• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?


Actually, I'm half-thinking of starting a thread asking the opposite. What would have to be different in the world for believers to stop believing in God?
 
EHocking said:
Nothing. They will continue to lie to themselves in order to defend their childish belief in a Cloud Daddy
Click to expand...

That's what I suspect. ...But it would be interesting to get theists' view on this. ...On the other hand, not many of those here, so I don't know about asking that here in this forum.


arthwollipot said:
Human nature.
Click to expand...

Haha, yes. Great answer. Agreed!

But it's ...kind of a ...meta-answer? I was wondering what actual theists would answer, if asked that question about themselves: What would need to be different for *them* to give up their faith in God?

(And who knows, maybe, just maybe, there may be some theist that is self-aware enough, and honest enough, and clever enough, to actually come back with that same meta answer, for themselves I mean?)
 
Chanakya said:
Actually, I'm half-thinking of starting a thread asking the opposite. What would have to be different in the world for believers to stop believing in God?
Click to expand...
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but isn't that an easy one for theists to answer? As a former believer, I could speculate that one would say: "A clear physical mechanism for the creation of the universe" Like, all the details of the first nanoseconds and whatever might have come before. I think then one could dismiss a 'God' or at least the traditional Judeo-Christian one. I'm quite content as an atheist to apply Occam's razor to substitute the 'Laws of Physics' or Nature for God, but I can understand how it makes some uncomfortable doing that, cause, as Arth said--human nature!
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but isn't that an easy one for theists to answer? As a former believer, I could speculate that one would say: "A clear physical mechanism for the creation of the universe" Like, all the details of the first nanoseconds and whatever might have come before. I think then one could dismiss a 'God' or at least the traditional Judea-Christian one. I'm quite content as an atheist to apply Occam's razor to substitute the 'Laws of Physics' or Nature for God, but I can understand how it makes some uncomfortable doing that, cause, as Arth said--human nature!
Click to expand...
They may well answer that, but it isn't an honest answer. They need God, not because God is the Creator, but because God will provide salvation; salvation from death, salvation from evil, and salvation from meaninglessness. All they need to keep believing is an imaginary hole where such an entity might exist, even an illogical one.

What is truly required is a world that definitively removes even the delusion of such salvation, or a world where such salvation is no longer necessary.
 
Olmstead said:
They may well answer that, but it isn't an honest answer. They need God, not because God is the Creator, but because God will provide salvation; salvation from death, salvation from evil, and salvation from meaninglessness. All they need to keep believing is an imaginary hole where such an entity might exist, even an illogical one.

What is truly required is a world that definitively removes even the delusion of such salvation, or a world where such salvation is no longer necessary.
Click to expand...
Good point, and you might be right--but assuming they are just interested in eternal life, couldn't they just substitute a crazed belief that science will provide them a solution? They might make arrangements to have their brains frozen or something. Course that would not ensure 'salvation' so maybe that would not be enough incentive to dismiss a savior...
 
I don't know if god exist, but if she does, she probably doesn't give a rat's patootie about what religion or bible you follow as long as you abide by the Golden Rule.

And then again, maybe she doesn't care about that either, but what the hell, I think it's a damn good rule anyway, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.


-
 
AmyStrange said:
I don't know if god exist, but if she does, she probably doesn't give a rat's patootie about what religion or bible you follow as long as you abide by the Golden Rule.

And then again, maybe she doesn't care about that either, but what the hell, I think it's a damn good rule anyway, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.


-
Click to expand...
The Golden Rule--you mean "Buy Low, Sell High?" ;)
 
stanfr said:
Good point, and you might be right--but assuming they are just interested in eternal life, couldn't they just substitute a crazed belief that science will provide them a solution? They might make arrangements to have their brains frozen or something. Course that would not ensure 'salvation' so maybe that would not be enough incentive to dismiss a savior...
Click to expand...
Well yes, magical savior does always trump the long odds of having your inexplicably intact brain unfrozen in an immortal utopia. Crazy, I know. (It might be interesting to see the believer ratio amongst the cryogenically frozen though.)

But I don't think eternal life is the be-all and end-all of religion, and besides, science explicitly tells us that there won't be an eternal anything in this world.
 
stanfr said:
Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, but isn't that an easy one for theists to answer?
Click to expand...

Would it? I don't know! Would depend on the individual, maybe? ...But in any case, would make for interesting reading, if they were honest about it.

stanfr said:
As a former believer, I could speculate that one would say: "A clear physical mechanism for the creation of the universe"
Click to expand...

You're a former believer. Is that what theist-you would have said? If so, then we might talk about why that particular gap specifically, in that God-of-the-Gaps formulation.

(Ok, that's a cool thought! You're a former theist. Hell, so am I. Not many theists here, but we do have a large enough number of former believers. So we could have meaningful first-hand engagement on that question here after all! ...I'll start a thread, I think, later when I'm free.)

stanfr said:
Like, all the details of the first nanoseconds and whatever might have come before. I think then one could dismiss a 'God' or at least the traditional Judeo-Christian one. I'm quite content as an atheist to apply Occam's razor to substitute the 'Laws of Physics' or Nature for God, but I can understand how it makes some uncomfortable doing that, cause, as Arth said--human nature!
Click to expand...

Yep, what @arthwollipot said is probably the "best" answer there could be! ...I wonder if that answer we might get on first-hand terms from any theist. (Or from any former-theist speaking for their past self? But in that case, another interesting question to ask might be, What did change, for their "nature" to have changed?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom