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

[PRmerger]

Instead all the evidence supports that they live happy, normal lives. Now is there any evidence that could convince you that these people are actually living normal happy lives as they appear to be?

Did you know about this?

news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110519/ts_yblog_thecutline/arnold-mistress-tk

I rest my case.

 

[Betterave]

I’d be interested in what you think the true meaning of heaven is. (yours and whoever else.)

Hear’s part of what Pope Benedict had to say about it in his 2007 encyclical Spe salvi:

Eternal life – what is it?

1. We have spoken thus far of faith and hope in the New Testament and in early Christianity; yet it has always been clear that we are referring not only to the past: the entire reflection concerns living and dying in general, and therefore it also concerns us here and now. So now we must ask explicitly: is the Christian faith also for us today a life-changing and life-sustaining hope?

Is it “performative” for us—is it a message which shapes our life in a new way, or is it just “information” which, in the meantime, we have set aside and which now seems to us to have been superseded by more recent information? In the search for an answer, I would like to begin with the classical form of the dialogue with which the rite of Baptism expressed the reception of an infant into the community of believers and the infant’s rebirth in Christ. First of all the priest asked what name the parents had chosen for the child, and then he continued with the question: “What do you ask of the Church?” Answer: “Faith”. “And what does faith give you?” “Eternal life”. According to this dialogue, the parents were seeking access to the faith for their child, communion with believers, because they saw in faith the key to “eternal life”. Today as in the past, this is what being baptized, becoming Christians, is all about: it is not just an act of socialization within the community, not simply a welcome into the Church. The parents expect more for the one to be baptized: they expect that faith, which includes the corporeal nature of the Church and her sacraments, will give life to their child—eternal life. Faith is the substance of hope. But then the question arises: do we really want this—to live eternally? Perhaps many people reject the faith today simply because they do not find the prospect of eternal life attractive. What they desire is not eternal life at all, but this present life, for which faith in eternal life seems something of an impediment. To continue living for ever —endlessly—appears more like a curse than a gift. Death, admittedly, one would wish to postpone for as long as possible. But to live always, without end—this, all things considered, can only be monotonous and ultimately unbearable. This is precisely the point made, for example, by Saint Ambrose, one of the Church Fathers, in the funeral discourse for his deceased brother Satyrus: “Death was not part of nature; it became part of nature. God did not decree death from the beginning; he prescribed it as a remedy. Human life, because of sin … began to experience the burden of wretchedness in unremitting labour and unbearable sorrow. There had to be a limit to its evils; death had to restore what life had forfeited. Without the assistance of grace, immortality is more of a burden than a blessing”[6]. A little earlier, Ambrose had said: “Death is, then, no cause for mourning, for it is the cause of mankind’s salvation”[7].

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think perhaps my wording of the OP could have been better. It certainly seems to have caused some confusion around the use of the word “proven”.

The key point is that while you cannot prove in an absolute sense that God doesn’t exist, it is however, possible to prove it to an individuals satisfaction. Both of my hypotheticals are in fact possible and indeed have occurred many times.

It is also, however, possible to prove that pancakes cause earthquakes to an individuals satisfaction - proves nowt. I’m very tempted to contend with the absolute veracity of the statement of regularity of occurance as well, without even checking what you’re talking about! But that would just be reckless… or maybe just irresponsible

 

[Candide_West]

What makes you think that those features are outside our definition of G-d? Our definition as Homo Sapiens doesn’t exclude us from being self aware or active.

Ah I see the misunderstanding here. I said that those features are outside your definition of G-d. Not that they are excluded by it.*

Defining G-d as essentially “existence” means that it isn’t reasonable to question if G-d (existence) exists. However that definition does not include existence (G-d) being a self aware or active. Of course it could be, at least in theory, but there is nothing in that definition which says that existence (G-d) couldn’t be something else.*

Our definition of G-d cannot be dependent on anything else, what ever can be said to exist, depends on our G-d who is the act of existing.*

Yes, but as above, that doesn’t mean that G-d is self aware etc. There is no logical reason that G-d (by your definition) could not be a dimensional reference frame or something similar. And the christian God to either not exist at all or to be something different - a being who created the human race, manifested as Jesus etc.

