If it could be proved no god exists

[JJ50]

I wouldn't say distrustful. I just know what I would have done. We were heading in the direction of divorce until Jesus came in our lives and in 24 hours it was turned around.

Remember, the question was asked "What if we knew there was no God".



OK. But we are changing the subject matter here.

But IMV, God is not worried but rather has deep concern for us and is constantly trying to help us. At the least, knowing God's will helps us in direction. A true north, so to speak.

But, yes, we must face the truth. For us, Jesus is the truth and the way leading to life. And he lives inside me.

Jesus is a character inside your mind, who in reality died over 2000 years ago and stayed dead, imo.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of potential harm as well. Many a person has bet too much on that notion.

Even so, it would probably be very much worth it in the end.

Short term harms, long term gains - I think many could live with that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Short term harms, long term gains - I think many could live with that.

We all should definitely prepare the terrain. The current degree of reliance on god-ideas is just not healthy, nor morally defensable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You cannot prove something is NOT present anywhere in the universe, at all times, visible or invisible or in other dimensions, and never was there. To be able to see all of that, even with technology assistance is to be omniscient. And outside time, because you'd have to prove not only that God is not here now but that God never was.

We can ignore most of that, though, because any "god" you or anyone else is referring to when you say "God" isn't - and can't be - anything out beyond the knowledge of humanity.

When you use the term "God," it either points to something within the sphere of your knowledge or it points to nothing at all. When we're evaluating your claim that God exists, we don't need to look off in some far-flung corner of the universe or in some inaccessible parallel dimension; we only need to look within your sphere of knowledge. Anything outside that sphere can't be what you're referring to as "God."

 

[blü 2]

What "evidence" ?

The millennia-old failure of the faithful to demonstrate the existence of their god in reality.
The fact that God neither says nor does. (Only people do that.)
The enormous assortment of gods and theologies around the world.
The corresponding absence of any objective test for truth or falsity of supernatural claims.
The existence of injustice, unfairness, bad things, bad accidents, (or, going the other way, good fortune, lottery wins) without differentiation between the moral worth of the victims.
The ineffectiveness of prayer and the self-serving arbitrariness of the concept of 'miracles'.
The absence of any objective test that can distinguish the 'spiritual', the 'supernatural', the 'immaterial' &c from the imaginary.
Since 'real' means 'existing in nature' = 'in the world external to the self' = 'in the realm of the physical sciences', 'supernatural' can only mean imaginary.
The absence of any definition of a real god, one having objective (non-imaginary) existence such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it were God or a god, or not.
The absence of any definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist would lack.
...
(Say when.)

 

[Samantha Rinne]

We can ignore most of that, though, because any "god" you or anyone else is referring to when you say "God" isn't - and can't be - anything out beyond the knowledge of humanity.

When you use the term "God," it either points to something within the sphere of your knowledge or it points to nothing at all. When we're evaluating your claim that God exists, we don't need to look off in some far-flung corner of the universe or in some inaccessible parallel dimension; we only need to look within your sphere of knowledge. Anything outside that sphere can't be what you're referring to as "God."

Alright we're using the term "Santa Claus" then, since non-theist types often conflate the two as basically about as real.

"Santa Clause isn't real" you say.

However, first you would have to prove that such never existed (a reference to Deism and how God created at one point then effectively stepped back) and you would immediately be stymied by the fact that there was in fact a Saint Nicholas, a (I believe he was Eastern Orthodox in like Turkey or modern Syria) Christian priest who was excessively generous, along with being committed to spreading the Gospel. You'd also have to somehow prove that there aren't alternate dimensions where tech is secondary to some sort of magic (an easy explanation of why ppl don't normally see God is that he mostly exists in Heaven). And you'd have to prove somehow that the parents, carrying out the role of Santa, aren't in fact proving his existence (a reference to the Body of Christ, and how Jesus is supposed to be within us).

 

[Audie]

Alright we're using the term "Santa Claus" then, since non-theist types often conflate the two as basically about as real.

"Santa Clause isn't real" you say.

