What if you KNEW there was a God.

[Thanda]

In this context, it may be something along the lines of "people should care about their connection to God and/or their fate in the afterlife enough to make an effort at understanding the Bible (or perhaps allow the light of the Holy Spirit to guide them in attaining a functional understanding of it?)"

I don't agree with such a statement by a large margin, but that is what I understand to be meant.

Thank for not pretending to not understand a very simple idea.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank for not pretending to not understand a very simple idea.

It is simple, but it is also rather surprising in its exotism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, that is how you always establish the truth of something. You first make an assumption one way or the other. This is called the null hypothesis. You then determine what you would expect to observe if that something was true. You then run the test to see if you get the result you expected.

From my personal first hand experiences and the second hand experiences of those I know, I have decided to take God's existence as the null hypothesis. Do you have a problem with that?

As someone who does stats for a living, I can say that what you describe as "hypothesis testing":

- Hypothesis testing is about relationships: the hypothesis being tested can always be expressed in the form "there is a relationship between variable ____ and variable _____ to a statistically significant degree."
- The null hypothesis is always that this hypothesis is false. It can always be expressed in the form "there is NOT a relationship between variable ____and variable ____ to a statistically significant degree."
- You don't test the null hypothesis. You test your actual hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis if your hypothesis isn't supported to the degree you've specified.

Saying that hypothesis testing is just assuming whatever hypothesis you want is a bastardization of the process.

Regardless, you say you're testing the hypothesis that God exists. How have you done this? What things have you identified that would be true if God did or didn't exist that you were able to test?

I could likewise say few atheists can claim to be investigating the claim that there is a God since most are biased towards the idea that he doesn't exist. In fact I could extend it and say that anyone who lives and loves to live a life that is contrary to the teachings of the Christian God cannot honestly investigate his existence since they will likely have a clear bias towards his non-existence.

Speaking for myself, I've investigated Christianity to the point where I don't see the benefit of investigating further. In a perfect world, I suppose I'd want to investigate every claim forever, but I only have limited time and better things to do.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

I believe anyways but I would be praying God real big if there is proof of that

 

[Curious George]

So conjecture. Without physical evidence it is only conjecture. Logic and reason of what?

No prepositional phrase...just logic and reason.

 

[JustWondering]

You've replied to the wrong comment. Anyway I'm not sure what you are getting at. I am asking if your idea of justice - considering that you believe no one has free will - would consist of putting people in jail for as long as they need to be there until you believe they have changed. Further, if people already don't have free will, would you support giving suppressants or any other possible medical procedure that would make law abiding citizens.

I'm trying to see how deeply your belief in our lack of free will goes. To me it seems a logical conclusion that if people do not make choices out of free will then they are somehow forced to make them. And if they are forced then applying more force to their thoughts is perfectly okay. If a person goes to jail for assualt - give them an injection that will reduce their "anger hormones". If a person goes to jail for lying - give them truth serums everyday of their lives. Indeed we could just create a totalitarian society not unlike that contemplated in the movie "Equilibrium". We simply identify all the factors in human being that cause problems and we snuff them out with medication or surgery.

We would not be infringing on anyone's right to freedom of choice since they don't have it anyway.

The vast majority of people's brain chemistry is not out of whack and they pose no danger to others or themselves. Those who have obvious issues should be treated. Take the man who shot up the theater in Philadelphia recently. He had a history of mental issues. Do you really think such people shouldn't be treated before they hurt someone?

 

[JustWondering]

But when the Spirit of God testifies to our spirit I believe (or am led to believe) that the impression created goes deep in the soul and has the power to transform us.

People of different religions who worship different gods make the same claims. They are spiritually transformed for the better. So does that mean multiple gods exist or is it more likely that these "spiritual transformations" have a psychological cause? Furthermore, it is a fact that "spiritual experiences" can be caused by certain drugs. Many cultures had traditions of taking hallucinogens to see spirits/gods and go on spirit journeys. Which further supports the cause of "spiritual transformations" as brain chemistry, not god.

