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

[Candide_West]

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.

Thanks LemonAndLime, curious though, could you expand a little on why you think you would feel depressed?

Interesting that you raise the issue of the desire to believe as well, it’s something I’ve always found fascinating. From personal experience as well as my reading around the topic. Do you see this as a desire to see a “higher reason” behind everything or is there something else to which you ascribe this desire?

Thanks again for your reply.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to write. Just to be clear though this is just a hypothetical and I’m not limiting the “proofs” to philosophy only. So don’t see that as a limitation. If you are unable to imagine the view from the other side in any way then fair enough and thanks for your reply.

Take care

 

[samiam1611]

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.

I guess you think Tantum ergo is stupid and sad.

I admit it would be hard to convince me. But it’s hypothetical so I’m playing along. Put it this way - I can’t think of any evidence (i.e. an occurence) that would convince me, but I understand that my belief in the nonexistence of a god is just as much a form of faith as your belief in His existence is. (For instance, a vision of Him talking to me would not convince me. Someone showing me a miracle and saying God made it happen would not convince me.) But to take part in the discussion, I am going to “pretend” (as an admittance of my belief being just that) that satisfactory proof existed.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Hi Gregory,

Apologies, I’ve clearly come across wrongly here, this wasn’t intended to be identifying a semantic impossibility or to form a trick question. However, I can see how that could have come across from my phrasing.

The objective is simply to use a hypothetical situation to put people in each other’s shoes. So an atheist is put in the mental viewpoint of a theist and vice versa. I think it says a lot about how the individual views those who have differing opinions and personally I think it’s a valuable exercise in itself.

You do raise an interesting question with regards to evidence though, I would say that analysis of evidence preceeds formation of a opinion. The above seems to sugggest you have a different view, is that correct?

Take care

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Hey,

Thanks for your view. Could you expand a bit further though, given that the evidence is sufficient to make you certain of the existance of God. What affect would that have on the way you live your life, your personality etc.

Thanks

 

[John21652]

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

Hi Candide.

Don’t worry, I ‘get’ your hypothetical!

My answer to MindOverMatter in Post #34 pretty well covers what my reaction would be.

Any questions, just fire away…

 

[FCCopleston]

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.

Well, for me, my faith rests upon the resurrected Christ. If it were proven that Christ did not actually rise from dead, then, with St. Paul, I would confess that my faith–as well as the faith of every Christian–is in vain.

In Christ (Who suffered, died, was crucified, buried, and Who rose again),
FCCopleston

 

[Pieman333272]

I guess you think Tantum ergo is stupid and sad.

The *position *is stupid and sad, not the person holding on to it. The person holding on to it may be stupid and sad, but I don’t know enough about you to make that declaration.

I admit it would be hard to convince me. But it’s hypothetical so I’m playing along. Put it this way - I can’t think of any evidence (i.e. an occurence) that would convince me, but I understand that my belief in the nonexistence of a god is just as much a form of faith as your belief in His existence is. (For instance, a vision of Him talking to me would not convince me. Someone showing me a miracle and saying God made it happen would not convince me.) But to take part in the discussion, I am going to “pretend” (as an admittance of my belief being just that) that satisfactory proof existed.

Why will nothing convince you? Dare I say, do you have faith?!

 

[John21652]

Well, for me, my faith rests upon the resurrected Christ. If it were proven that Christ did not actually rise from dead, then, with St. Paul, I would confess that my faith–as well as the faith of every Christian–is in vain.

In Christ (Who suffered, died, was crucified, buried, and Who rose again),
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.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

MindOverMatter2 - Crumbs, thanks for your views although I must admit I’m rather surprised how severe an effect you feel it would have. A few questions if I could.

Firstly, I’m surprised that your first response would be to commit suicide, given that without an afterlife your life could be argued to be the only thing you truly possess, I’m surprised you’d want to lose it. Could you elaborate on why please?