However, first you would have to prove that such never existed (a reference to Deism and how God created at one point then effectively stepped back) and you would immediately be stymied by the fact that there was in fact a Saint Nicholas, a (I believe he was Eastern Orthodox in like Turkey or modern Syria) Christian priest who was excessively generous, along with being committed to spreading the Gospel. You'd also have to somehow prove that there aren't alternate dimensions where tech is secondary to some sort of magic (an easy explanation of why ppl don't normally see God is that he mostly exists in Heaven). And you'd have to prove somehow that the parents, carrying out the role of Santa, aren't in fact proving his existence (a reference to the Body of Christ, and how Jesus is supposed to be within us).

At which point it becomes equally sensible to discuss
how Batboy operates a secret space-portal in my
microwave oven.

"alternate dimensions", ya know. And magic.

 

[PruePhillip]

The millennia-old failure of the faithful to demonstrate the existence of their god in reality.
The fact that God neither says nor does. (Only people do that.)
The enormous assortment of gods and theologies around the world.
The corresponding absence of any objective test for truth or falsity of supernatural claims.
The existence of injustice, unfairness, bad things, bad accidents, (or, going the other way, good fortune, lottery wins) without differentiation between the moral worth of the victims.
The ineffectiveness of prayer and the self-serving arbitrariness of the concept of 'miracles'.
The absence of any objective test that can distinguish the 'spiritual', the 'supernatural', the 'immaterial' &c from the imaginary.
Since 'real' means 'existing in nature' = 'in the world external to the self' = 'in the realm of the physical sciences', 'supernatural' can only mean imaginary.
The absence of any definition of a real god, one having objective (non-imaginary) existence such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it were God or a god, or not.
The absence of any definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist would lack.
...
(Say when.)

This is the starting point for any Christian.
The definition of Godliness is given through Jesus. "If you have seen me you have seen God"
Jesus told Phillip.
And this addresses another point, "The existence of injustice, unfairness, bad things, bad accidents"
Two commandments, love God and love your fellow man.
But this love is not imposed. If you love Jesus then you want to be like him. This is where justice, fairness
etc come in. We are all free to do and believe as we please - you wouldn't want it any other way.
Jesus himself condemned the gods of this world.
And saying "real" exists in this world only is a statement which is not scientific.

Now you won't accept any of this. But you must appreciate there are contenders to your POV.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't think so. There is a big difference between a sprinkling of non-believers than a world without God.

Ahh... so you mean to say that once all people were "non-believers" is when we'd have trouble.

But my point, even in that case, still stands. It is the ones who are currently of theistic mindset that you necessarily must be worried about. Because as it stands, this world we live in with a "sprinkling" of atheists currently sees a larger percentage of believers, and a very low percentage of "atheists" in the prison system. A disproportionate percentage in fact - meaning that those haling as theists are more likely to commit crimes than those hailing as atheist. You may point to some idea that some of those hailing from a particular faith aren't really believers by YOUR standards... but then what are they, really? Most of them probably wouldn't dare call themselves atheist. So I still contend that your worry about the world being plunged into chaos is worry pointed directly at those minds that are capable of believing in God in the first place.

I think this is a superficial look. If there is no God, then there is no standard of morality...

This is just so presumptuous and just plain wrong... and my next words should point you in the direction of

...and, thus, you saying that "Ken has too much, it is only right that I take some of it" would be OK. Likewise, someone else could say "We have too many people in this world and too many that are starving and since you are just another animal, and a lame one at than, it is within my moral compass that you should be dinner tomorrow."

Now, you could say, "No one would ever do that!" yet there is cannibalism. Who would be the one to determine who was right? And if you said, "It is obvious that it is wrong!", who put that sense in you?
.

Why, isn't it ALL of us, in total, that determine what is right or wrong? Isn't that how the world works anyway? Didn't we decide that abortion should stick around, regardless what those thumping their Bibles to a different tune were saying? Haven't we pushed for the separation of church and state, even amidst the cries of "persecution" from those of faith who would rather install a theocracy? Don't we teach evolution in schools regardless how badly some theists want to claim "creation" without ANY empirical evidence?

