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

[CatSci]

It can’t be proved to my satisfaction because it is impossible to prove a negative.

If that were true, then I’d never be able to know when I need to go on a beer run.

 

[CatSci]

The only thing I am concerned with in this case is the “objective truth”.

Objective truth is impossible to identify.

Things as they truly are. Opinions are worthless. You are making a value judgement as if it has objective truth to it, as if to say I ought to agree but fail to see because my way of thinking is somehow disordered. And you think that this is true. But I fail to see the objective truth of such a statement such as “morally sick” in the absence of an objective standard. Without an objective standard, you are merely expressing your taste; you just happen to like cheese and pickle sandwiches, or you just happen to enjoy helping people. But insofar as objective truth is concerned your actions have no objective moral value since, in the absence of God, it is not objectively true that you are good for helping people any-more than it is true that you are good for liking cheese and pickle sandwiches.

People who lack any empathy for their fellow humans are called sociopaths.

I got pinched and it hurt. I disliked the pain and have the desire to avoid causing the same to another person. Therefore, I will avoid pinching anybody.

You don’t have to have an absolute morality to have empathy for others and a desire to not do to them what you don’t want done to you.

 

[grannymh]

Human nature does ask how and why we are here, but I don’t immediately make the logical fallacy and assume it has to be a transcendent being to answer the question. Many other difficult questions answered didn’t necessarily come from a ‘who’ but rather general evidence no matter what form it came in.

I happen to look at worldviews as both-and thus I consider human nature as what a human person is which boils down to the fact that human nature in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds.Thus difficult questions can be answered from different perspectives and positions.

I agree that to go from the natural to the supernatural is a difficult logical leap but that does not necessarily mean it is always a fallacy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not believe in the supernatural. At all.
I did believe in Santa Claus for a bit, but I remember thinking how implausible that was, so my sister and I used to set traps to try and catch our parents doing the things they said Santa Claus did. So I guess I was a skeptic even back then.

This is a function of the empirical statement, I demonstrate that the doctrine of empiricism is logically invalid and therefore false here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=546138 Its not just my opinion, the doctrine of empiricism has been dead for decades in mainstream philosophy, most people confuse it with the empirical scientific method. They are two different animals.

…I don’t know if I made my point but there are my thoughts for the moment.

I understand how your reached your ideas, but I am still wondering if you can demonstrate difference between your sense of morality and simple personal opinion? If there is no substantive difference, then it seems to me that your entire argument consists of opinions. Not that such a thing makes it wrong, but it does make it subjective, meaningful only to you. In that case how could you say that anything was wrong? If we can make up valid morals only for ourselves, then why can’t someone decide that for them to murder is moral? It seems the logical consequence of making up our own personal morality is an inability to say that anything is wrong. The historical facts bear this out. No genocide was ever committed by people who believed that what they were doing was evil. Do these people look like people who choose to do evil on purpose? To me they look as if they are sleeping well, at night. Obviously, in their opinion they weren’t doing anything wrong. They were the staff at Auschwitz. At work, they supervised the starvation, enslavement and extermination of an entire people. Who in their opinion, it was perfectly moral to treat that way. Feel free to google images of Auschwitz.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/20/nazis_wideweb__470x303,0.jpg
What you are proposing is one of the most dangerous ideas in existence. It is more dangerous than a jihadi, more dangerous than a nuclear weapon, and more dangerous than a barrel of nerve toxin. Allowing morals to be the opinions of men has led to the genocide of millions. Even here, right now, millions of babies are slaughtered before they can be born, because in some peoples opinions, babies aren’t people. At other times the opinion has been that Jews, Tutsis, Croations, American Indians, Africans, Kurds, and so on aren’t human either. It starts as an innocent attempt to find a moral structure that fits what one wants to be true because one doesn’t like some aspect of G-ds morality. It ends badly…While you and I will never commit genocide or approve of it in any way, It only takes one man a Pol Pot, a Mao, a Hitler, a Milosevic, or a Stalin who can convince others that his opinion is moral to result in this kind of evil.

