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

[warpspeedpetey]

OK, …

I know what the words mean, I know the metaphysics. I am just not going to explain things word by word for you. If you cannot be bothered to look up what words mean then I cannot be bothered to do it for you.

 

[PRmerger]

Aim high (and I’m not referring to the smoking with Willy Nelson thing)!

OK, but of course none of this personal trivia - interesting though it is - implies that you are unable to use a dictionary (or google) when you’re not sure what a word means, or that you are somehow congenitally incapable of carrying on a reasonable philosophical discussion,

'Tis true. 'Tis true. :yup:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

(the two are really one).

Then there really is no need to speak of two distinct things (accept as a tool to distinguish how God and creature differ), since God is his existence. God is the act of reality.

Existence and essence are distinct in creatures,

Then they are not the same thing. Again, they are not their own act of reality; they receive reality from Gods nature, and since God cannot be quantified in to parts, then it would be necessary to say that we receive the existence of God; since out of nothing comes nothing.

but neither one is intrinsically necessary. If the existence of a created essence were necessary per se, the created essence would also be necessary per se.

If existence was a passive attribute then i would understand your point. However; Essence has no existence of its own, thus it follows necessarily that any potential essence which comes into existence is contingent upon the necessity of existence in-order to be real even if by its union an essence exists forever, since they are two distinct things; like you just admitted. Because they are distinct in nature, if an essence ceases to be this would not be necessarily a contradiction, unless we thought that the essence ceases to exist in virtue of its own power or nature. That certainly would be impossible.

1. When an essence passes out of existence, it is only the essence that ceases to be and not “esse”, because its essence had no intrinsic reality in the first place.

2. It makes sense that a thing passes out of existence when you consider the act of reality as being identical in nature to the will of God; thus the will of God is what makes a thing pass in and out of existence. It is by the will of reality that some potential thing exists or not.

Conclusion: Existence cannot begin to exist. its a logical contradiction, since to have the intrinsic nature of reality, is to be that nature; it is to be real by nature. If something is real by nature, then that nature cannot cease to be what it is by nature, since that would contradict the fact that its intrinsic nature is reality. If we consider that necessity isn’t just a logical fact but an ontological fact

 

[samiam1611]

As I expected.

Well I might be able to come up with something if you could elaborate on what you wanted. did you want me to answer “For you to prove that God does not exist you would need to disprove this…”?
As was stated awhile back (not that I would have expected you to read the whole thread, I’m just saying it has been addressed), the original question is not “how could it be proven…” If you are saying that the main reason you think God is necessary for existence or whatever is bc that quote says so, okay, your reliance on scripture is as expected too! (As opposed to MindOverMatter and WSP who at least are attempting to use their own words to explain the logic of their beliefs, unlike you, who can’t seem to answer the OP, nor my much easier alternative question.) I mean no offense here, I’m just saying it’d be nice to hear in your own words your answers. We’re in the philosphy forum, not the sacred scripture forum.
I, and others, have stated that we do not think it is possible to prove God does not exist. I mean, He’s invisible, He won’t show Himself to man, yada yada. I don’t need to disprove it to you (if that is what you were asking.) But in this hypothetical, proof exists. For me, the proof would be, I would need to see God, I would need to see some miracles, I would probably need to talk to Him, I would need validation from others that I was not crazy (by means of a psychiatric evaluation by a doctor, and a full toxicology screen to make sure I had not been drugged.) as well as validation from others that they had seen Him too. And of course it would need to be proven that it wasn’t all a hoax. I would need well documented, empirical scientific evidence that could be reproduced consistently.
Perhaps for you, the proof you would need is to travel back in time, watch John say to his friends, hey guys wouldn’t it be hysterical if I wrote some stuff down and made everyone believe it? Or maybe to travel back in time and see Moses hallucinate that he saw a burning bush because he was suffering from heat stroke and dehydration, and find the bodies of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, test their DNA, and realize Jesus was just the offspring of Mary and Joseph having sex. If you rely on scripture, not logic or physical evidence, to arrive at your beliefs, my guess is you would need proof that scripture was the writings of either brain-washed, mentally ill, chronically drugged or poisoned(i.e ate hallucinogenic mushrooms regularly) individuals, or else a grand-scale experiment to see how guillible people could be. Or some other scenario proving scripture wasn’t true. Perhaps some aliens have a video of the big bang happening, maybe that would at least put some doubt in your mind on the bible’s version of creation, even if it doesn’t actually prove God does not exist.
Annnnyway, lacking clarification of your original question, that’s my take on it. No idea if that’s what you were looking for. I look forward to seeing if you can come up with some substantiave answer to the OP or my alternative without using scripture/ Proving God’s existence isn’t the question though (off limits on this forum anyway). Would you kill yourself? Cover your ears and go lalalala? Would you do all the sins you’ve been dying to do? Do yoga and meditation to retain your spirituality without doing the illogical thing of praying to a god you knew did not exist?
If another religion were true (one utterly different than Catholicism, for fun), would you follow that? Dance around a fire naked? Engage in tantric sex? Worship trees and rocks and rivers?

