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

[Betterave]

Things that are implausible to me may not be to you if you do not require scientific explanation. But if we can both agree that a given event is of a supernatural nature, I hope you also agree that the validity of that event is implausible. Not impossible ok? Implausible. Questionable. Doubtful.

I don’t agree that supernatural events are ipso facto implausible events. On the other hand, I will agree that you will find them implausible, but only because you have *decided *to do so, not because you are a priori, prima facie justified in doing so.

 

[samiam1611]

The thread is about a hypothetical: “What would you do if it were proven…?” I think this little digression is relevant because some people have replied: “It has been proven…!” The latter claim, however, is questionable. But since we might not recognize that it is questionable, this may have implications for how we should treat the hypothetical question. If we see that subjective certainty about God/Catholicism crumbles when subjected to objective analysis, then the “if it were proven” of the original question becomes something with regard to which we might need to look askance. So I see nothing wrong with you picking out a certain Catholic teaching and saying what grounds your certainty that it is wrong. (cathoichelp seems to have changed her mind about undertaking this task.) Then we can attempt to examine what is *really *the case, beyond the fact of your subjective convictions.

Could you clarify that in regards to the sort of subject matter you would like me to comment on? For instance, with the birth control thing, it’s more a matter of disagreement, not so much flaw, so I shouldn’t choose that as my thing. In the sense that I think if someone wants to do NFP, wants to be open to life, that is perfectly fine with me, I just don’t think ABC should be a sin. I kind of just answered my own question but could you confirm that that would not really quite fit in with the whole objective point of this? In which case, I will have a harder time avoiding the straw man thing bc I know far more on the Catholic teachings of NFP/ABC/marriage than any other subject (of Catholicism). But if you can give me some leeway on the um, accuracy, of my understanding of the subject I choose, I can come up with something quicker. Otherwise, you win. I can’t speak with any amount of certainty on other subjects of Catholic teachings that I find flawed.
Cathoichelp, honestquestions, anyone, you got any suggestions?

 

[honestquestions]

Your changes make this a non-sequitir. You might as well have replaced the word G-d with “blue”, or “chair”, or “soliloquy”.

We have a winner! Exactly. The word change shows how illogical the argument is.

What did I tell you about quoting? Those are not my words, it is dishonest to quote them in such a way as to make it appear as though those are my words.

I showed you (again) how changing one word makes your argument illogical. Why does your word get special treatment?

Why is it your preference that you leave out the ‘o’ in god?

 

[honestquestions]

He is not referring to any gap in scientific knowledge, he is referring to a basic logical flaw in the claim. A=notA, Some-thing=No-thing

Please explain

 

[honestquestions]

Like what? Darwinism? Still a hypothesis. What else can you name that Catholics “once had as beliefs…”?

Have a read about the Vatican’s Academy of Sciences before you go sprouting non-sensical anti-Catholic gibberish. Like the article says, science can’t tell you what’s right or wrong.

By Darwinism you don’t mean evolution right? Obviously it’s not a hypothesis, so I’m guessing you’re not referring to evolution.

Humans decide what’s right and wrong - it’s pretty simple. Obviously that’s why even you don’t stone an unruly child as it says in the bible.

Every intricate ‘design’ was thought to be the work of God, but now we know how and why it is that way.

 

[honestquestions]

Examples, please? And as for God’s creation and ‘scientific natural explanations’, I fail to see any way they cannot co-exist. You’re acting as though a theory like ‘evolution’ somehow cancels out the idea of God. . .and it doesn’t. What if God USED His creation and the WAY He used it was through what some call ‘evolution?’ (Evolution, itself, is not completely understood either and is still theoretical.)

Because when it comes right down to it, my ‘scientist’ friend, ‘something’ doesn’t come from ‘nothing.’ If it all started with the ‘big bang’, where did the matter for that originate anyway? Why not God?

It is a good thing that the Catholic church has conceded evolution and at least said but God did it. You are head of the pack of evangelicals who still question evolution.