And you know what's funny? If we collectively don't like cannibalism, and we stomp it out by intimidating or forcing consequences upon or mocking and ridiculing or sanctioning or imprisoning perpetrators - you can point at those punishing acts all you like and ask "Where do you get the authority to tell those people that is wrong?" -and I would tell you it is EXACTLY the place that those people consulted in order to tell themselves that it was "right." Meaning that if they can't help what they think is "right" due to their culture/upbringing/mental-state/etc., then I can USE THE EXACT SAME EXCUSE when I go about the business of locking them away and throwing away the key. "I can't help it." Because this is what my behavior/upbringing/culture/mental-state forces ME to do - that is, to lock them up or punish them, etc. Do you see? Morality is a push-and-pull act... a "quid pro quo" scenario within which we all get a "say," after a fashion - and people either conform to the flow or they get stopped by those of us exercising our own ability to do as we wish. If our particular view doesn't happen to be of the liking of the majority of the rest of our peers in society, then if we act on it we get locked up. Doesn't mean we are "incapable" of acting in those ways deemed immoral by our peers - and it certainly doesn't mean that there is some otherworldly force looking down on us and judging our actions. What a silly notion. When the "punishment" isn't even enacted until after one has died? What good is that system? Do you seriously think people get taught "lessons" in that setup? And yet this is the way God supposedly behaves. He allows all of us on Earth to suffer at the hands of those who would do us harm, but promises to take care of it at some later time when it no longer matters. Great. Just great. Way to go "God." Really knocked it out of the park with that one. What great "justice" you have wrought.

At any rate - it may sound "unfair," and, at times, it is! Just look at all the time that has gone by within which the Christians of our world have condemned gays, causing all sorts of prejudice and fear among the ranks of "ordinary" citizenry, and, I would argue, almost directly causing the beatings and hate-crime attacks against homosexuals. A blind eye was turned to some of that activity for quite a while because the majority of the citizens felt that homosexuality was the more immoral act in question... not the beating or the hate-crimes. This was the MAJORITY (Christians of the U.S. society, who have historically comprised the greatest percentage of population) imposing their moral will on society and claiming that homosexuality was basically a crime worthy of some type of punishment. It can be a very disgusting and broken system at times, but we're always working on it. And I would contend also that what we have today is far and away better than what The Bible teaches - which still contains things like admonishing homosexuality. We've moved past that. It's out-dated. We can file it away now under "the best we could do at the time."

 

[PruePhillip]

At any rate - it may sound "unfair," and, at times, it is! Just look at all the time that has gone by within which the Christians of our world have condemned gays, causing all sorts of prejudice and fear among the ranks of "ordinary" citizenry, and, I would argue, almost directly causing the beatings and hate-crime attacks against homosexuals. A blind eye was turned to some of that activity for quite a while because the majority of the citizens felt that homosexuality was the more immoral act in question... not the beating or the hate-crimes. It can be a very disgusting and broken system at times, but we're always working on it. And I would contend also that what we have today is far and away better than what The Bible teaches - which still contains things like admonishing homosexuality. We've moved past that. It's out-dated. We can file it away now under "the best we could do at the time."

An honest argument makes the necessary distinctions.
And there is a distinction between "Christianity" and the
mainstream churches. Churches that amass power,
privilege and even support wars, for instance, do not
speak for Christianity.

But you speak for homosexuality. Why not speak of
adultery? Have we "moved past" the "outdated" ideas
concerning adultery? Read my profile below - I put it
to you that things are a lot, lot worse today, socially
speaking, than at any time in Western history.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The "all faiths are created by humans" part wouldn't need omniscience.

How do you know God didn't create all faiths/some faiths/one faith?

There are Christians who say your skepticism was predetermined by God, were you unaware of that, since you lack omniscience?

Even if you could find proof that all faiths were created by known persons, how would you know God didn't evolve these beliefs, apart from near-omniscience?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know God didn't create all faiths/some faiths/one faith?

There are Christians who say your skepticism was predetermined by God, were you unaware of that, since you lack omniscience?

Even if you could find proof that all faiths were created by known persons, how would you know God didn't evolve these beliefs, apart from near-omniscience?

At some point, we need to use some common sense and apply the principle of parsimony. Otherwise, we get into omphalusm and Pastafarian apologetics territory:

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

Open Letter To Kansas School Board at Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

If we don't do this, yes, we may not be able to exclude your wild, unsubstantiated hypotheticals, but we also wouldn't be able to exclude the countless wild, unsubstantiated hypotheticals that are incompatible with yours, so you don't get any closer to establishing your preferred fantastic claims as true.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

An honest argument makes the necessary distinctions.
And there is a distinction between "Christianity" and the
mainstream churches. Churches that amass power,
privilege and even support wars, for instance, do not
speak for Christianity.

No, there is no such distinction that can honestly be made. To do so is to turn to your fellow "Christian" and tell them they aren't allowed to use that title. They ARE allowed to use it. Whatever "Christianity" is at any given moment, precisely because of the grouping of people it is currently made up of, I'm sorry friend... that's "Christianity." Try and claim otherwise. You can tell me all you want that certain people aren't really "following Christ," but I don't care. A nebulous term like "Christianity" reaps what it sows - anyone and everyone can "join." You have to setup a specific and rigid criteria by which you can test if someone is a "true Christian" or not, but unfortunately, the guy next to you is going to setup a separate definition and test. Nothing you can do about it. This is the whole crux behind the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Now, juxtapose that with something incredibly easy to discern - like believing the world is round. In that proposition/position - you either do or you don't. How SIMPLE is that test, eh? Now... what would the criteria be for determining whether or not someone is a "Christian?" Well... the test and criteria sure gets A LOT more complicated. Too bad. Not my problem. People who call themselves "Christians" represent "Christianity." That's all I care about. I don't care about assessing them according to some criteria I can't even understand, or that changes every 5 minutes, or from person to person. I CAN'T CARE about that. You don't like it? Fix it. You can't fix it? Again... I don't care. I don't. Not at all. It isn't even close to my problem. I don't even consider a "problem" in the first place, and I am certainly not willing to "work with you" on it. What a waste of time that would be.

But you speak for homosexuality. Why not speak of
adultery? Have we "moved past" the "outdated" ideas
concerning adultery? Read my profile below - I put it
to you that things are a lot, lot worse today, socially
speaking, than at any time in Western history.

Please tell me that you do not think "adultery" to be a worse act than owning a slave. Please tell me that you do not think "adultery" to be worse than lynch mobs. Please tell me that you do not think "adultery" to be worse than burning someone at the stake.

You see... I am giving you examples of absolutely horrid behavior that used to go on in earlier times that happens far less today (if it happens at all), and certainly not in "western" society to any great degree. When was the last time someone was lynched on U.S. soil, and what can we expect the frequency of such crimes to be in our modern era? And certainly these crimes are much, much worse than adultery. Adultery hurts people's feelings - not their physical state. I would argue that harming a person physically is almost always a worse situation than hurting their feelings or affecting their emotional state. You'd have to do some pretty heavy emotional damage to someone before I'd agree that that was as bad as cutting off their arm, for example. So, according to my ratings of the severity or immorality of crimes, I don't agree with you at all that things are getting worse. Definitely the opposite from my point of view.

 

[Windwalker]

I wouldn't say distrustful. I just know what I would have done. We were heading in the direction of divorce until Jesus came in our lives and in 24 hours it was turned around.

Remember, the question was asked "What if we knew there was no God".

I'm happy you two were able to figure out you needed to change the direction of your life. What you did is figured out you wanted to be happy and chose to follow a path of love, for yourselves and for each other. Couples do this all the time when they choose to work on themselves and their issues with each others. It's about choosing the path of love, and they can do that both without or without belief in God or Jesus specifically.

So, do you believe that because that worked for you, that without that same thing you found, they can't find love? You don't believe people can choose a path of love, without sworn professions of doctrinal faith? You believe because you were lost, and Jesus helped you begin to find yourself, that there is no way anyone else can find that path unless they have the same encounter with Christian beliefs?

Let me ask you this way. Do believe that if you found out that what you've believed about God or Jesus is not necessarily the truth, that this would mean you would abandon love? Isn't choosing love, what saved you? Isn't that what saves everyone?