 

[PRmerger]

Well I might be able to come up with something if you could elaborate on what you wanted. did you want me to answer “For you to prove that God does not exist you would need to disprove this…”?
As was stated awhile back (not that I would have expected you to read the whole thread, I’m just saying it has been addressed), the original question is not “how could it be proven…” If you are saying that the main reason you think God is necessary for existence or whatever is bc that quote says so, okay, your reliance on scripture is as expected too! (As opposed to MindOverMatter and WSP who at least are attempting to use their own words to explain the logic of their beliefs, unlike you, who can’t seem to answer the OP, nor my much easier alternative question.) I mean no offense here, I’m just saying it’d be nice to hear in your own words your answers. We’re in the philosphy forum, not the sacred scripture forum.
I, and others, have stated that we do not think it is possible to prove God does not exist. I mean, He’s invisible, He won’t show Himself to man, yada yada. I don’t need to disprove it to you (if that is what you were asking.) But in this hypothetical, proof exists. For me, the proof would be, I would need to see God, I would need to see some miracles, I would probably need to talk to Him, I would need validation from others that I was not crazy (by means of a psychiatric evaluation by a doctor, and a full toxicology screen to make sure I had not been drugged.) as well as validation from others that they had seen Him too. And of course it would need to be proven that it wasn’t all a hoax. I would need well documented, empirical scientific evidence that could be reproduced consistently.
Perhaps for you, the proof you would need is to travel back in time, watch John say to his friends, hey guys wouldn’t it be hysterical if I wrote some stuff down and made everyone believe it? Or maybe to travel back in time and see Moses hallucinate that he saw a burning bush because he was suffering from heat stroke and dehydration, and find the bodies of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, test their DNA, and realize Jesus was just the offspring of Mary and Joseph having sex. If you rely on scripture, not logic or physical evidence, to arrive at your beliefs, my guess is you would need proof that scripture was the writings of either brain-washed, mentally ill, chronically drugged or poisoned(i.e ate hallucinogenic mushrooms regularly) individuals, or else a grand-scale experiment to see how guillible people could be. Or some other scenario proving scripture wasn’t true. Perhaps some aliens have a video of the big bang happening, maybe that would at least put some doubt in your mind on the bible’s version of creation, even if it doesn’t actually prove God does not exist.
Annnnyway, lacking clarification of your original question, that’s my take on it. No idea if that’s what you were looking for. I look forward to seeing if you can come up with some substantiave answer to the OP or my alternative without using scripture/ Proving God’s existence isn’t the question though (off limits on this forum anyway). Would you kill yourself? Cover your ears and go lalalala? Would you do all the sins you’ve been dying to do? Do yoga and meditation to retain your spirituality without doing the illogical thing of praying to a god you knew did not exist?
If another religion were true (one utterly different than Catholicism, for fun), would you follow that? Dance around a fire naked? Engage in tantric sex? Worship trees and rocks and rivers?

Hey, dude, I think you need to do some shopping at Paragraphs R Our Friends.

Paragraphs will make your arguments seem more compelling.

At the very least, it will make your arguments readable.

Just sayin’.

 

[Betterave]

I know what the words mean, I know the metaphysics. I am just not going to explain things word by word for you. If you cannot be bothered to look up what words mean then I cannot be bothered to do it for you.

Have I given you any reason to think that my problem with your position has something to do with not knowing the meanings of the words you have used? I think not. If so, which words do you think I do not know the meaning of, and why do you believe that I don’t know their meanings? (For the record, I think you are clearly just being a putz here, and I do wish you’d stop - I won’t hold my breath waiting though, that’s for sure.)

