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

[Betterave]

Being counterfactual and being a strawman do not seem to be mutually exclusive.

So what? The OP is still not a strawman. This is a strawman (courtesy of you): “The OP posits a concept of G-d that can fail to exist.”

It still doesn’t seem to represent our idea of G-d. To me it reads “what if existing did not exist”.

So what does that prove? That you don’t understand Catholic philosophy or theology, it seems. Philosophically, ‘God’ and ‘existing’ are not synonymous terms, so your reading is groundless. Theologically, Catholics do not believe that all that exists is God (or that any of the following are self-evident: that God exists, that God is existence, that nothing could exist if God did not exist).

 

[Betterave]

Truth is not a hypothetical.

But that’s irrelevant, surely? The point is that lots of hypotheticals are true.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So what?

 

[PRmerger]

Personally I find the statement “truth is a person” rather absurd. A person cannot be a concept without the concept ceasing to be a concept or the person ceasing to be a person.*

'Tis true, this, also. But, why do you limit Truth to merely a concept? Who says it can’t be a Person? Where is it written this must be so? Is it absolutely true that truth is merely a concept?

 

[PRmerger]

…For you, but the conflicts with people of other views (as I said) remain unresolved and seemingly unresolvable.

Alas, for the atheist this may be true. You are like a person staring at a skyscraper saying “I cannot figure out how to get to the top. The elevator is broken.” And the Believer says, “Well, we know the Engineer, so we’ll get you to the top, without your having to climb 50,000 stairs at that!” But, sadly, you turn away and say, “No, it is irresolvable. I’ll just enjoy the view from down here, thank you.”

And as we have agreed, even other Catholics have views which differ widely on what is Truth (or right, or moral) let alone people from other religions.*

True. A non-sequitor, to be sure, but true nonetheless.

(See my reference to the flat earth. Also, I might add: there was a time when there was a different view on whether women were inferior to men. Fortunately–*thanks be to God and the Catholic Church–*we realize the Truth. There is inherent dignity in all of human creation, for we are made in the image and likeness of God. That people thought differently does not mean the issue was “irresolvable”.)

 

[PRmerger]

Except that those Catholics I know who do this live healthy, normal, moral, and happy lives. So it hardly seems appropriate to talk about drug addiction etc.*

LOL! A drug addict is living a happy, normal, moral and happy life, eh?

The same could be said of the atheists, Hindus and Muslims of course, those I know in these groups also live happy, normal lives. But that is beside the point. The fact is (as I said) that for those Catholics I know who choose for themselves the elements of catholicism to believe in there are no visible consequences.*

What visible consequences would you be looking for? Leprosy, perhaps?

And why should consequences to living a life of sin be necessarily visible to you, an intruder in their lives?

As an aside, do you believe divorce to be a positive or a negative in society? For that surely is a very “visible consequence” in our society for those who choose to separate themselves from The Way.

Er, no we shouldn’t dismiss their works, I never said we should. Nor indeed anything close to such a suggestion.

Excellent.

So you are professing that we dismiss only the NT narratives because they were “written in a different language, by people with a culture and education vastly different from ours and living conditions which are virtually unrecognisable.”

Why should we dismiss them but not Ptolemy, the Persian poets, Archimedes?

 

[PRmerger]

There is often a lot to learn from history and especially great thinkers of history.However, equally I wouldn’t accept their works as “Truth” without justification. Nor expect large proportions of society to do so. For example Aristotle’s views on women (“to a woman silence brings ornament” etc) is hardly likely to prove popular in our modern society.

I haven’t proposed that we accept their works as “Truth” without justification.

I only brought up the Greeks in response to your comment that the NT texts weren’t written in English. So, if you dismiss the NT texts because they’re old and from a different culture and not written in your native language, then you ought to use the same paradigm and dismiss the Greek philosophers on that basis as well.

It seems that you are agreeable that ancient texts do have something to offer. But, for some reason not the NT texts.

 

[trinitybeliever]

But that’s irrelevant, surely? The point is that lots of hypotheticals are true.

Seriously? You might want to look up the definition. Hypothetical s are arguments based on conjecture.

The truth is never irrelevant, it is absolute.

 

[trinitybeliever]

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.

Candide, for the third time…
Flawed premise. We would not “do” anything because we would not exist. What say you?
.:juggle:

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Truth is not a hypothetical.

Agreed, why is this relevant?

I participate because I love you. What about you?

Fair enough, I participate because I enjoy philosophy and theology.

