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

[praxising]

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?

I can do that one. I know no one can unconvince me of what I know as fact, which is the God I can’t possibly define and the eternal nature of life, but I can see this as a remote, very stratospherically remote, possibility. We’d have to use time machine, but let’s pretend we can.

I’m fine with Jesus being the biological son of Joseph. It doesn’t change anything for me. It just means we’ve misunderstood the process by which God chose to come here. But what you want is to prove Jesus not-God. As in, not the 2nd person of the Trinity Who always existed. You want, I imagine, Jesus to be on a par with the Buddha or some other Holy Prophet. But to do that we have to erase a lot of historical occurrences, unless you have incidents of Buddha coming back and appearing to people after he passed. Maybe he did, I don’t know.

Jesus was different, that’s all I know. He was fully a human being. God manifests Himself in Time through us (and others ways, too). So, if we say Jesus was, in essence like any other, then we still have God manifesting Himself through an individual, but perfectly. Again, we may have misunderstood the process, but I don’t see how that really changes much.

Maybe I’m just not so good at this.

Okay, try this. We find out that the Incarnation, birth through Resurrection, was a hoax perpetrated by aliens as a social science experiment. Picture nerdy teen-aged alien trying to win at a science fair. He’s been keeping it up for 2000 years? They’ve been handing down the project from alien generation to alien generation, performing miracles, inspiring visionaries, impersonating dead people?

See, you have to erase history because we don’t believe what we believe because we can read it in a Book. We’ve seen the platypus. We’re stuck with Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

St. Paul answered this 2000 years ago: We would be the most pitiable of all people, then. (See 1 Cor 15:19)

 

[atheistgirl]

St. Paul answered this 2000 years ago: We would be the most pitiable of all people, then. (See 1 Cor 15:19)

Why would we be pitiable?

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

Why would we be pitiable?

Sarah x

Because we were deceived.

 

[Candide_West]

Hi there, so I am the original poster of the quote from another forum…

Hi Julia, nice to meet you. Firstly I should say that I don’t have any formal education in philosophy or theology, part or the reason I’ve joined this forum is as part of the education in these subjects which I’m trying to give myself at the moment, so I hope you’ll forgive my lack of reading etc.*

I am not sure I understand how you can say that you disagree with Rahner based on the text I wrote. *In order to truly say that you disagree, you would need to read Rahner, comprehend what he is saying and then say you do not agree…

To be clear, you are correct, I haven’t read Rahner,*so all I can comment on is that which Betterave extracted from your other post. That is what I sought to do in my last post. Rahner may well be right at least in some things, but I don’t agree with what was written. I did my best to be explicit in my reasons for disagreeing. If I have misunderstood or missed the point the by all means correct me…

As I said at the end my last post, perhaps I don’t understand what the author is aiming at (quite likely given that I don’t know the context). But I can only reply to what has been written.*

The simple fact that you said that levitation, etc is not something you have experienced but can comprehend, is a clear sign that you do not understand Rahner. *Rahner’s theory is that we have a concrete awareness of the world around us and a transcendental awareness as well. *The concrete awareness is based on our experiences - this is how animals see…

I think whether I agree with this depends a lot on how you define “transcendental awareness” if it refers to the capability to carry out abstract reasoning etc then fair enough.*

If transcendental refers instead to spiritual life then I’m afraid I would see this as assuming the conclusion. Because you are starting from the position that people have a soul and a spiritual life. Which (if you use this the way most people do) effectively requires the existence of some kind of God.

I don’t believe in these things so we don’t have a common starting point for this discussion. So for the moment I’ll assume it refers to the human capability for abstract reasoning since that seems to fit quite well generally.

The transcendental dimension is available to us and it is here that we encounter God…In basic philosophy, this is what enables humanity to surpass animals by asking questions about our world of immediacy in order to find meaning, and then to questions those findings in order to find Truth and then to question those findings in order to find Love.

Again, the key question is how you define transcendental awareness. If you are using it to refer to the part of the mind that enables us to carry out abstract reasoning then that’s all fine. Although I would probably debate the way you are using the terms “Truth” and “Love” here (I’m guessing from the context and capitalisation that you are referring to something more than the way I would use the words ie truth = “a statement which is accurate”).

So, what we can “experience,” albeit a priori, in the transcendental dimension is then used to understand things in the concrete reality and what we experience in the concrete reality is used to understand things in the transcedental dimension. *

Again, works for me as long as by transcendental dimension you are referring to abstract reasoning.*

…we are describing something of which we have no direct experience a posterori, but that on a transcendent level, the meaning or the concept of levitation is available to us.

Indeed, the concept of levitation is easy to reach through abstract reasoning. This was really the point I was addressing in my previous post, we can use abstract reasoning to reach a number of concepts which are beyond our experience.

Because the transcendent self is the locus of God, when Rahner says that if there were no God, we’d be clever animals what he is saying is that our ability to question our experiences comes from the transcendental dimension, it comes from God. *Without Him, we could not even question the existence of God. *

I think this is probably where are opinions must part company. To me the ability to carry out abstract reasoning is a result of our evolutionary development. Perhaps to you and (from what you have written) Rahner, our ability to carry out abstract reasoning (you might say “experience things in the transcendental dimension”) comes from God.*

To me a equivalent statement to that above would be “without abstract reasoning we would be unable to create and question abstract constructs”. I don’t see any need for any God to exist in order to discuss the topic.

…We can choose to accept or reject God. *However, our ability to do so is because God exists.

Again I obviously don’t agree with this statement. I would say “however we are able to do so because we have self awareness and abstract reasoning”.

I hope this helped clear a few things up, but if not, I invite you to read Foundations of Christian Faith…

Thanks, I think you’ve explained the context of the quotes more clearly which helps understanding. As explained above, I still don’t agree with the conclusions. But at least I have a more clear idea of what was being said. I may read Foundations of Christian Faith at some point, however I fear it is unlikely to be very soon. My reading list at the moment is to say the least a little long.*

Have fun while your out of town!

Thanks, I had a great time, I’ve been visiting friends in Poland.*

Kind regards.*

 

[Candide_West]

Why do you feel the need to justify yourself morally?

Feeling the need to justify ones own morals is part of personal responsibility. If we never question what is right and wrong or understand the difference then we are more likely to behave in a poor manner. Some people consider that morality needs no justification. Ie “it’s right because X says it’s right, nothing else matters”. That kind of deferral of responsibility has a litany of horrors behind it, sentences like “I was only following orders”.*

You say that a moral standard can exist without God. But that would depend on what one means by the word morality or good…Pleasure and pain can be one of the means by which we judge. But we cannot know what is truly right and wrong for us if there is no such thing.*

Agreed that defining what you mean by morality is important. As for “truly right and wrong” yes I think we can know what is truly right and wrong from a human perspective. This is relatively straightforwards because we are human. So we can do this by starting from concepts which are shared by all humans as mentioned previously.*

If you want to understand what is “truly” right and wrong from other perspectives then you’d first need to find a way into that perspective. I fear that’s a bit beyond me. But fortunately I don’t feel the need, I am a human so as far as I can see I only need to work out what the right and wrong things are for humans to do.*

… our motives does not necessarily create the existence of a moral or stable society; which is evident to anyone that is willing to look around them. There is a degree of stability, but not everybody is happy.

Indeed, the commonly used morality is far from perfect. Very many people in the world don’t justify their morals at all beyond “God/Allah/Yahweh/other says I must do X”. The risks of societies believing that there is no need to justify morality from first principles is evident around the world right now as it has been throughout history.*

If there is no God, then the goal of life is not morality. What people think will make them happy or what gives people pleasure will vary from person to person, and sometimes quite drastically.

Indeed, if there is no God then people don’t have that easy answer. They need to justify their own actions from first principles. This is hard, this is a major part of the reason that I say that many religious people are better off to remain religious. It provides a set of straightforward rules to follow, these rules are (in many cases at least) comparatively benign. So for those people who are unable to achieve a good set of morals from first principles, the morality they take from their religion may be better than that which they would produce for themselves and it saves them effort.

… the ultimate goal of life for many - if not everybody - is the maximisation of pleasure, and those who do not have pleasure are left with no real reason to live accept for perhaps the hope that their situation may change. Better to live for five minutes with extreme pleasure rather than a whole life time of unhappiness and insecurity. The fear of death is what drives a lot of people into putting up with life’s ills; otherwise most people would not.

I think if you offered most people 5 minutes of extreme pleasure and then death, virtually all of them (including me) would turn you down. I fear you may have a rather depressing view of humanity. We are not simply machines driven to seek pleasure.

I think you will find that people are not living just to maximise pleasure but for an array of purposes. Usually related to the value which they place on a broad variety of things from their families and friends, to the goals that they wish to achieve, either for themselves or for society as a whole. I think this is why people live their lives, not out of fear of death or a simple desire for pleasure.

