Hypothetical: God is disproved

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, define "God". What exactly is your absurd hypothetical disproving?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, define "God". What exactly is your absurd hypothetical disproving?

That's not what he asked. He asked if god was disproved what would your reaction be?

He asked about God, not god. My reaction would vary considerably if he meant YHWH specifically, any generic anthropomorphic deity, any sentient personification of the Divine, or a complete disproval of any non-physical existence. Any proof beyond discovering the origin of a specific deity was definitively not as its adherents believe would likely require a complete reshaping of the current scientific consensus on cosmology and physics to achieve, which I just don't see happening, which is why this hypothetical is absurd. Science doesn't need to fundamentally reshape itself to answer any of the questions it has concerning those subjects, just better data.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, define "God". What exactly is your absurd hypothetical disproving?

That's not what he asked. He asked if god was disproved what would your reaction be?

He asked about God, not god. My reaction would vary considerably if he meant YHWH specifically, any generic anthropomorphic deity, any sentient personification of the Divine, or a complete disproval of any non-physical existence. Any proof beyond discovering the origin of a specific deity was definitively not as its adherents believe would likely require a complete reshaping of the current scientific consensus on cosmology and physics to achieve, which I just don't see happening, which is why this hypothetical is absurd. Science doesn't need to fundamentally reshape itself to answer any of the questions it has concerning those subjects, just better data.

I asked how people would feel and how they'd live their lives if somehow there was 100% concrete evidence there was no higher power and no afterlife.

Now that's a specific question. Still an absurd hypothetical in my opinion since it requires looking for a change in non-theological topics that no one feels the need to look for at present.

I can't say that my life would change all that much. While I do have a strong belief in the existence of the Divine and an afterlife, their non-existence would not affect the system of ethics I live by. There are all too many consequences in this life from engaging in evil for the lack of any possible effect in the next to alter my behavior. The main effect on me would be indirect from how religious institutions react to the proof.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now that's a specific question. Still an absurd hypothetical in my opinion since it requires looking for a change in non-theological topics that no one feels the need to look for at present.

what?  What topics, and why is it "absurd" to engage a hypothetical that requires looking for a change in those topics because no one "feels the need" to look for such a change at present?

As previously stated, the topics of cosmology and physics. I feel those are the only fields of inquiry that conceivably could produce a proof that the Divine does not exist as they touch upon the subject of existence. But at present those fields of study don't require grand leaps forward that involve discarding large chunks of the current scientific framework in them. It would take such a grand leap to potentially have a disproof of God be developed. So even if there be a potential disproof, it won't be found. Hence the question is absurd as "What would your reaction be if it was shown that the moon actually was made of cheese?" as it deals with a hypothetical with zero chance of happening.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is another angle to this and in fact Ernest, you just did it so it makes my job on explaining this easier ! You demonstrated a ‘highly counterintuitive’ notion of god, when defending the concept. There is no physical, philosophical or scientific sword by which you can puncture god. There he has been moulded. There has been made untouchable.

But the untouchable doesn’t really provide succour does it? If you describe to someone the omniscient, omnipresent concept of god, you might impress them, but you will struggle to get the investment to sustain belief. So personal concepts of god have to be precisely that. You need the ‘minimal counterintuitive’ notion of god to make it tangible. To make the connection between the believer and the belief.

I suppose it depends on what you look for in religion. I'm looking for a guide, not a master. I'm not looking for a helicopter God who steps in all the time. I've come to appreciate the order that can be found in chaos. I realize many need a firmer conception of the Divine to find em believable, but that doesn't describe me. Incidentally, that love of the beauty to be found in chaos is precisely why I'm a theist. A deterministic universe has zero appeal to me.