 

[trinitybeliever]

Agreed, why is this relevant?

I participate because I love you. What about you?

Fair enough, I participate because I enjoy philosophy and theology.

OK I’ll bite although it has nothing to dot with the OP or my answer to the OP. But for you, Filthy I will entertain your question. It seems to me that there should be a reason to engage in the hypothetical. Because I love the Truth, for me that is the reason. If to arrive at truth is not the purpose of a hypothesis, then it is useless to me except for entertainment value. Even then it tries my patience quickly, as does those who seek to devalue and ignore The Creator in favor of fantasy, which is what atheism is. Moreover it is a destructive fantasy because it aims to pull souls away from Gods love into a selfish twisted version of reality where you become your own authority. In the OP what I see is someone attempting to create doubt among faithful believers (for the most part). To engage the OP’s premise is to go down a path which he intends. There is nothing wrong with good willed questions of doubt as long as it is honest doubt and not just a ploy to further ones own agenda. I doubt the intentions of the OP as I doubt anyone who hides behind fantasy in lieu of reality. Fantasy without truth is darkness. The light of truth exposes the lie.

But now tugboat, who enjoys philosophy and theology, what do you believe in?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I’ll bite although it has nothing to dot with the OP or my answer to the OP. But for you, Filthy I will entertain your question. It seems to me that there should be a reason to engage in the hypothetical. Because I love the Truth, for me that is the reason. If to arrive at truth is not the purpose of a hypothesis, then it is useless to me except for entertainment value.

I doubt this hypothetical is designed to uncover truth but more or less convey doubt in ones currently accepted theological position.

Even then it tries my patience quickly, as does those who seek to devalue and ignore The Creator in favor of fantasy, which is what atheism is.

Why do you feel you have to act so condescending? You must know that atheists are going to discard comments like this as rubbish reinforced with indoctrination and religious motivation so why abandon civil argument and outright belittle people with different world views?

Moreover it is a destructive fantasy because it aims to pull souls away from Gods love into a selfish twisted version of reality where you become your own authority.

Isn’t the concept of free will specifically suggesting that we are our own authority? Regardless, just because one thinks a supernatural entity exists that is an absolute authority, doesn’t mean they’re right. This is especially true since so many people claim different supernatural authorities and in most cases they are mutually exclusive.

In the OP what I see is someone attempting to create doubt among faithful believers (for the most part). To engage the OP’s premise is to go down a path which he intends. There is nothing wrong with good willed questions of doubt as long as it is honest doubt and not just a ploy to further ones own agenda. I doubt the intentions of the OP as I doubt anyone who hides behind fantasy in lieu of reality. Fantasy without truth is darkness. The light of truth exposes the lie.

On the final few words, I agree, determining and then demonstrating the truth can sometimes be the difficult part.

But now tugboat, who enjoys philosophy and theology, what do you believe in?

That’s quite a large question, I have many beliefs, perhaps you could direct them to a more specific concept?

 

[Candide_West]

The pleasure-pain principle has long been rejected as an adequate basis of morality. For one thing it reduces good and evil to what **you **experience regardless of the rest of the world - unless you introduce the principle of equality. You can define anything to suit yourself but reality is not based on what suits you…

Ok, but from what you’ve written that is very different from how I work out morality as I described.

I wouldn’t use your system as firstly I consider pleasure vs. pain rather simplistic. And secondly from what you have written above that principle appears to make distinctions between personal pleasure/pain and that of other people which I don’t think is justified.

All in all I don’t think that principle is as effective as the one I use.

 

[tonyrey]

No problem, I work them out from axiomatic principles such as “suffering is bad”, “happiness is good” etc. These are based on the definition of those words rather than any reasoned and justified position. If you wanted to change that then you’d need to redefine those words, in which case others would replace them.

The pleasure-pain principle has long been rejected as an adequate basis of morality. For one thing it reduces good and evil to what you experience regardless of the rest of the world - unless you introduce the principle of equality. You can define anything to suit yourself but reality is not based on what suits you…
Ok, but from what you’ve written that is very different from how I work out morality as I described.

How is it different? You postulate that “suffering is bad” and “happiness is good” even though it is not self-evident that all suffering is bad and all happiness is good. Reflex pain is good because it is a defence mechanism and the happiness of a torturer is evil because it is derived from inflicting suffering.

I wouldn’t use your system as firstly I consider pleasure vs. pain rather simplistic.

It is not my system but the one who have described in your axioms!

