What would you do if it were proven...?

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7726385:

warpspeedpetey;7726262:

If G-d were to be dependent on any other standards, than he wouldn’t be G-d. It looks like a distinction without a difference to me.

If you define god as “a disembodied mind who created the universe”, which seems to be the most common general definition, there is nothing about using a criteria for discerning something about the entity that would conflict with that definition. Considering that, I need to ask, how do you define “god”?

What does the definition of G-d have to do with the standards you think G-d should meet

You said that if standards would be used to evaluate “god” then he wouldn’t be god. However, if there is nothing contradictory about the definition of “god” and evaluating that being by using standards, then that would falsify your point.

We don’t set standards for G-d to meet, He tells us what His standards are.

In that case, whatever god says goes. If god commands you to kill your son, that should be OK, right? If not, why did god bless Abraham for being willing to kill his son (had an angle not stopped the murder), as well as with Jeptha when he did go through with killing his daughter?

You are confusing knowing what G-d is, with how He should be.

No, I asked you what your definition of god is to see if it truly is impossible to discern whether or not “god” is good (worthy of praise/worship). You didn’t offer me your definition of what a “god” is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You said that if standards would be used to evaluate “god” then he wouldn’t be god. However, if there is nothing contradictory about the definition of “god” and evaluating that being by using standards, then that would falsify your point.

First, I said that any being that had to meet some standard be it set, discerned, or really any way external to itself would not be G-d. Second, you were talking about how He should be. The definition of G-d is an entirely different thing. What G-d is. G-d is Actus Purus, the act of existence. I have mentioned this already

In that case, whatever god says goes…

Yes. Whats wrong with that? Its evil to disobey G-d. If G-d says X is good, its good. If He says Y is bad, its bad.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

First, I said that any being that had to meet some standard be it set, discerned, or really any way external to itself would not be G-d.

In that case, you must be defining “god” in a way in which he cannot be evaluated by any criteria. Let’s check that definition:

The definition of G-d is an entirely different thing. What G-d is. G-d is Actus Purus, the act of existence.

So you’re saying that the state of existing (or “act” of existence as you put it) which means manifesting in a detectable way in reality, is god? Even if you have a slightly different understanding of the word “exist” (manifesting in a detectable way in reality) than I do, this seems nonsensical to me.

TruthSeeker60;7729057:

In that case, whatever god says goes.

Yes. Whats wrong with that?

One would probably understand what’s wrong with that if you has answered the question I asked immediately after that sentence:

If god commands you to kill your son, that should be OK, right? If not, why did god bless Abraham for being willing to kill his son (had an angle not stopped the murder), as well as with Jeptha when he did go through with killing his daughter?

I suppose the answer from you, considering what you wrote next, would be “Yes, killing my son would be a good thing to do if god commanded me to do it.”

If G-d says X is good, its good.

Yahweh said “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in Psalm 137:9. If you want to worship a god who teaches his followers that smashing babies against rocks is a source of happiness, I’m not going to join you even if I believed that that god exists.

Also, no theist who agrees with you on this point can use the argument from objective morality to prove the existence of a god.

 

[grannymh]

Yahweh said “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in Psalm 137:9. If you want to worship a god who teaches his followers that smashing babies against rocks is a source of happiness, I’m not going to join you even if I believed that that god exists.

If one prefers mine quoting from anti-Catholic sources, it would be a pleasant idea to actually check the context first.
For example. Yahweh did not write Psalm 137. So how can Yahweh be quoted?
Who is the psalmist who poured out his mourning? And why? And how?

In seeking truth, one should use wisdom or at least common sense when using a “sentence” out of context, especially a historical context.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7729441:

Yahweh said “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in Psalm 137:9. If you want to worship a god who teaches his followers that smashing babies against rocks is a source of happiness, I’m not going to join you even if I believed that that god exists.

If one prefers mine quoting from anti-Catholic sources, it would be a pleasant idea to actually check the context first.

First, psalms, including Psalm 137:9, is in the Catholic cannon of the Bible.

As for context, in the Old Testament, Yahweh Murdered children (Genesis 7:21, Exodus 12:29), ordered that children be killed (Ezekiel 9:5-6, 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:16), ordered that women who get raped marry the rapist or be killed (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The list goes on and on about things that Yahweh did or commanded that fit within the context of Psalm 137:9.

For example. Yahweh did not write Psalm 137. So how can Yahweh be quoted?

