Hypothetical: God is disproved

[Greatest I am]

Let's say you wake up tomorrow and thete is definitive, concrete evidence that no God exists. How do you feel? How do you live your life? What changes, if anything?

Nothing much would change except that we would recognize that if we want change in the world, it is to mankind to do the changing and we should direct all prayers to ourselves.

We naturally have a default position of cooperation as that serves our survival better than competition. IOW, we are born good and only turn to doing the evil of competing due to how we have set up society.

That is not really a complaint because without both cooperating and competing, as required, is how the fittest comes to be known.

Regards
DL

[Slander and/or Libel]

It's a little depressing to see the vehemence with which people want to pick apart the premise rather than just address the intent of the question. Maybe rephrasing it would help:

Suppose you were presented with a combination of evidence and experience that led you to abandon belief in God. How would that change the way you live your life?

It's simply a question about how your belief, and your profession thereof, leads you to act in life, and whether that would change absent that belief.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Suppose you were presented with a combination of evidence and experience that led you to abandon belief in God.

That's a very different thing than God being "disproven" in an objective sense. If that's what the OP actually wanted to ask, he should have phrased it better.

Anyway, this is actually a quite interesting question. I'm not sure I can answer it, even though that's exactly what happened to me, because it happened just at the time when I was moving from childhood to adolescence and as such there were a lot of changes in my life around the same time, so it's really hard to discern which caused what. What I can say is that at this point I really couldn't imagine being anything other than agnostic, and I'm (mostly) happy this way. I'm trying to build for myself a secular ethos (which obviously incorporates many Christian values) that I desperately hope will allow me to become a decent person. I think that's the most important.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Suppose you were presented with a combination of evidence and experience that led you to abandon belief in God.

That's a very different thing than God being "disproven" in an objective sense. If that's what the OP actually wanted to ask, he should have phrased it better.

Anyway, this is actually a quite interesting question. I'm not sure I can answer it, even though that's exactly what happened to me, because it happened just at the time when I was moving from childhood to adolescence and as such there were a lot of changes in my life around the same time, so it's really hard to discern which caused what. What I can say is that at this point I really couldn't imagine being anything other than agnostic, and I'm (mostly) happy this way. I'm trying to build for myself a secular ethos (which obviously incorporates many Christian values) that I desperately hope will allow me to become a decent person. I think that's the most important.

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

For me, I don't know that I ever truly believed in the first place, even though I attended church regularly for a long time (and, strangely, do again, with my wife and kids). My behavior didn't change once I realized I was an atheist because religion was never very deeply tied into my life/beliefs/morals.

These days I attend a progressive UCC with my wife and kids. My wife is Catholic, and this is our compromise. The church shares our values on a lot of issues about justice and compassion, and I don't have a problem seeing them as allies, since we align on those goals, rather than as opponents because they believe and I don't.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that might have been true for me as well, though again, for me it's just a counterfactual so I really have no idea.

[afleitch]

Suppose you were presented with a combination of evidence and experience that led you to abandon belief in God.

That's a very different thing than God being "disproven" in an objective sense. If that's what the OP actually wanted to ask, he should have phrased it better.

Anyway, this is actually a quite interesting question. I'm not sure I can answer it, even though that's exactly what happened to me, because it happened just at the time when I was moving from childhood to adolescence and as such there were a lot of changes in my life around the same time, so it's really hard to discern which caused what. What I can say is that at this point I really couldn't imagine being anything other than agnostic, and I'm (mostly) happy this way. I'm trying to build for myself a secular ethos (which obviously incorporates many Christian values) that I desperately hope will allow me to become a decent person. I think that's the most important.

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

For me, I don't know that I ever truly believed in the first place, even though I attended church regularly for a long time (and, strangely, do again, with my wife and kids). My behavior didn't change once I realized I was an atheist because religion was never very deeply tied into my life/beliefs/morals.

These days I attend a progressive UCC with my wife and kids. My wife is Catholic, and this is our compromise. The church shares our values on a lot of issues about justice and compassion, and I don't have a problem seeing them as allies, since we align on those goals, rather than as opponents because they believe and I don't.

I've worked with LGBT youths and it's been important to work with progressive safe churches for those who have faith while identifying and mitigating against those who mean harm. I've visited synagogues and gurdwaras for the same reason and attended pagan rite and a satanic group. It helps you find common ground and basic humanity and you can say to faith inclined LGBT people 'if you're forced to fit in then it's not a good fit. It's not real for you, but try this church, try these people.'