And secondly from what you have written above that principle appears to make distinctions between personal pleasure/pain and that of other people which I don’t think is justified.

Then you need the axiom of equality which you didn’t mention.

All in all I don’t think that principle is as effective as the one I use.

What is your principle?

 

[Candide_West]

Nothing shall come from nothing!

A rather difficult statement to support, to say the least. No human has ever encountered “nothing”. It is simply assumed since we tend to think at a basic level that statements like that make sense. However, reality often doesn’t match our perceptions of what makes sense. Consider wave / particle duality for example.

In addition your statement above can be used against God as easily as the universe ie:

Nothing existed before God
Nothing comes from nothing.
God came from nothing
God is nothing
God doesn’t exist.

Obviously this is a rather silly and meaningless argument. But it’s just a variation on a form of onotological argument I see bouncing around periodically.

And where do you think things are going?

I don’t know, I’m continuing the conversation with Pieman to find out.

 

[tonyrey]

A rather difficult statement to support, to say the least. No human has ever encountered “nothing”. It is simply assumed since we tend to think at a basic level that statements like that make sense. However, reality often doesn’t match our perceptions of what makes sense. Consider wave / particle duality for example.

In addition your statement above can be used against God as easily as the universe ie:

Nothing existed before God
Nothing comes from nothing.
God came from nothing
God is nothing
God doesn’t exist.

Obviously this is a rather silly and meaningless argument. But it’s just a variation on a form of onotological argument I see bouncing around periodically.

You’re obviously not aware that t is a quotation from King Lear in response to your reply: “The answers to your questions are simply unknowns”. It simply means that you have no basis for your argument…

 

[Candide_West]

Flawed premise. We would not “do” anything because we would not exist. Try again.

Er, not sure I’m following you. You appear to be saying that if your beliefs changed then we would cease to exist. This seems somewhat unlikely.

 

[Candide_West]

Existence is not possible without G-d because G-d is the act of existing itself. Any other definition of G-d is not the Christian definition, and we are not required to defend your definition of G-d, just ours. It is a common mistake for atheists to expect us to defend their definition of god and its an even more common mistake for some well meaning Christian to try.

Interesting, however your definition of G-d make the existence of G-d trivial. By your definition then I believe G-d exists because I believe existence exists. However, obviously that is very different from the standard Christian concept of God (ie omnipotent, omnipresent, loving creator) which I do not believe exists.

I suspect that it is impossible to prove that existence doesn’t exist to your (or my) satisfaction. So if G-d (existence) is the “God” you believe in then I guess your response to my question is “it couldn’t be proven it to my satisfaction”. Which is as I’ve noted previously a quite common response (from theists) to this question.*

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Interesting, however your definition of G-d make the existence of G-d trivial. By your definition then I believe G-d exists because I believe existence exists. However, obviously that is very different from the standard Christian concept of God (ie omnipotent, omnipresent, loving creator) which I do not believe exists.

It is the definition of G-d for all Christians, Muslims, and Jews. G-d states his own identity as “I AM WHO AM”, when asked by Moses. He states that He is the ALPHA and the OMEGA. G-d is being. We can see this also in the metaphysics of Aquinas, Avicenna, and Mulla Sadr. All Christians, Jews and Muslims believe this, along with a number of related sects such as Samaritans, Ba’ Hai’, etc. From this we can deduce the Omni attributes. You are not so much an atheist then. You believe in the G-d of the philosophers at the very least.

I suspect that it is impossible to prove that existence doesn’t exist to your (or my) satisfaction. So if G-d (existence) is the “God” you believe in then I guess your response to my question is “it couldn’t be proven it to my satisfaction”. Which is as I’ve noted previously a quite common response (from theists) to this question.*

Of course from Descartes we know that existence itself is unquestionable. But there is nothing wrong with the reply that it cannot be proven to our satisfaction. The G-d your question posits is not the same thing as the G-d we worship. This is only a problem if the goal is to disprove G-ds existence. If it is really an open question, then it just means that we really do know that G-d exists, as we have been claiming for thousands of years.

 

[samiam1611]

Awhile back, I had posed an alternative question for those of you unwilling or unable to comprehend existence in the absence of God, that retains the essence of the OP. (I hope you don’t mind Candide.) What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that your concept/understanding of God was completely wrong? Like, the Wiccan Horned God and Triple Goddess, or some sort of pantheism where god is not a personal god or creator, he is more like an it - the universe. Whatever, just something utterly different than your current belief. Can those of you that have issues with the OP answer that?