I’m not a scientist. I cannot explain where the matter originated. You can’t claim God because you don’t have the proper evidence to do so. There were many mysteries at one time until science gave an explanation. The argument from ignorance is that because currently we do not have an explanation, that therefore God must of done it. Sure, perhaps a God did it, but at this time we are unjustified in that belief.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is a good thing that the Catholic church has conceded evolution and at least said but God did it. You are head of the pack of evangelicals who still question evolution.

I’m not a scientist. I cannot explain where the matter originated. You can’t claim God because you don’t have the proper evidence to do so. There were many mysteries at one time until science gave an explanation. The argument from ignorance is that because currently we do not have an explanation, that therefore God must of done it. Sure, perhaps a God did it, but at this time we are unjustified in that belief.

You’re not a scientist, but scientists themselves can’t explain where the matter originated. . .because it is ‘beyond’ science, so to speak. Why can I not claim “God”, BTW? It is not an argument from ignorance, it’s a legitimate point of view. Your claim seems to be that “All” matters related to “God” are attributable to ‘science’ instead but you still can’t claim that science has all the answers. It doesn’t. Until you can come up with absolute proof that God is not POSSIBLY a cause of the origination of matter (and you can’t) it is as reasonable a theory as any other. Something had to ‘create’ the matter since matter cannot create itself (science is VERY clear on that). . .some ‘thing’ or some ‘one’.

 

[honestquestions]

scientists themselves can’t explain where the matter originated. . .because it is ‘beyond’ science, so to speak.

Scientists themselves in 1858 couldn’t explain the complexity of everything . . .because it was ‘beyond’ science, so to speak.

Why can I not claim “God”, BTW? It is not an argument from ignorance, it’s a legitimate point of view.

I ironically happen to also have a legitimate point of view that there is a mystical leprechaun which I claim and you must believe in it otherwise you will burn forever. Do you believe me? Why or why not?

…but you still can’t claim that science has all the answers. It doesn’t.

Of course it doesn’t. As I have already shown, as time progresses, we learn more and more. So everything it can’t currently answer, we therefore attribute to a God which answers the unknowable so we can feel better?

Until you can come up with absolute proof that God is not POSSIBLY a cause of the origination of matter (and you can’t) it is as reasonable a theory as any other.

Until you can come up with absolute proof that the mystical leprechaun is not POSSIBLY a cause of the origination of matter (and you can’t) it is as reasonable a theory as any other.

You didn’t take the Catholics apologetic course did you? I think even most Catholics are kind of ducking their heads now at your comment - even they know not to make that argument which has been around for hundreds of years.

Something had to ‘create’ the matter since matter cannot create itself (science is VERY clear on that). . .some ‘thing’ or some ‘one’.

You’re probably correct. Something or Someone. We don’t know at this point. Congratulations on posing the question as ‘how’ which opens up all possibilities rather than saying ‘who’ which is already a presupposition.

 

[John21652]

By Darwinism you don’t mean evolution right? Obviously it’s not a hypothesis, so I’m guessing you’re not referring to evolution.

Darwinismn.
A theory of biological evolution
Darwinism,Also called Darwinian theory.
of EvolutionDarwin’s Theory.
Evolutionary TheoryUCLA - “…contemporary evolutionary theory…”

After you do enough reading to fully understand this topic, you can come back and explain why you would be disengenuous enough to attempt to disassociate Darwinism from Evolutionary Theory in your sarcastic first sentence.

Humans decide what’s right and wrong - it’s pretty simple. Obviously that’s why even you don’t stone an unruly child as it says in the bible.

My statement was that science can’t tell us what is right and wrong. Your attempt at dodging the question makes you look rather silly. The Bible passage you refer to doesn not mention stoning a child. You also conveniently forget the mitigating influence of Jesus Christ and what Christianity is. You have a lot of ignorance and bias to overcome.

Every intricate ‘design’ was thought to be the work of God, but now we know how and why it is that way.

Oh, is that so? Now please explain who is the “we” that knows how the genetic information gets into the DNA, or can explain what gravity is and where it comes from. Explain Fibonacci numbers! Oh, you haven’t heard of them…

 

[atheistgirl]

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

I would have to believe in that God or I would be denying the evidence. But I’d probably have more questions such as what kind of God is it, what does it want of me, what does it mean for me after I die, if anything, does this God care about me, or is it an impersonal God, does this God help me, or does it not interfer in day to day life. Lots of questions like that.

