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

[Candide_West]

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.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

Irrational people believe it is possible to prove something. Crazy people obsess about it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

Proven to my 'satisfaction?" That’s a pretty subjective quality. What might satisfy one person won’t satisfy another. So if it satisfied 5 out of 10 people, that’s still 5 ‘unsatisfied people.’ In order to get to something that would satisfy EVERYBODY, you pretty much have to have something that by its nature would be so close to being God-like itself (all-acceptable) that it would throw the idea of God’s non-existence out of court.

I’m not stupid by any means, but I’m only ‘human.’ My ‘satisfaction’ therefore might be satisfied but that doesn’t mean that the proposition of God’s existence would not be true anyway.

I mean, just because I might personally be totally satisfied with the supposed "proofs’ of God’s non-existance doesn’t mean that He might not exist.

So even if I saw proof enough to ‘satisfy’ me, I would still believe in God. Satisfaction does not ensure truth.

 

[Candide_West]

Proven to my 'satisfaction?" That’s a pretty subjective quality. What might satisfy one person won’t satisfy another. So if it satisfied 5 out of 10 people, that’s still 5 ‘unsatisfied people.’ In order to get to something that would satisfy EVERYBODY, you pretty much have to have something that by its nature would be so close to being God-like itself (all-acceptable) that it would throw the idea of God’s non-existence out of court…

Just to be clear I’m not saying anything about proving it to everyone, i’m asking a hypothetical about what an individual would do if they experienced whatever level of evidence for them to be certain that their currently held views are incorrect. I am making no assumptions other than that it is sufficient for the individual concerned.

So even if I saw proof enough to ‘satisfy’ me, I would still believe in God. Satisfaction does not ensure truth.

So just to be clear, are you saying that even if you were convinced that there were no God then you would still believe in God?

Thanks

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just to be clear I’m not saying anything about proving it to everyone, i’m asking a hypothetical about what an individual would do if they experienced whatever level of evidence for them to be certain that their currently held views are incorrect. I am making no assumptions other than that it is sufficient for the individual concerned.

So just to be clear, are you saying that even if you were convinced that there were no God then you would still believe in God?

Thanks

Yes, I’m saying that. I could be 100% firmly convinced that I was ‘right’ about something, and be dead wrong. So when it comes to God, no matter how ‘convincing’ the argument would be to my ‘reason’ (and I’m a reasonable person), it would not destroy my faith.

There have been many cases throughout history where the ‘overwhelming evidence’ was enough to convince all rational people that something was ‘false’. . .and yet ‘later’, unbelieveably, it became evident that those ‘false’ things were true after all.

Because even though it looked like ‘all’ the evidence was there. . .it wasn’t. Or even though it looked as though the evidence pointed one way. . .it didn’t.

God is ‘more’ than reason. Certainly I think He exists, and I have used my ‘reason’ to make that judgment, but I also use my ‘faith.’

Others see the same evidence but their reason says, “I don’t think He exists” and so they put their faith, so to speak, in his non-existence.

I believe I would be smarter, even if all the wise minds and ‘evidence’ seemed stacked against an omnipotent God, most especially the God I know, the one true God, to ‘keep the faith.’ If I’m wrong and God doesn’t exist, what harm do I do myself or others in believing? And if I’m right, what joy I have in store. . .

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you aren’t talking about “proof” or “certainty” then it seems the only answer is to change your opinion to fit the circumstance.

 

[John21652]

It is already proven to my satisfaction.

In fact, I’m more than satisfied.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Proven to my 'satisfaction?" That’s a pretty subjective quality. What might satisfy one person won’t satisfy another. So if it satisfied 5 out of 10 people, that’s still 5 ‘unsatisfied people.’ In order to get to something that would satisfy EVERYBODY, you pretty much have to have something that by its nature would be so close to being God-like itself (all-acceptable) that it would throw the idea of God’s non-existence out of court…

That’s the point. In other words - proven beyond all doubt enough to convince you that God does not exist. Think about what proof you would need to see.

I really don’t understand why you’ve had to attack the question instead of responding to it in good humour. If they had just said "I’ve proven to everyone that God doesn’t exist, what would you do? I think you would have said “But how can you prove it to everyone, as not everyone has the same level of understanding…” etc etc

The premise of this thread is that you accept the situation and then respond. If you can’t do that it’s not fair to take part - it’s like playing Snakes&Ladders but then saying “But why do I have to do what the dice says?” or “I’m already convinced I’ve won the game already.”

