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

[honestquestions]

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.

Whether or not God exists, societies have evolved their morals over time. Societies that prosper are ones that work together and have order. It would be rational to abstain from murder because it doesn’t progress the happiness of the collective. Why don’t piranhas eat each other? Because they get more by working together? It seems I have just debunked your argument. How is this rebuttal incorrect?

 

[Eclogue]

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.

My pledge to end the universe was a hyperbole; if my faith really was shattered, I would probably rather devote my energies to eating. For the time being, however, your cosmos and your larder are safe, as I hold a firm belief in God and morality. I was just complying with the OP’s wishes and assuming a hypothetical stance on a totally hypothetical issue. May I take this opportunity to ask why the OP is asking this question? Are you just curious, or are you trying to get at the moral implications of the situation?

Help me pull through, John21652! Could you maybe sum up the arguments made by Aquinas et al. about this stuff? I’d rather not wander through Aquinas’s works looking for it, for fear of becoming befuddled.

 

[Pieman333272]

Whether or not God exists, societies have evolved their morals over time. Societies that prosper are ones that work together and have order. It would be rational to abstain from murder because it doesn’t progress the happiness of the collective. Why don’t piranhas eat each other? Because they get more by working together? It seems I have just debunked your argument. How is this rebuttal incorrect?

What you fail to specify is why there is anything wrong with doing something that doesn’t advance the species from a biological, sociological, or psychological standpoint. That is the flaw, because nihilism also states that the collective species is purposeless, and science says the sun will explode sooner or later…

 

[Eclogue]

The “happiness of the collective” is an arbitrary goal. If it weren’t for God, the universe wouldn’t care a whit for our collective happiness. Why should I care for others, and not murder them if they get in the way of my happiness? You might say, “Because then civilization would collapse!” but I don’t care. By the time that happens I’ll probably have died of old age, fat and happy.

Morals aren’t based on things like “the good of society” or what is “evolutionarily advantageous.” Morals are based on what’s right or wrong. Evolution isn’t right or wrong, it’s just a scientific fact. Disobeying evolution by, say, refusing to procreate is no more wrong than disobeying gravity by jumping. Civil laws are a little different, but they’re still insufficient of themselves to justify accepting them. Laws were put in place, according to Hammurabi, “so that the strong should not harm the weak.” Why should we care about the weak? Hint: it’s not “because the law says so.”

Let’s get this straight; I don’t believe atheists think like this. They certainly don’t act like this. All the atheists I know are responsible people with a moral code. All I’m saying is that their atheism does not inform their moral code. Being an atheist and following a moral code is kind of like saying the world is flat and then trying to go around it in eighty days. You can do it, but you won’t be doing it because of your beliefs.

 

[greylorn]

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?

There were a number of items involved in convincing me that my beliefs were wrong. They began with logical contradictions between the nature and behavior of God. But there were two big items:

• Why did God create man, especially knowing the outcome?

Of particular trouble for me was the issue of why God created ordinary people, those who have little mind or motivation beyond physical and emotional gratification, those who don’t, or cannot read— the kind of people who watch TV sitcoms with embedded laugh tracks to tell them which lame bits of dialogue are “funny.”

• The First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It was clearly contradictory to the concept of an omnipotent God Who created the universe from nothing.
• (Incidentally, this same law of physics subsequently led me to a God-concept which made sense in the context of physics.)

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?

Interesting question. Before realizing that my beliefs were wrong, I was absolutely dogmatic and defended my Catholic teachings at every opportunity. Even then I was reluctant to leave the Church, and spent five years trying to reconcile my new understanding with Catholicism before making a permanent break.

My first admission of error was the most difficult. Later admissions became progressively easier. The process is like being heartbroken, and becomes easier with practice. But the human ego is a powerful machine, and getting rid of the brain’s “I’m right” mechanisms is difficult.

I was assisted by a career path in computer programming, in which every day I was corrected by a simple machine which does what amounts to counting rapidly on two fingers.

Working in astronomy was also helpful. The mean lifetime of an accurate college astronomy textbook is about one month, and as a result, astronomers tend to be less dogmatic about their beliefs than other scientists. However they are excellent at critical thinking, which is the only tool a human mind has for understanding what it and the surrounding universe are, and why.

I’ve never learned to like being wrong, or heartbroken. But one gets over these feelings. I would rather be in the position of having been wrong, than still being wrong.

If you are personally struggling with beliefs, I’m happy to share my experiences with a view to making your struggles easier than mine.

 

[samiam1611]

Hi Samian1611, Thanks for writing.

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?

Not quite. I mean yes I would question my sanity, but given a clean bill of mental health, what would I do - and that I am pondering on and will have a preliminary answer shortly.
The reason I would question my sanity is, to me, God is as real as fairies, vampires, magic pumpkins, and so on. If the way that God showed himself to me was a vision of Him, or hearing His voice, I would suspect visual or auditory hallucinations.
The other main thing I feel like people usually use as proof of His existence is various miracles He has performed. For this, I would seek to find an alternate explanation for this so-called miracle. If one could not be found, I would take an agnostic-ish point of view in that there’s no way to know why/how it happened or a non-God explanation exists but has not been found yet.
If there is such a miracle that would make me think yes there is one and only one definitive explanation and that explanation is God made it happen (therefore God exists), I can’t think of one. Can’t think of one **doesn’t mean I’m ruling out the possibility that one exists **and could happen to me one day. I’m just not going to hold my breath waiting

 

[Pieman333272]

*]The First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It was clearly contradictory to the concept of an omnipotent God Who created the universe from nothing.

Greylorn - I’m not a physicist and I’m not trying to pass off as one, but isn’t this problem refuted by the idea of the laws of thermodynamics, if not all or most of the laws of physics, only starting with time? Now, that begs the question of whether or not time started. But it is obvious that time had to have a starting point as otherwise we would not be here because of entropy.

So, if the first law of thermodynamics isn’t eternal, does that not mean God could create energy at least before time started or at the moment it did?

I would be totally unsurprised to find some flaw or omitted point in my thinking, but I felt like putting this out there with no dogmatic intentions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

*]Why did God create man, especially knowing the outcome?

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.

Of particular trouble for me was the issue of why God created ordinary people, those who have little mind or motivation beyond physical and emotional gratification, those who don’t, or cannot read— the kind of people who watch TV sitcoms with embedded laugh tracks to tell them which lame bits of dialogue are “funny.”

Wow. Do all those ordinary people bother you? Those who don’t meet your standards of comedic appreciation. Those people who don’t meet your intellectual standards, just shouldn’t exist? You are just a super good person. Really.

What about people who think your sense of humor is lame, or think your ability to reason is a bit weak? Unless you literally think you are at the top of the heap of humanity, it would seem a bit hypocritical to cast aspersions on the “ordinary” folks.

*]The First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It was clearly contradictory to the concept of an omnipotent God Who created the universe from nothing.

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.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The reason I would question my sanity is, to me, God is as real as fairies, vampires, magic pumpkins, and so on.

Why do you think that G-d is the same thing as fairies, unicorns, vampires and so forth?

If there is such a miracle that would make me think yes there is one and only one definitive explanation and that explanation is God made it happen (therefore God exists), I can’t think of one. Can’t think of one **doesn’t mean I’m ruling out the possibility that one exists **and could happen to me one day. I’m just not going to hold my breath waiting

You don’t have too. Christ fulfilled some very specific Messianic Prophecies. We Know Christ is G-d as surely as any fact can be known. All of Christianity is the result of those Prophecies being fulfilled.

 

[ServantJohn]

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’m not even sure I can do that with a clear conscience in light of 2 Corinthians 10:5.

