Question for theists: If the existence of God were disproved, what would change for you? (quote, punishment)

[filthydani]

Thats a nice question, I am a muslim and if it has been proven that god does not exist i would simply kill myself without any hesitation, cause there wouldn't be a single reason for me to wake up every morning worrying about how am i gonna eat, how am i gonna pay my bills, how am i gonna deal with all the complicated problems that are nearly impossible for me to solve in my life, i would simply end my life without worrying what will happen to me afterward, to put it in one sentence, i would rather have no life than having a ****ty one

Of course every atheist i know pretend to have a perfect life, but thats another subject i doubt it can be discussed here

[Dewdroplet76]

To be honest - I don't think God will ever be "disproved." However, if that did happen - I think there would be some mighty sad people walking around for awhile. There might even be complete mayhem for awhile. And I do think there would be people that would do crazy things and cause trouble. I think all this would happen - but only if there came a day when God was disproved. I think so many people have based their entire lives on their religion - and I don't think they would be able to handle finding out that everything they believed was a lie.
HOWEVER, I think that if everyone just kind of came to this conclusion on their own - in their own time- I don't think that they would change much. I don't think that a religious person would all of a sudden become a terrible person if the realized that God did not exist. I think that a lot of very religious people might have a ton of faith in God - but not nearly enough faith in mankind. I think that if nobody ever believed in God - there would still be more good people than bad.
I just think that if there was a day when it was anounced that WE HAVE NOW DISCOVERED GOD DOES NOT EXIST - that there would be utter chaos simply because of the shock of it.
That's just my 2 cents. I don't really believe in God anyway. Or not any sort of Judeo Christain God, for that matter.

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

I really wasn't trying to offend you. It was honest and candid for you to make certain things clear at the outset and my intention was to do like wise. It was my inner honest assessment and I had no expectation that you would agree with it.

I wasn't offended -- but it's difficult to have a discussion if you doubt my sincerity regarding the core issue we're talking about. If you believe that, deep down, I really believe in God, but that I hate or disdain him, then there's nothing for you to convince me of, because you assume I already believe it. It then becomes a matter of getting me to admit that I hate or disdain God, and then uncovering the reasons for that hatred. I don't understand why it's difficult for you to believe that my background, experiences, and cognitive processes might have led me to a different conclusion than yours, even if you believe that your conclusion is correct and mine isn't.

Is it reasonable for me to infer from this that you believe there is such a thing as absolute truth?

Yes, but maybe not in the sense that you mean. I believe it's an absolute truth that the earth revolves around the sun, for instance. When it comes to subjective areas, no -- but that doesn't mean that truths can't be "close enough for rock & roll," as a friend of mine puts it. For example, some would claim that Picasso was the greatest artist of the 20th century. That's arguable. Most would claim he was a great painter, if not the greatest. Some people don't think he was great, but they're in the minority. So I feel comfortable saying it's true that Picasso was a great artist.

To which I'd counter that, if there is a God, and Jesus really existed, and the Bible is a basically reliable record of God's revealed truth, well, then I wouldn't have to presuppose anything. I would in fact be simply choosing to believe the revealed truth about God's nature.

But you just made four presuppositions, every one one of which has been debated on this forum. It's like saying, "Presupposing that these four statements aren't presuppositions, it logically follows that anything based on them wouldn't be presuppositions."

As far as the second question, that's what this discussion is all about - isn't it? First things first. It may be useful for us to first hash out our "reasoning" behind our belief in the existence or nonexistence of a Transcendent Eternal Being.

...you could add atheists, skeptics and agnostics to the list as well. You may not agree, but the way I see it, all world views require faith to one degree or another. Christianity is no different. As of now, I just happen to see Christianity as also being the most reasonable and logical alternative. I'm no expert in the field of comparative religion but I try to stay informed and keep an open mind. Part of the reason I frequent this forum is to perhaps come in contact with other views/opinions that I haven't yet considered.

It depends on how you define faith. How about "belief without evidence"? But I know people have different ideas of what constitutes evidence (i.e., ways of knowing). Most people who beileve in God claim to base that belief on evidence. Atheists dispute the assertion that it's evidence, or point out the the evidence has other explanations that don't require faith.

I really have no problem with such theories as those dealing with multiple universes. I do draw the line when skeptics take the next step of reasoning that this would increase the odds that the apparent fine tuning of our universe could have happened by chance. Theories are one thing, drawing conclusions from theories is quite another.

Okay.

Good. Transcendent and Eternal Being for now. I may use the term God from time to time. If you feel that I'm ascribing more to the God term than that of a Transcendent Eternal Being, well, I'm sure you'll call me on it.

You can say "Christian God" if you need to be more specific.

Before I respond to all this, I just want to make sure that I have this straight. You don't believe in the existence of objective right and wrong or good and evil - keeping in mind the above qualifiers?

If, by objective, you mean sanctioned by an authority other than humans (i.e., God), then no, I don't. But again, there's "close enough for rock & roll." I consider premeditated murder to be wrong. But what about murdering someone like Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, both of whom I consider evil? That's a perfect example of moral relativism. I'm not comfortable with capital punishment, preferring life imprisonment without parole, but if an opportunity came to kill but not capture bin Laden, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. On the other hand, I can't think of a single instance where rape might be justified.

How about giving me an example of something that you consider absolutely right or wrong, without exception?

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by HonuMan

I wasn't offended -- but it's difficult to have a discussion if you doubt my sincerity regarding the core issue we're talking about.

Understood. Perhaps my honesty is too brutal at times. Hopefully, we will work our way through the difficulties.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

If you believe that, deep down, I really believe in God, but that I hate or disdain him, then there's nothing for you to convince me of, because you assume I already believe it.

Again, it's not my purpose here to convince you of anything. However, if you choose to doubt my sincerity, well, I won't blame you.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

It then becomes a matter of getting me to admit that I hate or disdain God, and then uncovering the reasons for that hatred.

That would be a pretty tall order. Sincerely, I'm perfectly fine with allowing you to perform a self psychoanalysis.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

I don't understand why it's difficult for you to believe that my background, experiences, and cognitive processes might have led me to a different conclusion than yours, even if you believe that your conclusion is correct and mine isn't.

Well, a good part of my viewpoint has to do with my belief in the truth of what scripture reveals about the fallibility of human beings. In the final analysis, any act of conversion to Christianity is spiritual - God doesn't need our help.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

Yes, but maybe not in the sense that you mean. I believe it's an absolute truth that the earth revolves around the sun, for instance. When it comes to subjective areas, no -- but that doesn't mean that truths can't be "close enough for rock & roll," as a friend of mine puts it. For example, some would claim that Picasso was the greatest artist of the 20th century. That's arguable. Most would claim he was a great painter, if not the greatest. Some people don't think he was great, but they're in the minority. So I feel comfortable saying it's true that Picasso was a great artist.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

While I would certainly agree, there are times when the distinction between beauty and ugliness are patently obvious.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

But you just made four presuppositions, every one one of which has been debated on this forum. It's like saying, "Presupposing that these four statements aren't presuppositions, it logically follows that anything based on them wouldn't be presuppositions."

Presuppositions? Not really. If I had said, 'well, I know about God's nature because of the Bible.' I would have then been making a presupposition. In this instance, my use of the term 'if it's true,' makes it a qualifier.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

It depends on how you define faith. How about "belief without evidence"? But I know people have different ideas of what constitutes evidence (i.e., ways of knowing). Most people who believe in God claim to base that belief on evidence. Atheists dispute the assertion that it's evidence, or point out the the evidence has other explanations that don't require faith.

I take your point. "Faith" and "evidence" tend to be subjective. An interesting thread discussion some time may be to ask the question: When, or at what point, is there an obligation to believe?

Originally Posted by HonuMan

Okay.

