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

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

Actually, you’re supporting me.

What if you didn’t know the stove was hot, and told me it was okay?

What if you knew the stove was hot, but told me it was okay?

What if you had a disease like Reynaud syndrome and the stove felt ‘hot’ to you but would not feel hot to somebody who didn’t have Reynaud’s?

When I used the term ‘subjective’ I did not mean that there could not be objectives. I personally believe in absolutes.

But I think we can both agree, can we not, that it might take ‘more’ evidence to convince one man than another man. What I mean is, for some people, to ‘disbelieve’ all it might take would be the proof that evil exists (tsunamis etc.). . .and they would not need anything else to convince them that there could be no God in an ‘evil’ world. But other people might need ‘more’ proof than that. That’s what I meant by ‘subjective’. I hope it makes things clearer.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

The Crusades are a very interesting topic. While there were individuals involved who did indeed commit such crimes, the purpose of the Crusade was for something else–to help preserve the site of Jerusalem, ensure safe pilgrimage, to keep people from being forcibly converted to Islam, etc.

You know, in world war 2, not so long ago, a lot of the soldiers, like my uncle, brought back ‘souveniers’ that they had taken from dead or wounded soldiers on the ‘other side’, or from the houses that they had ‘commandeered’. And it was considered if not exactly ‘honorable’, at least ‘acceptable’ behavior at the time. I’m pleased to announce that some years later at least those ‘souveniers’ were returned to their owners with apologies. Some of the solders also engaged in rape (for which they should be ashamed of themselves).

Here’s the thing. Would you say that World War 2 was fought because our Allied nations wanted to rape, plunder, rob, etc. (because nobody denies that these actions went on), or would you say that World War 2 was fought for other reasons, but that individuals involved did some criminal actions in addition?

Because if World War 2 could be fought for ‘just’ reasons (or at least not be fought only in order to rape, rob, pillage etc.), but the latter occurred through individual misdeeds. . .

Then the Crusades could likewise have been fought for good reason, and the incidents you mention likewise occurred through individual misdeeds.

I think it is quite possible. . .

 

[Pieman333272]

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

It can’t be proved to my satisfaction because it is impossible to prove a negative. IF, somehow, it were proven God couldn’t possibly exist, I would get very depressed, but try to stay upbeat by using my computer science knowledge to start a company and make millions with some awesome product. I would also be much more sexual, for the worse, from my current standpoint.

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

Not more likely per se but less reason not to.

Wow, that’s pretty sick.

At least he was honest. Why can’t you accept a subjective interpretation of atheism? Is it not a doctrine of atheism that you can do and believe what you want, be it not God?

 

[LemonAndLime]

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.

I believe you misunderstood ME entirely. I was mocking him for suggesting that atheists have no mortality whereas those who believe in God must be more righteous. The Crusades, the recent Priest sexual abuse scandal, etc are all examples to show that being religious does not mean you’re righteous/moral. I was not arguing that atheist’s existence prove that God is real or not, so I don’t know why you’re talking about that in reference to either his or my posts.

You cannot suggest that murder is only wrong to people with morality, and that atheists in theory have nothing stopping them commit a crime. What about culture? And since when was it necessary to have a religion to have moral beliefs and respect for the law?

Atheist still have a concept of punishment if you do wrong - legal (sent to jail/fined) social - (rejected by friends) and personal (loss of own money/time/friends) as well as suffering from guilt. In a religious person these are all the same, apart from the belief that you’ll suffer in the afterlife as well as this one.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

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.

NOOOOOOO!!! there would be nothing stopping me from masturbating!!! Oh the humanity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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

I don’t see how you are making that inference from my post.

Ahem, have you heard of the Crusades?

Yes, I have heard of the Crusades. What does that have to do with my post?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I believe you misunderstood ME entirely. I was mocking him for suggesting…

Oh…

From which premise did you draw that conclusion?

that atheists have no mortality whereas those who believe in God must be more righteous.

I would never suggest that. I would simply state that it. By definition an atheist rejects G-d, the source of all Good. How can that be considered an equivalent moral position to accepting G-d, the source of all Good?

The Crusades

How are the Crusades different from any other war of the era?

The recent Priest sexual abuse scandal, etc are all examples to show that being religious does not mean you’re righteous/moral.

Scandal = immoral or unrighteous?

That seems like a huge leap to make. If you sin does that make you immoral or unrighteous? Not according to what we believe. Being a sinner is the default state of humanity.

If what you say is true, then no one could ever be moral or righteous to any degree. We are all sinners.

[You cannot suggest that murder is only wrong to people with morality,

Of course it is. If they didn’t have any morals, then they wouldn’t have any standard of right and wrong.

and that atheists in theory have nothing stopping them commit a crime.

