if someone asked what you would do if proof was found that 2 + 2 did not equal 4, or that the Earth was not round?
S
seeker_of_God
Guest
These “irrevocably proven” things you are speaking of are the “first principles.” However, reason can tell us much more than just this, and so can faith. Further, we can be absolutely certain about much more than just the first principles.it can not be decieved about irrevocably proven things, like the fact that we have consciousness, that 2+2=4, and the fundamental, basic laws of logic. These have been proven so well that no one argues against them, and no one ever doubts them, like they doubt and argue over the existence of God.
not beliefs that have been irrevocably proven.
On the contrary. Even faith takes reason.
It’s not that they’ve been “proven so well,” but that they are fundamental principles that do not require proofs. 2 + 2 = 4 could almost be said to be a tautology. That we have consciousness is a fundamental requirement for epistemology.
But we can know much more than this.
Faith and reason go hand in hand, so each supports the other.
The existence of God is indeed a philosophical proof. Our reason is limited, so this is why there are those who do not accept these proofs. Aquinas’ five ways are all very fair arguments.
I spent a time a few years ago attempting to disprove the third way in any way I could think of. Though sometimes I thought I had it, the fallacy in my argument was shown, and I was back to square 1. I was unable to disprove it.
As far as knowing the Church is true, this is a matter of faith. But our faith can be so sure that we can know absolutely that it is true.
I know to such an extent that the Church possesses the fullness of truth, that it is absurd to attempt to answer your question.
S
seeker_of_God
Guest
I’ve been there. My whole life was spent pursuing the truth above all else. I believe whole-heartedly in the truth and the necessity of finding it.I see what you mean. I guess I balk at the idea that there are reasons to believe in God as definitively convincing as the reasons we have for believing in arithmetic and in a round Earth. Above someone talked about how it’s very common for theists to have doubts. On the other hand, you rarely see people fretting about whether two and two are really four.
I’ve seen people who believe in a flat earth. It’s not a pretty sight, yet they are out there.
Z
zro_x
Guest
Eleve makes a good point. Seekerofgod, if you do have an airtight reason to believe in God’s existence, then this poll has no meaning for you. However, this proof would have to be tighter than your belief that rocks do not fall upward. even this is not, strictly speaking, logically impossible.These “irrevocably proven” things you are speaking of are the “first principles.” However, reason can tell us much more than just this, and so can faith. Further, we can be absolutely certain about much more than just the first principles.
It’s not that they’ve been “proven so well,” but that they are fundamental principles that do not require proofs. 2 + 2 = 4 could almost be said to be a tautology. That we have consciousness is a fundamental requirement for epistemology.
But we can know much more than this.
Faith and reason go hand in hand, so each supports the other.
The existence of God is indeed a philosophical proof. Our reason is limited, so this is why there are those who do not accept these proofs. Aquinas’ five ways are all very fair arguments.
I spent a time a few years ago attempting to disprove the third way in any way I could think of. Though sometimes I thought I had it, the fallacy in my argument was shown, and I was back to square 1. I was unable to disprove it.
As far as knowing the Church is true, this is a matter of faith. But our faith can be so sure that we can know absolutely that it is true.
I know to such an extent that the Church possesses the fullness of truth, that it is absurd to attempt to answer your question.
C
ChibiViolet
Guest
In this impossible situation you speak of, I would be a forced athiest as remaining a theist would be literally impossible.my own answer to this question:
a quick addition: suppose that the argument/proof/evidence is pretty much irrevocable.
L
LilyM
Guest
What do you mean by ‘convert’?
Perforce I would cease to believe in God of the proofs of His non-existence were as clear as the proofs that 2+2=4.
But there are a lot of practical benefits to living as Catholic teaching dictates, more so than any other applied ethical system I know of, so I would probably do so - or at least 99.9% of it.
Perforce I would cease to believe in God of the proofs of His non-existence were as clear as the proofs that 2+2=4.
But there are a lot of practical benefits to living as Catholic teaching dictates, more so than any other applied ethical system I know of, so I would probably do so - or at least 99.9% of it.