Secondly, your reply appears to imply that you feel you would lose all morality from your life. I find this view rather surprising, is this because you cannot conceive any meaningful moral system in the absence of God or that without God there is nothing particular to hold you to being moral or some other reason? My personal experience on this was that when I ceased to believe in God my morals remained more or less unchanged. The only thing that changed was that I took personal responsibility for them.

Finally, I’m curious why in your view it is that atheists don’t live in the way that you think you would live given the loss of your own faith.

 

[Eclogue]

If it were proven that God did not exist, I would be forced to destroy the universe, Bluhaha! It would be my duty, insofar as an arbitrary decision based on meaningless premises can be called a duty, to destroy forever any chance that others might live under the cruel delusion that life has a purpose and that each individual life is not trivial to the point of utter insignificance. Or I could keep living pretty much the way I live now, just without going to Mass or anything. Either way, my actions would be uninformed by any rational motive.

I’m having trouble understanding what Grotius and Suarez mean in your quotes. How can reason inform morality, when reason is (I’m pretty sure) only the bridge between objectively true first principles and the inevitable conclusions from those principles? God created us for a purpose; to “love one another” for instance. I’m not morally allowed to punch random strangers because such an action violates that purpose. If there was no God there would be no purpose, and nothing would morally prohibit me from punching random strangers (fear of imprisonment or ostracism are not moral motives). How can Grotius and Suarez arrive at morality without recourse to an objective purpose of the universe, which can only come from an intelligent God?

Does this make sense? I’m trying to phrase it well, but I’m not sure I even understand it myself!

 

[samiam1611]

The *position *is stupid and sad, not the person holding on to it. The person holding on to it may be stupid and sad, but I don’t know enough about you to make that declaration.

Why will nothing convince you? Dare I say, do you have faith?!

Yes I do have faith -gasp!.. Hence my statement “my belief in the nonexistence of a god is JUST AS MUCH A FORM OF FAITH as your belief in His existence.” I just said that lol!

Likewise, I didn’t say nothing will convince me. I said I can’t think of something that would. I am explicitly allowing for the possibility that something could, I just don’t know what that something is!

 

[Candide_West]

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:

…

Hi Greylorn,

wow, thanks for that, you’ve certainly had quite a journey. Thanks for sharing it with me. Just say if this is overstepping the mark, but could I ask what it was that convinced you that your views couldn’t be correct? Also would you say that you have always been open to modifying/updating your beliefs or is this something which happened after that point in your life?

Regards

 

[Pieman333272]

Yes I do have faith -gasp!.. Hence my statement “my belief in the nonexistence of a god is JUST AS MUCH A FORM OF FAITH as your belief in His existence.” I just said that lol!

Likewise, I didn’t say nothing will convince me. I said I can’t think of something that would. I am explicitly allowing for the possibility that something could, I just don’t know what that something is!

I know you wrote that, lol, but I wasn’t sure how it should be interpreted.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The *position *is stupid and sad, not the person holding on to it. The person holding on to it may be stupid and sad, but I don’t know enough about you to make that declaration.

*Actually, that would be moi (Tantum ergo). I don’t think I’m stupid and I know I’m not sad. . .but I’m curious why you feel the position I expressed is stupid and sad. I don’t find it to be so. Both of those qualities are very subjective, the latter especially. Sad in reference to what? Stupid in reference to what? *

*If nothing convinces me, is it not possible that I’m right, and that all the evidence, no matter how much it convinces others, is wrong? Incomplete? *

Why will nothing convince you? Dare I say, do you have faith?!

*Yes, I believe I do have faith. Faith is not without reason (the two are not incompatible) but reason has its limits as humanity/human brain power have limits as well. *

I also brought up Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the marvelous Sherlock Holmes stories. Holmes the character is nearly pure reason. Yet Sir Arthur became convinced of the truth of Spiritualism. Here is a man (Sir Arthur) of great intelligence, ability, and reason, and yet all the ‘proofs’ that people brought up ‘against’ spiritualism were rejected by Sir Arthur. They were not enough to convince him though they convince most everybody else, some of whom are far less intellectually gifted than Sir Arthur. . .so is spiritualism, say, utterly proven to be false? Or not?