 

[Thanda]

The vast majority of people's brain chemistry is not out of whack and they pose no danger to others or themselves. Those who have obvious issues should be treated. Take the man who shot up the theater in Philadelphia recently. He had a history of mental issues. Do you really think such people shouldn't be treated before they hurt someone?

My point was that if we want the kind of society we would like to see and we don't believe in free will, then theoritically we would not have a problem programming or medicating everyone so that they do and produce what the society needs and expects.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point was that if we want the kind of society we would like to see and we don't believe in free will, then theoritically we would not have a problem programming or medicating everyone so that they do and produce what the society needs and expects.

So... in this hypothetical scenario of yours, criminals have no free will, but the people deciding what we should do with criminals do have free will?

 

[Thanda]

So... in this hypothetical scenario of yours, criminals have no free will, but the people deciding what we should do with criminals do have free will?

This is not my hypothetical situation: JustWondering believes we don't have free will. I am merely stating what I believe the logical consequences of that are. If no one has free will then controlling people (by any means) to make society safer, richer etc. should be perfectly fine since there is no free will to that can be infringed upon in doing so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not my hypothetical situation: JustWondering believes we don't have free will. I am merely stating what I believe the logical consequences of that are. If no one has free will then controlling people (by any means) to make society safer, richer etc. should be perfectly fine since there is no free will to that can be infringed upon in doing so.

What I'm getting at is that if people don't have free will, then we'd be just as stuck treating criminals however we treat them as the criminals would be stuck committing crimes.

Your arguments about what people ought to do assume that they have some choice in the matter, but the hypothetical scenario assumes they don't.

 

[Thanda]

What I'm getting at is that if people don't have free will, then we'd be just as stuck treating criminals however we treat them as the criminals would be stuck committing crimes.

Your arguments about what people ought to do assume that they have some choice in the matter, but the hypothetical scenario assumes they don't.

No, I think what JustWondering meant by no free will is that what we do is determined by our circumstances and our physical brain make-up. So according to him people do what they do because that is what they must do under what ever circumstances their doing what their doing. So if someone bumps you today and you swear back at them: that is what you were always going to do. It wasn't a decision you made freely,. it was the decision you had to make.

But of course I do not subscribe to that.

 

[JustWondering]

No, I think what JustWondering meant by no free will is that what we do is determined by our circumstances and our physical brain make-up.

Yes.

So according to him people do what they do because that is what they must do under what ever circumstances their doing what their doing.

Correct.

So if someone bumps you today and you swear back at them: that is what you were always going to do. It wasn't a decision you made freely,. it was the decision you had to make.

So if our minds and circumstances do not determine our behavior, what DOES determine our behavior? I understand if you do not like the idea of our very thoughts and behavior being determined by things outside OUR control but what other rational alternative is there? There are mountains of evidence to prove that the brain determines how we think and feel. That is a fact. What happens to us throughout our lives shapes who we are. That is a fact. I am what I am, I'm comfortable with that. Even if we had souls that were "free" wouldn't the decisions these souls make still be based on its own laws of how it functioned combined with what it was exposed to? So having a soul would not give us free will either.

Perhaps you should explain what free will is and how it works.

 

[Pudding]

I do not quite follow your question here? If it is along the lines (for example) “Does a firmly believing Christian have an obligation to witness to others?, the answer is definitely Yes. Those of us who have been "gifted" by God, at a minimum we owe Him what He asks of us to do and that is to care for others and share the gospel.

I mean do the op have any relevance that it's argument successfully prove the religion being a right/correct/true religion?

I do think the top posters question was a fair and valid one, which I repeat here.
>>What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?<<

A person see no convincing evidence to [the existence of God] and [whether the bible's claims is true] ---> therefor he don't follow the bible's teaching ---> which makes what he does/says contrary to the bible's teachings.

(A) How much of why that person see no convincing evidence to [the existence of God] and [whether the bible's claims is true] ---> (B) is because he simply not willing to live his life differently according to bible's teachings?