Most Christians believe that Yahweh authored, all the books of the Bible. Perhaps not all do, or there are some who would argue that although Yahweh authored the Bible, some of the bad ideas, like Psalm 137:9, can be attributed to the human writer. Even if you are one of those people who play that trick, there are many things that the Bible said Yahweh did, commanded, or said that would make the average person today barf. I provided a small sample of examples above.

In seeking truth, one should use wisdom or at least common sense when using a “sentence” out of context, especially a historical context.

Did the historical context of the Old Testament make it OK for Joshua, under Yahweh’s command, to kill every living being, including women, children, and infants, in the cities of Lachish, Libnah, Gaza, Hebron, Debir, Kadeshbarnea, Goshen, Eglon, Gibeon, and Gezer in Joshua 10:28-43? I mean the “historical context” argument can only go so far.

 

[grannymh]

First, psalms, including Psalm 137:9, is in the Catholic cannon of the Bible.

As for context, in the Old Testament, Yahweh Murdered children (Genesis 7:21, Exodus 12:29), ordered that children be killed (Ezekiel 9:5-6, 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:16), ordered that women who get raped marry the rapist or be killed (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The list goes on and on about things that Yahweh did or commanded that fit within the context of Psalm 137:9.

Context means the context of a particular Psalm not an overview of the Old Testament.

Most Christians believe that Yahweh authored, all the books of the Bible. Perhaps not all do, or there are some who would argue that although Yahweh authored the Bible, some of the bad ideas, like Psalm 137:9, can be attributed to the human writer. Even if you are one of those people who play that trick, there are many things that the Bible said Yahweh did, commanded, or said that would make the average person today barf. I provided a small sample of examples above.

What event does Psalm 137 describe? What feelings are being described? Some Psalms contain prayers. Some Psalms are songs of praise and gratitude.

Did the historical context of the Old Testament make it OK for Joshua, under Yahweh’s command, to kill every living being, including women, children, and infants, in the cities of Lachish, Libnah, Gaza, Hebron, Debir, Kadeshbarnea, Goshen, Eglon, Gibeon, and Gezer in Joshua 10:28-43? I mean the “historical context” argument can only go so far.

So which historical event did Psalm 137 refer to?

---

A personal observation on the general idea of proofs against belief in God’s existence.

Sometimes the attack on Catholicism is not so much that God doesn’t exist. It is more on the order that God doesn’t exist as Catholics believe. Satan is happy when faith in God is weakened by the misuse of Scripture quotes. Anti-Catholicism can turn Sacred Scripture into flimflam in the meaning of swindle.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

 

[grannymh]

First, psalms, including Psalm 137:9, is in the Catholic cannon of the Bible.

Suggestion.
Purchase a Catholic Bible with footnotes and read some of the Psalms.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Grannymh, lets remember that my point in bringing up Psalm 137:9 was to show that if you took Warpspeedpetey’s position that whatever god says goes or “If G-d says X is good, its good,” and you believe that the Bible is god’s word, you’d be stuck condoning a lot of horrific things, some of which I mentioned earlier:

Yahweh Murdered children (Genesis 7:21, Exodus 12:29), ordered that children be killed (Ezekiel 9:5-6, 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:16), ordered that women who get raped marry the rapist or be killed (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The list goes on and on about things that Yahweh did or commanded that fit within the context of Psalm 137:9.
. . .]
Did the historical context of the Old Testament make it OK for Joshua, under Yahweh’s command, to kill every living being, including women, children, and infants, in the cities of Lachish, Libnah, Gaza, Hebron, Debir, Kadeshbarnea, Goshen, Eglon, Gibeon, and Gezer in Joshua 10:28-43? I mean the “historical context” argument can only go so far.

Context means the context of a particular Psalm not an overview of the Old Testament.

Now that I see that you’re referring to the proximate context, I’ll explain the 9 verses of Psalm 137 to see if that context either makes it so that verse 9 doesn’t refer to smashing babies against rocks as a source of happiness or that that context justifies smashing babies against rocks. Psalm 137, to put it succinctly, refers to the Babylonian Captivity. It talks about their captors making them sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land. It expresses anger against Babylon. However, nothing in this passage indicates that “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in verse 9 means anything other than what it seems to mean, nor is there anything in there that actually justifies that activity as a source of happiness.

A personal observation on the general idea of proofs against belief in God’s existence.

Sometimes the attack on Catholicism is not so much that God doesn’t exist. It is more on the order that God doesn’t exist as Catholics believe.

My point on this thread has not been to argue against the existence of a god, but rather to point out that there being a god does not automatically make that god worthy of worship/praise. I have argued against believing in a god elsewhere on this site, but not on this thread.