 

[grannymh]

Continued from post 107.
Honestquesitons,
There was one more point in your post 102 which I would like to reply to.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Basing my belief in God on a book I really didn’t understand fully, with no appropriate evidence, adds up to nonsense in the highest degree. But it worked.

It may make people feel good, but unfortunately it doesn’t have to do with the falsity of the claim. In this regard, it may be a fine thing to come together with people who want to believe and feel good together, but teaching it as fact with dire consequences to unbelievers does not seem very noble, not to mention basing other life decisions because of it. Although many people are rationale and evaluate someone’s claims without gullibility in every other aspect of life, there seems to be a special rule here. Unfortunately, this answer also doesn’t really answer why you think God also happens to be your God rather than Zeus, Thor, Apollo, etc.

What you are saying here is valid.
Nonetheless, I need to point out that my story is about my belief and my crazy proof is mine alone. No group of people involved, no way.

Sometimes, I get cranky (feminine of snarky) with people who get hung up with having the right evidence and the right proof for dealing with the existence of God. I would like to shout in their left ear – “Loosen up. Be yourself. Seek God on the path which fits your style.” I see people as special individuals at the same time I can look at humanity in terms of universals.

My style of proof was so far from correctness that I still laugh about it. Yet, it worked. Somehow, it opened the door to a future, deeper understanding of Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church. Personally, I think that opening our own individual door, just a crack, is basic to finding God.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Alas, I failed to anticipate the possibility of a nit, picking. Let me explain my sense of what ordinary means, to me.

I laughed when I read that one. Pretty good. A comma can make all the difference in the world.

It has nothing to do with intelligence…

I wonder why you failed to address the argumentation, but spent several paragraphs justifying, your statements concerning ordinary people. That seems …odd.

 

[grannymh]

Sure does, and I . . . he has the pounds to prove it. I tried looking for fairies under my sofa but all I found there were dust bunnies. Are they related to fairies?

Sorry, but I can’t resist. In my house, the dust bunnies are the fairies.

So that I can bring all this valuable information back to target. Ever wonder why children are so open to the idea that there are “beings” who exist beyond our everyday natural lives? Probably the same reason children can run naked under a sprinkler in the hot summer.
Why not a God Who truly exists?

 

[FCCopleston]

Wrong. A thousand times wrong.

If it cannot be shown that Christ rose from the dead, it still does not disprove that someone called Christ walked the earth and preached a certain message. That message has had far reaching effects upon the human race. Cannot the message of Jesus Christ stand on its own merits? If it were shown that there was no God and that Jesus did not resurrect, does that invalidate Christ’s message, particularly in light of the observable results over the past two thousand years?

I would say not.

What was Christ’s “message,” in your understanding, John?

Was it not that He was God of God, and Light of Light, begotten from the Father before all worlds, Who was incarnate through the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, was buried, and rose again for the justification of the world?

If you disagree with the statement that our faith is in vain if Christ has not risen from the dead, then your disagreement is not with me alone, but with St. Paul and the Holy Spirit as well:

“And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (I Corinthians 15:7).”

Take away the resurrection, and you take away the Christian faith. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then He was a liar (He promised and foretold of His dying and rising again) or a lunatic (He claimed to be God), but certainly not our Lord and Savior.

In Christ (our Lord and Savior),
FCCopleston

 

[cathoichelp]

I had to laugh at some of the answers on here. A lot of people afriad to admit that if something were proved to their satisfaction, the only rational position to take is to believe it.

I am an atheist, and if it were proved to me (to my satisfaction) that God existed, I would pretty well have to believe. Consequently, no proof of that nature has ever been given to me or anyone for that matter (proof to my satisfaction, that is).

I totally agree if someone proved the exist of God to me I would have to believe it.
But there being a God doesn’t change my moral code. So its not relevant to me. I’d be interested if someone had proof… but my beliefs are grounded in experience- so 1- I have proved them - and 2 - if they are proven wrong it’s ok to rethink and change them…

I don’t like organized religion because I don’t buy into ridged thinking … I can’t wrap my head around someone handing me a whole world of beliefs and having to accept them all because I can find flaws in all - and I can also find some good points…

 

[Edward_H]

God doesn’t ask much of us, just our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. We are so little in the big scheme of things - humiliating, really, to think about it - but it’s so important and pleasing to God.