I am sure they all fear punishment by the state. But there is no moral reason for them not to kill.

What about culture?

What does culture have to do with morals?

And since when was it necessary to have a religion to have moral beliefs and respect for the law?

What does the law have to do with morals?

Atheist still have a concept of punishment if you do wrong - legal (sent to jail/fined) social - (rejected by friends) and personal (loss of own money/time/friends) as well as suffering from guilt.

Is that the same thing as a moral? It sounds more like behavior motivated by fear. That doesn’t make it a moral.

In a religious person these are all the same, apart from the belief that you’ll suffer in the afterlife as well as this one.

[/quote]

Hardly. Imperfect contrition is to be sorry for your sins out of a fear of punishment. perfect contrition is to be sorry for your sins because you have offended G-d.

I’d say that the comparison is unjustified.

 

[samiam1611]

To get us back on topic

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.

If it was proven to me that God existed, I would go to the doctor and ask for a psychiatric evaluation. I would not trust my own mind if that was the conclusion I came to.

 

[Pieman333272]

To get us back on topic

If it was proven to me that God existed, I would go to the doctor and ask for a psychiatric evaluation. I would not trust my own mind if that was the conclusion I came to.

What if it turned out you had no mental disease and were completely mentally stable?

 

[samiam1611]

I believe you misunderstood ME entirely. I was mocking him for suggesting that atheists have no mortality whereas those who believe in God must be more righteous.

Careful about the mocking. I wouldn’t want this interesting thread to be closed/banned or whatever bc of misconduct.

 

[samiam1611]

although now that I think about it, it doesn’t even seem like mocking to me lol! Your comment does seem like a logical inference from his comment!

 

[samiam1611]

What if it turned out you had no mental disease and were completely mentally stable?

hmm let me think about that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Wow, that’s pretty sick.

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

But you evidently do not view good in the same way that you view cheese an pickle sandwiches. Your choice of words and the context in which you expressed those words suggests that you define moral values in respect of what’s “true” as opposed to what’s not true. You would not think anything of it if you didn’t already truly believe that you were morally better than me - or should I say - truly healthy in the way you think about other people as opposed to “sick”, which is what you accuse me of. Whether you are aware of it or not, this is to invoke an objective standard of truth that is true whether people agree with it or not. The way you are thinking is like Christian, but you fail to realise it. Or perhaps at least you are a hypocrite in the way you evaluate morality; this is to say it is true when its good for you. You take moral value judgements for granted and thus cannot see their irrelevance and meaninglessness in the absence of God. Your reply is only proof that you have never given it any serious thought.

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

The only reason I don’t kill is because I know that its wrong. Anything else is meaningless and just a parade of self-righteousness and desire, not moral truth. If I didn’t know it was wrong, I wouldn’t refuse to do it; I would simply do it when and if I thought it was of some benefit to me, whether that be in respect of how I would like other people to view me or because of how much security it would entail. In a meaningless world, I would measure it in terms of the risks involved. I would not measure it in respect of “morality”.

**Nihilism – A Meaningless World
Shakespeare’s Macbeth eloquently summarizes existential nihilism’s perspective, disdaining life:

Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing…**

 

[Tantum_ergo]

hmm let me think about that.

Is it possible for a person to be completely ‘normal’, mentally stable, etc., and to be completely wrong?

As an example, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (very normal and stable) believed in spiritualism.

So just because a person might be stable (based on the test results which themselves are made by human beings and thus not completely perfect) doesn’t mean he or she still cannot be wrong about something.

 

[samiam1611]

Is it possible for a person to be completely ‘normal’, mentally stable, etc., and to be completely wrong?

So just because a person might be stable (based on the test results which themselves are made by human beings and thus not completely perfect) doesn’t mean he or she still cannot be wrong about something.

Well yeah. I don’t think that’s the OP’s question. Correct me if I’m wrong but in this hypothetical situation, aren’t we going with the assumption that when presented with such proof, it IS irrefutably true? If it’s refutable, I will refute! That’d be too easy of a question! If there’s any possibility that this “proof” was NOT proof, I would NOT be satisfied that it was true.

 

[John21652]

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

But you evidently do not view good in the same way that you view cheese an pickle sandwiches. Your choice of words and the context in which you expressed those words suggests that you define moral values in respect of what’s “true” as opposed to what’s not true. You would not think anything of it if you didn’t already truly believe that you were morally better than me - or should I say - truly healthy in the way you think about other people as opposed to “sick”, which is what you accuse me of. Whether you are aware of it or not, this is to invoke an objective standard of truth that is true whether people agree with it or not. The way you are thinking is like Christian, but you fail to realise it. Or perhaps at least you are a hypocrite in the way you evaluate morality; this is to say it is true when its good for you. You take moral value judgements for granted and thus cannot see their irrelevance and meaninglessness in the absence of God. Your reply is only proof that you have never given it any serious thought.