Okay.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

You can say "Christian God" if you need to be more specific.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

If, by objective, you mean sanctioned by an authority other than humans (i.e., God), then no, I don't. But again, there's "close enough for rock & roll." I consider premeditated murder to be wrong. But what about murdering someone like Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, both of whom I consider evil? That's a perfect example of moral relativism. I'm not comfortable with capital punishment, preferring life imprisonment without parole, but if an opportunity came to kill but not capture bin Laden, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. On the other hand, I can't think of a single instance where rape might be justified.

You're trying to have it both ways. Notwithstanding your "I consider," when you use terms such as those in bold and underlined, you suggest that these things are "wrong" and "evil" for everyone. The terms "wrong" and "evil" suggest objective morality and it would be unreasonable to assume that, in a relativistic framework, everyone would see these things the same way that you do.

Originally Posted by HonuMan

How about giving me an example of something that you consider absolutely right or wrong, without exception?

I would be most happy to do so. However, if your intention here is to make the supposed point that ethics and morality are "situational," why not just go ahead and have the discussion?

Is it absolutely wrong to lie? Yes. Are there times when I would choose to lie if , given the situation, it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time? Yes. However, to lie would still be wrong. The question would then be: Would my choice to lie merit condemnation?

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

You're trying to have it both ways. Notwithstanding your "I consider," when you use terms such as those in bold and underlined, you suggest that these things are "wrong" and "evil" for everyone. The terms "wrong" and "evil" suggest objective morality and it would be unreasonable to assume that, in a relativistic framework, everyone would see these things the same way that you do.

That's one area where you and I seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion: I believe words can still be used meaningfully in the absense of absolutes or consensus. When I use words like "wrong" and "evil," I don't assume that everyone else agrees. For example, I think not allowing gays to marry is wrong, because it goes against my humanistic values of fairness and compassion, and the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up for me. But I realize that many people do think that gay marriage is wrong. I see see life in varying shades of gray, filled with ambiguity and paradox. I realize that not everyone else does.

I would be most happy to do so. However, if your intention here is to make the supposed point that ethics and morality are "situational," why not just go ahead and have the discussion?

That's what I've been saying all along: I do believe they're situational.

Is it absolutely wrong to lie? Yes. Are there times when I would choose to lie if , given the situation, it appeared to be the proper thing to do at the time? Yes. However, to lie would still be wrong. The question would then be: Would my choice to lie merit condemnation?

What about these situations?:

1) An undercover cop who is penetrating a criminal organization, and who obviously has to lie about who he is if he wants to bring down the crooks

2) A homeowner being held at gunpoint by a burglar, who tells her to lie and say, "Yes, everything is fine" to a neighbor who has come to the door and asked, "Is everything okay? I noticed a strange car parked out front," if the homeowner thinks she has a better chance of escaping unharmed by lying

3) A friendly coworker who asks, "Do you like my new hairstyle?" when you personally find it hideous, even though you know most people would find it attractive and appropriate

I think that lying in those situations would be the right thing to do. However, if you think that lying is always wrong, you might view it in the context of "the lesser of two evils."

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by HonuMan

That's one area where you and I seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion: I believe words can still be used meaningfully in the absense of absolutes or consensus. When I use words like "wrong" and "evil," I don't assume that everyone else agrees. For example, I think not allowing gays to marry is wrong, because it goes against my humanistic values of fairness and compassion, and the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up for me. But I realize that many people do think that gay marriage is wrong. I see see life in varying shades of gray, filled with ambiguity and paradox. I realize that not everyone else does.

So you would then agree that morality really all comes to a simple case of personal preference?

After all, law is simply an imposition. If human beings serve as the ultimate arbiter, and with respect to the imposition of law on the masses, might ultimately makes right?

Originally Posted by HonuMan

That's what I've been saying all along: I do believe they're situational.