So to try again at the edited OP, let’s say for the moment a hypothetical situation where God manifested himself on earth again (this time standing a thousand feet tall out of the pacific ocean), Jesus came back, miracles were performed all over the earth, flights of angels travelled everywhere etc etc. But he said that while he’d done all the things in the bible etc, the catholic church had got one (and only one) thing wrong - he was actually dependent on the existence of a dimensional reference frame. Would you then worship God (the amazing being who created humanity and will look after your “soul” after you die) or the dimensional reference frame (“G-d”)?*

G-d is defined as the act of existing. The negation of that is “nothing exists”.

Perhaps I am not understanding you here, but as far as I can seethe negation of “G-d is defined as the act of existing” would be “G-d is not defined as the act of existing”.

G-d showed up. We documented it over the course of centuries. Those 73 books which corroborated each other were gathered into the library we call the Bible.

As I said before, to date you have given me nothing to connect G-d to the history of your religion or the documents you speak of. Clearly existence (G-d) is everywhere so I find the use of the term “showed up” a bit odd. But fair enough, existence (G-d) exists and people have realised that existence exists. Why does that mean that these documents may be relied on to accurately refer to the existence of existence (G-d).

There is no difference between the two. Same idea of G-d

Except that you have defined G-d as existence. Which clearly exists. While God postulates a supreme being of some sort existing which may or may not exist.*

In other words your definition of G-d makes G-d’s existence tautological - essentially it reduces to “existence exists”.*

The same cannot be said for the christian concept of God as a supreme being. As it posits a whole load of characteristics of a being, one of which is “necessary existence” clearly it is not a logical necessity for existence to be a being. It is theoretically possible, but it could also be something else.

As I said before if you wish to talk about G-d then I’m happy to assume it exists and the OP becomes “what would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that G-d is not a “being”, or self aware etc”.

If you wish to talk about a supreme being then we can’t assume it exists and the OP reverts to the original. I’m happy with either but not with saying “existence exists, therefore existence is a supreme being”.*

This is what I was getting at when I said about conflating the terms G-d and God. It makes better sense to refer to the concepts separately as “existence” and “a supreme being” for clarity.

It refers to the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy, the reason that Christianity exists. A mathematical proof of Christian truth. Contrary to popular opinion, non theological faith is not a part of our *religion. The theological virtue of faith means to trust in the goodness of G-d, His willingness to fulfill His promises. Not to believe in something without sufficient reason.

Never encountered a mathematical proof for christianity before. Seems hard to believe such a thing exists as mathematical proofs generally only work in a mathematical framework. But cannot tell you about the real world. Ie, It is not possible to mathematically prove I have 4 fingers on my left hand.**

Could you insert it here or perhaps direct me to a source?*

I know what it means, its just not a metaphysical meaningful term. I didn’t mean to say I didn’t understand.

Fair enough, I misunderstood. So you know that there is no logical reason that your definition of G-d could not be fulfilled by a dimensional reference frame?

 

[Candide_West]

It can’t be proven that God does not exist. Logically impossible.

Once again we trip over an issue with wording. I didn’t say proven. I said proven to your satisfaction. Another way to say it would be simply that you to conclude that God simply doesn’t exist. I agree that it is not even theoretically possible to prove God doesn’t exist. But obviously it is perfectly possible to prove it to an individuals satisfaction.*

You can’t prove to an atheist that God exists if he doesn’t want it to be proven to him. If it is proven to him that God exists, it’s because he he has opened his heart to God, not because he has opened his head.*

Once again, of course it is possible to prove the existence of God to an atheist. There are plenty of conversion stories out there where exactly this has happened.*

That is, he has experienced God, rather than merely thought about Him. There’s proof in that pudding.

Yep, meeting an angel or something like that would do the business for me easy I think.*

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Defining G-d as essentially “existence” means that it isn’t reasonable to question if G-d (existence) exists…

G-ds substance is not synonymous with existence. G-d is the act of existing. These are different ontological objects. We are panen-theists not pantheists.

…There is no logical reason that G-d (by your definition) could not be a dimensional reference frame or something similar…

Whatever can be said to exist is dependent on the act of existing for its manifestation. It doesn’t matter if its a dimensional reference frame or a snickers bar.