G
Gem02
Guest
You can’t really convert to atheism…
I’d convert but grudgingly.
I’d convert but grudgingly.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
In an impossible situation (purely philosophically - you cannot prove that there is nothing beyond your “world”, because by definition your world is as far as your tools can reach and so your tools cannot reach further to see if anything is there), anything and everything logically follows from everything else. I would accept this impossible evidence that it is impossible to deny, but I would also be a red buttercup that sold individual paper towels for a living. Or not. Or, more accurately “and not.”
Now, if the question is “was I given very convincing proofs that my beliefs are false,” (which I also think is impossible, because the proofs of God’s existence appear so fundamentally obvious to me, but I can pretend that that logic doesn’t apply for the moment) then I would spend a long time looking over them, and, if they survived, determine if they supplied any sort of meaning or goal to life, that is, if my reason forced some other sort of action. The answer would have to be no (unless we are overturning more laws of logic), so I would be left in a situation where the best of my reason does not compel me to do anything at all. After all, in an un-augmented-atheist world view there is no particular reason to refrain from following a particular religion, just no particular reason not to. In such a situation, I would probably fall back on Pascal’s wager: given that my reason does not require any action, and under the assumption that my reason could potentially be wrong (the overturning of which would have be back to selling individual papertowels out of my castle in fairy land, while enjoying the taste of blue and surviving by eating B flat), I would follow the only course of action that I know that could possibly have any positive outcome whatsoever, and live under the only philosophy that under which the the phrase “positive outcome” could possibly mean anything because if it’s right then it’s what should be done, and if it’s wrong, who cares?
Basically, if convinced that my current beliefs are wrong, and in the absence of any other impossible things, I would believe it, but would probably continue doing what I’m doing in what I would think was the vain hope that I was wrong. And if I was right, then I’d die anyway.
But the whole thing to me does appear to be a square circle. This is just the only way in which I can ignore some parts of the problems such a claim produces without moving so far beyond the possible as to be ridiculous.
Now, if the question is “was I given very convincing proofs that my beliefs are false,” (which I also think is impossible, because the proofs of God’s existence appear so fundamentally obvious to me, but I can pretend that that logic doesn’t apply for the moment) then I would spend a long time looking over them, and, if they survived, determine if they supplied any sort of meaning or goal to life, that is, if my reason forced some other sort of action. The answer would have to be no (unless we are overturning more laws of logic), so I would be left in a situation where the best of my reason does not compel me to do anything at all. After all, in an un-augmented-atheist world view there is no particular reason to refrain from following a particular religion, just no particular reason not to. In such a situation, I would probably fall back on Pascal’s wager: given that my reason does not require any action, and under the assumption that my reason could potentially be wrong (the overturning of which would have be back to selling individual papertowels out of my castle in fairy land, while enjoying the taste of blue and surviving by eating B flat), I would follow the only course of action that I know that could possibly have any positive outcome whatsoever, and live under the only philosophy that under which the the phrase “positive outcome” could possibly mean anything because if it’s right then it’s what should be done, and if it’s wrong, who cares?
Basically, if convinced that my current beliefs are wrong, and in the absence of any other impossible things, I would believe it, but would probably continue doing what I’m doing in what I would think was the vain hope that I was wrong. And if I was right, then I’d die anyway.
But the whole thing to me does appear to be a square circle. This is just the only way in which I can ignore some parts of the problems such a claim produces without moving so far beyond the possible as to be ridiculous.
R
Robin_des_Bois
Guest
If it’s proven that atheists are right, then I will become atheist.
N
nemesis001
Guest
There is a question that needs to be answered first: how are we defining “God?”
