If Gods existence was proven...

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Mena wrote: »

Simply, yes.

You know better than someone who by definition knows everything because he is omniscient? do you know everything +1?

Mena

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know better than someone who by definition knows everything because he is omniscient? do you know everything +1?

It's not about knowing everything +1. It's about knowing right from wrong, something the god of the christian bible quite obviously does not.

Flamed Diving

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know better than someone who by definition knows everything because he is omniscient? do you know everything +1?

If knowing less than him means not killing children, then call me ignorant.

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Mena wrote: »

It's not about knowing everything +1. It's about knowing right from wrong, something the god of the christian bible quite obviously does not.

You're kind of missing the point of the thread though. We're assuming that the christian god is proven and therefore that the bible is proven. The bible quite clearly states that god is the source of all morality so that claim is taken as proven. If that claim is proven and your version of right and wrong is different to his, your version is therefore wrong, no?

Tar.Aldarion

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The title of thread is "If Gods existence was proven" so saying it can't be true is missing the point. Assume it is true for the sake of the thread

This gods existence is a paradox to me, because of the attributed characteristics. Therfore I can't 'accept' it's true.

Dades

Mena wrote: »

It's not about knowing everything +1. It's about knowing right from wrong, something the god of the christian bible quite obviously does not.

But if he made everything - including right AND wrong - surely he'd know better than you?

Flamed Diving

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're kind of missing the point of the thread though. We're assuming that the christian god is proven and therefore that the bible is proven. The bible quite clearly states that god is the source of all morality so that claim is taken as proven. If that claim is proven and your version of right and wrong is different to his, your version is therefore wrong, no?

I'm quite happy to be wrong. If it means that killing children is still wrong, in my mind.

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I
If he built that machine with the ability to perform life-saving surgery, and then told it to go on a killing spree, I would have a problem with that, yeah.

And on this point again, I'm not asking whether he uses it to do wrong, I'm asking would you come along and tell him that you knew how it worked better than he did? Who are you to tell the creator of the surgery machine that you know how it works better than him?

Mena

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're kind of missing the point of the thread though. We're assuming that the christian god is proven and therefore that the bible is proven. The bible quite clearly states that god is the source of all morality so that claim is taken as proven. If that claim is proven and your version of right and wrong is different to his, your version is therefore wrong, no?

Dades wrote: »

But if he made everything - including right AND wrong - surely he'd know better than you?

Yes, I would be wrong. I'd be very happy about it, in fact I'd tattoo it across my chest (may hide my man boobs ).

Are you telling me that you'd revise your stance should all this be proven?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And on this point again, I'm not asking whether he uses it to do wrong, I'm asking would you come along and tell him that you knew how it worked better than he did? Who are you to tell the creator of the surgery machine that you know how it works better than him?

Ah now, if he can't take a little constructive feedback he needs to loosen up a bit.

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm quite happy to be wrong. If it means that killing children is still wrong, in my mind.

So you will hold onto a belief even after it is absolutely and totally proven to be wrong? Sounds almost religious to me tbh

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Mena wrote: »

Are you telling me that you'd revise your stance should all this be proven?

Yes I would because I would have been proven to be wrong

akaredtop

I'm a Christian and just to be perverse, I'd stop...

There are some really idiotic comments on here. People say they would never bow to a god. But ye already bow to democracy,politicians,propaganda media, celebrities etc.
I would choose god over any of these.

Flamed Diving

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you will hold onto a belief even after it is absolutely and totally proven to be wrong? Sounds almost religious to me tbh

Yeah, perhaps. But at least I won't be slaying children. Yahweh made me this way, why don't you ask him why I am like this?

Flamed Diving

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

akaredtop wrote: »

There are some really idiotic comments on here. People say they would never bow to a god. But ye already bow to democracy,politicians,propaganda media, celebrities etc.
I would choose god over any of these.

Cool. When is the Zeitgeist link coming?

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

This gods existence is a paradox to me, because of the attributed characteristics. Therfore I can't 'accept' it's true.

So there's not much point posting in the thread then since you say you can't accept the assumption that it's asking you to accept...........:pac:

Mena

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I would because I would have been proven to be wrong

It's a valid point, but honestly, wrong may well be right in this case.

akaredtop wrote: »

There are some really idiotic comments on here. People say they would never bow to a god. But ye already bow to democracy,politicians,propaganda media, celebrities etc.
I would choose god over any of these.

Not sure what you're alluding to here, care to expand? How exactly do I "bow" to any of these?

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, perhaps. But at least I won't be slaying children. Yahweh made me this way, why don't you ask him why I am like this?

I can't, he doesn't exist

Flamed Diving

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And on this point again, I'm not asking whether he uses it to do wrong

The discussion is on the question of morals, so the analogy is perfectly valid. In addition, if the machinist made the robot, and the robot began acting in a manner which was opposite to his design, where does the buck stop?

With the robot, or the designer?

Tar.Aldarion

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So there's not much point posting in the thread then since you say you can't accept the assumption that it's asking you to accept...........:pac:

Just pointing out, I can't accept logical paradoxes so teh question is meaningless, much like 'can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it'.

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

I've think I've a good way to explain it: When we ask why bad things happen, religious people say things like "It was god's will" or "god works in mysterious ways" or "it is not for us to understand" which we all know is BS.

But imagine a world where those arguments were actually valid and there really was a being that was so much more advanced than us that even if something appeared immoral to us, we would know we were wrong simply because this being was telling us we were

Gambler

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Hmm it's an interesting way to look at it alright.