Yes, we can please Him, not with our grand thoughts, our wit, or even with our actions, per se…but with our trust in Him, with our humility, and with our correspondence.

Sometimes, the only thing left to give…the only thing we haven’t yet given to God is our doubt, our skepticism, or in a way, our pride in our own much-self-admired intelligence.

With some people, it’s very hard to consider “giving up” their doubts and their intelligence.

 

[Pieman333272]

We have been through this before, but I’ll go through it again. I don’t think that there are any ultimate “shoulds” or “should nots,” so your question is nonsensical.

Even under your nihilism, there are shoulds and should-nots. People SHOULD do whatever makes them happy.

From the perspective of the universe – which has no values – this pedophile’s goals just are what they are. There’s no basis to compare it to any other goals or say that it’s any “better” or “worse” than any others.

From the perspective of individuals – who do have values – they might almost universally find these goals hideous and terrible. Hence, they create laws to strongly discourage this sort of behavior.

Someone with a drive toward pedophilia might very well want to capture, rape, tortrue, and kill little girls, but he might also want to take into account the obstacles that stand in the way of that goal: namely, the laws against it and the fact that he’ll be harshly punished if he’s caught at it.

So if he devises a plan to evade the law and ensure maximum happiness, is that good? Is it not getting the most out of his temporary existence?

 

[The_Absurdist]

This offers good insight into the reasons for irrational belief. Thank you!

Everyone’s standard of proof is to their personal satisfaction. Thus, they negate the possibility of a logical proof, which would be a more objective standard.

I would think the alleged “logical proof, which would be a more objective standard,” would be the basis of peoples’ standard of proof to their satisfaction. That, in any case, is the deal for me.

It’s not as if I’ll take satisfaction over logic. Logic is the fulfilment of a satisfying proof. I don’t think anyone here will debate that.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

Has it also then been proven that NO GOD exists, or could Allah still exist? Could the Hindu gods exist? Are you discussing only the Christian God?

There really is no way to prove to me that God does not exist. What is the explanation for miracles, if there is no God? Something outside our abilities and larger than time and space has made those miracles…there can be no scientific explanation for miracles. Even scientists have said that some things simply cannot be explained away.

But are you asking If NO GOD exists, and it’s proven that NO GOD exists, what would you do?

 

[mellestad]

Hi,

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.

(Lol, why are so many people ignoring your question? Seems simple to me…)

Anyway, which god? Since we’re on a Catholic board, I’ll assume you mean the one they believe in and I’ll assume that I would also have proof that their official doctrine is correct.

Answer: I’d be a Catholic. I’m not proud, if something had the power to bless or damn me for eternity I’d do whatever it wanted me to do.

 

[AntiTheist]

Even under your nihilism, there are shoulds and should-nots.

No.

People SHOULD do whatever makes them happy.

No. People generally do try to do the things that make them happy, obviously (especially if we define “happy” in a very broad way, outside of immediate gratification), but there’s not ultimate “should” or imperative for them to do so.

So if [the sick pedophile from the example] devises a plan to evade the law and ensure maximum happiness, is that good?

No. Have you been reading my posts? I’m asserting that “good” and “bad” do not have ultimate existence. They are subjective judgments made by human beings.

It’s not “ultimately wrong” for him to devise a plan to get away with his deeds, but it’s also not “ultimately wrong” for the rest of us – and in particular, the police – to try to catch him.

From my perspective – and I assume the perspective of just about everyone else – the guy is a sick wacko who needs to be locked up if he ever tries to act on his perverted desires. But the universe doesn’t care. To the universe, he’s not good or bad – he’s just what he is.

Is it not getting the most out of his temporary existence?

He might try to fulfill his perverted desires, but the rest of us are going to make it as difficult for him as we can.

 

[greylorn]

I wonder why you failed to address the argumentation, but spent several paragraphs justifying, your statements concerning ordinary people. That seems …odd.