What about these situations?:

1) An undercover cop who is penetrating a criminal organization, and who obviously has to lie about who he is if he wants to bring down the crooks

2) A homeowner being held at gunpoint by a burglar, who tells her to lie and say, "Yes, everything is fine" to a neighbor who has come to the door and asked, "Is everything okay? I noticed a strange car parked out front," if the homeowner thinks she has a better chance of escaping unharmed by lying

3) A friendly coworker who asks, "Do you like my new hairstyle?" when you personally find it hideous, even though you know most people would find it attractive and appropriate

I think that lying in those situations would be the right thing to do. However, if you think that lying is always wrong, you might view it in the context of "the lesser of two evils."

The idea of an objective moral absolute is really not complicated. If a Transcendent Law Giver exists, and this Transcendent Law Giver has expressed a Transcendent Law that includes a prohibition against lying, then, logically, lying is wrong. Whatever humans are permitted to do with respect to observance of said law does absolutely nothing to change the law.

Does this make sense?

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by filthydani

Thats a nice question, I am a muslim and if it has been proven that god does not exist i would simply kill myself without any hesitation, cause there wouldn't be a single reason for me to wake up every morning worrying about how am i gonna eat, how am i gonna pay my bills, how am i gonna deal with all the complicated problems that are nearly impossible for me to solve in my life, i would simply end my life without worrying what will happen to me afterward, to put it in one sentence, i would rather have no life than having a ****ty one

Of course every atheist i know pretend to have a perfect life, but thats another subject i doubt it can be discussed here

Wow....It must suck to have such a pessimistic attitude...Glad I'm not you.

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

So you would then agree that morality really all comes to a simple case of personal preference?

Oh, there's nothing simple about it -- at least, not for people who take morality seriously. And "preference" doesn't capture that seriousness. I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, but if you prefer vanilla, that's fine with me. I prefer rock music to hip hop, but I understand why many people prefer hip hop, and I see the artistic merit in it. However, I would never say that I prefer that people not commit murder, but if you prefer otherwise, I'm cool with that.

After all, law is simply an imposition. If human beings serve as the ultimate arbiter, and with respect to the imposition of law on the masses, might ultimately makes right?

No, because laws and ethics aren't the same thing. Ideally, laws are based on ethics, but we all know that isn't always the case. In the US, look at all the laws throughout our history that have been changed because they were ultimately deemed by the majority of our society to be unjust (slavery, women not being allowed to vote, segregation, etc.). Might is neutral in determining right or wrong; it just determines what laws are enforced.

The idea of an objective moral absolute is really not complicated. If a Transcendent Law Giver exists, and this Transcendent Law Giver has expressed a Transcendent Law that includes a prohibition against lying, then, logically, lying is wrong. Whatever humans are permitted to do with respect to observance of said law does absolutely nothing to change the law.

Does this make sense?

I totally understand the concept of moral absolutes -- I just don't see evidence for their existence. To summarize, for the purposes of our discussion, I see three broad possibilities:

1) The Christian God exists, and what the Bible says is true. If so, then moral absolutes can logically be assumed to exist. That's what you believe. I see no evidence to support the existence of the Christian God, so Christian-based moral absolutes are just a hypothetical intellectual concept to me.

2) Some other type of God exists. If so, then moral absolutes might or might not exist; it depends on the nature of such a God. As I've said, I'm open to the possibility that some sort of God exists, but I need more proof before I can say that I believe in him/her/it beyond a reasonable doubt.

3) There is no God, period. If so, human-defined moral relativism is the only possible kind of morality that I can see.

So, ultimately, this discussion is academic. Whether there are moral absolutes or not has no bearing on how humans behave. I could choose to adhere to every Biblical law and not believe that there is any God behind them. You could choose to break every Biblical law and believe that you're doing wrong and will be punished in the afterlife. You and other Christians can argue over the interpretation of Biblical law: "Capital punishment is wrong because God said, 'Thou shalt not kill' in the Bible." "No, capital punishment is right because God mentions a variety of capital offenses in the Bible." As I asked in an earlier post, what meaning does a moral absolute have if it exists but can't be agreed upon by those who believe it exists? How does that become different from moral relativism in all but the most nit-picky academic sense?