If/when I have children my husband and I want them to have an open and analytic relationship with philosophy and belief. I doubt we would ever 'church' them but a day each week being exposed to and engaging with something different or what someone else experiences is the ideal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If/when I have children my husband and I want them to have an open and analytic relationship with philosophy and belief. I doubt we would ever 'church' them but a day each week being exposed to and engaging with something different or what someone else experiences is the ideal.

That actually sounds great. I don't get why you get so patronizing when discussing faith here if that's the outlook you want to have. No, I'm not trying to get into another fight, I'm genuinely surprised.

[afleitch]

If/when I have children my husband and I want them to have an open and analytic relationship with philosophy and belief. I doubt we would ever 'church' them but a day each week being exposed to and engaging with something different or what someone else experiences is the ideal.

That actually sounds great. I don't get why you get so patronizing when discussing faith here if that's the outlook you want to have. No, I'm not trying to get into another fight, I'm genuinely surprised.

I don't think I'm patronising. I don't do anything other than question how people construct/deconstruct faith and belief. I'm fascinated by it. I write tomes about it. If anything I tend to get accused of being an 'edgy basement dwelling new Atheist' because that's the easy internet straw man. I don't slam people for having faith; I just ask them why they acquire it and why they follow x.

I've talked about my inter faith work for years but that get's ignored. That's what's patronising. It's also peculiarly American; it never happens here even when talking to people who are religious.

[afleitch]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

That's not what he said. He specifically said 'Definitive and concrete to each individual'. That means 'definitive and concrete' to them, to their own standard of proof and personal truth. He even said 'the important part isn't what the evidence constitutes'. If there are standards to which people, internally and at ease with themselves, can accept belief in god (and they don't have to be evidential, or scientific or metaphysic), what standards (are they the same, are they different?) would cause them to abandon that belief. Would those standards be internal, or external or both.

I don't know how you can say he's being arrogant when you've basically agreed with him

[Antonio the Sixth]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

That's not what he said. He specifically said 'Definitive and concrete to each individual'. That means 'definitive and concrete' to them, to their own standard of proof and personal truth. He even said 'the important part isn't what the evidence constitutes'. If there are standards to which people, internally and at ease with themselves, can accept belief in god (and they don't have to be evidential, or scientific or metaphysic), what standards (are they the same, are they different?) would cause them to abandon that belief. Would those standards be internal, or external or both.

I don't know how you can say he's being arrogant when you've basically agreed with him

I already said in the previous post that I agreed with this definition. My point here is that, if that is your definition, then words like "concrete" and "evidence" are not well-chosen to express it. Those are two words that imply objectivity. Evidence can't be "subjectively concrete". Thus if what you mean is "arguments and experiences that lead you to espouse or reject a subjective belief", "concrete evidence" just isn't the right way to put it.

I'd like to take issue with your earlier point, especially to your accusation of strawmanning (which, if directed toward me, is frankly pretty damn rich), but we probably shouldn't derail this thread. Let me know if you want to pursue this elsewhere.

[afleitch]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

That's not what he said. He specifically said 'Definitive and concrete to each individual'. That means 'definitive and concrete' to them, to their own standard of proof and personal truth. He even said 'the important part isn't what the evidence constitutes'. If there are standards to which people, internally and at ease with themselves, can accept belief in god (and they don't have to be evidential, or scientific or metaphysic), what standards (are they the same, are they different?) would cause them to abandon that belief. Would those standards be internal, or external or both.

I don't know how you can say he's being arrogant when you've basically agreed with him

I already said in the previous post that I agreed with this definition. My point here is that, if that is your definition, then words like "concrete" and "evidence" are not well-chosen to express it. Those are two words that imply objectivity. Evidence can't be "subjectively concrete". Thus if what you mean is "arguments and experiences that lead you to espouse or reject a subjective belief", "concrete evidence" just isn't the right way to put it.

I'd like to take issue with your earlier point, especially to your accusation of strawmanning (which, if directed toward me, is frankly pretty damn rich), but we probably shouldn't derail this thread. Let me know if you want to pursue this elsewhere.

Antonio, it wasn't directed at you. And Fig wasn't being 'arrogant' in his discussion.