For myself, if God could somehow be demonstrated not to exist after the manner in which I think He does, that would not by itself destroy the value of Catholicism. So, I would have to say no, but that my own beliefs about it would change. It seems to me there is value in Catholicism apart from the supernatural value that I believe it holds. If the supernatural element were somehow demonstrated not to exist, then my beliefs about the Church would have to change, and my beliefs about some of the reasons why faith is efficacious would have to change, but I’m not sure that those considerations would justify me jettisoning the whole prospect. Many there are, I think, who practice Catholicism because they believe it has efficacy for their lives for reasons other than the supernatural, and it seems to me there is value in it for those reasons as well, so I could still conceivably practice my religion for naturalistic reasons. It would surely lose some of the wonder! But I might still keep it nonetheless. Of course, the question of “then what is there?” would have to be answered. If I were to conclude based on some new evidence that the supernatural Trinity was not what I have thought it is, then some other metaphysics would necessarily replace it, and my final answer would have to depend on what that was.
For myself, if God could somehow be demonstrated not to exist after the manner in which I think He does, that would not by itself destroy the value of Catholicism. So, I would have to say no, but that my own beliefs about it would change. It seems to me there is value in Catholicism apart from the supernatural value that I believe it holds. If the supernatural element were somehow demonstrated not to exist, then my beliefs about the Church would have to change, and my beliefs about some of the reasons why faith is efficacious would have to change, but I’m not sure that those considerations would justify me jettisoning the whole prospect. Many there are, I think, who practice Catholicism because they believe it has efficacy for their lives for reasons other than the supernatural, and it seems to me there is value in it for those reasons as well, so I could still conceivably practice my religion for naturalistic reasons. It would surely lose some of the wonder! But I might still keep it nonetheless. Of course, the question of “then what is there?” would have to be answered. If I were to conclude based on some new evidence that the supernatural Trinity was not what I have thought it is, then some other metaphysics would necessarily replace it, and my final answer would have to depend on what that was.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I would too. But it’s not going to happen:If it’s proven that atheists are right, then I will become atheist.
A few years ago, when my faith was challenged after I had discovered that the origin of life very likely had natural causes, I studied atheism – that is to say, naturalism, since that would be the only valid intellectual alternative to theism for me. Yet it became abundantly clear to me that naturalistic explanations for the extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature that allows for life to exist, and for rational and abstract human thinking are weak and feeble. It also became clear to me that arguments for the existence of God that are related to the classical cosmological ones still carry weight.
Furthermore, even if naturalism were true, under naturalism we could never know that it is, see my article:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm
Thus, naturalism, and with it, atheism, is an intellectually incoherent position; agnosticism would be the only feasible rational alternative to theism, if even that.
R
Robin_des_Bois
Guest
+1I would too. But it’s not going to happen:
A few years ago, when my faith was challenged after I had discovered that the origin of life very likely had natural causes, I studied atheism – that is to say, naturalism, since that would be the only valid intellectual alternative to theism for me. Yet it became abundantly clear to me that naturalistic explanations for the extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature that allows for life to exist, and for rational and abstract human thinking are weak and feeble. It also became clear to me that arguments for the existence of God that are related to the classical cosmological ones still carry weight.
Furthermore, even if naturalism were true, under naturalism we could never know that it is, see my article:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm
Thus, naturalism, and with it, atheism, is an intellectually incoherent position; agnosticism would be the only feasible rational alternative to theism, if even that.
Naturalism fails to answer many questions (yet they blame religion for this).
I think atheists fail at the teteological argument, and I see many atheists as being stubborn. So I don’t see myself going as far as agnostism.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
The vast majority, yes, while there may be exceptions.and I see many atheists as being stubborn.
I have made some more observations about many atheists’ thinking in this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10334417&postcount=142
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It kind of seems like one’s “belief” and being convinced that “the opposing side had it right” are in-separately entangled. These words (monotheist, polytheist, atheist, deist) are labels for one’s convictions on the question of a god or gods. Can you be convinced there is at least one god and still be considered an atheist? Or can you be without the conviction that there are any gods at all and still be considered a theist?