Sarah x

 

[samiam1611]

You’re not a scientist, but scientists themselves can’t explain where the matter originated. . .because it is ‘beyond’ science, so to speak. Why can I not claim “God”, BTW? It is not an argument from ignorance, it’s a legitimate point of view. Your claim seems to be that “All” matters related to “God” are attributable to ‘science’ instead but you still can’t claim that science has all the answers. It doesn’t. Until you can come up with absolute proof that God is not POSSIBLY a cause of the origination of matter (and you can’t) it is as reasonable a theory as any other. Something had to ‘create’ the matter since matter cannot create itself (science is VERY clear on that). . .some ‘thing’ or some ‘one’.

We’ve got an atheism of the gaps/god of the gaps thing going on here. The way I see it, there are some people who can’t accept the fact that some things are unexplainable by scientific method, so the only way to fill in the gaps is to make something up/believe the made up things. Then there are some people who either have faith that science will answer it eventually, so don’t believe the made up things or else can just accept the fact that we may never know the answers to some questions, and don’t feel the need to have those answers.
I can understand the desire/need to know some of the things that are currently unknown or uncertain. But for me, those things are either unknowable or will eventually be known.
I think belief in god and all that stuff is just wishful thinking, except that people have convinced themselves of it to the point that they do not see it as such. One of the best examples of this is the possibility of an afterlife. How anyone could call that fact, not wishful thinking, is beyond me. I mean depending on one’s beliefs, it’s dreaded, not wishful, but you know what I mean, most versions of an afterlife are pleasant. For instance, on some other thread that asked if atheists can go to heaven, I said "I think I’m just going to die and that’s it. Nothingness awaits me. :crossing fingers: " and someone else said “For me, that would be a very dismal thought. I’m sorry you feel that way.” That’s just one’s person response of course, but that’s a pretty common sentiment is it not? that ceasing to exist is a really sad thought? So to avoid the sadness that comes from knowing that life as they know it will inevitably end, they come up with/buy into these grand little stories to make themselves feel better. In other words, wishful thinking.
I know there are other reasons people believe in God/are religious, but I think that’s a common one.

 

[honestquestions]

After you do enough reading to fully understand this topic, you can come back and explain why you would be disengenuous enough to attempt to disassociate Darwinism from Evolutionary Theory in your sarcastic first sentence.

Survival of the fittest does not assume ‘social darwanism.’

My statement was that science can’t tell us what is right and wrong. Your attempt at dodging the question makes you look rather silly. The Bible passage you refer to doesn not mention stoning a child. You also conveniently forget the mitigating influence of Jesus Christ and what Christianity is. You have a lot of ignorance and bias to overcome.

If I agree that science can’t tell us right from wrong, that does not assume that the only other option is the bible. (false dichotomy) So for now, I’ll forget the stoning an unruly child passage.

Oh, is that so? Now please explain who is the “we” that knows how the genetic information gets into the DNA, or can explain what gravity is and where it comes from. Explain Fibonacci numbers! Oh, you haven’t heard of them…

You know what I meant. People initially thought that God went poof and there were humans, which attempted to explain the complexity of our bodies. Yes, we can come up with tough questions all day - I guess you’re trying to corner me into saying I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I can’t fathom how, therefore there must be a God.

 

[honestquestions]

I would have to believe in that God or I would be denying the evidence. But I’d probably have more questions such as what kind of God is it, what does it want of me, what does it mean for me after I die, if anything, does this God care about me, or is it an impersonal God, does this God help me, or does it not interfer in day to day life. Lots of questions like that.

Sarah x

Agreed.

 

[samiam1611]

I would have to believe in that God or I would be denying the evidence. But I’d probably have more questions such as what kind of God is it, what does it want of me, what does it mean for me after I die, if anything, does this God care about me, or is it an impersonal God, does this God help me, or does it not interfer in day to day life. Lots of questions like that.