Theoretical Situation: There is a god and s\he appears regularly to the populace, performs miracles and angels are regularly among us doing gods work.

If god is a truly benevolent entity in this scenario and does real good and makes a real difference to the quality of peoples lives then yes, I would definitely believe.

However if it was the god of the Bible (and more specifically the old testament) who was quick to anger, demanded unquestioning belief and allowed abuse and intolerance in their name then while I would completely accept their existence I would certainly want to resist.

I also don't accept the creator argument as a reason that they should be allowed free reign.

As a theoretical situation a human being gets to a technical point where they are able to change a dead planet into a living planet including seeding it with new life, influence the evolution of animals on this planet, creates a life form in their own image and gives them sets of rules and limitations based on their belief system. Does this mean that everything they do is automatically right and just because they have the power to create?

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The discussion is on the question of morals, so the analogy is perfectly valid. In addition, if the machinist made the robot, and the robot began acting in a manner which was opposite to his design, where does the buck stop?

With the robot, or the designer?

The example was to show that god made morals and you're telling him he made them wrong.

the buck would stop with the designer but it's not possible for that to happen if the designer is perfect

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Gambler wrote: »

As a theoretical situation a human being gets to a technical point where they are able to change a dead planet into a living planet including seeding it with new life, influence the evolution of animals on this planet, creates a life form in their own image and gives them sets of rules and limitations based on their belief system. Does this mean that everything they do is automatically right and just because they have the power to create?

no it doesn't because creating life doesn't make them gods. The question being asked is if god's existence was proven, with all the connotations that entails including being the creator of right and wrong

Gambler

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the buck would stop with the designer but it's not possible for that to happen if the designer is perfect

The regular appearance of god and his\her angels doesn't prove perfection and I don't see any part of the original theoretical situation that shows a proof of their perfection??

[edit to add]

no it doesn't because creating life doesn't make them gods. The question being asked is if god's existence was proven, with all the connotations that entails including being the creator of right and wrong

Ahh the original theoretical situation is just to prove that god existed, not that they created right and wrong. In my theoretical situation there is no way that the people on the planet would have to describe their creator other than as a "god"

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Gambler wrote: »

The regular appearance of god and his\her angels doesn't prove perfection and I don't see any part of the original theoretical situation that shows a proof of their perfection??

The christian god claims to be perfect and we're being asked what we would do if his existence was proven, along with the claimed perfection

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Gambler wrote: »

Ahh the original theoretical situation is just to prove that god existed, not that they created right and wrong. In my theoretical situation there is no way that the people on the planet would have to describe their creator other than as a "god"

Christians tend to have this problem that when they talk about god, they make the assumption that everyone knows they mean only their god exactly as they imagine it. As I said a few pages ago, if a generic creator type god was proven then everything I'm saying would be out the window because there would be no automatic claim of infinite goodness but we're being specifically asked about the christian god, who does claim infinite goodness. for the purposes of this thread, we can't hold onto all the things from the bible that we think are immoral and dismiss the bits where he claimed to be infinitely good

Dades

We're assuming also that God when he 'arrived' has stood by all the stuff which people have attributed to him over the centuries - which is tough - as it tends to be contradictory.

Gambler

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Christians tend to have this problem that when they talk about god, they make the assumption that everyone knows they mean only their god exactly as they imagine it. As I said a few pages ago, if a generic creator type god was proven then everything I'm saying would be out the window because there would be no automatic claim of infinite goodness but we're being specifically asked about the christian god, who does claim infinite goodness. for the purposes of this thread, we can't hold onto all the things from the bible that we think are immoral and dismiss the bits where he claimed to be infinitely good

The key part is what would we do and in this situation we are still only talking about a god that claims infinite goodness. There is no way that I can see that this situation can prove to me that god has infinite goodness or perfection if they behaved the way that the god of the bible does.

As I said in my original post, if this god was actually a force for good then I would absolutely accept and worship them. If it was a god that had the sort of faults that the christian god appears to have then, given my personality, I would not see myself being able to blindly accept them.

[Edit to add]This goes for any of the other current traditional gods that people worship.. If it was some other theoretical god, the gaia type entity then yeah, I could see myself accepting and worshiping them alright

Sam Vimes

I'm an atheist/agnostic and it wouldn't change a thing.

Gambler wrote: »

The key part is what would we do and in this situation we are still only talking about a god that claims infinite goodness. There is no way that I can see that this situation can prove to me that god has infinite goodness or perfection if they behaved the way that the god of the bible does.

I absolutely agree. But the point of the thread is to assume that it has been proven. Whether it can be proven or not isn't really the point

Gambler

I'm non-Christian but otherwise religious and I'd convert.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I absolutely agree. But the point of the thread is to assume that it has been proven. Whether it can be proven or not isn't really the point

I think you are talking about a different theoretical situation to the original post:

Basically, I just finished a really interesting short story about a modern world where God was manifested on a regular basis. Angelic visitations, both Fallen and ... Loyal (?), glimpses of heaven and hell, miracles and so on and so forth.
The basic premise that the existence of Jehovah was more or less indisputable.

What really interested me was an account of how even in the face of all this, there were still large groups of people who refused to worship, on moral grounds.

So, I'm wondering, as an atheist or otherwise, if Gods existence was proven (by whatever criteria it'd require for you), would you worship or turn away, do you think?

There is no specific mention of their perfection being proven. If there were a way for perfection to be proven theoretically then absolutely yes, there is no way you could not worship because it is not a blind worship..