 

[Betterave]

:yawn:

The truth is, you’re not really interested in an intelligent discussion, are you?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Have I given you any reason to think that my problem with your position has something to do with not knowing the meanings of the words…

If you don’t want to know what it means, than what do you want?

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

For one thing, I might withdraw my membership to CAF! (Or maybe not.) It’s hard to know how one might react to unexpected major news or in emergency situations. Most likely, I would be somewhat depressed at first. But then perhaps I would begin to question whether my mind was able to understand correctly the full-proof argument against the existence of G-d and start looking for loopholes in the logic of the argument and in my interpretation of it. In other words, I would attempt to second guess my own reasoning process. If that didn’t help, I might tell myself that faith in G-d’s existence is not solely or mainly based on reason anyway, so I could perhaps still be content with faith despite reasoning to the contrary. If that too failed, I’d like to think I wouldn’t change much in my behavior toward other people (and animals), still trying the best I can to be kind and caring.

 

[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.

For Samiam, this was (and still is) my original response to the OP.

**

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

**

I you want to engage me, answer this. The question indicates that it would be proven to my satisfaction The basis of my world view is that there is a creation that we are a part of and logically there is a Creator. Whatever else I believe as a Catholic living in the 21st Century is all built on that foundation.

Philosophy is supposed to be about seeking wisdom. Unfortunately, thus far the engagement I have had on this thread has been more “dialogical” rubbish than honest questioning in search of truth.

In hind-site, it occurs to me now that I probably shouldn’t have even responded to the OP, being that I prefer truth to fantasy. In the future I will try to find threads where the question leaves open the possibility of seeking and ultimately finding truth.

Lastly; this is Catholic Answers Forums, so my guess is if you are here, you are looking for a Catholic perspective. I and most of the other Catholics here I’m guessing are more than willing to state what we believe and why.

peace out.

 

[trinitybeliever]

The truth is, you’re not really interested in an intelligent discussion, are you?

The truth is, I’m still waiting to see any.

 

[samiam1611]

Hey, dude, I think you need to do some shopping at Paragraphs R Our Friends.

Paragraphs will make your arguments seem more compelling.

At the very least, it will make your arguments readable.

Just sayin’.

Yeah I pressed enter once every mow and then, guess I should’ve pressed it twice to make an actual space…

 

[Candide_West]

We can understand the context based on the Gospels themselves and other history from the time. The Christian scribes weren’t the only people with a habit of writing stuff down.

True, but the purpose and target audience were quite different from most others who were writing at the time. Imagine if you had nothing but a celebrity magazine and a academic paper on theology from 2011. How easy would it be to use the writing style used in one to support the veracity of the other?

The problem was, humbleness actually was not valued by the Jewish population. The lower you were, the worse you were, attitude or not.

True, but as I said Christianity started out with the lower orders of society. Those people who were at the bottom and had no hope of ever being anywhere else in society. So offering those people something to value in the form of their humble position being a virtue has obvious merits.*

A valid point, but remember that the criterion is being used for a specific claim and can be combined with other criteria.

Ok, I’ve given my view on the criterion of embarrassment. I’m happy to do the same with the other criteria if you’d like. What others do you feel apply?

Crucifixion was one of the most brutal and feared forms of punishment, for only the worst of the worst. There is no way the Jews, let alone the Romans, saw an ounce of nobility in somebody who was crucified, especially for violating one (or several) of their social taboos.

But as per my previous comment, this would have struck a chord with those at the bottom of the social pile who were used to suffering the worst the world could throw at them. Here is someone who ought to get treated much better not only suffering as they were but getting something even worse.

I didn’t talk about this. I said that there is no reason for Matthew to make it more extraordinary.

Fair enough.

Think about it. Matthew loaded every story with Scripture which it fulfilled, with the highest class people witnessing it, with Jesus being the best he could be.*

Not sure what you are saying here, by “loaded every story with …” are you saying that you think Matthew may have embellished other events to make them more believable?*

What does he do after all that? He reports a prophecy-shattering empty tomb witnessed by two radically emotional women. That’s all of Meier’s criteria fulfilled, except one which is non-applicable, even when you contextualize.

Ok, but the empty tomb which was witnessed initially is not the key evidence. If it had been all there was then the most likely thing people even at the time would have taken from the story is that someone stole his body.*

It’s the people (mostly men) seeing him alive afterwards. This is a small group and as has been pointed out previously they all had a strong interest in maintaining and building the religion which they (presumably) believed right.