OK. But we are changing the subject matter here.

But IMV, God is not worried but rather has deep concern for us and is constantly trying to help us. At the least, knowing God's will helps us in direction. A true north, so to speak.

But, yes, we must face the truth. For us, Jesus is the truth and the way leading to life. And he lives inside me.

I think a good litmus test for faith is to say, even if nothing I believe is true, if we came to realize that when we die, we die, there was no golden city awaiting us as a reward for being good in this life, would we still chose to follow the path of love? If anyone answers no to that, then they don't understand the truth of that Love. We love for Love's sake, without an eye on personal rewards or gains.

People choose love all the time, for the sake of love itself, without needing to believe in God as a diety. Atheists choose that path too, because love is its own reward. People off all faiths, or no faith, follow love instead of violence because it leads to a fuller, richer, more vibrant state of being for all who follow it. God beliefs can be helpful for one's path of love, but they are not necessary.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

But just because one person does something good does not mean that the next person agrees that what they did was good in and of itself.

That is why there would be chaos. One person will say it is morally good not to violate a seven-year-old and the next person will say it is morally good to teach them about sexuality by experience.

There is no standard. If there is true morality, there is a true morality giver. If there is a true morality giver, there is a God. IM V

I think most people (both theists and atheists) believe that violating children is wrong, and I think that a secular society with laws based on reasoning could mutually agree on good reasons as to why pedophilia should be prohibited by law. I think that societies can make rational judgments about what actions are beneficial and detrimental to individuals and societies and from there, decide on the behaviors that should be allowed and prohibited. There may be some differences, but overall, if the goal of the welfare and happiness of individuals and the society is in mind for the society, the moral systems of the societies will be similar as long as the benefit of everyone is in mind. I think as human beings we can choose to agree how to define right and wrong and from there construct moral systems that will be very good. True, there will be subjectivity involved, however, I think that morality is a manmade construct and as a result, all moral judgments are subjective. Of course, you disagree with me on this point, but I think you'd have to admit that a secular society COULD construct a moral system (based on harm/benefit analysis) that would work well and prevent scenarios such as the one you described.

 

[nPeace]

I wonder what would be the reaction of theists if evidence was discovered which proved beyond any shadow of doubt that no god has ever existed, and all faiths are created by humans?

My reaction would be, Told ya." Because the only way to prove that no god exists, if if God told you.

 

[Kenny]

I think most people (both theists and atheists) believe that violating children is wrong, and I think that a secular society with laws based on reasoning could mutually agree on good reasons as to why pedophilia should be prohibited by law. I think that societies can make rational judgments about what actions are beneficial and detrimental to individuals and societies and from there, decide on the behaviors that should be allowed and prohibited. There may be some differences, but overall, if the goal of the welfare and happiness of individuals and the society is in mind for the society, the moral systems of the societies will be similar as long as the benefit of everyone is in mind. I think as human beings we can choose to agree how to define right and wrong and from there construct moral systems that will be very good. True, there will be subjectivity involved, however, I think that morality is a manmade construct and as a result, all moral judgments are subjective. Of course, you disagree with me on this point, but I think you'd have to admit that a secular society COULD construct a moral system (based on harm/benefit analysis) that would work well and prevent scenarios such as the one you described.

I think I haven't explained myself well.

I'm not saying that man can't create a "moral system". And in their eyes it would be moral. But who determined if it is actually moral? Or who hold the plumb-line of what is moral?

Example (if Wikipedia is correct):

So, as of September 2019, in the 37 states that have set a marriage age by statute, the lower minimum marriage age when all exceptions are taken into account, are:[9]

• 2 states have a minimum age of 14: Alaska and North Carolina.
• 4 states have a minimum age of 15.
• 20 states have a minimum age of 16.
• 9 states have a minimum age of 17.
• 2 states have a minimum age of 18.

So which one is morally correct? The two states of minimum of 18 might say 14 is morally wrong.