So to try again at the edited OP, let’s say for the moment a hypothetical situation where God manifested himself on earth again (this time standing a thousand feet tall out of the pacific ocean), Jesus came back, miracles were performed all over the earth, flights of angels travelled everywhere etc etc. But he said that while he’d done all the things in the bible etc, the catholic church had got one (and only one) thing wrong - he was actually dependent on the existence of a dimensional reference frame. Would you then worship God (the amazing being who created humanity and will look after your “soul” after you die) or the dimensional reference frame (“G-d”)?*

G-d cannot be dependent on anything else for His existence. If that scenario happened I would know it wasn’t G-d.

Perhaps I am not understanding you here, but as far as I can seethe negation of “G-d is defined as the act of existing” would be “G-d is not defined as the act of existing”.

You must be kidding.

As I said before, to date you have given me nothing to connect G-d to the history of your religion or the documents you speak of. Clearly existence (G-d) is everywhere so I find the use of the term “showed up” a bit odd. But fair enough, existence (G-d) exists and people have realised that existence exists. Why does that mean that these documents may be relied on to accurately refer to the existence of existence (G-d).

G-d stated his existence as I AM. The documents all corroborate each others narrative and as a whole the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy mathematically verifies the Truth of Christianity.

In other words your definition of G-d makes G-d’s existence tautological - essentially it reduces to “existence exists”.*…

G-ds existence is a logical tautology the negation of which results in a contradiction. Act of existing=act of not existing. The entire idea of “nothing exists” is a logical contradiction. noThing=someThing. The only possible state of reality is to be.

This is what I was getting at when I said about conflating the terms G-d and God. It makes better sense to refer to the concepts separately as “existence” and “a supreme being” for clarity.

I am not conflating them. They are the same word. They mean the same thing, "god’ is the word in the way you mean it, only its not possible in our epistemology, what you really mean is some being less than G-d. Like an idol, a statue or a tree. The nature of G-d in the way you think of Him is nothing like what Christians actually believe. I wouldn’t believe in what you call god either.

Never encountered a mathematical proof for christianity before. Seems hard to believe such a thing exists as mathematical proofs generally only work in a mathematical framework. But cannot tell you about the real world. Ie, It is not possible to mathematically prove I have 4 fingers on my left hand.**

Christianity exists because the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies centuries and millennium after they were written. Mathematical certainty is the only reason we are here.

Could you insert it here or perhaps direct me to a source?*

Google a book Science Speaks You can get a .pdf. You can also get a lot more information from various sites on Messianic prophecy.

 

[Candide_West]

Another way of expressing this is to say “nothing can produce nothing”.
Please show me mathematically how it is possible to get any product (something) from 0 (zero).

Er, why? We aren’t talking about maths here as far as I know but a physical reality of “nothing existing”. Thus it remains a bald assertion.

Besides, point 2 in MoM’s argument makes this irrelevant.

 

[Candide_West]

Could they?

Yes, and they do.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes, and they do.

Then you can show us in your own words how they do that and why their arguments are equally plausible as the Christian historical proofs or evidences regarding Jesus Christ’s life death and resurrection. If you can’t do that, then I will be forced to assume that you are just making unsupportable assertions in support of an objectively worthless agenda.

 

[Holly3278]

Even if someone had “proven” it to me that God didn’t exist, I’d still believe because I know that God does exist.

 

[Candide_West]

Not sure what is unclear about my statement. It is a statement of belief. … but that is what would need to be disproved in order for you to satisfy me.*

As a statement of belief it was perfectly clear, but I didn’t really get the connection to your stated view that you changing your beliefs would cause me to cease to exist. I think I’ve got this now though. Please correct me if I’m wrong but I think what you are really saying is that the only way to change your beliefs would be for existence to cease. Or to put it another way, it is impossible to prove to your satisfaction that God doesn’t exist.*If so then fair enough but it did seem like a rather lengthy way of saying that.

Just for clarification, you refer to it as a change in opinion, which is different than a change in belief.

Apologies, the two terms are quite synonymous to me. I’ll try to make sure I use the word belief instead.