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by HonuMan

Oh, there's nothing simple about it -- at least, not for people who take morality seriously. And "preference" doesn't capture that seriousness. I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, but if you prefer vanilla, that's fine with me. I prefer rock music to hip hop, but I understand why many people prefer hip hop, and I see the artistic merit in it. However, I would never say that I prefer that people not commit murder, but if you prefer otherwise, I'm cool with that.

I can understand that you would be uncomfortable with stating that moral relativity equates to personal preference. Notwithstanding, you failed to explain how/why moral relativity does not equate to personal preference.

I'm not asking whether or not it's comfortable for you. Logically, if your position is that moral relativity does not equate to personal preference, please explain how?

Originally Posted by HonuMan

No, because laws and ethics aren't the same thing. Ideally, laws are based on ethics, but we all know that isn't always the case. In the US, look at all the laws throughout our history that have been changed because they were ultimately deemed by the majority of our society to be unjust (slavery, women not being allowed to vote, segregation, etc.). Might is neutral in determining right or wrong; it just determines what laws are enforced.

Do you believe that ethics are objective?

Originally Posted by HonuMan

I totally understand the concept of moral absolutes -- I just don't see evidence for their existence. To summarize, for the purposes of our discussion, I see three broad possibilities:

1) The Christian God exists, and what the Bible says is true. If so, then moral absolutes can logically be assumed to exist. That's what you believe. I see no evidence to support the existence of the Christian God, so Christian-based moral absolutes are just a hypothetical intellectual concept to me.

2) Some other type of God exists. If so, then moral absolutes might or might not exist; it depends on the nature of such a God. As I've said, I'm open to the possibility that some sort of God exists, but I need more proof before I can say that I believe in him/her/it beyond a reasonable doubt.

3) There is no God, period. If so, human-defined moral relativism is the only possible kind of morality that I can see.

So, ultimately, this discussion is academic. Whether there are moral absolutes or not has no bearing on how humans behave. I could choose to adhere to every Biblical law and not believe that there is any God behind them. You could choose to break every Biblical law and believe that you're doing wrong and will be punished in the afterlife. You and other Christians can argue over the interpretation of Biblical law: "Capital punishment is wrong because God said, 'Thou shalt not kill' in the Bible." "No, capital punishment is right because God mentions a variety of capital offenses in the Bible." As I asked in an earlier post, what meaning does a moral absolute have if it exists but can't be agreed upon by those who believe it exists? How does that become different from moral relativism in all but the most nit-picky academic sense?

We're not discussing concepts of human behavior or whether or not you believe that moral absolutes exist.

You've stated that you understand the concept of moral absolutes.

Speaking from the perspective of moral/ethical relativism, what would be your response to the Nazi Nuremberg defense i.e., "We were just following orders?"

[HonuMan]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

I can understand that you would be uncomfortable with stating that moral relativity equates to personal preference. Notwithstanding, you failed to explain how/why moral relativity does not equate to personal preference.

I'm not asking whether or not it's comfortable for you. Logically, if your position is that moral relativity does not equate to personal preference, please explain how?

Do you believe that ethics are objective?

We're not discussing concepts of human behavior or whether or not you believe that moral absolutes exist.

You've stated that you understand the concept of moral absolutes.

Speaking from the perspective of moral/ethical relativism, what would be your response to the Nazi Nuremberg defense i.e., "We were just following orders?"

I think this discussion has passed the point of diminishing returns. In each post, you've asked me several questions, which I've answered, except for a couple of occasions when I ran out of time. However, I've repeatedly asked you some questions that you've either ignored or (as in this case) proclaimed are not part of the discussion at hand. I wouldn't have asked them if I didn't consider them relevant, and I've answered several questions from you that didn't related to the original topic. You might not always be satisfied with my answers, but they're honest from my point of view. So if you prefer to pick and choose which questions of mine you want to answer, and expect me to answer all your questions -- sorry, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.