My answer - I guess I would probably stop believing in God at all and feel really quite depressed. At first, and then I would probably try to look for some counter-proof - even though, according to your situation, I had already been shown proof that God did not exist. Proof can always be challenged, but I feel a part of me wants to believe independent of all facts. That is what faith is. So even if you showed me enough proof for me to believe God does not exist, the desire to believe will still be there.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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.

The problem I have with this question is that I’ve had too many “spiritual experiences” to doubt that God (and the devil) exist. So nobody could prove God’s non-existence to me, no matter how brilliant their philosophy.

In fact, I have this suspicion that one day God is going to force the devil to show his hand ie. reveal himself.

When Pope Leo XIII had his vision on October 13, 1884, when he heard the devil claim he could destroy the church if he was given 70 or 100 years (there is some dispute about the time), he heard Christ allegedly give him the devil the time.

Pope Leo XIII … was given further to understand that, if the devil had not accomplished his purpose at the end of the time limit given, he would suffer a most crushing and humiliating defeat.

I have this nagging suspicion that as part of this humiliation, the devil will be forced to reveal himself to the human race directly, thus destroying any further claims at atheism, and of course terrifying a lot of people into repentance and conversion.

If so, it would be interesting to see how atheists would handle that.

However this will not solve the problem of the Christian - Islamic divide, and as far as I’m concerned, that is going to be the next major spiritual battle. The atheistic surge we’re currently seeing is, in my opinion, the last waves of the receding tsunami inugurated by the Bolsheviks.

It’s time is nearly over.

 

[Gregory_I]

THe question is an unanswerable trick question. An Atheist cannot be anything other than an atheist, and they will not ever be satisfied with proof for GOd’s existence until they decide they no longer want to be an atheist. THe same thing for a theist.

Why would I want to not believe GOd exists when my belief in him has carried me through so much difficulty?

THe decision to be other than what you are has to precede the acceptance of evidence.

 

[StrawberryJam]

As with any evidence, I would follow the evidence to where it would take me.
I would be more than willing to ammend my current view.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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

I would do one of three things or perhaps all in a proper sequence.

1. try to commit suicide
2. If I was to scared to commit suicide, I would try to get as much pleasure from life as possible, especially sexual pleasure.
3. Faced with the dilemma of absolute nihilism, I would be too honest and philosophical to create the subjective aesthetic fantasy that my life was worth living or had any value. I would be brutally aware of the truth that my value as a person would be nothing more than the pleasure I gave others, and any time that pleasure is lacking I would receive no pleasure in return and no value. I would be an object of potential stimulus, instead of a person of infinite moral value. Not being good at believing my own lies, being bored of the fight to be worshipped by other humans, and being tied of a mere pleasure seeking life, the world would become a crazy and meaningless enigma to me, for I would be nothing more than the firing of synapses in a changing universe that might as well be nothing at all given its lack of objective significance. I would probably go insane from despair, a lack of real purpose, and the contemplation of eternal death. For me, life without God is an empty life, and I could never burden a potential son or daughter with that. I would sterilise my self, or perhaps or would create many sons and daughters with different mothers, simply because i might find it amusing and perhaps a source of drama and entertainment.

 

[greylorn]

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.

I can do better than your question stipulates, because back when I was a Catholic it actually was proven to me that the God I believed in could not possibly exist. I took these actions:

• Examined other religions for an acceptable God-concept. No cheese in those tunnels.
• Before considering atheism, I checked for scientific explanations of a few simple paranormal experiences I’d had. Was told that I did not have those experiences.
• Studied some more physics, thought, why not develop a different God concept derived from physics theory and knowledge? Did that, then made the mistake of sharing the idea with atheist and religious physicists, and a Catholic theologian.
• Studied more about the paranormal experiences I didn’t have. Learned that lots of people had them. Modified my God-theory accordingly.
• Wrote a book and got it published. It became a best seller (in Brazil and Holland). Parts of it have been used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness. Went financially and socially bankrupt.
• Studied reincarnation theory, learned how to hypnotize so as to experiment with regression work. Ooops! Modified my God-theory accordingly.
• Studied neuroscience. Modified my God-theory accordingly.
• Started writing another book, found a fundamental flaw in my thinking, shared by all religions and science. Burnt the manuscript. Modified my God-theory accordingly.
• Started another book. No agency or publisher will consider taking it on.

By way of point, think twice before rethinking any beliefs that work for you, no matter how stupid other people say they are.