What is the connection between (A) and (B)?

Is that if he willing to live his life differently according to bible's teachings, only then he'll be able to see convincing evidence to [the existence of God] and [whether the bible's claims is true]?

 

[Pudding]

Suppose I really like drinking (alcohol of course). Mormonism teaches that God is against alcohol. If I believe God exists then I will have to believe I am wrong in drinking alcohol.

It's an assumption that if a person believe a God exists then this God must be 100% exists, and therefor the teachings of that God must be 100% true.

If a person try to believe a God exists although afterthat he fail to remain that beliefs because he see no convincing evidence to support that beliefs, does this God really exists to him?

The moral of a God that it's wrong for drinking alcohol, only comes to be subjective morally true in non-believer's subjective reality after the existence of that God have been substantiated to him.

Now since I don't want to stop drinking alcohol I would prefer it if God doesn't exist. So I reject all evidence (or supposed evidence) of his existence simply because I don't want to change my lifestyle.

Whether one wants to change his lifestyle or not, doesn't means/prove that the validity of all the supposed evidence to be valid/true.

It can be he don't want to change his lifestyle, and all the supposed evidence is valid/true.

Or all the supposed evidence is not valid/true regardless of whether he wants to change his lifestyle or not.

In this case it is clear that I simply want to drink no matter what. And even if God was proved to exist to my satisfaction I would still likely continue drinking becase that is what I want to do.

It's another assumption that if "God was proved to exist to one's satisfaction he would still likely continue drinking becase that is what he want to do".

Possibility:
1. The person could be genuinely see no convincing reason/evidence of God's existence, so he don't believe in God, therefor he also don't follow the God's teachings.
2. The person actually believe/know that God exists but dislike the God's teachings, so he lie that the evidence is unconvincing and God doesn't exists in order for him not need to follow the God's teaching.

How do we know whether he genuinely see no convincing evidence of God's existence or not?
In order for we to know if he's genuine or not, we examine his reason why he think so, but the standards of logic/reasoning we use in that examination may vary from people to people, so it depends on examiner which have different standards.

How do we know if he do believe/know God exists but is lying in order not need to follow the God's teachings?
By examine his reason to conclude whether he is lying or not? Again the result of this examination is depends on different standards of logic/reasoning of different examiner.

Or we could use lie detector to know whether he is lying or not, though i'm not sure the result is 100% accurate.

The people who lie is lying and may continue to lie.
The people who speak honestly is speaking honestly and may continue to speak honestly.

Whether they lie or speak honestly doesn't prove the validity of God's existence.

1 ---> some believer of some religion/God may advise non-believer to follow their God or religion/God's teachings ---> non-believer may ask evidence for God's existence or religion/God's teaching's validity ---> believer may give evidence or explain the method how to obtain the evidence ---> non-believer may say that the evidence is unconvincing or the method is not working ---> believer may disagree ---> they may disagree with each other ---> non-believer may remain their disbeliefs while the believer may remain their beliefs ---> they continue to live their life whether it's with beliefs or lack beliefs in any God ---> (go back to 1)

 

[cern]

what if there was an archaeological site discovered that absolutely proved scientifically once and for all the existence of one GOD for all those who want that while simultaneously absolutely proving scientifically once and for all that there was no god for all those who desire that... good thing, bad thing or who cares

there would be video.

 

[Jumi]

Interesting question @Thanda

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If it was a video, it wouldn't be much proof. As we know, there are people doing impossible things on youtube already(faked). Someone walking on water or doing supernatural magic wouldn't prove god even if it was real. It would prove there are things worth Randi's million.

Would your political views change?

Life would probably lose it's meaning and it would be just trying to follow rules instead of being a good person who enjoys life.

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

Frankly, I've never thought about God when I helped people. I think I would have to lose some of my morals and go against my conscience if I wanted to become a believer, but things would probably get easier without having to try find the facts when choosing what is is right.