L
Love4All
Guest
The question is for me confusing. How would atheism be “shown correct?” If God is Love (I believe that God is Love), then in order for God not to exist, love would have not to exist. But I know love exists. If love does not exist in my immediate surrounding, I can make some love, and then love will exist. If I have the power to make it, then how would it be possible for me to find myself in a world where there is no love? Only if I myself decided I no longer wanted there to be love. Then I could ignore whatever love there is, and find a different focus in life. Then I would be quite a different person than I am now. So I suppose if there were no love in my world, then there would be no God in my world, but that would be my fault. So the only way I could find myself in a world with no love would be if I were to make up my own mind not to take any and not to make any. I suppose then, in my world at least, atheism would be true, so I suppose then I would believe it, since I had caused it to be true. But that would be my choice, not anything thrust upon me by some outside reality. The reality of love is that if I do not make any, I do not get to take any, and since I want love, I make it whenever I can, so there is really no question of atheism, if God is Love.
That is how I see it. I guess, as a new member (“trial member?”) I am not allowed to vote in this poll, but that would be my answer, but I am glad that I couldn’t vote in the poll because I think my answer is potentially confusing and may have skewed the poll unfairly. It was difficult to find my real answer, but I think that’s it — the only way atheism could be true in my world would be by my own choice, to kill all the love I can find, and not allow myself to enjoy any at all. I hope I would never do that, but that would be what it would take.
That is how I see it. I guess, as a new member (“trial member?”) I am not allowed to vote in this poll, but that would be my answer, but I am glad that I couldn’t vote in the poll because I think my answer is potentially confusing and may have skewed the poll unfairly. It was difficult to find my real answer, but I think that’s it — the only way atheism could be true in my world would be by my own choice, to kill all the love I can find, and not allow myself to enjoy any at all. I hope I would never do that, but that would be what it would take.
Z
zro_x
Guest
you draw a connection between God and love, but this connection is not necessary. It is strictly possible (though I can’t think how) for love to be independent of God. If God were shown irrevocably to not exist, than love must have some other source.The question is for me confusing. How would atheism be “shown correct?” If God is Love (I believe that God is Love), then in order for God not to exist, love would have not to exist. But I know love exists. If love does not exist in my immediate surrounding, I can make some love, and then love will exist. If I have the power to make it, then how would it be possible for me to find myself in a world where there is no love? Only if I myself decided I no longer wanted there to be love. Then I could ignore whatever love there is, and find a different focus in life. Then I would be quite a different person than I am now. So I suppose if there were no love in my world, then there would be no God in my world, but that would be my fault. So the only way I could find myself in a world with no love would be if I were to make up my own mind not to take any and not to make any. I suppose then, in my world at least, atheism would be true, so I suppose then I would believe it, since I had caused it to be true. But that would be my choice, not anything thrust upon me by some outside reality. The reality of love is that if I do not make any, I do not get to take any, and since I want love, I make it whenever I can, so there is really no question of atheism, if God is Love.
That is how I see it. I guess, as a new member (“trial member?”) I am not allowed to vote in this poll, but that would be my answer, but I am glad that I couldn’t vote in the poll because I think my answer is potentially confusing and may have skewed the poll unfairly. It was difficult to find my real answer, but I think that’s it — the only way atheism could be true in my world would be by my own choice, to kill all the love I can find, and not allow myself to enjoy any at all. I hope I would never do that, but that would be what it would take.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I am an ex-atheist. I am not willing to convert because I have felt His presence. You don’t give away a pot of gold for empty dust.
L
Love4All
Guest
I don’t see it as a “connection” but as an identity. Not “God has some connection to love,” but “God is Love.”you draw a connection between God and love, but this connection is not necessary. It is strictly possible (though I can’t think how) for love to be independent of God. If God were shown irrevocably to not exist, than love must have some other source.
Thus the only way God could be shown irrevocably not to exist would be if love were shown irrevocably not to exist. I guess you’d have to kill me and anyone who thinks like me, for that to come about.
Z
zro_x
Guest
or one could show irrevocably that love is not identical to love and that God does not exist, in which case love would still exist.I don’t see it as a “connection” but as an identity. Not “God has some connection to love,” but “God is Love.”
Thus the only way God could be shown irrevocably not to exist would be if love were shown irrevocably not to exist. I guess you’d have to kill me and anyone who thinks like me, for that to come about.
And god isn’t identical to love. Love is God, but God is more than love. he is also a person, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, and love is not. (At least, we have no way of knowing if love as we experiencee it has any of these qualities.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.