Beliefs yes,not unusual to Catholics. *And again, not to be dismissed as an opinion. *

Assuming I’m correct about the top paragraph I think this is now resolved.*

Your response here is a misrepresentation of atheism, which denies the possibility of the divine. Yet you admit the possibility of a Creator… Atheists seem to have another kind of faith. Their faith is that the first thing is anything but God.*

I’m afraid as far as I can tell from online sources and my own experiences the above is a in fact a misrepresentation of atheism.*

Yes, I admit the theoretical possibility of the existence of God. In the same way I admit the theoretical possibility of fairies, magic, ghosts, and the flying spaghetti monster. I just don’t believe they exist as they all seem quite unlikely and are unsupported by evidence. That is an atheist position.*

As for atheists having faith in anything other than God. No I’m afraid that is a misrepresentation as well. When faced with a situation where the cause is unknown you can take it on faith that the cause is X. Or you can simply say “I don’t know what the cause is”. The former is the theist position, the latter is the atheist position. Note that the atheist position does not require faith in anything. It simply requires acknowledgement of an unknown.*

It comes down to the choice to have faith in love or faith in nothing.

No, actually I don’t think that your religious beliefs are a choice at all. I think they’re simply a conclusion. I remember being christian, it made life easier for me by providing a lot of easy answers. In many ways I’d still like to be a christian but I can’t make the evidence support the conclusion. So my choice is actually between accepting what I see and trying to lie to myself.

As far as I know, fairies do not claim to be divine. Nor do they claim to have created nature. Furthermore do you only believe what is proven scientifically?*

No, fairies have never claimed anything. But people have written and said many things about fairies. Obviously that doesn’t mean they exist. Of course the same could be said of God.*

No I don’t only believe what is scientifically proven. Apart from anything else because virtually nothing is proven (ie gravity). However I do tend not to believe in things which are not supported by evidence. This is primarily an issue of practicality since I need some criteria to determine what to believe, and evidence is a method which I have found to perform well.*

…man has only limited ability to explain the universe at which point faith must be engaged which is why most people won’t jump out of a fourth story window even though it is a direct path to the sidewalk.

I don’t think it takes faith to know that jumping out of a forth story building isn’t likely to end well. This is well supported by evidence. I do think it would take faith to make someone believe they’ll be fine doing it since that isn’t supported by evidence.*

I also wouldn’t agree that at the point knowledge ends faith must take over. Although I acknowledge that a lot of people do follow this. Personally I think that when knowledge ceases you say “I don’t know” and look for the answers. Not fill the gaps with faith in Gods or magic etc.

 

[Candide_West]

Both statements here are misleading.*
1.) Your lack of knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Church is evident. … It is not the Church’s mission to prove the existence of God…

I know well enough what the purpose of the catholic church is. But the fact remains as I said that the church and individuals within the church have attempted many times over the years to prove the existence of God. And they have not done so. This is what I refer to as “failed”.*

2.) Shocking as it may be, atheists have been around since nearly the beginning of human history. It is certainly nothing new.*

Granted atheism is very old, everyone is born atheist for a starter. It’s only as we grow older and learn about the social conventions of our society that we acquire religious beliefs.*

However, as I said through the course of human history virtually everyone has believed in some number of Gods (ranging from a single God to scores of them) or superstitious constructs. These have been used throughout history to provide social cohesion and answer all those difficult questions where people didn’t know the answers.*

Furthermore atheism certainly is pretty new in terms of being a established position. For a number of reasons I suppose, the increasing freedom of opinion and thought, the advances that science has made (which have provided explanations in some of those areas where “God did it” was once the only viable possibility), the increased mixing of our society with people of other cultures, the decline in power of the church in specific and elitism in general, an increasingly educated population who are happy to question and challenge perceived wisdom…

The Church does not aggressively attack atheism. It is rather evident that many atheists are nearly militant and certainly have palpable hatred towards the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes in free will which allows the individual to determine freely whether or not to accept its claims.*

Interesting, the reverse is also true of course. Atheism does not attack the church either. (Although I suppose by it’s existence shows that people are free to decide for themselves, which to an extent must challenge the churches power). However it is evident that many christians have a palpable hatred towards atheists and atheism. Something I’ve been on the receiving end of on a couple occasions.

Fair enough, I pray you consider them.

I have, in fact I’ve done more than that. I used to share them once.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

**I also wouldn’t agree that at the point knowledge ends faith must take over. Although I acknowledge that a lot of people do follow this. Personally I think that when knowledge ceases you say “I don’t know” and look for the answers. Not fill the gaps with faith in Gods or magic etc. **

You have a strong desire for certainty of the “show me” type.

