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

[warpspeedpetey]

Again, just saying that some people don’t need to believe in God to know right from wrong.

Without G-d there is no right or wrong for you to know. There is only your opinion of right and wrong.

My statement about compassion that warpspeedpetey seems to strongly disagree with was a response to quotes like this:

. The Golden Rule would not just up and disappear from Catmando’s heart.
-----------------------------------------The golden rule is just as much an opinion as any other subjective moral standard. Not everyone thinks like you do. Nor are they wrong or crazy to think differently than you.

Warpspeedpetey - I don’t think the Nazis or slave owners or any other number of examples were showing compassion. I don’t know how people could be so uncompassionate. I doubt they were all atheists though.

In their opinion they were being compassionate, just. They thought they swere doing the right thing justas much as you do. If opinion is all it takes to set a moral standard, then they were just as justified in their genocides as you are in the golden rule. And yes, official and unofficial atheist regimes murdered more than 100 million people in just the last century. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. You are inadvertently promoting one of the most dangerous, evil ideas that has ever been thrust upon the earth. That man can decide right and wrong all by himself. The entire history of the relationship between G-d and His people is a rejection of that very thing. From Lucifer’s fall to Adams. They are all the result of people deciding they knew better than G-d simply because they didn’t understand G-ds moral decisions, and couldn’t accept that G-d knew better than them or the rules that result from that.

---

If you have compassion, and use it regularly, you probably will be an okay person and probably will not have a detrimental effect on society. If you’re only good for the sake of your own salvation, then I would not call that compassion. Maybe the world is filled with more uncompassionate but God-fearing people than I realized.

Why do you keep talking about compassion? Appeals to emotions don’t make arguments. Bare logic does. It is only your opinion that compassion is important to morality. For most of us that is G-ds role. In this case the historical and logical facts, all go against your position.

[/QUOTE]

 

[MartinThinking]

If it was proven that a God did not exist, it should not make a difference in a sense.as it is an entirely irrational question relative to past, present and hopefully future humanity.

To explain:

Since no-one can lay God out on the table for another, we know that the idea whether it is a reality in ones life as my own or avoided, challenged, rejected…one does not know exactly what one is in surmise of. Not exactly …no one can visualize, grasp, hold with absolute clarity the nature of God. One would obviously be God Himself.

“To know me is to know The Father”

.How can we dismiss the reality of sacrifice within this
understanding relative to God The Father. How do we know for certain, The Love , unity
growth, sacrifice within man is not collectively…the accumulation in the recapture of
the Sacrifice Within Creation… of God Himself. Is there proof which would belie this possibility…or something odd to our comprehension. which gives adequate regard for the quote? The quote is not in appropriate attention without the full consideration of meaning relative to mans full ability. (opinion) No wild theory happening here, although no wild
limitations either.

This question in of itself is interesting. Interesting as an Atheist well knows the philosophy of the theist to primarily promote, God…God is Love.

If God is love, why would there be a suggestion to negate all the Love in the world in a premise to answer a question? Therefore since one cannot negate all the love in the past , present and future world…the question becomes rather…“childish” does it not…?

 

[tonyrey]

If it was proven that a God did not exist, it should not make a difference in a sense.as it is an entirely irrational question relative to past, present and hopefully future humanity.

To explain:

Since no-one can lay God out on the table for another, we know that the idea whether it is a reality in ones life as my own or avoided, challenged, rejected…one does not know exactly what one is in surmise of. Not exactly …no one can visualize, grasp, hold with absolute clarity the nature of God. One would obviously be God Himself.

“To know me is to know The Father”

.How can we dismiss the reality of sacrifice within this
understanding relative to God The Father. How do we know for certain, The Love , unity
growth, sacrifice within man is not collectively…the accumulation in the recapture of
the Sacrifice Within Creation… of God Himself. Is there proof which would belie this possibility…or something odd to our comprehension. which gives adequate regard for the quote? The quote is not in appropriate attention without the full consideration of meaning relative to mans full ability. (opinion) No wild theory happening here, although no wild
limitations either.

This question in of itself is interesting. Interesting as an Atheist well knows the philosophy of the theist to primarily promote, God…God is Love.