Sarah x

Agree too. I would need to know more before I changed anything about my behavior.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We’ve got an atheism of the gaps/god of the gaps thing going on here. The way I see it, there are some people who can’t accept the fact that some things are unexplainable by scientific method, so the only way to fill in the gaps is to make something up/believe the made up things. Then there are some people who either have faith that science will answer it eventually, so don’t believe the made up things or else can just accept the fact that we may never know the answers to some questions, and don’t feel the need to have those answers.
I can understand the desire/need to know some of the things that are currently unknown or uncertain. But for me, those things are either unknowable or will eventually be known.
I think belief in god and all that stuff is just wishful thinking, except that people have convinced themselves of it to the point that they do not see it as such. One of the best examples of this is the possibility of an afterlife. How anyone could call that fact, not wishful thinking, is beyond me. I mean depending on one’s beliefs, it’s dreaded, not wishful, but you know what I mean, most versions of an afterlife are pleasant. For instance, on some other thread that asked if atheists can go to heaven, I said "I think I’m just going to die and that’s it. Nothingness awaits me. :crossing fingers: " and someone else said “For me, that would be a very dismal thought. I’m sorry you feel that way.” That’s just one’s person response of course, but that’s a pretty common sentiment is it not? that ceasing to exist is a really sad thought? So to avoid the sadness that comes from knowing that life as they know it will inevitably end, they come up with/buy into these grand little stories to make themselves feel better. In other words, wishful thinking.
I know there are other reasons people believe in God/are religious, but I think that’s a common one.

Or the whole “God thing” could be really true.

If all we had was our own ‘thoughts or feelings’, even then wouldn’t you wonder, wait, if all the universe came from nothing, goes to nothing, how on earth did ‘something’ come about and if the universe is random and chaotic, how on earth did humanity manage to come up with the ideas of continuity and unity?

But it’s not all we had. We had a Person who actually came and made ‘sense’ and who even left us with another Person to help us to keep advancing on our way (and yes, part of that ‘advancing’ can include science. After all some of the most important scientists have been Catholics, Catholic clergy for that matter. . .<<cough, Mendel, cough>>)

Genghis Khan lived some 800 years ago. There’s nothing left of him physically today that we can be ‘sure’ of, but most people are sure he existed because of the writings of those who either experienced his ‘presence’ firsthand or managed to know somebody who did, and they kept on writing, and then other people read their writing and wrote, etc.

Plato and Aristotle lived centuries before Christ. Nobody actually exists today who can swear that they saw these people ‘write’ what is attributed to them. There could have been a bunch of drunken students who decided to make up a character called Plato and then see how much ‘evidence’ they could manufacture to support his ‘existence’. . .but virtually nobody would believe such a thing. They ‘trust’ that Plato who is spoken of by Aristotle and who wrote things himself existed.

But people don’t want to believe in Jesus the Christ. . .or in His followers or in their eyewitness accounts or in the whole story of how Christendom managed to leap from 11 men and one woman in an upper room in an occupied small town called Jerusalem into a faith which billions of people believe in today.

They’d rather consider everything ‘unproven’, random, chaotic, and doomed to ‘nothingness.’. . .

 

[honestquestions]

Or the whole “God thing” could be really true.

Or the whole “mystical leprechaun” could be really true. Are you going to respond to five points I debunked earlier?

There could have been a bunch of drunken students who decided to make up a character called Plato and then see how much ‘evidence’ they could manufacture to support his ‘existence’. . .but virtually nobody would believe such a thing. They ‘trust’ that Plato who is spoken of by Aristotle and who wrote things himself existed.

That very well could also be true. In terms of reasonable discussion, it is completely understood that back then there were philosophers and we generally take what is said likely to be true, unless it violates all known laws of physics in which we do have massive amounts of evidence for. If an oceanographer reports in a journal about new discoveries regarding marine life or the deep ocean floor, it is generally acceptable to believe it based on history of credibility and that these claims are always peer reviewed by other scientists. It’s not as if every single person must physically go to the ocean floor to witness for themselves. If someone tells me they went to a concert last week, I will generally believe them because we have many records that concerts do exists and people attend them all the time. When every known person to have died, stays dead, I generally will not believe a claim that someone managed to come back to life after three days. It’s all about what’s reasonable to believe.