The bottom line, few people look at moral issues in a hedonistic manner. They look at moral issues with a real sense of moral truth. It really is wrong to rape a small child. It really is wrong to go around rapping women. It really is wrong to actively destroy and eliminate a race of people for financial gain. I really do have moral rights that are true regardless of whether people agree with it or not.

I agree with all of the above paragraph. But it is important to ask why we say these things, otherwise it reduces to being just an opinion. For example if you say that rape is wrong because your God says so, and someone else says it is right because his God says so then how do you resolve the conflict.

For me rape is wrong because of the vast amount of suffering which is experienced by those women who are attacked. Suffering is bad (axiomatic starting point) so causing it requires justification. Suffering on the scale caused by rape is so immense I can imagine no adequate justification. Therefore rape is simply wrong. I don’t need God to tell me so, nor do I need to appeal to authority (Gods or anyone else’) to support this statement. I support it by arguments from first principles. It is “practicably objective” morality as far as humans and our actions are concerned.*

It is this sense of right and wrong as a truth that causes people to do virtuous acts and make sacrifices for society.*

Indeed and we need to be able to justify what is right and wrong where people have differing views. Arguments from first principles seem the best way to do this as far as I can see.*

Justifying morality from religion reduces morals to opinions which are predicated upon religious beliefs.*

 

[Candide_West]

Hi warpspeedpetey, it’s an interesting point that you make there but I don’t think it’s one against the principles of secular morality.*

What about people who don’t share your opinion? If their opinion counts as much as yours then what ever they do is just as moral as what you choose to do.*

It is important that morality is justified in a manner which goes beyond personal opinion. Otherwise you have nothing to separate your view of morality from everyone else’s.*

For example one person says that it is correct to do X because his God says so. Another person says X is wrong because his God says so. Who is right?*

A sensible starting point to me seems to be concepts such as happiness and suffering. We can all agree that happiness is enjoyable and suffering is unpleasant or at least on the concepts behind them. That is what those words refer to. This creates a practicably objective starting point to work from.*

The Aztecs thought human sacrifice was moral. Nazis thought that Jewish genocide was moral. There are thousands of examples where people have thought it moral and or compassionate to commit crimes against humanity. The standard you are using here is a historical failure.*

Interesting examples you picked. The Aztecs believed that they were serving a higher purpose by sacrificing humans to the Gods that the believed in. Their perception of morality was based not on a position justified from a practicably objective starting point but rather their faith in their Gods having given them an “absolute” truth. This meant they had a higher purpose which they must serve, no matter the “minor” human suffering caused. In other words the morality was top down and hence required no justification.**

With regards to the Nazi’s and their horrific policies towards Jews and other minorities. This again was not based on morality derived from first principles but was in order to serve a higher purpose. The suffering being experienced by the Jews was acknowledged (in some quarters at least) but was justified because they believed the end result justified such suffering.

In both of these cases the end justified the means. A very large proportion of the Nazi’s were Christian, none of the Aztecs were. The key thing that they had in common was that were both serving what they believed to be a higher purpose, theirs was an “absolute” morality.

Throughout history people have tortured and killed other people on the basis of their morality, and often this was based on a perception of a God or Gods providing a set of “absolute” or “objective” rules. This of course includes Christianity (the witch hunts and inquisition spring to mind).

In other words they had a ‘top down’ approach where the defining principle was an absolute which must be served.Therefore any amount of suffering was justified on that basis.

If any of these groups had taken a ‘bottom up’ approach from something like “suffering is bad” then (at least as far as I can see) they could not have justified such atrocities.*

People do not in fact drift to some moral standard. They are products of their cultures and take their moral cues from the larger society.*

Agreed, people build their morals from society. This is why it is dangerous when society believes that they have a specified higher purpose or have another “absolute” because such things require no justification once the society has bought into them. It removes the need to start from first principles and instead allows people to start from the conclusion.*

For example if people of a society believe that they must stone homosexuals to death because God said so, there is no viable argument against that. Arguments from first principles that it is causing unnecessary suffering are irrelevant because the answer “but our God said so” is from a higher authority and therefore overrides anything else.

Declaring oneself a good person by ones own standards is meaningless.

Agreed, again some form of axiomatic starting point is required prior to making judgements of morality.

 

[Candide_West]

Because we were deceived.

Decieved seems like a rather loaded term here. To me “incorrect” seems more appropriate. After all decieved implies a deliberate deception. There doesn’t seem to be any indication of that here.