If God is love, why would there be a suggestion to negate all the Love in the world in a premise to answer a question? Therefore since one cannot negate all the love in the past , present and future world…the question becomes rather…“childish” does it not…?

Welcome to the forum, Martin! You are right. The question presupposes a “proof” is possible but if we deny it is possible the onus is on the questioner to prove that it is - **and **provide it. Until a proof is forthcoming there are far more important questions which deserve our attention…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Mystic banana (cool name btw), thanks, really interesting post, loads to reply to. I fear my reply may be rather long, hopefully you’ll have patience with me.

Once I am dead it won’t make any difference to me, because there will be no “me” to do any valuing. “I” won’t be able to value something any more than a rock can. That does not mean that what I value now doesn’t matter, it just means that it is not permanent. To me value is subjective, which makes sense if valuing something occurs in a mind…*

Incidentally I’m going to answer all your questions from my perspective since I think this is what you are asking about. I know you may and probably do have a different perspective. So I thought I’d preface with this paragraph rather than writing “from my point of view” at the start of each.

Fair enough, but I have to say, if you believed there was an actual value to things, you would not think you would believe that value *can * be subjective, in real terms. For example, I can decide money doesn’t mean anything to me, but I would suffer certain hardship without it, or I could believe that taking Cocaine is very important to my future happiness, but whether it is or not is not neccesarily dependent on my ability to discern that

Valuing something doesn’t change what it is. So no, simply valuing a feather as worth a million pounds to you would not transform it into a million pounds, or make it worth a million pounds to other people.*

However, I must disagree with regards to your last sentence. If I value something (to whatever measure of it’s worth), then that is it’s value to me. What else are you doing in valuing something. You cannot say “I value this feather at a million pounds but it doesn’t have that value to me.”. That sentence makes no sense. If you value something it has value to you. If you don’t value it, it has no value to you.

If you said that it doesn’t mean that the value I place on something is automatically the same as the value others place on it then I’d agree (you only need to consider items of sentimental value to see this demonstrated).*

I have valued things very highly, only to find that they had little value to me when I had them. Has this never happened to you? Even sentimentality itself can often be found to be misattached

The value of your wealth to other people will be quite high probably. However, once you are dead you won’t be able do do any valuing so “you” won’t value it at all. For that matter “you” won’t be.

Agreed, once I’m dead I will no longer value anything. “I” will no longer exist to do any valuing. That does not mean that I cannot value something while I’m alive.*

But our experience of time and personal perspective are intimately tied to who and what we are as people. If “I” was going to live for eternity (either in heaven or hell), I would either have to become something different from what I know of or can imagine as me (so I would not be “me” in any way that I can conceive) or I suspect, eventually go bonkers.*

Well, I’m probably not the me I percieved myself to be when I was 15, but it doesn’t mean that I’m not still me. How do you define “you”?

I’d say our experience of time has a general habit of being fairly similar, otherwise the world would be quite confusing… we’d never manage to succeed in arranged meetings, otherwise!

Afraid I don’t think I’m following you here, how does subjective measurement of value make a farce of morality?*

If we insist that value is subjective, then we are saying that there is no such thing that we have to agree on, in effect, and despite pretense, there would be no imperative to do anything with respect to others, other than, perhaps, a sentimental attachment to the idea of doing such. There would be nothing to stop anyone deciding that each other had no value at all, for example, and nothing wrong with making your neighbour into smoked sandwiches, for example

Peoples conception of value and indeed morality has been continuously changing throughout the ages. People once mostly thought confession under torture and burning at the stake, crucifixion, slavery etc (to name a few) were morally acceptable. People now mostly don’t. Peoples views on morality even change during their own lives, through changes of perspective, gaining understanding of others or equally through negative experience.

I guess you could argue that there is a set of “objective” moral standards, created by God which never change. But in practice human morality (to which you, me and everyone else contribute incidentally) does change from person to person and through time (which as far as I can see means it is subjective). That doesn’t mean that morality is a farce. You appear to be writing off all human applications of morality.

I think the practice of morality may change, and the basis of it does also, but I think without reasonable value, it becomes a farce

As for what standards can regulate it…[edit - word count restriction]…Anyway I’ve rambled a bit so I’ll leave it there for now. Kind regards

OK - can you explain why, from an atheistic standpoint, it matters that someone suffered in Timbuktoo, yesterday? And why, according to your values, suffering should be stopped?