Suggestion.
Purchase a Catholic Bible with footnotes and read some of the Psalms.

FYI, out of over 100 students, including some graduate students, who were taking my class on the New Testament at my conservative Catholic college (Franciscan University of Steubenville), I had the top grade of the entire class, so it’s not like I’m unaware of the Catholic apologetic ways of interpreting the Bible.

I do sometimes like to look at both apologetic and counter-apologetic sources. If you do to, then you might want to consider using the free Bible (King James Version+lots of sidnotes) at skepticsannotatedbible.com.

 

[Pieman333272]

I do sometimes like to look at both apologetic and counter-apologetic sources. If you do to, then you might want to consider using the free Bible (King James Version+lots of sidnotes) at skepticsannotatedbible.com.

I’m not sure what led you to bring this up, but the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is NOT a reliable source on the Bible and the world around it. First of all, it takes major presumptions on Christians and their responses, although I do commend the author(s) for linking to objections to their/his work. Second, it fails miserably to contextualize - there are some points but other times they are either incredibly ignorant and poorly-researched or lying. Other times, especially in their responses, they make naked assertions or personal attacks. I’m not saying they are the worst skeptic commentary on the web or that Christians don’t do it too, but there are better ones out there. The community this thing attracts is another thing entirley.

Also, here is a link refuting the SAB:

berenddeboer.net/sab/

 

[sidbrown]

Hi,

I’m new here on CAF but thought I’d post a question which interests me.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

Thanks for taking the time.

What would you do if it were proven that 1+1 = 0 ?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7735691:

I do sometimes like to look at both apologetic and counter-apologetic sources. If you do to, then you might want to consider using the free Bible (King James Version+lots of sidnotes) at skepticsannotatedbible.com

.

I’m not sure what led you to bring this up, but the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is NOT a reliable source on the Bible and the world around it.

For those who don’t know, the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is the King James Version of the Bible with many criticisms of the Bible on the side (could be inconsistencies, evil actions of Yahweh, or many other things). The validity of the criticisms can be the topic of debate. Regardless, I think it’s a good practice to evaluate both what the anti-Bible (or anti-Koran, or anti-Book of Mormon, etc.) and pro Bible sources say. I would suspect that you’d agree that this side-by-side evaluation is a good practice.

 

[Pieman333272]

For those who don’t know, the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is the King James Version of the Bible with many criticisms of the Bible on the side (could be inconsistencies, evil actions of Yahweh, or many other things). The validity of the criticisms can be the topic of debate. Regardless, I think it’s a good practice to evaluate both what the anti-Bible (or anti-Koran, or anti-Book of Mormon, etc.) and pro Bible sources say. I would suspect that you’d agree that this side-by-side evaluation is a good practice.

Yes, I concur on that point.

 

[grannymh]

Now that I see that you’re referring to the proximate context, I’ll explain the 9 verses of Psalm 137 to see if that context either makes it so that verse 9 doesn’t refer to smashing babies against rocks as a source of happiness or that that context justifies smashing babies against rocks. Psalm 137, to put it succinctly, refers to the Babylonian Captivity. It talks about their captors making them sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land. It expresses anger against Babylon. However, nothing in this passage indicates that “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in verse 9 means anything other than what it seems to mean, nor is there anything in there that actually justifies that activity as a source of happiness.

While Psalm 137 refers to the Babylonian captivity, the focus is on the** human person’s** reaction to the destruction of the Holy City called Zion in verse 1.

This is what you wrote in post 341: Yahweh said “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in Psalm 137:9. If you want to worship a god who teaches his followers that smashing babies against rocks is a source of happiness, I’m not going to join you even if I believed that that god exists.

Did God talk in this Psalm? Did God teach what you claim He taught? The very first verse identifies the author as one of the human captives who is weeping. God is prayed to but God is not the one Who wants or teaches revenge against the City of Babylon.

Instead of referring to Psalm 137 as an it, please imagine how you would feel if you were the “we” in verse 1. You are a human weeping. In verse 2, you had hung up your harp. In verse 4, you ask a question–how could I sing a song of the Lord in a foreign land?

In verse 7, you begin your prayer to God. Your sorrow at the destruction of Jerusalem wells up as anger and you remember the Edomites, who were in league with the Babylonians, saying: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations!

Being overcome by the horror of it all, in verse 8 you shift from your prayer to God to calling the daughter of Babylon (a Hebrew idiom for City of Babylon) a destroyer.