The only reason I don’t kill is because I know that its wrong. Anything else is meaningless and just a parade of self-righteousness and desire, not moral truth. If I didn’t know it was wrong, I wouldn’t refuse to do it; I would simply do it when and if I thought it was of some benefit to me, whether that be in respect of how I would like other people to view me or because of how much security it would entail. In a meaningless world, I would measure it in terms of the risks involved. I would not measure it in respect of “morality”.

**Nihilism – A Meaningless World
Shakespeare’s Macbeth eloquently summarizes existential nihilism’s perspective, disdaining life:

Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing…**

Mind over matter, your response to honestquestions is rather harsh and actually reaks of the sickness that honestquestions referred to. Honestquestions use of the term “sick” is a euphemism, behind which lies an entire comparitive rooted in the objective study of human nature. You virtually admitted you would ‘drop your bundle’ and abandon the moral code you once lived by and woven through your reaction is a deep pessimism. In comparison to normative human behaviour, you have indeed, become sick. Note that honestquestion did not use the phrase “morally sick”. You did. Honestquestion simply used the one single word “sick” and did not ascribe it to anything other than what you wrote.

You are telling us that without God, morality collapses. You would embark upon a hedonistic and utilitarian lifestyle. You would father multiple children by multiple women. As part of your fall into the sickness of despair and pessimism you have denied the onjective nature of ‘the good’ as defined in human terms. What you are asserting is that all objectivity is rooted in God and that the human mind is incapable of the objectification of ideas, ideals and ultimate reality. The inevitable conclusion is that objectivity is actually rooted in devine revelation and nothing more, because the conclusion you lead us to is that when God dissapears all objectivity vanishes also. If that were the case, then all human science vanishes too. Including the objective analysis of human thought, thinking and behaviour.

It does not seem to occur to you that in the absence of God you become the ultimate moral authority. Of course you will retort that so does everyone else! What then, would elevate you to the position of the highest moral authority on the planet? I submit that the same objective standards that emanate from God, which are for the benefit of mankind, for the attainment of “the good”, still apply. After all, they were discerned through the use of human reason. Doubt that? Then let me show you what one of mankind’s greatest moral philosophers, The Jesuit Suarez, had to say on the subject of objective morality -

“…even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has.”

And from another, the religious philosopher Grotius, who declared of the objective morality which pertains to man -

What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God.

So I would say, don’t shoot yourself just yet. Let us cure you of your “sickness” and rise up once again to be the ultimate source of morality and the ‘good’ amongst men!

 

[samiam1611]

In other words, here is how I am interpreting the question: (OP, am I right?)

If the truth on the existence/nonexistence of God was revealed to you in such a way that you could not refute it, what would you do?

Rereading the original question, I can see that the OP did not actually say that the
proof---->resulting interpretation was true. To address that: since my interpretation is not necessarily fact, if I came to an irrefutable conclusion that directly conflicted with what I believe, I would adjust my process of interpreting proofs to that which allowed me to be wrong. I would admit to myself that my interpretation process must be flawed if I felt satisifed by such evidence.

 

[Candide_West]

It is already proven to my satisfaction.

In fact, I’m more than satisfied.

Hi John,

Thanks for your reply, just curious though, what what affect it would have on you or the way you live your life IF (and i know i’m deep in hypothetical territory here) it was now proven to you the other way.

It may be that you can’t imagine such a thing being proven to your satisfaction in which case fair enough and thanks for the views. But would be interested if you are able to imagine such a scenario.

Thanks

 

[Pieman333272]

Well yeah. I don’t think that’s the OP’s question. Correct me if I’m wrong but in this hypothetical situation, aren’t we going with the assumption that when presented with such proof, it IS irrefutably true? If it’s refutable, I will refute! That’d be too easy of a question! If there’s any possibility that this “proof” was NOT proof, I would NOT be satisfied that it was true.

I admit I may be misreading you here, but if you were just going to refute it, it wouldn’t be proven to your satisfaction, would it? Because that’s a premise too - it’s sufficient for you. If nothing will convince you, stupid and sad a position as that may be, the question doesn’t apply.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Understood, thanks for your reply, always interesting to hear different points of view. Really it’s just an interesting hypothetical, to try to put people in each other’s shoes to at least some extent.

When I’m talking to people about their religions etc I try to see the conversation from their point of view if I can. Personally I find it a valuable exercise to help me understand and I think it’s interesting to find out how people view each other’s positions as well.

Thanks