 

[praxising]

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.

And it’s also possible he was right.

 

[praxising]

You can read about the 10 principals if you are so inclined or i can elaborate if you want

but as i said i don’t totally follow a single faith I believe greatly in karma -
I believe in right action as well -
(respect tolerance self control honesty compassion generosity) -

I’d like to suggest something to you as one who has been down a similar road. Try combining what you have taken from the various belief systems and combining it with some classic Christian contemplation, not eastern meditation. Someday, I mean, not like “you should run out and do this…” Find a Catholic Church with 24 hour Adoration or if the hours fit, just open during the day and use that quiet space for your practice. Most Catholic Churches are really great for this, good feng shui, positive energy space.

You just clear your mind and list toward the Light. 30 minutes. I think it’d be every interesting for you if you did it regularly for a while.

 

[praxising]

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 was trying to read through the entire thread to see if anyone said what I am going to say, in which case, I wouldn’t, but I gave up midway, and decided y’all can just ignore if you like.

This question is asked, often repeatedly, on every forum I have ever been on where there is theological discussion. Usually it’s asked by an Atheist of theists, or the other way 'round, but not both at once.

There are two problems with the question, IMO, the first is that the bedrock concept is not defined: God. What is it exactly that is being proved or disproved? Old Guy in the Sky? Mystical Force of Love? Jesus Christ alive and well on the Other Side? We can’t even agree on the nature of God: Cosmic Avenger? Peaceful Love-giver? Architect of every moment and Planner of every second? Laissez faire Overseer?

So, I’ve always thought the first question is “what do you believe?” What is it, exactly, that an atheist believes does not exist? What is it exactly that a theist believes does? The reason those questions must come first, to me, is that for some, the supposition in the question is impossible: that is - no one and nothing could ever prove to me that life is not Eternal, that people on that Other Side don’t have my best interests at heart, that the Divine Love does not intervene in Time at Will and regardless of Newtonian physics, unless, (here’s the exception) I wake up in a mental hospital tomorrow and find out my entire life and all my experiences were hallucinations.

But that will only prove to me that I didn’t exist. Then I’d have to start reaching for God all over again.

 

[Betterave]

Agreed, it doesn’t follow from that. However, the point of the example was to demonstrate me making a value judgement in the absense of “objective value” to show how that works ie accepting that both your own and other peoples judgement of what is valuable is valid.

Your example only showed you making a value judgment without explicitly adverting to a concept of ‘objective value’ - but I don’t think anyone would deny that that is possible. What I think is impossible is actually making a value judgment without making implicit reference to the concept of ‘objective value’ (i.e., I deny that you have ‘demonstrated’ yourself making a value judgment in the pure ‘absence’ of objective value).

I agree I am fallible, including in my perspective but again the example was deliberately intended only to demonstrate judgement of value in the absense of objective value. Objective value was deliberately excluded from the example (by use of my perspective) to avoid needing to refer to it. Otherwise the example would have failed.

I think, however, that your appeal to perspectivism in fact effectively precludes you from saying anything objective about ‘objective value,’ including making the statement “there is no objective value informing my subjective judgment of value.” My point is that you have assumed a perspective from which you claim not to see ‘objective value’; but your assumption of such a perspective is manifestly subjective and therefore not probative of (or evidential with respect to) any objective statement about ‘objective value’ (including, obviously, the one you have tried to make).

If necessary I’ll get back to addressing your objections to Rahner after you return from your trip. All the best.

 

[Betterave]

The reason those questions must come first, to me, is that for some, the supposition in the question is impossible: that is - no one and nothing could ever prove to me that life is not Eternal, that people on that Other Side don’t have my best interests at heart, that the Divine Love does not intervene in Time at Will and regardless of Newtonian physics, unless, (here’s the exception) I wake up in a mental hospital tomorrow and find out my entire life and all my experiences were hallucinations.

So do you think that does/should prevent one from answering the counter-factually posed question: What would you do if it were proved to your satisfaction…?

 

[praxising]

I disagree. People’s opinions count. I follow the Golden Rule just as well as the next guy. I don’t believe in God and I never have and I’m a decent enough person. My morality is for the most part, the result of my parents’ teachings.