I’d say you’d have a better argument here if Matthew had claimed Jesus (post resurrection) had gone right back to preaching to huge crowds. As then he’d have been making statements which could have been refuted (at least in theory) by his audience (if they weren’t true).*

Except that he was punctured in the side, and blood and water came out - a sure sign that he was dead. Anatomy confirms this.

Perhaps, but of course there are other explanations available, even working under the assumption Matthew unbiased and was trying to be accurate (ie a simple mistake).

Paul, Mark, internal reconstruction, reconstruction based on other Synoptic, reconstruction based on secular history.

Paul and Mark both have the same issues with bias as Matthew. The secular references I’ve seen to date are distinctly light on information about the crucifixion (and personally I’m happy to say that the/a person about which the NT was written probably got crucified) and don’t refer to resurrection at all. Perhaps you could direct me to some stronger sources?*

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Have I given you any reason to think that my problem with your position has something to do with not knowing the meanings of the words you have used?

Given the following two quotes i would say yes.

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

Exactly. Existence precedes Essence.

What does that mean?

 

[Candide_West]

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.*

Ok, those are the words which I am using for brevity to refer to all the positive and negative experiences which we have. Pleasure and pain are two very specific physical sensations. A much much more narrow and hence simplistic principle. Pleasure and happiness are as I’m sure you’re aware very different things. Pain may be a form of suffering but suffering is much broader.*

As for it not being self evident… Well there are any number of other words you could use in the place of those. As I said they are only a convenient way to refer to the positive and negative concepts of our experience respectively.*

So whatever word or set of words you wish to use works just as well. Ie misery, sadness, pain, depression, suffering etc vs. Happiness, joy, pleasure, satisfaction, wonder etc. The words only refer to the positive and negative experience so yes I think it is self evident that suffering indicates negative experience (bad).*

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.

The reason that reflex pain is useful is that it prevents further pain (a subset of suffering). It is not positive in itself but only in what it prevents.

The happiness of a torturer is not good. I would actually debate whether he’s actually happy at all. But more importantly because he is is causing suffering.*

I tend to put a heavier significance on preventing suffering than causing happiness. The reason for this is that suffering generally seems to be a more intense experience (people generally seem to weigh it more heavily) and I think people are naturally happy unless something is preventing it.*

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

It’s not the one I’ve described either.

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

No, suffering is not defined with reference to my personal experiences. It’s refers to those negative experiences in general. So I’d need a justification to say it is specific to my personal experience. I have no such justification (nor can I imagine one). Thus I consider suffering bad whoever is experiencing it.*

What is your principle?

As described previously - suffering is bad etc.*

 

[Candide_West]

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…

But I am not making an argument at all. You asked about my opinion so I gave it.

I think it’s probable that there was one or more people about whom the events in the new testament were written. That opinion is based on the various christian and secular references about events in the area at the time.

I have not seen sufficient evidence to determine with good reliability if it was a single individual or a few and I certainly haven’t seen enough to make judgements about motivations etc.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

I know this wasn’t written to me, but it was primarily written about me so I feel it deserves a response. I actually gave my reason for starting this thread some time ago but since it was a while back I’m guessing you won’t have seen that. I said

"Really it’s just an interesting hypothetical, to try to put people in each other’s shoes to at least some extent.

When I’m talking to people about their religions etc I try to see the conversation from their point of view if I can. Personally I find it a valuable exercise to help me understand and I think it’s interesting to find out how people view each other’s positions as well"

Hopefully that will put you at ease as to my “purpose” here.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Well I’m an atheist in that I do not believe that anything I would call a god exists. By your definition of G-d (as essentially existence) then yes I suppose I’m not an atheist at all. But to me that definition makes the concept trivial. It simply says “whatever is required for existance to exist is G-d.” If that something is a “thing” as opposed to a self aware, conscious being then, so what it’s still G-d because that’s what you’ve defined as G-d.

For example, if that which is required for existance is simply a dimensional reference frame. Then that dimensional reference frame is G-d. So yes, by your definition of G-d then I believe in G-d. But your definition of G-d is not something I would call a god.

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.

As I said, by your definition of G-d then I agree, G-d (existence) exists. But that seems irrelevant. Since it says nothing about the human condition or how we should behave or what we should do etc.

The OP question then becomes I suppose "what would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that G-d is in fact non aware (ie a dimensional reference frame or some other nonliving “thing”).