 

[John21652]

Does this make sense? I’m trying to phrase it well, but I’m not sure I even understand it myself!

No!

If it were proven that God did not exist, I would be forced to destroy the universe, Bluhaha! It would be my duty, insofar as an arbitrary decision based on meaningless premises can be called a duty, to destroy forever any chance that others might live under the cruel delusion that life has a purpose and that each individual life is not trivial to the point of utter insignificance. Or I could keep living pretty much the way I live now, just without going to Mass or anything. Either way, my actions would be uninformed by any rational motive.

I’m having trouble understanding what Grotius and Suarez mean in your quotes. How can reason inform morality, when reason is (I’m pretty sure) only the bridge between objectively true first principles and the inevitable conclusions from those principles? God created us for a purpose; to “love one another” for instance. I’m not morally allowed to punch random strangers because such an action violates that purpose. If there was no God there would be no purpose, and nothing would morally prohibit me from punching random strangers (fear of imprisonment or ostracism are not moral motives). How can Grotius and Suarez arrive at morality without recourse to an objective purpose of the universe, which can only come from an intelligent God?

After reading the first paragraph, my response would be to say I’ll come put you out of your misery and save the universe all in one go.

However, your second paragraph shows you just need a little more guidance and maybe you’ll pull through. Grotius and Saurez showed that the discernable objective morality by which we live is not reliant upon God, but our own reason. Another who thought the same thing was Aquinas. The next step is to show the link between that discernable objective morality and God, but, thanks to Candide West, God is not allowed to exist on this thread, so it’s up to us. If you persist in attempting to blow up the universe, then I and others will invoke the principle of a Just War and thump you on the nose!

 

[Pieman333272]

*Yes, I believe I do have faith. Faith is not without reason (the two are not incompatible) but reason has its limits as humanity/human brain power have limits as well. *

I also brought up Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the marvelous Sherlock Holmes stories. Holmes the character is nearly pure reason. Yet Sir Arthur became convinced of the truth of Spiritualism. Here is a man (Sir Arthur) of great intelligence, ability, and reason, and yet all the ‘proofs’ that people brought up ‘against’ spiritualism were rejected by Sir Arthur. They were not enough to convince him though they convince most everybody else, some of whom are far less intellectually gifted than Sir Arthur. . .so is spiritualism, say, utterly proven to be false? Or not?

Well, the reason I dislike the position is, because, I think that you have to be willing to change your position with the evidence, to follow the evidence where it leads. It’s OK if it takes a lot of evidence, but if you didn’t have a major experience or knowledge of a very important fact relating to your position, I think you should be able to be convinced to something else. That’s especially true if you take on the negative, but I think it applies to the positive too - now, I was born Catholic, but I also find that the overwhelming majority of evidence supports the religion I was born into. Otherwise I would be an agnostic, or Buddhist.

I think it’s OK to be catholic if you don’t see the evidence for it, it just doesn’t seem rational to me. Also, I’m assuming ~Pascal’s Wager. That could play a role.

 

[grannymh]

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

http://www.ruckmakers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/flabbergasted-cat.jpg

As a crazy teenager, I used an irrational, nonsensical, non sequitur proof for God’s existence. As someone once said: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Hi Samian1611, Thanks for writing.

It is true that the “proven to your satisfaction” does not necessarily stipulate a matching condition to reality. That is really outside the scope of what I’m looking to discuss here in either direction. Really this is about how it would affect your life or the way you live it if your perspective on the subject were reversed.

So it sounds as if you are saying that you cannot envisage any situation where your views would / could be reversed such that you believed in God. ie you would doubt your sanity to the extent to which it led you to believe there was a God no matter what form the evidence took? I find that suprising bearing in mind the potential ways in which God could theoretically prove God’s existance. Could you confirm if I’ve understood correctly please?

Thanks

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As a crazy teenager, I used an irrational, nonsensical, non sequitur proof for God’s existence. As someone once said: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Ok, I’ll bite. What proof convinces you?