How willing would you be to convert?

[Linux]

my own answer to this question:

a quick addition: suppose that the argument/proof/evidence is pretty much irrevocable.

Don’t worry, I know how hypotheticals work and I am not so insecure that I would say that it is impossible for my faith to be wrong. To me that would suggest a false sense of security parading as certainty. It is not self evident that the Catholic faith is true, and even holy Catholics have doubted; they have dark nights of the soul.

1. If it was proven that it is impossible for God to exist; my intellectual integrity would force me to reject the Catholic faith and any faith with a similar deity.
2. If it was shown that the catholic faith is as unlikely to be true as the existence of peter pan, then my intellectual integrity would force me to avoid such a religion.
3. If it was shown that it is just as likely for the universe to exist without a deity; I would reject the Catholic faith precisely because dogma says that this is not possible.
4. If it was shown that we cannot know whether the universe can exist with or without God; I would have a bit more respect for religion, but I would remain agnostic for fear of wasting my life with a false belief. However, I would not think that People are irrational for having hope, although it is a possibility that their hope is misplaced.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Don’t worry, I know how hypotheticals work and I am not so insecure that I would say that it is impossible for my faith to be wrong. To me that would suggest a false sense of security parading as certainty. It is not self evident that the Catholic faith is true, and even holy Catholics have doubted; they have dark nights of the soul.

Insecure, huh? And how would you know how secure I am in my faith?

Of course people doubt, but it doesn’t mean that the truth of the faith itself is questionable. Many saints have had dark nights of the soul, but have never stopped believing in Christ’s Church. This is the only way to heaven, and I don’t know about you, but I’m going to remain safely within no matter the lies spread by those on the outside.

So how about answering the question without accusing someone else of being insecure?

 

[Linux]

Insecure, huh? And how would you know how secure I am in my faith?

Of course people doubt, but it doesn’t mean that the truth of the faith itself is questionable. Many saints have had dark nights of the soul, but have never stopped believing in Christ’s Church. This is the only way to heaven, and I don’t know about you, but I’m going to remain safely within no matter the lies spread by those on the outside.

So how about answering the question without accusing someone else of being insecure?

I wasn’t accusing, I was stating facts. I simply see it as ridiculous to refuse to answer a hypothetical question on the basis of having faith that something cannot possibly be wrong. Its unnecessarily defensive. If the Catholic faith is true, I don’t see confidence of it in you.

 

[seeker_of_God]

I wasn’t accusing, I was stating facts. I simply see it as ridiculous to refuse to answer a hypothetical question on the basis of having faith that something cannot possibly be wrong. Its unnecessarily defensive. If the Catholic faith is true, I don’t see confidence of it in you.

Then all I can say is that you’re mistaken.

I don’t think it’s defensive. There’s only one truth, and this is it. I’m not about to give that up, and I am not convinced that there is any way that it could possibly be disproved. We know philosophically that God exists. We know that Jesus came, and we know what He said. We know that He set up Peter as the first pope, and that He promised that the Church would be led into all truth. This is all I need.

 

[Linux]

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?

You can doubt Gods existence and nevertheless have hope in God for pragmatic reasons.

 

[Linux]

I don’t think it’s defensive. There’s only one truth, and this is it. I’m not about to give that up

…and that’s the thing; nobody was asking you to give it up in the first place.

 

[seeker_of_God]

You can doubt Gods existence and nevertheless have hope in God for pragmatic reasons.

Um…that’s the point of the hypothetical situation presented. The question is whether we’d give up our beliefs.

 

[Linux]

Um…that’s the point of the hypothetical situation presented. The question is whether we’d give up our beliefs.

No the OP said that we should assume that the evidence against God is unchallengeable like 2+2 = 4. He didn’t leave any room for rational agnosticism.

You can be rationally or scientifically agnostic about God and nevertheless choose to hope for the existence of God. There is nothing necessarily irrational about that.

However; it would be irrational to believe in God if in fact he has been proven not to exist. It makes no difference saying that the church holds dogmatically that God exists.

 

[aprilfloyd]

If proof was found that 2 + 2 in fact does not equal 4, would you change your view?

This question is just as preposterous.

Go on give him an answer.

 

[aprilfloyd]

absolutely

impossible. There is no other option.

What do you say to other religions and churches They believe that their gods and religions are true just as strongly as you. All the religions and gods can’t be right.

 

[aprilfloyd]

It would be difficult for me to convert, because I have come to the conclusion that evidence for God will not be produced and by evidence I mean something that the ordinary man in the street would understand, in my lifetime.