Equally the people who believed that the earth was flat or those who believed it was the centre of the universe weren’t decieved. They were just incorrect.

 

[PRmerger]

Decieved seems like a rather loaded term here. To me “incorrect” seems more appropriate. After all decieved implies a deliberate deception. There doesn’t seem to be any indication of that here.

Equally the people who believed that the earth was flat or those who believed it was the centre of the universe weren’t decieved. They were just incorrect.

How is it that people were “incorrect” about Christ’s resurrection?

 

[Candide_West]

How is it that people were “incorrect” about Christ’s resurrection?

Not sure I understand the question given the context. I haven’t said that anyone was incorrect, you said “Because we were deceived.”

I simply stated that decieved suggests deliberate deception. And “incorrect” might be a more appropriate term for your sentence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

Neither can science tell us what is “sick” or “broken” or “disordered”, or what is or what is not a “sociopath”, since these statements are value judgments embedded in our social experience, which deals with the qualitative side of reality which is pre-scientific in nature. “Value” cannot be determined by the scientific method, although scientific data can be use in support of a philosophical “art”.

Your failure to realize this, makes you look silly as well, and also a victim of naturalistic indoctrination.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If it were ever demonstrated to my satisfaction that a god likely existed, I would begin to believe in that god.

Rubbish. You would most likely join a small group of conspiracy theorists who are willing to ignore logic in-order to accommodate the belief that the universe can possibly pop out of nothing by itself; and then you would claim agnosticism in support of your atheism, because you know that so long as logic could possibly break down you wouldn’t have to concede the existence of God.

Pretty smart.

Wait…you already have joined them!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure I understand the question given the context. I haven’t said that anyone was incorrect, you said “Because we were deceived.”

I simply stated that decieved suggests deliberate deception. And “incorrect” might be a more appropriate term for your sentence.

Fair enough.

If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain. We are the most pitiable of people for believing in an incorrect fact. We have worshipped a man, not God. We have followed someone to the cross who cannot save us from our sins.

 

[Candide_West]

CandideWest: i 've never thought much about it.God is on my mind in everything I do.I know if I had never turned to God my life would be completely different.If I learned at this point in my life that there was no God I might go out and kill someone.Trully I don’t know what I would do.

To raise an interesting point Valentino. I think there are a lot of people who need to believe in God (or at least think they need to) in order to successfully make their way through their lives. And quite a lot who can’t even entertain the situation hypothetically.

Your statement above that you might go out and kill someone suggests you may feel this need? If so then I’d have to say that I’m glad you have found a way to live your life successfully through Christianity.

One thought though, surely this must make it difficult to make an honest assessment of the available evidence. Because however hard you may try to be detached in order to make an accurate assessment you must be aware that if you come down at one of the available answers, then you’d go WAY off the rails. How do you avoid bias when you are considering your beliefs?*

The same argument could be made of atheists of course, but on the whole I don’t tend to see atheists either saying that their lives would be ruined, or they would cease to behave morally nor are they generally unable to entertain the question. As is supported by the atheist responses generally on the thread.*

 

[Windfish]

We gotta stop acting like it has not been proven already. We are just waiting for people to leave behind the insanity and get on track.

 

[Rolypoly]

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 would probably kill myself because what is the point anyway? We will all be gone without even our memories to take with us.

 

[PRmerger]

The same argument could be made of atheists of course, but on the whole I don’t tend to see atheists either saying that their lives would be ruined, or they would cease to behave morally nor are they generally unable to entertain the question. As is supported by the atheist responses generally on the thread.*

Not sure what you mean here, Candide. Are you saying that atheists wouldn’t cease to behave morally if it could be proven that God exists?

 

[honestquestions]

I would probably kill myself because what is the point anyway? We will all be gone without even our memories to take with us.

Natural selection works:thumbsup:

 

[tonyrey]

The same argument could be made of atheists of course, but on the whole I don’t tend to see atheists either saying that their lives would be ruined, or they would cease to behave morally nor are they generally unable to entertain the question. As is supported by the atheist responses generally on the thread.*

You obviously don’t see all the people who didn’t believe in God - and committed suicide because they thought they had nothing to live for…

 

[samiam1611]

You obviously don’t see all the people who didn’t believe in God - and committed suicide because they thought they had nothing to live for…

No, it was some of the theists who said they might commit suicide bc objective morality/nonexistence of an afterlife. The atheists said things like “I’d want to know more about this God before I start worshipping Him” and other things along those lines.