This is what I meant a few days ago. I think you needlessly accuse people of feeling certain ways and acting certain ways towards you, or towards others when really they aren't doing that at all.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I chose to read it as "definitive, concrete evidence" to each individual. Whatever that should mean. The important part isn't what that evidence constitutes. It's one of the things that, for purposes of the exercise, you take as given.

To me it's a bit silly that anyone would take any evidence as "definitive and concrete" in this realm, since nothing about metaphysics can ever be "definitive and concrete". Of course anyone's belief on these matters, one way or another, is legitimate and just as valid as my nonbelief, but to claim that it's rooted in "evidence" is frankly pretty arrogant.

That's not what he said. He specifically said 'Definitive and concrete to each individual'. That means 'definitive and concrete' to them, to their own standard of proof and personal truth. He even said 'the important part isn't what the evidence constitutes'. If there are standards to which people, internally and at ease with themselves, can accept belief in god (and they don't have to be evidential, or scientific or metaphysic), what standards (are they the same, are they different?) would cause them to abandon that belief. Would those standards be internal, or external or both.

I don't know how you can say he's being arrogant when you've basically agreed with him

I already said in the previous post that I agreed with this definition. My point here is that, if that is your definition, then words like "concrete" and "evidence" are not well-chosen to express it. Those are two words that imply objectivity. Evidence can't be "subjectively concrete". Thus if what you mean is "arguments and experiences that lead you to espouse or reject a subjective belief", "concrete evidence" just isn't the right way to put it.

I'd like to take issue with your earlier point, especially to your accusation of strawmanning (which, if directed toward me, is frankly pretty damn rich), but we probably shouldn't derail this thread. Let me know if you want to pursue this elsewhere.

I think your reading is kind of a stretch. "Definitive, concrete evidence" when modified by "to each individual" doesn't really imply objectivity, I don't think. Rather, it implies that, for that individual, that "evidence", whatever it may constitute, is enough to render disbelief in God certain (again, for that individual). It's meant, as I read it, to distinguish it from, say, "evidence that suggests to you that God doesn't exist," because in that case, the answer can be something like, "Well, it only suggested, but I still have faith," etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand your point, but I maintain that I don't think those words should be used the way you are using them. Because, yes, they inherently imply objectivity and you can't just change that by adding "to each individual". Something can't be "concrete evidence" to one individual and not to another - it either is or isn't.

But I'd rather not get hung up arguing semantics. I get your point and I've already responded to your question, so I hope that proves I don't have a problem with it.

This is what I meant a few days ago. I think you needlessly accuse people of feeling certain ways and acting certain ways towards you, or towards others when really they aren't doing that at all.

Do you have other examples of that, other than me casually wondering if a generic accusation you make in the context of a post that was replying to me was in fact addressed to me? Actually, the one time you did throw a personal attack at me (which, even if it was phrased as a joke, still had a very clear meaning behind it), I didn't even react in any form! I've been trying to keep discussions on the issues because, believe me, I have little interest in sharing stuff about myself here.

[The Mikado]

I don't think the existence or nonexistence of God is particularly critical or even all that important to the survival of religions. I'm not sure that such a proof would really fundamentally change much at all.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

After coming away from the initial shock of the incident, I probably wouldn't change all that much. Obviously the bible would change in my life from a sort of guidebook to a long book of fiction and I would no longer look at certain actions as "sinful", but since a majority of sins are things that are either objectively wrong by any and all non-religious societal standards (ex. murder, theft, dishonesty) or things that I have personal, non-religious objections to (ex. abortion, gluttony, adultery, anger, slothfulness), my behavior wouldn't really change (I'm not someone who sees video games or certain types of music as sinful). However, I would be a full and complete believer in evolution (I believe it to a point already), and would probably support gay marriage. While some of my other political beliefs have religion in there somewhere as a reason for holding them, it's not the sole reason. I would still be a supporter of most of Obamacare, of the 2013 senate immigration plan, against the paul ryan medicare plan, and etc. In my old age, I would probably have a lot of anxiety about death since I knew there would be nothing after it, but I don't think I'd go insane or anything.

[Greatest I am]

I don't think the existence or nonexistence of God is particularly critical or even all that important to the survival of religions. I'm not sure that such a proof would really fundamentally change much at all.

If a god were proven to be real, which can only be done by his popping up, I think it would change us all.

But I do agree generally with you as religions are created for other reasons and the main one seems to be to appease our tribal natures and need for fellowship.

Regards
DL