My point is that, yes man can create their morality, Hitler created his and no one was going to argue (very long) that he was wrong. But, IMV, only God has the ultimate "morality" standard.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, there is no such distinction that can honestly be made. To do so is to turn to your fellow "Christian" and tell them they aren't allowed to use that title. They ARE allowed to use it. Whatever "Christianity" is at any given moment, precisely because of the grouping of people it is currently made up of, I'm sorry friend... that's "Christianity." Try and claim otherwise. You can tell me all you want that certain people aren't really "following Christ," but I don't care. A nebulous term like "Christianity" reaps what it sows - anyone and everyone can "join." You have to setup a specific and rigid criteria by which you can test if someone is a "true Christian" or not, but unfortunately, the guy next to you is going to setup a separate definition and test. Nothing you can do about it. This is the whole crux behind the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Now, juxtapose that with something incredibly easy to discern - like believing the world is round. In that proposition/position - you either do or you don't. How SIMPLE is that test, eh? Now... what would the criteria be for determining whether or not someone is a "Christian?" Well... the test and criteria sure gets A LOT more complicated. Too bad. Not my problem. People who call themselves "Christians" represent "Christianity." That's all I care about. I don't care about assessing them according to some criteria I can't even understand, or that changes every 5 minutes, or from person to person. I CAN'T CARE about that. You don't like it? Fix it. You can't fix it? Again... I don't care. I don't. Not at all. It isn't even close to my problem. I don't even consider a "problem" in the first place, and I am certainly not willing to "work with you" on it. What a waste of time that would be.

Please tell me that you do not think "adultery" to be a worse act than owning a slave. Please tell me that you do not think "adultery" to be worse than lynch mobs. Please tell me that you do not think "adultery" to be worse than burning someone at the stake.

You see... I am giving you examples of absolutely horrid behavior that used to go on in earlier times that happens far less today (if it happens at all), and certainly not in "western" society to any great degree. When was the last time someone was lynched on U.S. soil, and what can we expect the frequency of such crimes to be in our modern era? And certainly these crimes are much, much worse than adultery. Adultery hurts people's feelings - not their physical state. I would argue that harming a person physically is almost always a worse situation than hurting their feelings or affecting their emotional state. You'd have to do some pretty heavy emotional damage to someone before I'd agree that that was as bad as cutting off their arm, for example. So, according to my ratings of the severity or immorality of crimes, I don't agree with you at all that things are getting worse. Definitely the opposite from my point of view.

So there's no distinction between Christians? You are off to a bad start in any deep
discussion of anything if you deny distinctions.
Let's put it like this - you can be
1 - of the Christian culture
2 - being like Jesus.

Sounds stupidly simple, doesn't it? Christian thought is about incredibly simple concepts.

But people of Christian culture warred against each other and committed atrocities.
People of Christian culture took slaves (though Westerners like to forget that Muslims
took over a million Christians as slaves too, and Africans enslaved one another....)

If you enslaved another person, or worse, lynched someone, then you are not living as
Jesus lived. Jesus came to love people and be the servant himself. Worse, the bible
states that what you have done to another will be done to you. "Those who lead into
slavery will be led into slavery."

In a nutshell, our drug addled and adulterous world judges Christianity by those who
breached its principles.

 

[ecco]

Humans had devised moral standards long before the Jews ever thought to write them down.

Yes, which included Human sacrifice!

Yeah. The God of the Jews did away with human sacrifice. Instead, He drowned most of humanity himself. That didn't leave a lot of humans to sacrifice.

Later He ordered the death of the wives and male children of defeated enemies. The young female children were given to his soldiers to do with as they wanted (slavery and rape).

He also said it was acceptable to own and beat slaves.

He was OK with 1/3 of himself raping a young virgin in order to produce another 1/3 of himself in earthly form.

But, as you said, He did away with human sacrifice. Such great morals to teach children in Sunday school.

 

[ecco]

I don't think so. There is a big difference between a sprinkling of non-believers than a world without God.

"a world without God"? Don't you really mean a world without Gods? Are you so isolated that you never heard of Allah? Or Shiva? Or hundreds of other Gods worshipped. Aren't you aware that even within A GOD there are hundreds and thousands of different groups and sects all with their own way of worshipping - many often killing each other for Their Version Of God?