Looks like what really happened was: you got Pugged!!!

My parents don’t believe in God either so it’s not like God had a “once-removed” kind of impact on my morality. Therefore, God is not necessary to being a good person.

You don’t really know that. I don’t want to sound like I’m dismissing you or your experience, I’m just saying that what we do or do not believe is pretty much irrelevant to what is. Your sense of compassion, right/wrong. whatever, is the standard response of a person in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

If you believe in Love, compassion, forgiveness, respect for others, you do believe in, well, what I call God. For a person like myself, we know God is the essential and ineluctable Mystery, Unknowable while intimately known.

I’m sorry if this offends you, atheists often get offended when I say this stuff. It’s not meant to be. I’m not trying to convert you. I’m just saying, maybe there’s more to things - you know, pugs are completely worthless. They don’t hunt, can’t protect you and have so many issues that need constant attention. They were only bred to do one thing: love humans. Abusing a pug is a mortal sin.

So we give them all this attention and pay the vet bills and sometimes have to give them special diets and laser their nasal passages and, well, really, a high maintenance being of no practical worth. But they give us back something ineffable, something worth so much more than what we give them just by snort-snoring in our laps through our favorite TV show and settling their chins into our arms.

It’s a Mystery. But it’s real.

 

[praxising]

So do you think that does/should prevent one from answering the counter-factually posed question: What would you do if it were proved to your satisfaction…?

I’m telling you the premise is impossible as it cannot be proved to my satisfaction. It would be like you having it proved to your satisfaction that there is no such thing as gravity and never was.

 

[samiam1611]

Looks like what really happened was: you got Pugged!!!

OMG that’s soooo weird! In that post, I wrote a whole long paragraph about how pugs can be a moral compass but I was on ambien when I wrote it so I deleted it in case it was dumb. I’ll sum it up though - basically, y’all say WWJD and I think this is a great motto for treating people with kindness and respect. If you ever need a secular compass though, my motto is, how would I treat this person if they were a pug!!! Seriously, it works. I swear, only the lowest of the low could be mean to a pug. Picture a cute little smushy face on the next person that pisses you off, and your heart will instantly soften. You can treat everyone with the kindness and compassion that Jesus did without actually thinking about Jesus!

I’m just saying, maybe there’s more to things - you know, pugs are completely worthless. They don’t hunt, can’t protect you and have so many issues that need constant attention.

Well I wouldn’t say worthless, but they certainly are useless when it comes to things that many other dogs are good for.

They were only bred to do one thing: love humans.

Yep! Have you ever heard the saying, “Pugs are proof God has a sense of humor.” ? I changed the quote to “Pugs are proof Mother Nature has a sense of humor.” But then I realized that’s just another name for a God-like Being which I also don’t believe in. So I changed it again, this time to “Pugs are proof the Chinese have a sense of humor.” Hehehe

But they give us back something ineffable, something worth so much more than what we give them just by snort-snoring in our laps through our favorite TV show and **settling their chins **into our arms.

Omg does yours do that too? My dearly departed (pictured below) would rest her chin anywhere - a stranger’s foot, my head, my laptop…

 

[Betterave]

I’m telling you the premise is impossible as it cannot be proved to my satisfaction.

That’s irrelevant, isn’t it? The question is already explicitly posed as dealing with a counterfactual situation…

It would be like you having it proved to your satisfaction that there is no such thing as gravity and never was.

Sure… so what?

 

[Peepers]

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 imagine the proof that God does exist (though that proof has yet to be given in modern times). Indeed, every argument to date relying on logic alone (which I am aware of) has been disproved by logical means. I can imagine how some claims made about God could be shown to be false (or true). I don’t see how one could prove the non-existence of something which is claimed to be supernatural. The premise of the question is flawed.

 

[praxising]

Picture a cute little smushy face on the next person that pisses you off, and your heart will instantly soften. You can treat everyone with the kindness and compassion that Jesus did without actually thinking about Jesus!

You know Catholics pray at statues. Protestants thinks this is pretty horrible usually, or at least foolish, but, we aren’t praying to a statue, it’s just that the image represents the true person we are praying to. Pugs were created by us, with one purpose to love us. You say you picture the face of your pug, or maybe any pug, on a person and you are not thinking about Jesus. But Jesus of Nazareth was created to Love us. So in a way, maybe you kind of are.