 

[honestquestions]

What you fail to specify is why there is anything wrong with doing something that doesn’t advance the species from a biological, sociological, or psychological standpoint. That is the flaw, because nihilism also states that the collective species is purposeless, and science says the sun will explode sooner or later…

What we know that we have is now, and humans decide that their purpose is now. If there is no afterlife, why would that make life pointless? Quite the contrary, because it is limited, it is valued. Why is it valued? Because the masses have determined it so, that they can enjoy what they know they do have, and it is only possible when society functions together. We decide what’s right and wrong.

I didn’t really follow your response 100%, but maybe I cleared some of it up. I’d be happy to post more if I understood better.

 

[honestquestions]

Why should I care for others, and not murder them if they get in the way of my happiness? You might say, “Because then civilization would collapse!” but I don’t care.

You certainly could if you wanted to, which would consequently also end your life early. Early civilization realized that they enjoy their life when everyone is in order. If someone like you killed another, collective society decided that for the betterment of everyone who does care, people like you would be mostly gone in a few centuries. In order for one to progress, people came together to form packs to help everyone thrive and survive.

Morals aren’t based on things like “the good of society” or what is “evolutionarily advantageous.” Morals are based on what’s right or wrong. Evolution isn’t right or wrong, it’s just a scientific fact.

I agree; I’m not promoting social darwinism. Together we define what’s right or wrong, and essentially it is determined by the betterment of everyone. There are many laws and directions in the old testament which are horrific, but everyone has thought, well maybe it’s not a good idea to stone our unruly children because I wouldn’t want to be treated that way either for a natural testing of limits.

Civil laws are a little different, but they’re still insufficient of themselves to justify accepting them. Laws were put in place, according to Hammurabi, “so that the strong should not harm the weak.” Why should we care about the weak? Hint: it’s not “because the law says so.”

Because what goes around comes around. We get what we give.

Being an atheist and following a moral code is kind of like saying the world is flat and then trying to go around it in eighty days. You can do it, but you won’t be doing it because of your beliefs.

Realizing that this is likely the only life I will have, I only get what I give, and committing selfish acts would only decrease my ability to my pursuits of happiness.

 

[Eclogue]

If there is no afterlife, why would that make life pointless?

Without God, life would have no real purpose. We could “decide” a purpose, but that would have no effect on morality. We can’t decide what’s right or wrong. All we can decide is a personal preference. Life is such a preference; if we just go away when we die, then it doesn’t matter if we die in a hundred years or a million. We’ll all die eventually and we’re not coming back and we won’t be able to look back at all the happy memories. So what’s the point of living in the first place? There is none. Life is pointless without God.

In that case, so are all human endeavors. We only obey the law because it keeps us alive longer. We only choose to stay alive longer because it is an instinctual impulse, due to evolution. We like life for the same reason we like sex, or animals that look like babies, or foods that taste like sugar. I could devote my life to the pursuit of sugary foods, and revel in evolutionary satisfaction. That wouldn’t make it right. In the big scheme of things, sugar is pointless, whether we like it or not. Similarly, if there is no afterlife, life is pointless whether we like it or not.

Just my thoughts. Not sure on doctrine or anything. But let’s keep talking; I like talking to you, honestquestions. Your questions are tricky, and I doubt I’ve explained my position to your satisfaction.

 

[hazcompat]

Schizophrenic

peace

 

[AntiTheist]

if we just go away when we die, then it doesn’t matter if we die in a hundred years or a million. We’ll all die eventually and we’re not coming back and we won’t be able to look back at all the happy memories. So what’s the point of living in the first place? There is none.

I like to answer this argument with an analogy.

I own a car. It has value to me – I care about what happens to it, and I take actions to preserve it, keep it looking good, and keep it running well. Eventually, one day, my car will no longer be functional, and then it will go to a scrap heap, and then eventually it will go back to the elements that it was made of. It will one day literally be gone…there will be nothing we can point to and say “that was the car.”

But the fact that the car won’t last forever doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value to me right here and now. The fact that it won’t last forever doesn’t mean that I don’t want to take action to keep it up right now.