 

[StevenFrancis]

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 am a “theist”, and by the grace of God it has already been proven to MY satisfaction that God DOES exist. The action I took upon the receipt of this grace was to amend my life of nearly 1/2 century of paganism and Buddhism, to a view of Catholic Christianity. To be fair, I was always open to God, and Christ. It just a long time for me find my way to the truth.

speaking for myself, anyway, I find this question to be unanswerable, because I don’t seem to possess the mechanism within myself to even imagine the experience of no God. In my darkest, coldest, most awful, detached, morbid, ugly hours of existence, I have never doubted at least that He exists. I didn’t come to fully worship or appreciate him, or begin to experience the joy of sacramental life in Christ until late in life, but seriously, even after reading all the propaganda that atheists can dig out, even in my pagan years…even when I was trying to convince myself intentionally of objectivism, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, so on and so forth. Even when I wanted that rubish, I am simply not hardwired to understand it. So, I’ve tested the existence of God to my full and complete satisfaction, and God has thankfully spared me from being able to imagine the state of being under which I could reasonably answer either of these questions, interesting as the propositions actually sound, and as fascinating as they have been to philosophers over the ages, I’m sure. I do really love Aristotle, and St. Thomas Aquinas, and I suppose, as much as I need to understand of philosophy has been found in them.

I’m going to back up and read the responses you’ve gathered here, and see how other people experience stuff. Just sharing a bit.

Peace, and blessings,

Steven

 

[StevenFrancis]

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.

These are excellent observations, and I thank you for your clairty of expression. I think the scriptures and tradition in fact support this view and suspiscion you have. You’ve certainly given me something else that I will take delight in researching in scripture in a more direct way. These lines just ring so true. Thanks,

Peace and blessings,

Steven

 

[samiam1611]

In terms of reasonable discussion, it is completely understood that back then there were philosophers and we generally take what is said likely to be true, unless it violates all known laws of physics in which we do have massive amounts of evidence for. If an oceanographer reports in a journal about new discoveries regarding marine life or the deep ocean floor, it is generally acceptable to believe it based on history of credibility and that these claims are always peer reviewed by other scientists. It’s not as if every single person must physically go to the ocean floor to witness for themselves. If someone tells me they went to a concert last week, I will generally believe them because we have many records that concerts do exists and people attend them all the time. When every known person to have died, stays dead, I generally will not believe a claim that someone managed to come back to life after three days. It’s all about what’s reasonable to believe.

Right right and right!!!

Betterave, I thought of something, a flaw in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Shoot, it’s not really that subjective/objective argument though. But it does have to do with the lack of logic and reason that the Church so consistently demonstrates. Here goes.

One belief that Catholics (among others) have that I think is utterly ridiculous is that Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without human seed.”
Here are some much more logical explanations for the events concerning his conception.

1. Mary had an affair so she lied
2. She was raped, and too ashamed to admit it
3. She got really drunk one night so she did not remember having sex. Or she could’ve been drugged.
4. She and Joseph were fooling around and he could not contain himself, and spilled his seed in that general area. In this case she really was a virgin, and perhaps was unaware that fooling around can lead to pregnancy.

We cannot say for certain what happened. All we can do is theorize. But why believe the most unlikely, outlandish, unbelievable theory? To give it a theistic spin, why forgo the sense, reason, and intellect God gave you to believe this far-fetched story when **perfectly legitimate alternative explanations **are readily available?

p.s. to anyone reading this: please don’t be offended, it is not my intention to attack your beliefs, and I hope you won’t think I am suggesting Mary was a liar or anything like that. I am not suggesting that any of those things are true or that your beliefs are false. I am explaining why** I** don’t understand why otherwise sane and reasonable people choose to believe a supernatural explanation over any number of natural ones.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We have a winner! Exactly. The word change shows how illogical the argument is…I showed you (again) how changing one word makes your argument illogical. Why does your word get special treatment?

You didn’t show me it was illogical, you made it illogical when you replaced words. It was fine before you messed it up. G-d is a logically necessary being, the universe is a collection of contingent beings. Feel free to Google it, I am not in the mood for to spend a lot of time explaining metaphysics. I have my hands full with the other thread. Plus that’s a subject big enough that needs its own thread.