Odd works for me, but does not apply to this case. I ignored your first argument…

warpspeedpetey:

An omnipresent, omniscient G-d, is at every point in existence simultaneously. G-ds knowledge and your free will act are therefore necessarily concurrent. From an Omni-Beings point of view absolutely every event is simultaneous. That is not the same thing as foreknowledge.

because as I’ve already explained elsewhere, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being which has always existed, is logically absurd. I didn’t figure that tackling it again would be appropriate to this thread, or that it would make a difference to your thinking. So I chose not to kill the time.

I simply could not unravel the meaning or sense of your second argument…

warpspeedpetey:

An existent nothing is a logical impossibility. Of Course G-d didn’t create us from nothing, because there is no such thing “nothing”. No FLOT needed.

*This strange adherence to the induction you call FLOT assumes the universe is logically necessary and closed, both of which violate free will.

and again chose not to waste time trying to figure it out. It looks like you have a number of beliefs behind it, but since they are not stated, I’m not interested in mind reading.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

because as I’ve already explained elsewhere, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being which has always existed, is logically absurd. I didn’t figure that tackling it again would be appropriate to this thread, or that it would make a difference to your thinking. So I chose not to kill the time.

You brought them up. If you think an omni being has “foreknowledge” in the regular temporal sense, then your claim that the Omni attributes are “logically absurd” is rather suspect. I mean if I said a gas engine ran on kool-aid, and then said that the operation of a gas engine is mechanically absurd, you would know right away that I didn’t really know the first thing about gas engines. Same thing here.

I simply could not unravel the meaning or sense of your second argument…and again chose not to waste time trying to figure it out. It looks like you have a number of beliefs behind it, but since they are not stated, I’m not interested in mind reading.

Its not hard to understand. Claiming that nothing can exist is a logical contradiction . A=notA, No-thing=Some-thing, See the problem? So the claim that creation ex nihilo violates FLOT must necessarily be false because “no-thing” cannot exist. The reference to a closed universe and free will, is because FLOT refers to a closed system. Something that contradicts free will in a determinant universe. These are the basis of your beliefs, but it is easily demonstrated that they are false. If you make claims like that it seems entirely legitimate to question them.

I will leave it alone now, but I would love to see a thread defending your beliefs.

 

[greylorn]

I would think the alleged “logical proof, which would be a more objective standard,” would be the basis of peoples’ standard of proof to their satisfaction. That, in any case, is the deal for me.

It’s not as if I’ll take satisfaction over logic. Logic is the fulfilment of a satisfying proof. I don’t think anyone here will debate that.

This read suggests to me that you do not understand logic, except superficially. That’s okay-- and common. Most people operate from the notion that by using a word authoritatively, others will imagine that they actually understand its full meaning. Perhaps you are one of those who actually thought that Star Trek’s “Spock” character spoke and acted logically, simply because the other characters frequently reiterated this obvious falsehood in their scripted dialogue.

Real logic, properly applied, can do something which no amount of the “reasoning” that people oft mistake for logic, can do. Real logic can correct a faulty belief, and lead to unreasonable (but perfectly logical) discoveries,

My sense is that you are skilled at reasoning, so as to present yourself as logical. Ultimately, whatever you choose to believe will be based upon your programming/emotions/whatever, leaving very slippery grounds for discussion. Not interested in another time-killer.

 

[greylorn]

I will leave it alone now, but I would love to see a thread defending your beliefs.

So would I, especially if someone else wrote it.

I’ve actually started several threads intended to discuss specific ideas, but they attracted a large number of argumentative dogmatists who pretty much killed the threads by posting lots of drivel. No fun.

My theories are complex enough to require a book, and I’m closing in on my final chapter. They are not beliefs— just the best ideas about creation and the Creator(s) that I could invent that would be logically, scientifically, and empirically consistent. There could be some interest in threads which might discuss, explain, and correct the book’s ideas. That would only be relevant to those who are curious enough to read the book.

If interest materializes, I’ll ask our moderators for a venue that they might deem appropriate. You are welcome to participate, should that happen. I doubt that it will— this is the Catholic Answers Forum, after all.

Besides, my book beats Darwin up with as many bats and shredders as I could find, and the topic is forbidden here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… is forbidden here.

I look forward to the opportunity.