 

[John21652]

Proven to my 'satisfaction?" That’s a pretty subjective quality. What might satisfy one person won’t satisfy another. So if it satisfied 5 out of 10 people, that’s still 5 ‘unsatisfied people.’ In order to get to something that would satisfy EVERYBODY, you pretty much have to have something that by its nature would be so close to being God-like itself (all-acceptable) that it would throw the idea of God’s non-existence out of court.

I’m not stupid by any means, but I’m only ‘human.’ My ‘satisfaction’ therefore might be satisfied but that doesn’t mean that the proposition of God’s existence would not be true anyway.

I mean, just because I might personally be totally satisfied with the supposed "proofs’ of God’s non-existance doesn’t mean that He might not exist.

So even if I saw proof enough to ‘satisfy’ me, I would still believe in God. Satisfaction does not ensure truth.

That “subjective quality” you mentioned…
If I said don’t put your hand on a hot stove, would you accept my “subjective” analysis of the hotness of the stove and the correlation between it and a burnt hand? Or would you just have to put your hand on the hot stove to make sure my analysis wasn’t subjective, but objective and based on experience?

 

[honestquestions]

I would do one of three things or perhaps all in a proper sequence.

1. try to commit suicide
2. If I was to scared to commit suicide, I would try to get as much pleasure from life as possible, especially sexual pleasure.
3. Faced with the dilemma of absolute nihilism, I would be too honest and philosophical to create the subjective aesthetic fantasy that my life was worth living or had any value. I would be brutally aware of the truth that my value as a person would be nothing more than the pleasure I gave others, and any time that pleasure is lacking I would receive no pleasure in return and no value. I would be an object of potential stimulus, instead of a person of infinite moral value. Not being good at believing my own lies, being bored of the fight to be worshipped by other humans, and being tied of a mere pleasure seeking life, the world would become a crazy and meaningless enigma to me, for I would be nothing more than the firing of synapses in a changing universe that might as well be nothing at all given its lack of objective significance. I would probably go insane from despair, a lack of real purpose, and the contemplation of eternal death. For me, life without God is an empty life, and I could never burden a potential son or daughter with that. I would sterilise my self, or perhaps or would create many sons and daughters with different mothers, simply because i might find it amusing and perhaps a source of drama and entertainment.

Wow, that’s pretty sick. Are you saying the only reason you don’t kill is because it says so in the bible?

 

[Eclogue]

Are you saying the only reason you don’t kill is because it says so in the bible?

Not really. We don’t kill because we believe it is objectively wrong; all reasonable people believe this. But for something to be objectively wrong, it has to work against some universal purpose. And the universe can have no purpose unless it was designed for that purpose by an intelligent architect, i.e. God.

In this case, murder is wrong because it acts contrary to Love, the purpose for which the universe was created by God. Therefore, true believers would refuse to commit murder even if there were no mention of it in the Bible. If, however, God does not exist, then Dostoevsky is right to say, “Everything is permissable.” Any limitations or prohibitions would be completely arbitrary and therefore not binding. There would be no reason for a rational human being to abstain from murder or anything else, except for his or her own personal and completely arbitrary preferences.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wow, that’s pretty sick.

Who are you to call anyone sick? At least he is intellectually honest enough to admit the nihilistic paradigm that the atheist is inevitably left with in the absence of G-d.

Are you saying the only reason you don’t kill is because it says so in the bible?

If there were no G-d then there would be no right or wrong. It wouldn’t be wrong to kill, rape, rob, and pillage your way across the landscape.

Secular ethics are nothing more than peoples personal opinions.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Who are you to call anyone sick? At least he is intellectually honest enough to admit the nihilistic paradigm that the atheist is inevitably left with in the absence of G-d.

If there were no G-d then there would be no right or wrong. It wouldn’t be wrong to kill, rape, rob, and pillage your way across the landscape.

Secular ethics are nothing more than peoples personal opinions.

So by your logic, atheists should be more likely to commit crime, and rape, and rob, and pillage.

Ahem, have you heard of the Crusades?

 

[John21652]

So by your logic, atheists should be more likely to commit crime, and rape, and rob, and pillage.

Ahem, have you heard of the Crusades?

Yep.

Atheists infiltrated the ranks.

 

[davidv]

So by your logic, atheists should be more likely to commit crime, and rape, and rob, and pillage.

Ahem, have you heard of the Crusades?

Actually that is not what he is saying. I believe you misinterpreted him severely. The existence of atheists is not evidence of the nonexistence of God. It could be argued that the fact that atheists aren’t as evil as you thought was implied is in fact evidence of the existence of God.