Would you prefer to know if it wasn't true?

Tim Robbins

Just say Richard Dawkins is correct and there is no God - no Christian one anyway - would you prefer to know there was none?

For example, suppose science invented a time machine and we could travel back in time and see the key events in the Bible (e.g. resurrection, miracles) didn't actually happen - would you prefer you find out it wasn't true?

Or say another God from another religion managed to get compelling evidence that could not be refuted and thereby refuted Christianity?

Would you prefer to find out?

Your thoughts...

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Just say Richard Dawkins is correct and there is no God - no Christian one anyway - would you prefer to know there was none?

For example, suppose science invented a time machine and we could travel back in time and see the key events in the Bible (e.g. resurrection, miracles) didn't actually happen - would you prefer you find out it wasn't true?

Or say another God from another religion managed to get compelling evidence that could not be refuted and thereby refuted Christianity?

Would you prefer to find out?

Your thoughts...

Yes, I would prefer to know.

The question is if God is real, would you prefer to know?

PDN

Yes, I would absolutely want to know.

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Just say Richard Dawkins is correct and there is no God - no Christian one anyway - would you prefer to know there was none?

For example, suppose science invented a time machine and we could travel back in time and see the key events in the Bible (e.g. resurrection, miracles) didn't actually happen - would you prefer you find out it wasn't true?

Or say another God from another religion managed to get compelling evidence that could not be refuted and thereby refuted Christianity?

Would you prefer to find out?

Your thoughts...

Of course, I would prefer to know if there was no God ... if there actually isn't one.
... but I would point out that if wrongly believed in God, and He didn't exist, then this would merely mean that I would cease to exist when I die (which wouldn't obviously bother me then).
... however, if I wrongly believed that God didn't exist ... and I found myself on the receiving end of His justice rather than His mercy, when I die ... (then that would obviously be a very serious bother for me).:eek:

... so we should logically give the benefit of the doubt to God existing.

... and the CFSI in living creatures is pointing very firmly to His existence.

Ri na hEireann

J C wrote: »

... so logically we should give the benefit of the doubt to God existing.

Ah good old Pascal's Wager....I still can't understand its logic which seems to be no logic at all. I remember Jeremy Paxman asking a dying Christopher Hitchens about this in particular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-TDxcsNIlo

J C

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

Ah good old Pascal's Wager....I still can't understand its logic which seems to be no logic at all. I remember Jeremy Paxman asking a dying Christopher Hitchens about this in particular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-TDxcsNIlo

I agree with Christopher's contention that we don't have to take the word of other Humans about God ... we have His own words in the Bible ...
... I don't agree that we mustn't be servile to God ... if God exists and Created us, we logically owe Him our existence and we should honour and adore Him (which is a form of voluntary servility). However, it isn't some form of slavery ... it is virtuous circle of adoration for all of the blessings that He bestows on us.

Christopher was a man I admired for his incisive mind and wit ... and I miss him from the World scene ... but only God knows his eternal destiny, at this stage.
Who knows, he may be in Heaven because he eventually believed on Jesus Christ to save him ... or not.

Manach

How could one know the Unseen. If it can be known and understood by man, then how could it be God?

PDN

This is turning into a Christian/Atheist Debate Thread - and we have one of those already.