It’s the same with our lives. The fact that life isn’t going to last forever doesn’t change the fact that I care about my life right now and that I take actions to improve my life and the lives of those around me right now.

In fact, if this is the one and only life, that makes life infinitely more precious to me, and it makes it very important to me that I don’t waste it.

 

[Pieman333272]

What we know that we have is now, and humans decide that their purpose is now. If there is no afterlife, why would that make life pointless? Quite the contrary, because it is limited, it is valued. Why is it valued? Because the masses have determined it so, that they can enjoy what they know they do have, and it is only possible when society functions together. We decide what’s right and wrong.

I didn’t really follow your response 100%, but maybe I cleared some of it up. I’d be happy to post more if I understood better.

I was responding to a different point, but I think that some of the trouble with what you propose is how much suffering there is in life - atheists have a problem of evil too, you know.

 

[Betterave]

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

I’d maybe think about becoming a Buddhist? Hard to say, really.

What about you?

 

[Betterave]

I like to answer this argument with an analogy.

In other words, you like to miss the point of the argument.

I own a car. It has value to me – I care about what happens to it, and I take actions to preserve it, keep it looking good, and keep it running well. Eventually, one day, my car will no longer be functional, and then it will go to a scrap heap, and then eventually it will go back to the elements that it was made of. It will one day literally be gone…there will be nothing we can point to and say “that was the car.”

But the fact that the car won’t last forever doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value to me right here and now. The fact that it won’t last forever doesn’t mean that I don’t want to take action to keep it up right now.

It’s the same with our lives. The fact that life isn’t going to last forever doesn’t change the fact that I care about my life right now and that I take actions to improve my life and the lives of those around me right now.

Right. So as Eclogue suggested, if you like sugar and sexual pleasure, devote your life to that; or if you like cars, to that; or if you like the ‘aryan’ race and think they should rule the world, to that; if you like whales and trees and want to save them, to that; if you like money and think you can make some by killing whales and trees, to that. Regardless of whether any of it lasts forever, any of it is just as valuable as any of the rest of it, as long as someone happens to value it, and there is no big picture. Isn’t that what you’re saying?

In fact, if this is the one and only life, that makes life infinitely more precious to me, and it makes it very important to me that I don’t waste it.

That makes no sense, it seems, even if it makes you feel good to say it.

 

[Pieman333272]

I like to answer this argument with an analogy.

I own a car. It has value to me – I care about what happens to it, and I take actions to preserve it, keep it looking good, and keep it running well. Eventually, one day, my car will no longer be functional, and then it will go to a scrap heap, and then eventually it will go back to the elements that it was made of. It will one day literally be gone…there will be nothing we can point to and say “that was the car.”

But the fact that the car won’t last forever doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value to me right here and now. The fact that it won’t last forever doesn’t mean that I don’t want to take action to keep it up right now.

It’s the same with our lives. The fact that life isn’t going to last forever doesn’t change the fact that I care about my life right now and that I take actions to improve my life and the lives of those around me right now.

What if your car is badly beaten, has a gas leak, is from the 1970’s, randomly catches fire, has an unreliable steering wheel, and a dysfunctional left blinker? Do you care about it then, or are you ready for a new one, knowing it has no objective, spiritual purpose?

In fact, if this is the one and only life, that makes life infinitely more precious to me, and it makes it very important to me that I don’t waste it.

So, since this is our one life and we should enjoy it and make it precious (even though we will forget it all when we stop existing), why shouldn’t a pedophile capture, rape, torture, and kill little girls?

 

[Betterave]

What if your car is badly beaten, has a gas leak, is from the 1970’s, randomly catches fire, has an unreliable steering wheel, and a dysfunctional left blinker? Do you care about it then, or are you ready for a new one, knowing it has no objective, spiritual purpose?

Obviously he’d be ready for a new one, no? What point are you trying to make?