Is revenge a common human emotion? Getting even is often seen as a means of feeling better. As verse 8 continues, you want revenge and you know your comrades would also want revenge. How often do humans think that sweet revenge will take away the suffering? Sweet revenge will repay Babylon for the evil which was done.

In verse 9, you imagine the worst revenge possible as you picture the city of Babylon inhabited by the adults who committed the crimes against Jerusalem. You, as the author, is the one, not God, who calls for revenge. You, the human captive not God, imagine Babylon as a mother watching the deaths of her little ones. You even say to your comrades that they will be happy when a horrible revenge is completed.

Psalm 137 demonstrates the total anguish of the human author who is in captivity. In contrast, another Psalm prays to God by saying: The Lord is my shepherd. …Even though I walk in the dark valley I fear no evil; for You are at my side with Your rod and Your staff that give me courage.

Blessings,
granny

Psalm 23

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What would you do if it were proven that 1+1 = 0 ?

It depends on what is being proven. What does number 1 represent; what is the nature of the thing that it represents? If it represents a real irreducible ontological number that can be added to - in-order produce a real quantity - by that which is essentially distinct, then I would be forced to believe that reality is fundamentally irrational.

Yet there are rational instances where a thing can be quantitatively more and yet have one essential nature. It all depends on the context and the essential natures involved.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know what I would find interesting?

I would be interested to know how many of the non-theist or ‘questioning’ people who are oh-so-shocked at the idea that “god commands murder of little children” etc. themselves have no problem whatsoever with abortifacient contraception or the ‘right’ of a woman to have an abortion.

It would be very interesting because I rather suspect that the number of those who would deny GOD the ‘right’ to determine death or life for God’s own creations’ have no problem extending the right to ‘creatures’ to destroy life based on any ‘feeling’ or decision of another creature. . .

 

[sidbrown]

It depends on what is being proven. What does number 1 represent; what is the nature of the thing that it represents? If it represents a real irreducible ontological number that can be added to - in-order produce a real quantity - by that which is essentially distinct, then I would be forced to believe that reality is fundamentally irrational.

Yet there are rational instances where a thing can be quantitatively more and yet have one essential nature. It all depends on the context and the essential natures involved.

Actually, according to logic, p implies q is a true statement whenever p is false. It doesn’t matter whether q is true or not.
Let p be the statement:
1+1 = 0.
Then p is false.
So the following statement:
if 1+1 =0, then q
Is always true, regardless of what the statement q is.

 

[Candide_West]

Hey,

Sorry for the gap in replies I’ve been on holiday in Italy. Very enjoyable, included a trip to the Vatican as well, beautiful place.

I’ve realised that i’ve never actually answered my own question on here, but my answers are quite similar to others which have already been given so…

I would have to believe in that God or I would be denying the evidence. But I’d probably have more questions such as what kind of God is it, what does it want of me, what does it mean for me after I die, if anything, does this God care about me, or is it an impersonal God, does this God help me, or does it not interfer in day to day life. Lots of questions like that.

Sarah x

Agreed.

Agree too. I would need to know more before I changed anything about my behavior.

Agreed.

This thread is loaded with crud and probably not worth responding to, but I’ll take a stab at the OP’s question.

If it were ever demonstrated to my satisfaction that a god likely existed, I would begin to believe in that god.

However, I would not immediately begin to worship that god. To me, respect, adoration, and worship have to be earned – they are not granted freely to powerful beings. So I would want to learn more about the nature of this being and the values of this being. And if I found his values to be lacking – which I almost certainly would, if we’re talking about the Judeo-Christian god – I would refuse to worship him.

Also agreed.

Essentially once it had been proven to me that a God existed then obviously I would believe in it and my highest priority would be to determine as much information about this being as possible. That seems only logical.

As Antitheist said it would be necessary to make a decision about whether to worship any such being. That would be one of the most significant objectives in gathering information about the entity.

 

[Candide_West]

What would you do if it were proven that 1+1 = 0 ?

Hi sidbrown,

I’m not into maths except as far as it enters into my job and personal accounting. If it were just provent to my satisfaction (as per this thread) then I don’t suppose it’d make much difference. Since I’d still need to work within the bounds of normal mathematics in both those external dealings. I suppose it’s possible I might see if I could write a mathematical paper on the proof… aside from that I don’t think it would make any difference to my life.

If it were proven generally then I suppose there would be major effects on my life but they would be imposed externally and difficult to predict. I imagine the basis for mathematics and economics would go out the window… anyway we’re getting rather a long way from the subject here.

Any thoughts on the hypothetical about God’s existance being proved / disproved to your satisfaction?