Plus it seems to me that God seems irrational ‘worship Me, pray to Me, so that I can save you from what I am going to do if you don’t’

At least science tries to find answers and has an open mind.

I think Epicurus sums up why I could not convert -

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[zro_x]

Go on give him an answer.

Who are you speaking to here?

If you’re speaking to me, my answer is grudging acceptance. It is impossible for us to prove that 2+2 =/= 4, because we already have irrevocable proof in the other direction.
If asked about mathematics, the question of changing your mind becomes meaningless.

Could Seeker of God have such an irrevocable proof concerning God? Maybe, but I’m strongly inclined to doubt it. But if he does, then this poll is meaningless for him.

 

[zro_x]

It would be difficult for me to convert, because I have come to the conclusion that evidence for God will not be produced and by evidence I mean something that the ordinary man in the street would understand, in my lifetime.

Plus it seems to me that God seems irrational ‘worship Me, pray to Me, so that I can save you from what I am going to do if you don’t’

At least science tries to find answers and has an open mind.

I think Epicurus sums up why I could not convert -

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

These objections to the existence of God belong in a different thread. I will say, however, that I think most of them have answers, and that none of these are irrevocable proof that God doesn’t exist. It may not be probable that people will prove god’s existence in your lifetime, but it is possible. And if it did happen, how would you react?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

I’m a theist: no

Explanation: I tend to be skeptical of anything people tell me, and I am unusually stubborn. If a human being stated they had irrefutable ‘proof’ there is no God, the first thing that comes to mind is, “I doubt that.”

 

[zro_x]

I’m a theist: no

Explanation: I tend to be skeptical of anything people tell me, and I am unusually stubborn. If a human being stated they had irrefutable ‘proof’ there is no God, the first thing that comes to mind is, “I doubt that.”

it isn’t just that you hear *that *someone has proof, you actually hear this proof and recognise its soundness.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You can doubt Gods existence and nevertheless have hope in God for pragmatic reasons.

A question on word usage: Any one that either (a) is convinced that God or gods exists or (b) hopes/wishes that God or gods exists even without conviction to be labeled as a “theist”. Is this correct? Would this label also be applied to some one that thinks there is no God or are no gods but wishes that this was not the case?

 

[zro_x]

A question on word usage: Any one that either (a) is convinced that God or gods exists or (b) hopes/wishes that God or gods exists even without conviction to be labeled as a “theist”. Is this correct? Would this label also be applied to some one that thinks there is no God or are no gods but wishes that this was not the case?

Good question. I’m not sure if you are directing it at me or Linux, but I’ll give my view.

I consider myself to be a theist. I also am not absolutely convinced of this view. I am a theist because I think it is more probably true than atheism; I suppose that I’m sort of an “agnostic catholic” in the same way that many athiests are “agnostic atheists”.

So, in the future for the purposes of this poll, consider yourself a theist if you consider God more than 50% likely to exist. Likewise, you are an atheist if you consider there to be a less than 50% likelihood of God’s existence.

 

[aprilfloyd]

These objections to the existence of God belong in a different thread. I will say, however, that I think most of them have answers, and that none of these are irrevocable proof that God doesn’t exist. It may not be probable that people will prove god’s existence in your lifetime, but it is possible. And if it did happen, how would you react?

If you mean that God did exist, I suppose similar to most people, shock. Though I don’t think he would be popular - there is a lot of bad things in the world that he created, he is omnipotent, after all - people would want to know why, and the obvious question what is the point of all of this and why the need to be loved - your omnipotent, is that not enough? But then he would know what we all think anyway. May we live in interesting times - that would be something to see.

 

[seeker_of_God]

What do you say to other religions and churches They believe that their gods and religions are true just as strongly as you. All the religions and gods can’t be right.

They are worshipping false gods and possess false doctrines.

 

[seeker_of_God]

Who are you speaking to here?

If you’re speaking to me, my answer is grudging acceptance. It is impossible for us to prove that 2+2 =/= 4, because we already have irrevocable proof in the other direction.
If asked about mathematics, the question of changing your mind becomes meaningless.

Could Seeker of God have such an irrevocable proof concerning God? Maybe, but I’m strongly inclined to doubt it. But if he does, then this poll is meaningless for him.

Irrevocable for me. I fully acknowledge that others are not convinced, but for me, there is nothing and no one who could make me believe otherwise.

I once had a philosophy professor that told my class that by faith, we could have absolute certainty. At the time, I did not agree, but now I do.