If there is a God, you would require that He show himself to you in order to prove his existence.

But precisely because He does exist, He will not show Himself to you until you have earned the right.

Apparently you have decided He is not worth the effort to get to know unless it is on your terms, not His.

 

[Betterave]

No, actually I don’t think that your religious beliefs are a choice at all. I think they’re simply a conclusion. I remember being christian, it made life easier for me by providing a lot of easy answers. In many ways I’d still like to be a christian but I can’t make the evidence support the conclusion. So my choice is actually between accepting what I see and trying to lie to myself.

“…a lot of easy answers”? To what questions?

Presumably no one fully consciously lies to him/her-self, no one actually tries to lie to him/her-self… do they? The ‘evidence’ that supposedly supports a given conclusion, however, is often subject to interpretation, and the question is whether you’re being honest about that. It seems to me that your allegedly exhaustive dichotomy between “accepting what I see” and “trying to lie to myself” smacks of either naivety or dishonesty: either a too-simplistic understanding of your epistemic situation, or a voluntary and motivated refusal to understand, because in many ways you wouldn’t still like to be a Christian, and you also wouldn’t like to admit that your reasons for not still being a Christian cannot in fact be what you have been telling yourself they are.

So in response to your claim above, I would say that it seems to me that as an atheist you’ve settled for “a lot of easy answers,” so depending on what you mean by that, maybe not so much has changed since when you were a Christian?

 

[Windfish]

And a Muslim could produce a different but equally convincing set of reasons why Islam is logically it, a Hindu could too, as could a Jew etc.*

You’d think so, but nope. I mean, Islam is laughably is off the table. The only true contender to Christianity is Judaism.

 

[samiam1611]

You have a strong desire for certainty of the “show me” type.

If there is a God, you would require that He show himself to you in order to prove his existence.
**
But precisely because He does exist, He will not show Himself to you until you have earned the right.**
Apparently you have decided He is not worth the effort to get to know unless it is on your terms, not His.

I would say that precisely because He does not exist, there is no way to disprove His existence bc religion made this convenient little thing where you have to have faith to believe because you’re not allowed to put God to the test, to demand that He show Himself. If He showed Himself, it would take away free will to believe. How convenient for Catholics that God is invisible and that by His own rules, does not have to show Himself.

 

[Windfish]

I would say that precisely because He does not exist, there is no way to disprove His existence bc religion made this convenient little thing where you have to have faith to believe because you’re not allowed to put God to the test, to demand that He show Himself. If He showed Himself, it would take away free will to believe. How convenient for Catholics that God is invisible and that by His own rules, does not have to show Himself.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Seriously, you really don’t.

You don’t have to have “faith” to believe. That does not even make sense. We have faith in God. That is very different from having faith that he exists. Catholicism teaches that we can know that God exists with certainty. You are not allowed to put God to the test because he is the infinite and almighty One who knew you before you foolishly rejected him but created and loved you, anyway. It is YOU who must submit to his test.

 

[samiam1611]

You don’t know what you are talking about. Seriously, you really don’t.

You don’t have to have “faith” to believe. That does not even make sense. We have faith in God. That is very different from having faith that he exists. Catholicism teaches that we can know that God exists with certainty. You are not allowed to put God to the test because he is the infinite and almighty One who knew you before you foolishly rejected him but created and loved you, anyway. It is YOU who must submit to his test.

You’re right, I misspoke. Although I don’t appreciate being called foolish.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

samian

You’re right, I misspoke. Although I don’t appreciate being called foolish.

Are you so absolutely certain there is no God that it would be wisdom rather than foolishness to mock Him?

 

[samiam1611]

Actually,

You don’t have to have “faith” to believe. That does not even make sense.

That is where I misspoke.

We have faith in God. That is very different from having faith that he exists.

I’m confused. I do understand the difference, however, are you saying you don’t have faith that He exists? How come when a person questions the existence of God it is said that they lack faith? People will tell them “have faith.”

Catholicism teaches that we can know that God exists with certainty.

Yes, but the section of the Catechism concerning the existence of God is under Part 1, “The profession of** faith**.”
The Catechism says there are “…proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.”
This is foolish - to declare something with certainty without scientific proof.