 

[Candide_West]

Hi,

I find this discussion on being able to make judgements about God interesting. So I’d like to join in if nobody minds.

So you’re only willing to worship a G-d who is inferior to you? A G-d who has to meet the standards that you set? Why don’t you just worship yourself? I don’t see a difference between the G-d you want to worship and yourself.

If G-d had to meet your moral standards, then He wouldn’t really be G-d, would He?

If G-d were to be dependent on any other standards, than he wouldn’t be G-d. It looks like a distinction without a difference to me.

              ........... by what criteria do you judge him as being worthy of praise?

As we are explaining, you can’t.

Warpspeedpetey, I’m not sure i’m understanding you correctly as this seems like a bit of an odd position to take for a Catholic, so just to be clear are you saying that it is not possible to judge God to be worthy of worship? That’s what your statements above seem to be saying to me. Please let me know if I’m getting the wrong end of the stick here.

If I am understanding correctly then a couple of follow up questions if I could. Do you worship God and if so, why?

If YOU are the one who sets the standards for ‘truth’ and YOU are the one judging whether a being is worthy of worship by YOUR standards, then you are indeed worshipping a god who is inferior to YOU. His ‘worship’ depends on YOUR judgment; therefore you are superior to him because you have the power to give, or deny, that worship.

Tantum ergo, curious as to why making a decision about whether a given being is worthy of worship makes it inferior to you. I make a decision each election about who to vote for by judging the relative merits of the candidates and their policies. Does that mean I am superior to them? No. It means I am making a judgement about how good or bad I think an individual will be in the role for which he is seeking election. The same thing here as far as I can determine. The politician may not be care in the least what I think of him (except in the general sense of securing the required number of votes) but I still need to make a judgement of him. In the same way my opinion would not affect God but I’d still need to make a decision about whether to worship or not.

I recently read a cool definition for God. God is a Being with no restrictions. He does not have to meet “certain standards” set by an individual human.

Indeed not, but that doesn’t mean that humans are unable to make judgements about God. Indeed I would say making a judgement is more or less mandatory for those who believe in the existance of a God/Gods. Judging how God wants you to live, if / how he wants you to worship etc. Worship is an active thing to do therefore you must surely decide to do it, whether it is in the form of going to church or through other means.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7735691:

Now that I see that you’re referring to the proximate context, I’ll explain the 9 verses of Psalm 137 to see if that context either makes it so that verse 9 doesn’t refer to smashing babies against rocks as a source of happiness or that that context justifies smashing babies against rocks. Psalm 137, to put it succinctly, refers to the Babylonian Captivity. It talks about their captors making them sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land. It expresses anger against Babylon. However, nothing in this passage indicates that “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in verse 9 means anything other than what it seems to mean, nor is there anything in there that actually justifies that activity as a source of happiness.

While Psalm 137 refers to the Babylonian captivity, the focus is on the** human person’s** reaction to the destruction of the Holy City called Zion in verse 1.

This is what you wrote in post 341: Yahweh said “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” in Psalm 137:9. If you want to worship a god who teaches his followers that smashing babies against rocks is a source of happiness, I’m not going to join you even if I believed that that god exists.
. . .]

When I brought up Psalm 137:9, I had those who believe that the entire Bible is authored primarily by god in mind. Since you seem to be in agreement with me that Psalm 137:9 expresses the emotions of a human author (I think that because I lack belief in a god), you could look to other parts of the Bible in which the Bible said that Yahweh did, said, or commanded X in order to consider my point.

The point I was making, in case you need a refresher due to the passing of time, was that if your belief is that “whatever god says or does is moral” can be very dangerous as a moral philosophy if the god does or commands horrific things. I made this point in response to post 340.

Some examples of Yahweh doing or ordering horrible things, which I think serves my point:

in the Old Testament, Yahweh Murdered children (Genesis 7:21, Exodus 12:29), ordered that children be killed (Ezekiel 9:5-6, 1 Samuel 15:3, Deuteronomy 20:16), ordered that women who get raped marry the rapist or be killed (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The list goes on and on about things that Yahweh did or commanded that fit within the context of Psalm 137:9.

. . .]

Did the historical context of the Old Testament make it OK for Joshua, under Yahweh’s command, to kill every living being, including women, children, and infants, in the cities of Lachish, Libnah, Gaza, Hebron, Debir, Kadeshbarnea, Goshen, Eglon, Gibeon, and Gezer in Joshua 10:28-43? I mean the “historical context” argument can only go so far.