Incidentally, no I don’t have any problem with people saying that it couldn’t be proven to their satisfaction. As you can probably see from my responses to the many people who have said this previously (the only exception is actually on the other side of the question since I think it definately could be proven to every atheists satisfaction).

 

[Candide_West]

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.

It is true none the less.

I’m afraid I don’t believe you are correct here. Why should my existence be dependent on your beliefs? I can imagine no route by which you changing your mind would affect my existence either way. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you believe this?

For you to prove that God does not exist you would need to disprove this…
John Chapter 1
1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

OK, not sure what you’re saying here. Are you trying to indicate that it could not be proven to your satisfaction that God doesn’t exist?

 

[Candide_West]

Candide, being limited to a single opinion–when it is the correct opinion–is not a limitation.

Interesting, but when previously you asked

What if this “opinion” is the correct one? Is it then a “negative” limitation?"

I replied with

“I would say that it is, yes. I think I (and everyone else) should always be free to change opinions. Being limited to one opinion can lead to closed mindedness if voluntary or totalitarianism if externally enforced.”

and you said

We are agreed, then!

Have I missed something or has you opinion changed?

Now, of course I don’t believe one should only have a single opinion for what’s the best ice cream.

But I do believe that one should have a single opinion as to whether women have souls or not. Do you see the difference here? The former is preference, and the latter promotes an absolute truth.

The problem comes when two people have things which they believe are “absolute” truths which contradict each other. This is the conflict to which I have referred. For example Hindus believe it is an “absolute” truth that cows are holy. Most christians happily eat them. You can tell a hindu all you like that he’s wrong but I doubt you’ll have any more success than him trying to convince you that contraception is ok. As far as I can tell neither of you have any basis for these beliefs other than that you think God said X.

I stand corrected. If you are proclaiming that the Church proposes Truth rather than imposes Truth, then you are quite consonant with Catholic teaching!

I must have misunderstood and thought you were claiming that the Church limits our freedom.

I’ve done my best to be clear on this point. I hope we’re finished going around this loop now.

Thanks for correcting. I can go with this metaphor as well.

For, in the end, there is an absolute truth, yes? Either the Catholic is right, and he is, objectively, in Manhattan. Or he’s not. He can’t be in Manhattan and the Muslim 5000 miles away also be in Manhattan.

Precisely my point.

And, it’s quite resolvable: someone–or no one– is in Manhattan. One just needs to look at The Map to discern who’s there and who’s not.

And you’ve hit on the problem right there. Each person has a map which clearly shows that they are indeed in Manhattan and the others are wrong. Each believes that their map is “The One True Map” which is absolutely right. Each is able to identify flaws and inconsistencies in the maps of the others which show **their **maps are wrong.

'Tis true, this.

And Catholicism keeps promoting this "real information’ about the world.

Unfortunately not. To carry on with my analogy. Catholocism keeps showing everyone it’s map and saying it’s right (as do each of the other religions).

Candide, do you not see, every single day, hundreds of thousand of examples of a concept becoming a person? It’s called “a baby”.

The concept of “union” becomes a real person, aka “a baby”, when a man and woman entertain the concept of “union”.

So, if “union” can be a “baby”, why can’t “truth” be a Person?

No, I disagree. The concept doesn’t become a person. The concept remains a concept. In this case the “concept” you are referring to is probably more like a descriptor or a noun rather than a concept. But in any case, what happens is that a baby is born and the “concept” can then be used to indicate / identify what that baby is (a baby).

Perhaps an example would illustrate. After I had a shower this morning I was naked, I was not the concept “naked” but the term could be used to describe my state. When I put my clothes on I did not change from being the concept “naked” to being the concept “dressed”. But those terms could be used to describe my state at those times.

Am I currently the concept “typing”? No. It’s a word which can be used to describe my action.

If this is what you mean when you say that “Jesus is the truth”. Then this is rather trivial because that just means that I am the truth when I say something that is true.

How so?

Truth cannot be reasoned? Is that the atheist position you’re proferring?

What I was aiming at was something more like “Two people cannot reason their way to the truth by each repeating contradictory points of view.” That’s what I was referring to by “until this behaviour ceases”.

Oh! Oh! I just got another inspiration! It segues nicely with the above proposition.

Love is another concept which becomes a person, is it not? When a husband and wife come together in the marital embrace, sometimes their love is sooo much of a concept that, 9 months later, you can actually hold this Love and give her a name!

Again as above, I would not say this is a concept becoming a person.