See, I personally believe we all, genetically actually, have the ability to directly sense that which I call God: the ultimate Good, Love with Intent. The way I see it, your Pug image is like a statue of Jesus, a stand-in representation of Love.

Yep! Have you ever heard the saying, “Pugs are proof God has a sense of humor.” ? I changed the quote to “Pugs are proof Mother Nature has a sense of humor.” But then I realized that’s just another name for a God-like Being which I also don’t believe in. So I changed it again, this time to “Pugs are proof the Chinese have a sense of humor.” Hehehe

Well, I think “Mother Nature” is just a symbol for all the processes and things that work together that comprise our physical Universe. Like Uncle Sam represents our vast and messy government system. I think you can be safe in atheism and still say “Mother Nature” if you want to. Or not. (I was just thinking maybe you’re a “scrupulous atheist!” )

Omg does yours do that too? My dearly departed (pictured below) would rest her chin anywhere - a stranger’s foot, my head, my laptop…

It’s a pug thing! My sincere condolences on the loss of your dearly beloved.

Now I’ll tell you something, some here might believe it is opposition to Catholic teaching but several priests have explained to me it’s not and if it was, I’d still know this is true: you’ll see her (him?) again when you pass. I know you don’t believe that, being atheist and all, but maybe you could let that be your secret apostasy. Or, maybe just decide quantum physics is right and there are multi-universes and your energy/consciousness goes to the next one or something. I just know it’s true, that’s all.

Peace be with you.

 

[PRmerger]

I can imagine the proof that God does exist (though that proof has yet to be given in modern times). Indeed, every argument to date relying on logic alone (which I am aware of) has been disproved by logical means. I can imagine how some claims made about God could be shown to be false (or true). I don’t see how one could prove the non-existence of something which is claimed to be supernatural. The premise of the question is flawed.

What about these 20 Arguments for the Existence of God?

Taken in isolation, perhaps they are not convincing, but as a whole, yes?

 

[Nelka]

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

It could never be proven that God does not exist.
I could never be satisfied with any “proof” that God doesn’t exist.

God exists.
Whatever people say to me or show me will never change this or my feelings.

 

[Peepers]

What about these 20 Arguments for the Existence of God?

Taken in isolation, perhaps they are not convincing, but as a whole, yes?

I am a scientist with a solid mathematics background. Logic is one of those funny things which is not as defined as some would like to believe. The developments in mathematics in the past 100 years make that clear. I am very happy for anyone who can come to believe that God exists, through logic alone. My personal path has been to reject the idea on logical grounds (and out of anger), and then once much of the anger was healed, I could accept the possibility that God exists. From there, it was the influence of faith which brought me along. I believe that “intelligence” works on more than one axis. It is possible to know things which are not rational, but yet are perfectly real. I have not gone through the mental gymnastics lately to go through the various “proofs” on both sides of the argument, because they just wouldn’t serve to deepen my faith, nor to change the fact of my belief.

Thank you for the link, though. I will take a look at it.

 

[samiam1611]

It could never be proven that God does not exist.
I could never be satisfied with any “proof” that God doesn’t exist.

God exists.
Whatever people say to me or show me will never change this or my feelings.

You can’t pretend even for a second? My first thought is to say, why bother replying this thread then?
My second thought is, just for fun, what would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that your definition of God was wrong? What if it were proven that Hinduism was right, for example. Could you at least pretend for a second something like that? Or Wicca - a goddess and a god. whatever. Surely you can see that some claims in Christianity are falsifiable in a hypothetical universe. What if Christianity, but not God, was disproved?(Say, some new archeological evidence popped up from Jesus’s time disproving His divinity. What if we found his, Mary’s, and Joseph’s bodies, and ran DNA tests on them and found out that Jesus was actually the son of Joseph) What would you do then?

Just play along.

 

[praxising]

It is possible to know things which are not rational, but yet are perfectly real…

I call it the “platypus effect.” All the science of the day proved that what the sailors said they saw could not exist. But they knew.

Look at this, Mr Spock would be appalled: