What if God was proven not to exist?

[The Landstander]

Alright, before I begin, this is a hypothetical situation. Don't respond with "That will never happen", or "God cannot be proven or disproven", please. I just want to see what people think if this did in fact happen.

Suppose that somehow, whether it be through accident or a team of researchers or whatever, that God was proven NOT to exist. The proof is rock-solid, there is absolutely no way it could be wrong. What do you think would happen to the world? How would people react? What would the immediate effects be, as well as the long term effects?

Just curious as to what people think would happen.

[Outlander00]

the world would go to hell, then!!

But then if God was proven not to exists, then by association Hell wouldnt exist... Oy, I am so confused :confused:

[Clayface]

I think in the long-term religion would continue. There are people that are too emotionally and psychologically invested in the belief of God to ever let it go - even if there was proof to the contrary. They would deny the proof, or say its some conspiracy, etc. Peoples' need to believe often outweighs proof or logic.

[JohnCrichton]

Religion would evolve into a God that is the universe itself, which does exist and if you think hard enough, seems benevolent and intelligent.

I for one don't believe in hell. I'm smart enough to realize that as much a jerk Adolf Hitler was, nothing is solved my making him burn and suffer forever.

And if there is a God, I'm sure he figured that out before I did.

Religion would go on, we'd just focus elsewhere than a big guy in another dimension.

[Outlander00]

I think in the long-term religion would continue. There are people that are too emotionally and psychologically invested in the belief of God to ever let it go - even if there was proof to the contrary. They would deny the proof, or say its some conspiracy, etc. Peoples' need to believe often outweighs proof or logic.


Sorry about my last reply... Thought with all the talk about the subject, we all needed a good laugh.


Clayface is right in that religion would continue on because there are so many people psychologically dependent on the thought of a higher being guiding them.

[Zechs]

I think in the long-term religion would continue. There are people that are too emotionally and psychologically invested in the belief of God to ever let it go - even if there was proof to the contrary. They would deny the proof, or say its some conspiracy, etc. Peoples' need to believe often outweighs proof or logic. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Rune]

I agree, even if 'God' as a being was proved beyond doubt to not exist then many people would still be skeptical and even if you don't include them in your calculations, other people will continue to have their own personal brand of faith and before too long religion on a larger public scale would simply evolve towards a new focus. Even it it was proved there is no god or gods some people still need to believe and in all likelihood given this scenario, certain individuals across the globe would see this as their chance to whip up a little support for their own crusades, I'd like to think this wouldn't include rubbing the peoples whose god has been disproveds faces in the dirt but well, we all know what human nature is.

What I like to consider too is that different religions and faiths see their gods and gods in different guises, different genders, different faces, for some god may be a benevolent old man, for others a more warlike figure, others may see their god as a goddess, a spirit, a force of nature, something moving behind nature and although I know its not really the point of the topic, unless we reduce the planet to a barren dustbowl then god will always be here for someone and even then everyone else may simply look to the stars for god, or - as many indeed do already - simply find their god within themselves. Some people need faith to survive every day and no matter what is proven in the face of science's every-hungry teeth, in the end there will always be religion somewhere.

[Roman Legion]

Clayface is right in that religion would continue on because there are so many people psychologically dependent on the thought of a higher being guiding them.While I actually agree with that statement that some people are 'psychologically dependent' on such, I still can't help but take slight offense at that, since it's rather biased against those who *do* believe in a higher being.

What if God were "proven" not to exist? There would be plenty of skeptics, just as there would be if God were alternately proven to exist. Some people already believe that God's proven not to exist, while others feel they have enough proof that He does. It wouldn't change much at all.

If not Hell, what would suit Hitler? Heaven? I think not. Nonexistance? I think he'd prefer that to Hell, so Hell sounds good enough, even if it doesn't solve what he did... ::shrug::

Give me a call when we have a thread debating the very existance of the universe or of reality itself...

--Romey

[JohnCrichton]

Saying people would be skeptical is cheating tho.... takes away from the speculation of what a world without God would be like.

He's saying somehow like as sure as we are of the Earth not being the center of the universe.... as sure as we are of gravity and evaporation, that we're sure that God does not exist.

What then?

A world were people refuse to believe in 'no God' is as absurd as a world were people refuse to believe in gravity and that other planets don't exist.

[Tanooki]

i am one of those people that is "way too into religion" to believe there is no God. if the proof existst that God is not out there, then i shall continue to worship, according you you, nothing

KoD

[Roman Legion]

Saying people would be skeptical is cheating tho... takes away from the speculation of what a world without God would be like.

He's saying somehow like as sure as we are of the Earth not being the center of the universe.... as sure as we are of gravity and evaporation, that we're sure that God does not exist.

What then?How is that cheating? Otherwise, the answer is as simple as saying "We'd all be athiests, materialists, insert your word of choice"... in which case there's nothing to discuss, and this thread becomes little more than a jab at theism. I'd like to think we're above that, here...
A world were people refuse to believe in 'no God' is as absurd as a world were people refuse to believe in gravity and that other planets don't exist.Not quite sure what's meant by that, but I'll give you a chance to spell it out for me, before I comment. :p

--Romey

[JohnCrichton]

Well, be us aetheist or not, I've zero doubt that everybody has talked out to something in our darkest hour.

What if for a frelling fact there was nothing to talk out to.

Where would we seek spiritual solace? Would we all become Buddhist or seek out faith in something else more solid and make that our God?

Believing in something higher is human.... so what higher would we believe in? We all wouldn't just become aethists.

Also... what would that mean. The universe is full on designed down to the atom to work like a clock. If nobody designed or created it.... what would that mean?

There are alot of fun things to ponder in a world without God.

Although one without God, aethist or not... is pretty improbable.

[Outlander00]

While I actually agree with that statement that some people are 'psychologically dependent' on such, I still can't help but take slight offense at that, since it's rather biased against those who *do* believe in a higher being.

What if God were "proven" not to exist? There would be plenty of skeptics, just as there would be if God were alternately proven to exist. Some people already believe that God's proven not to exist, while others feel they have enough proof that He does. It wouldn't change much at all.

If not Hell, what would suit Hitler? Heaven? I think not. Nonexistance? I think he'd prefer that to Hell, so Hell sounds good enough, even if it doesn't solve what he did... ::shrug::

Give me a call when we have a thread debating the very existance of the universe or of reality itself...

--Romey


First, I apologize for the offense, romey... Being someone who does believe in higher beings the, statement was a little coarse

*whacks himself, saying "bad Outtie, BAD!"*

What I meant was that there are people who do rely on religion so much that even if hypothetical situation of god (or any ethereal being) being disproven, they would either continue their respected religion in denial or melt down completely.

The same can be said for those individuals who believe the other side of the coin with science and nothing else... If it is proven that an ethereal being exists and is guiding the progression of the universe, those people would deny it as well and continue on with their beliefs. It all comes down to psychology of the individual.

I consider myself a deeply spiritual person whos beliefs are... well, not shared by most (if anyone). But it never stops me from believing that science is something that can help explain things to us a little better in how the world and universe works.

Its a big universe and both spirituality and science can co exist... Though, at times, it gives a whole new perspective on the phrase "this town aint big enough for the both of us!" :p

[JohnCrichton]

In a cool question like this, that's still cheating. Gotta ponder what the world would be like if there was infact no God. You can't be skeptic. It's made as much fact as gravity.

Question isn't, "How Strong is Your Faith?" It's "What if There Were NO God???"

What new religion would arise? Would we then consider the smartest most spiritual and wise person on the planet a "God?" Then when he passed, search for the next?

Would we become tree hugging hippies and instead of searching to the "beyond" for a God, would the Earth itself be our God?

If God were proven not to exist... I think I'd turn toward universal energy Feng Shui type stuff to find my inner spiritual peace.

But as the universe stands, I can do both.... but it'd be interesting to ponder if I didn't have the choice to believe in a God.

[Stewie]

I think the question requires us to accept a few concepts first:
-God could exist.
-God may not exist.
-The existence or non-existence of God has not yet been proven.

I think those are reasonable assumptions(at least for this discussion).

If it were proven that God did not exist:
Some people would still believe in him, at least for a while. (This isn't cheating JC)
After we discovered that the Earth is round and it is not the center of our solar system, much less the universe, people still didn't believe. It took a long time for these concepts to gain acceptance. Eventually, everyone believed what was already proven.

I do think that eventually, people would not believe in God. This would take several generations though. Maybe hundreds of years. In the end, there might be some that refused to give up their beliefs, but they would seem more like a cult than anything. What would you think of someone today that believed that the Earth was flat?

[jeffrey 228]

On this topic, I'd have to say Demons would rule this whole planet if out planet had no god and proven not to exist.

[Borg4of3]

Under the assumption that proof was found that God didn't exist (and under this assumption, disbelief in God was enlightenment and belief in God was ignorance), and after the initial skepticism of generations of generations passed and religion and belief in higher, intangible beings no longer existed -- I really don't think too much will change.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I do have faith in humanity itself. My image of a world without God is a less idealistic Star Trek; where, instead of seeking to do good for God or heaven, its just to 'better humanity' - Morality and religion are two different things, and what is good is what is good no matter what.

Of course, lets not get too far into the hypothetical. I do believe in God, and would rather we had a thread, "What if it were proven that God DID exist," and assumed belief in God was enlightenment and disbelief was ignorance.

As it is now, no proof exists for either situation, and we just gotta... I dunno, live life with that tinge of uncertainty or with that leap of faith.

[Stewie]

I do believe in God, and would rather we had a thread, "What if it were proven that God DID exist," and assumed belief in God was enlightenment and disbelief was ignorance.

That brings up a good point. Do you think a world where it is proven that God does not exist would be different from a world where it is proven he does exist?

[Roman Legion]

In a cool question like this, that's still cheating. Gotta ponder what the world would be like if there was infact no God. You can't be skeptic. It's made as much fact as gravity.You can call it a 'cool question' all you want, but I could yawn and note that, philosophically speaking, the idea isn't exactly anything particularly new or useful... which doesn't rule it out as a topic for discussion, but it's still pretty darn one-sided in the context of this thread.

Romey
--Look both ways for zebras, on your way out.

[JohnCrichton]

Sounds like you're yawning because you don't want to consider a world without God, cuz it would challenge your faith.

But the question isn't about that.

It's what're the philosphical and social ramifications of no God.

Equally interesting would be proof that God did exist! But that's not this thread. If God did exist, then that means ALOT of other things could exist and that there would be someone able to answer all the questions we have and we'd know that every second of our lives we were actually watched.... That'd cut out alot of free will and self discovery. You'd know that the Ten Commandments were written by God and that hell could exist.

And for the atrocities in the world we would have someone to blame besides ourselves.

Both arguements are fun to ponder, but too many people are turning this into a "how strong is my faith" or "how do you prove if God exists or not."

[TimTwoFace]

If God was proven not to exist, then there would be no point to living, as far as I'm concerned. No, that doesn't mean we'd have to all go out and kill ourselves, but without a God, heaven, or something similar waiting for us in the afterlife, then what's the point?

That said, God's existance will never be proven or disproven with actual fact - it's all what you feel in your heart and head. It's something you believe, and as far as faith goes, that's all you need to get by.

-Tim

[cross blues]

I'd shrug, and of course I'd have to say "I told you so". I think eventually there will be proof one way or another. I've recently read that archaeologists are making discoveries that confirm some of the writings in the bible. I'm still sticking to my beliefs. If I'm wrong, I'll just have to suffer lots of pain for awhile, then repent and go to heaven. No big deal... :rolleyes:

As for the world, I don't think things would change much. In 3rd world countries maybe there would be some rioting and killing. In more developed countries, God has become more of a comfort than a necessity. I think people would go on with their lives as if nothing had changed. Besides, with all the police around, looting, rioting, and killing aren't options anyway.

[finbarlafume]

If God was proven not to exist, then there would be no point to living, as far as I'm concerned.

Life is precious, God or not.
I'd rather live for 50 years with no hope of an afterlife than not live at all ( as it happens, I have my doubts about life after death anyway ). Regardless of whether God exists or not, the universe is a wonderful place and life, even brief life, is worthwhile.

[TimTwoFace]

Life is precious, God or not.
I'd rather live for 50 years with no hope of an afterlife than not live at all ( as it happens, I have my doubts about life after death anyway ). Regardless of whether God exists or not, the universe is a wonderful place and life, even brief life, is worthwhile.

Oh, I never intended to say that life wasn't precious. It most definitely is. But the idea of there being a God or some such being overseeing it all, and there being a heaven (or hell...but hopefully heaven) to hope to reach some day makes the idea of living more worthwhile. Life on earth is good, yes - it can be very good - but when you die, it would just end right then and there with a God around. If there is a God in existance, life would continue on after death and be infinitely better than anything experienced on earth. That's all I was suggesting. :)

-Tim

[JohnCrichton]

Life on Earth's worth living, God or no. I've made too many good friends, laughed too hard, helped too many people and made too many people smile for this not to've been all worth it. And still got a ways to go!

Way I see it, if there's a heaven.... BONUS! If not... not like I'm gonna notice once I'm dead.

^_-

[Chris Sanders MSX]

I don't think total chaos would go down but a lot of people, would take extreme advantage of the knowledge, knowing that he/she no longer has to wait to get married to have sex, or well yeah that's pretty much it. In my eyes I just see sex getting out of control.

I mean it's not like people would committ more crimes because they still have cops to answer to, but pretty much anything immoral that doesn't hurt other people would definetly start to rise in consistentcy. It would also be harder to trust people.

Most people, even the most hardcore of Christians know that some things in the bible are in there just to curb and control society. Still some religons/churches would still opperate because they would call this a test of faith or just call the scientists down right liars.

[JohnCrichton]

Maaaybee.. maybe for a little while. But people really shouldn't be doing the right thing because God says so. I'd discourage my children from having sex not because of punishment from God, but because children aren't ready for that responsiblity.

And because there'd be no God, doesn't mean spirituality would disappear. We'd probably find something else more immediate to worship, like the life giving Earth itself.

Buddhist get along just fine and in someways better.

I wouldn't say anarchy would take over the planet. Maybe for a while, but mankind would find something else to worship. Or commit all spiritual and scientific resources toward creating something to worship. Technology's been bursting by leaps and bounds.

I'd say if all mankind were behind it and needed it enough that we could creae an "All Knowing" being from cyberspace.

[Condiment King]

I don't think that alot would change. I think religions would still move on, and continue.

I don't mean to force my beliefs on anyone else or anything here, but I think that in the Tribulation, scientists, under Antichrist and False Prophet's influence will 'prove' that God doesn't exist someway, and Jesus' body will be completely duplicated, and be 'found' (planted) somewhere.

[EinBebop]

I'm still sticking to my beliefs. If I'm wrong, I'll just have to suffer lots of pain for awhile, then repent and go to heaven. No big deal... :rolleyes:So you either believe in a non-eternal hell, or grew up around Catholics and believe in purgatory.

Since as a non-believer you would not be eligible for purgatory in the Catholic sense, and I don't know of any religions that believe in a non-eternal hell (pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming we're talking about the Christian God anyway), it sounds like you've created for yourself a religious back-up plan that goes against just about every known religion.

You've just acknowledged that there may be proof of God's existence, but you don't have to worry about that. You've created an afterlife that allows yourself to do whatever you want in this life without troubling yourself with religious concerns, and "make up" for it later.

Nice. :)

[JohnCrichton]

There is no eternal hell!

What benevolent God in his right mind would think, "Oh.... people who don't follow my rules? I'll have them tortured for eternty. That'll solve everything!"

[Condiment King]

There is no eternal hell!

What benevolent God in his right mind would think, "Oh.... people who don't follow my rules? I'll have them tortured for eternty. That'll solve everything!"

Well, its not just following 'rules'. Its rejecting God's gift of Jesus Christ and Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins. I mean, Jesus could have called down 10,000 angels to save Him, but he didn't. He just died there on the most dispicable way ever created to kill someone, the Cross.

And God didn't create Hell, he created the Heavens and the Earth. Hell exists because there are people that reject God's gift. If noone did, it wouldn't exist. In essence, people that reject God's gift create Hell themselves.

[JohnCrichton]

I think Jesus is infact great. I believe in God and grew up Catholic. But simple thought proves there's no use for an eternal Hell.

There's not good in not forgiving for eternity.

Once upon a time a kid waaaaay bigger than me beat the hell outta me. He was a jerk and just all out no effing good to anyone. But that was years ago and I really could care less about him. If I knew that my dad had caught the guy and tortured him all these years that I'd moved on with my life, I'd be horrified!

Same goes for the most evil guy in the world. After a good millenia of paradise, I could care less about the guy who had murdered me and could only hope he'd found the peace adn understand that I had through my eons of contemplation.

Now.... if I, a mere human can figure this out, I'm sure God knew this since.. forever and would never structure a universe where those who didn't follow the rules of the book were tortured forever. Even the evil.

No good comes from that. No good.

And what about all the peaceful Buddhist monks who don't believe in a God, but lead positive and good lives?

Or that father who raised his family, worked hard and taught his children well, who just didn't feel spiritually connect to Christianity? Should he be tortured at all let alone forever?

I think not.

I know God. I believe in God. Grew up and went to a private Catholic School. But I've learned to think for myself and adhere to what I know and feel is right. And that does not include a universe where people who wrong me or God to burn for all eternity. I'd rather they make up for and learn why their ways of life were wrong. At least that'd help somebody....

[Condiment King]

I think Jesus is infact great. I believe in God and grew up Catholic. But simple thought proves there's no use for an eternal Hell.

There's not good in not forgiving for eternity.

Once upon a time a kid waaaaay bigger than me beat the hell outta me. He was a jerk and just all out no effing good to anyone. But that was years ago and I really could care less about him. If I knew that my dad had caught the guy and tortured him all these years that I'd moved on with my life, I'd be horrified!

Same goes for the most evil guy in the world. After a good millenia of paradise, I could care less about the guy who had murdered me and could only hope he'd found the peace adn understand that I had through my eons of contemplation.

Now.... if I, a mere human can figure this out, I'm sure God knew this since.. forever and would never structure a universe where those who didn't follow the rules of the book were tortured forever. Even the evil.

No good comes from that. No good.

And what about all the peaceful Buddhist monks who don't believe in a God, but lead positive and good lives?

Or that father who raised his family, worked hard and taught his children well, who just didn't feel spiritually connect to Christianity? Should he be tortured at all let alone forever?

I think not.

I know God. I believe in God. Grew up and went to a private Catholic School. But I've learned to think for myself and adhere to what I know and feel is right. And that does not include a universe where people who wrong me or God to burn for all eternity. I'd rather they make up for and learn why their ways of life were wrong. At least that'd help somebody....

Yeah, but what I believe is that people who get condemned to Hell aren't going to want to be 'saved'. They just are going to want to escape Hell. Sure, I think that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, but I think that those that go to Hell will have to acknowledge it, but knowing it and taking it to heart and to your life and believing in it are two different things.

So, I think that those that go to Hell are going to know that God exists, but they won't admit that they are wrong and they'll just want to escape torment in Hell. That they will be decieved.

[JohnCrichton]

Naaah... I definately don't believe that. One should do what's right because it's the right thing to do. And God as a wise father should also want that for his children so that we are the ones who make the most of the great gift of our life.

There's no wisdom or true goodness in repenting or doing "right" for fear of eternal punishment.

Who deserves heaven more? The guy who raises his family justly, but doesn't believe in God or the guy who's reason for doing right is for reward and to avoid being impaled on a thousand rusty forks?

Again, be it someone's erroneous choice or not, I don't think God would leave open the option for someone to choose to be tortured forever and ever...... absolutely nothing is accomplished by that.

If I and my family get brutally murdered and go to heaven.... and about nine eons later I think to myself, "WOW!!! After experiencing the wonders of the univese and other universes and having now just talked to just about everyone who's ever lived on Earth at least once.... I wonder what happened to that fool who was so cosumed in his own fear and hatred that he killed my family and I..."

God, "You mean, Craig? OY! Right now after he gets down with his 1000 years of boiling, he's going to get hollowed out to be used as a helmut for the thorn skulled jebullzeb in a head butting tournament for the next 10,000 years. The impact hurts, but it's the lava they play in that you never get used to!"

I'd be like, "WHAT?!?!? Why?!"

God, "He chose that life for himself and now he's pretty much doomed himself to an eternity of Hell and agony."

Me, "God! That was..... I've lost count how many eons ago that was! You do know that doesn't undo his crime and that my family and I have moved on by now. Man! I can't even remember what my name was back in that liftetime! By all rights since my 20 year quest through the 92nd Ether I'm not even comprised of the same SOUL! If you'd just let me know he passed away, I would've rehabilitated him myself since I've earned about 3 million degrees in Hyper-Neo-Etheral Psychology. I'd have him righted and making up for his crimes in about five months! WHY is he still being tortured???"

God, "Whoa! You're right! Gee, Keith(that was your name), after all this eternity and all the great thinkers I've created, you're the first one to bring this up. I mean, I never thought of it like that!"

After that, the sarcastic God would smack the back of my head and say, "Twip! I was just kidding. I'm GOD! I know everything and that includes that which your tiny little mind took a 80 thousand eons to come up with. Sheesh..... you know this latest Earth I made, people there don't give me any credit either. I mean, when I said I know everything I meant everything. Craig repented a looooong time ago and is a guardian angel actually. Hard worker that chap, you'd be proud. Even broke a major rule to save one of you decendants."

And so forth with the witty Me/God rapport.

Sorry, there's just no Hell.

[Roman Legion]

Sounds like you're yawning because you don't want to consider a world without God, cuz it would challenge your faith.Aaaand that sounds like exactly like the bias in the nature of this thread that I was talking about, earlier...

Care to make any other presumptions about my faith, while you're at it?

--Romey

[JohnCrichton]

Ummmm..... no? :o

[murmur]

What if God was proven not to exist? Which God? There a trillion-odd people in this world, and a trillion different concepts of God. Which one are you asking us to assume is wrong? :birdman:

On a lighter note, here are a couple excerpts from the book I'm reading, K-PAX III: The Worlds of Prot, that address this matter. They don't ruin any plot, but I'll put them in spoilers anyway, just in case any of you are reading the trilogy (and you should!) and want to save these bits.

This one is a discussion with prot, the psych patient who convincingly asserts that he is from the planet K-PAX:
"Religions are a cop-out. They free you from taking the responsibility for your own actions."
"Surely we need to have an ethical foundation of some kind. Without moral laws, what motive would we have to behave?"
He chuckled a little, obviously enjoying himself. "You don't behave anyway, despite your thousands of religions!"
"How easy for you 'K-PAXians' not to need any help with your lives. There's no cruelty, no injustice, no evil of any kind on your planet, is there?"
"'Evil' is a purely human concept. It exists only on EARTH. And a few other class B PLANETS."

This one is a chat between psychiatrists about another patient.
"He claims he has a direct pipeline to God."
"Did you test him on that?"
"I asked him if there's really a heaven."
"And is there?"
"Yes. But there's a catch."
"What's that?"
"There aren't any people there."

Hope that's not considered to be OT; I just found it oddly appropriate considering some of the debate going on right now about how necessary religion is. Oh, and for a little humor. :yakko:

BTW, JohnCrichton, I'm really getting to like ya. :brak:

[randomguy]

In the past, a large part of the barrier between order and total anarchy has been religion. Belief in a God, and, therefore, moral absolutes has gone a long way towards keeping things relatively peaceful.

If that was suddenly taken away, I have a fear that too many would be left without reason to stand by their ethics, leading to a much more dangerous and volatile world. Yes, people like JohnCrichton would be just fine, but I don't know if I trust the majority of humanity as much as I trust him.


If God was proven not to exist, then there would be no point to living, as far as I'm concerned. No, that doesn't mean we'd have to all go out and kill ourselves, but without a God, heaven, or something similar waiting for us in the afterlife, then what's the point?

To quote the great Hobbes (not Thomas Hobbes) "Aw, what the heck, I'll take it anyway."

[Ajax]

Yeah, but what I believe is that people who get condemned to Hell aren't going to want to be 'saved'.

But you don't know that.
Look, nobody is born into this earth with evil in there heart. If God's love is infinite, then he could never damn his own creation for all enterity no matter how much they don't want to be saved. I mean just picture yourself as a parent, if your kid screws up bad, you'll still love and I'm sure you wouldn't damn your kid.

See, if God was proven not to exist, the only people IMO that would care are the ones who lead a life of worship. I mean how do we even know were worshiping the right God? I mean, in the anicent world, the Greek, the Egyptians and others worshipped hundreds of different gods. And each religion had its own stories. Now we regard them as pure mythology. How do we know our bible isn't pure mythology either?

To answer the question, If God was proven not to exist, there would be anarchy, but after we would probably just found something else to believe in cause I guess thats human nature.

[Elven Moon]

I don't want to say there'd be chaos. But certainly a number of people would say, "Oh, no God? Cool, I can do whatever now!" or something like that. They wouldn't feel cemented down by laws enforced by the church and would feel free to do the opposite. There would be some people who would argue with the scientists, say they are lying and go on worshiping. And of course there would be the "I told you so!" and "There isn't? Huh, I guess that's that!" folk. And some people just wouldn't know what to do or think.

There'd also be a lot of depression, I think. Those who don't know what to do, if they should continue to live without a "point." And if they did kill themselves, there would be nothing, so they'd continue to live in order to exist.

[JohnCrichton]

Thanks, murmur! I like you too. :)

I think God is like gravity. We need it and know it's there... we feel it and need to understand it, so we make rules out.

We need to know the reason for everything.

murmur. There is only one God if there is one. It's just a trillion different ways of looking at the same thing. But if that one thing were taken away, man kind needs reason... reason beyind him/herself to be and to be right.

If there were no God being outside our existance, we'd find something else to worship like the Earth itself. If we somehow found there was now God we all still would feel the cosequences of fate and coincidence. So we'd probably look directly to the source, the Earth itself, as in being our new tangible, still mysterious God.

Or as we delve further into technology and quantum mechanics, I believe scientist/holy man hybrids would probably create some kinda Deus Ex Machina for us to find guidance from.

By our nature we don't want to do wrong, but man is spiritual naturally as well. Without God, mankind would find another spiritual route to define why we should do and want to do what is right.

[EinBebop]

Look, nobody is born into this earth with evil in there heart.:::trying to put the lid back on the can of worms:::

[Singin' Stray Cat]

(reads thread topic)

...geez guys, is the economy THAT bad? :p

Seriously, it breaks my heart that this is even a topic, but...ah well. Personal feelings aside, I guess I can give you a more serious answer.

Okay, so...no God, right? And I'm assuming that when you say "it's been proven without a doubt that there's no God," then you mean that there's absolute proof that there is no supreme deity of any kind (so no "gods," either). Truth be told, I can think of one good thing to come from this, actually - maybe those obnoxious televangelists will finally hush. Then again, as someone once said, "a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts after losing sight of his goal."

Well then, I guess we can tear down places such as the Sistine Chapel, since much of their value is gone. And what about works of art that were inspired by religion (icons, Buddha statues, churches and temples, even music)? Are they going to be considered worthless? And what about the people who did believe in a god of some kind (a nice huge chunk of the world's population, mind you) - are we going to see them as stupid? Whose name will you use in vain when someone cuts you off in traffic or when you stub your toe on the bed? And if God never existed, why does most of mankind have a yearning for the supernatural - why is he curious? Why does he even ponder where the universe came from? Why do we even debate questions like these? ;) And what about people who don't listen to reason...will we be prepared to handle them? And wouldn't our love songs suffer too? Can't say your woman is like an angel or your life together is like heaven...because those things don't exist! :p

But most importantly...if someone did verify the non-existance of God, they had darn well better ALSO come up with an airtight explanation of how the universe, the Earth, and eventually the creatures who live on it came to be. No, it hasn't been done; not to my satisfaction. Evolution may explain why we have the kinds of creatures that we have today, but it cannot explain where the original living matter came from....evolution can't work without something to evolve. Or even the Big Bang...where did that material come from?? What initiated the explosion? Or, hey...you could even start with something simpler, such as why we find music pleasant. Really, all it is is vibrations moving through the air - what's so fantastic about it?

Eh, heh, heh...sorry ^^ I'm a curious little beggar...basically what I'm saying is, if God was proven to not exist, then that would open a HUGE vacuum of questions - some of which even the most intelligent souls will have difficulty answering.

And I just know some of you will try, now that I've said it. ;)

[JohnCrichton]

(reads thread topic)
Eh, heh, heh...sorry ^^ I'm a curious little beggar...basically what I'm saying is, if God was proven to not exist, then that would open a HUGE vacuum of questions - some of which even the most intelligent souls will have difficulty answering.

And I just know some of you will try, now that I've said it. ;)

It does open a vacuum of alot of questions to ponder. That's what makes it such a fun question. Take away the biggest catch all piece of the puzzle and what would we find to fill it?

As for the Sistine Chapel... things like those are still a remarkable achievement. Those are testiments to the greatness that man(and woman) can attain.

Buddist statues aren't of a God. Their spiritual value would remain the same.

[EinBebop]

I did a little reading and discovered that there is a school of religious Christian thought that believes punishment in Hell is not eternal. It's called "annhilationism", and basically, you're punished in Hell for whatever is an appropriate time for your sins, and then you cease to exist. I'm assuming it's a very little-known view, because I've never heard of it and I believe I know everything. :cool: There are also views that sinners are instantly consumed in the fires of hell and/or that hell will be destroyed at some point in the future when there are no more sinners to throw in.

But I just wanted to correct my earlier statement, although I've still seen no support outside of this thread for the view that you can get from Hell to Heaven.

[Ajax]

(reads thread topic)


Well then, I guess we can tear down places such as the Sistine Chapel, since much of their value is gone. And what about works of art that were inspired by religion (icons, Buddha statues, churches and temples, even music)? Are they going to be considered worthless?
Great things have been built in the name of God. But you must also understand that even though all those great things were made in the name of God, many other events in our history, mostly bad, were also done in the name of God. The Crusades, The Inquistion, The Salem Witch Trials, even 9/11 and were all done in his name.

[EightOh]

How is this proven in the first place, in this hypothetical situation? Sorry, but I can't get around that. You can't prove a negative. I can say that no three-legged purple turkeys exist, and in all likelihood, they probably don't, but there could be a couple of them out there somewhere in the universe.

[EightOh]

I did a little reading and discovered that there is a school of religious Christian thought that believes punishment in Hell is not eternal. It's called "annhilationism", and basically, you're punished in Hell for whatever is an appropriate time for your sins, and then you cease to exist.Interesting... but then, what's the punishment for if that person no longer exists? What's the point of even punishing them if they're not there to think about it? Why not just cut to the chase and poof them into nothingness right off the bat? Same thing, less time. More efficient use of deitylicious power, and more time to bowl, or whatever.

[Cogliostro]

Look people you can assume things till you die which most relgious people do but you still don't know anything for sure you're guessing and then trying to say your guess is better then others when you all are shooting in the same dark place. There is really no need to say "No this is how it is..." "There's only one...." and so on cause you don't know, you just don't know. When you die you'll find out.

As for the topic at hand I would say there would be a whole lot of chaos and lots of killing. All the bad people which there are a lot of would steal,kill,rape and so on cause they know in the end they won't be punished. The government would most likely have to start killing the bad people cause there would be just to many people to jail and would be more able to do it instead of saying we are not the ones to decide who lives and dies. Eventually things would get back to being pretty "normal" and life would seem even more precious to everyone and people would hopefully living more active lives instead of literally sitting around waiting for heaven.

Yes I see the irony of assuming what would happen so don't point it out :p

[JohnCrichton]

People who want to kill and rape.... I don't think are really God fearing Christians in the first place. Those things are still illegal and evil people are going to do evil anyway.

What would be interesting is to see how many Christians were doing good and living good lives for the sole purpose of reward and fear of punishment and how many do good because it's the right thing to do.

Again. There is no Hell.

http://raceworx.com/funnypics/jesus%20thanks%204%20info.gif


And proof of God's existance or not, isn't apart of the thing to ponder. As or right now there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove that. What's to consider is what mankind would do without even the possiblity of their being a God.

[Cogliostro]

People who want to kill and rape.... I don't think are really God fearing Christians in the first place. Those things are still illegal and evil people are going to do evil anyway.

What would be interesting is to see how many Christians were doing good and living good lives for the sole purpose of reward and fear of punishment and how many do good because it's the right thing to do.

Again. There is no Hell.


Thats what I meant, lots of people don't do bad things cause they want to go to heaven but once they knew there wasn't a heaven then a lot more people would probably be doing bad things.

Again. Your GUESSING! You can not tell me if there is or is not a heaven or HELL!

(P.S. To me it sounds like you don't want there to be a hell for your own personal reasons.)

[JohnCrichton]

I definately don't want their to be a Hell for personal reasons.

But reason dictates why there wouldn't be a Hell, provided that God is infact all knowing and all good and wiser than man.

Concept of Hell was made back in more primitive time when rehablitation wasn't even a consideration, nor did they care about trying to understand psychology. Just about any sin/crime was punishable by death or physical punishment.

Now that we're wiser we know there are better ways to go about understanding a crime and punishing it and making sure it doesn't happen again.

Now... I we know this now, God must've known this before concept of physical universe ever occured to him for the first time.

It makes about as much sense as a parent leaving a rabid dog underneath his child's bed to make sure he stays good and still at night.

Or why stop at making a hell? God could've just put demons on Earth to come eat the wicked.

Sorry, but pain as punishment is primative. God is all powerful and all knowing and there's nothing He/She can't do. I find it hard to believe the BEST idea He could think of to deal with those who're not the best of citizens in the world is to make them feel pain.... forever.

There's no good in that, especially with all his power and wisdom, his other alternatives are literally infinate and would be actually helpful to someone.

It's a guess... but an educated one. I'm also guessing that I am actually human and not some kinda alien from another planet who's forgotten his identity. :D

[The Landstander]

Just for the record, I didn't make this thread in an "anti-religious people" mindset...I honestly have no idea if there's a God or not. I just wanted to see what people would think of this hypothetical situation.

Actually, the original idea for this thread came from a Simpsons episode. I don't remember which one (I think it was from the more recent seasons), but the joke went something like this:

Homer: Hey, Flanders, I was doing my tax returns and I accidently proved there's no God. Thought you'd like to know.
Ned: (Reads the paper) Well, you must've made a...(looks closer) nope, that is rock solid evidence. Well, can't let this get out. (Ned burns the paper)
(Cut to Homer putting the evidence on all the windshields in town)

It seems some people thought I made this thread to offend religious people or something...that wasn't my intention.

[Condiment King]

Naaah... I definately don't believe that. One should do what's right because it's the right thing to do. And God as a wise father should also want that for his children so that we are the ones who make the most of the great gift of our life.

There's no wisdom or true goodness in repenting or doing "right" for fear of eternal punishment.

Who deserves heaven more? The guy who raises his family justly, but doesn't believe in God or the guy who's reason for doing right is for reward and to avoid being impaled on a thousand rusty forks?

Again, be it someone's erroneous choice or not, I don't think God would leave open the option for someone to choose to be tortured forever and ever...... absolutely nothing is accomplished by that.

If I and my family get brutally murdered and go to heaven.... and about nine eons later I think to myself, "WOW!!! After experiencing the wonders of the univese and other universes and having now just talked to just about everyone who's ever lived on Earth at least once.... I wonder what happened to that fool who was so cosumed in his own fear and hatred that he killed my family and I..."

God, "You mean, Craig? OY! Right now after he gets down with his 1000 years of boiling, he's going to get hollowed out to be used as a helmut for the thorn skulled jebullzeb in a head butting tournament for the next 10,000 years. The impact hurts, but it's the lava they play in that you never get used to!"

I'd be like, "WHAT?!?!? Why?!"

God, "He chose that life for himself and now he's pretty much doomed himself to an eternity of Hell and agony."

Me, "God! That was..... I've lost count how many eons ago that was! You do know that doesn't undo his crime and that my family and I have moved on by now. Man! I can't even remember what my name was back in that liftetime! By all rights since my 20 year quest through the 92nd Ether I'm not even comprised of the same SOUL! If you'd just let me know he passed away, I would've rehabilitated him myself since I've earned about 3 million degrees in Hyper-Neo-Etheral Psychology. I'd have him righted and making up for his crimes in about five months! WHY is he still being tortured???"

God, "Whoa! You're right! Gee, Keith(that was your name), after all this eternity and all the great thinkers I've created, you're the first one to bring this up. I mean, I never thought of it like that!"

After that, the sarcastic God would smack the back of my head and say, "Twip! I was just kidding. I'm GOD! I know everything and that includes that which your tiny little mind took a 80 thousand eons to come up with. Sheesh..... you know this latest Earth I made, people there don't give me any credit either. I mean, when I said I know everything I meant everything. Craig repented a looooong time ago and is a guardian angel actually. Hard worker that chap, you'd be proud. Even broke a major rule to save one of you decendants."

And so forth with the witty Me/God rapport.

Sorry, there's just no Hell.

Wait a minute, when did I say that it was right to do that in my earlier post? I was just saying that if you had your absolute back against the wall and you were still resentful and mad at something, you'd just do it to escape punishment, and Hell is mentioned in the Bible several times. Several times. A quick look at my concordance brings out...

Matthew 7:22-23
Matthew 8:12
Matthew 25:41
Luke 16:19-31
Acts 4:12
Romans 1:18-20
Romans 2:1-9
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
2 Peter 2:4-9
Jude 1:7
Revelation 1:17-18
Revelation 20:14
Revelation 21:8

This point that the good man who does good but doesn't accept Christ is still missing it, but the man who does evil and only accepts Christ BUT only for reward is equal to the good man. They are both missing it.

[JohnCrichton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but God is all good. Completely and always just.

Condemning a good person is not the action of someone good and just.

The Bible, although wise and a most excellent book... was written by men. Inspired men.... but men with limited view of the world around them.

[Condiment King]

You are not wrong. God is good.

The Bible wasn't just written by inspired men, but DIVINELY inspired men. I still believe that it wasn't just by coincidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, while having the same principals, all branch out in different directions in one way, shape, or form.

Matthew 8:12 was Jesus' own words.

"But many Israelities---those for whom the Kingdom was prepared---will be cast into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

The earliest found manuscripts of the New Testament go back to 100-150 AD and if you compare this with our modern translations, they match up very well, and I have faith that what essential became God's book, the Bible, wouldn't have competely faulty information, like mentioning of Hell. Especially Jesus' own words.

In Matthew 25:41, Jesus talks about the final judgement....

"Then the King will turn on those on the left and say 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his demons!"

[JohnCrichton]

Just because the Bible says so, doesn't make it fact.... not to disregard everything, but the mind of man has expanded since then. Should an enlightened man of this age be divinely inspired, I don't think it'd say the same thing.

But that's is infact a guess.

Well, that's it for work. I'm goin' home!

Peace!

[Condiment King]

Just because the Bible says so, doesn't make it fact.... not to disregard everything, but the mind of man has expanded since then. Should an enlightened man of this age be divinely inspired, I don't think it'd say the same thing.

But that's is infact a guess.

Well, that's it for work. I'm goin' home!

Peace!

Hmm....I'd suggest the Bible is fact, and if someone wrote a book proposed for the Bible in this age, about Jesus, it would be much different because the quotes I gave came from direct eye witnesses of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, they actually saw everything, they aren't writing their own ideals, these are Jesus' words.

[James]

but without a God, heaven, or something similar waiting for us in the afterlife, then what's the point?
-Tim

Whats the point of posting here? It offers no future benefit. Do we need a future beyond life to truely exist?

I know in my life, I have a set amount of years. For me, that's fact. I run on the premise these are my only years. Again to me, that's fact. Therefore I live my life on those premises - whether there is a God or not. I refuse to live my life on what 'maybe' afterwards.

I live my life in the best way I can. If there is an afterlife. If there is judgement, then all I can say is that I am who I am. I've tried to be a good man, and live my life the way I have reasoned is best. I hope if there is anything beyond, it will understanding my reasoning.

I live to exist. At the moment, that's the only certainty I've got.

As for the question, :D - I agree with Clayface. God is faith. You can't take that away with fact - by definition faith is the absence of fact. There is no need for it. Prove he doesn't exist and you create faith.

As one author put it - Prove he exists, and there for (s)he doesn't... :)

[Squall]

If you're going to ask the question, "Can we prove that God exists?", we must define what we are looking for and the tools we have to answer this question with.

First, we must know that we're only trying to prove that God does or does not exist. If God does exist, we're not trying to show what religion(s), if any, God approves or disapproves of, whether God is a He, She, or It, or whether God just watches or works in our daily lives. All we're trying to prove is that God exists. Period.

Thus, we have to take emotion and abstract beliefs off the table. Now, once we've proved that God exists, we can bring out all these other seperate issues to debate until the end of the Universe; however, these other myriad assertions are even more difficult to prove than our basic question of the mere existence of God.

Second, we have to look at the tools available to attempt to prove in the existence of God: Math, Logic, and Science. These are the only tools at humanity's disposal to prove or disprove the existence of anything (they're quite amazing tools, mind you, but finite ones).

So, now we know exactly what we're trying to prove, and the tools we have available to try to prove it. So let the games begin! :)

Well, right from the start, we have to take Science off the table. Why? Because we can't apply the scientific method to proving God's existence. In other words, we can't have one Universe as a control group and another Universe as an experimental group, and attempt to change the laws of Math and Physics to see if they will self-correct. So, now we're down to Math and Logic. Logic appears to be our best bet...

Can we use Math and Logic to prove the existence of God? Or, at the very least, to show that there is good reason to choose in the belief in God? Let's look at this argument first.

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!"

Pascal's Wager (Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662)
Pascal, a famous mathematician, and contemporary with Descartes, was one of the founders of modern probability theory. He also recognized the need to distinguish probabilities from utilities. On this basis he offered the intellectual argument, given below, for why we should all choose to believe in God (not an argument for the existence of God). For our purposes, this extreme case shows that it is no easy matter to determine the utility assignments (here for morally-charged reasons), even for an individual let alone for an entire society! An infinite utility totally swamps any probability, no matter how low or apparently negligible, so long as that probability is not flatly zero. This
idea was the basis of what has become known as Pascal's wager. Consider the following rational argument for belief in God, based on a 2 X 2 decision matrix, where the utilities are listed in the boxes.

Action\State of Nature God exists God does not exist

Believe in God + infinity -100
(Gain all) (Status Quo)
Do not believe in God -Infinity 0
(Misery) (Status Quo)

Now construct the expected utility (positive or negative) of each action listed on the left. Remember: expected utility of action A = probability X utility, summed over all possible relevant states of nature = p1u1 + p2u2 + p3u3 + . . . until you have covered all possibilities.

Example given, for the first action is the Pascal case we get p X positive
infinity plus (1 - p) X -100 = infinity where p is unknown but is assumed to be nonzero. What do we get for the second action? The conclusion seems to be: Given the infinite positive and negative utilities of the outcomes of your action choices, you had better believe in God no matter what the cost and no matter how low the probability of His existence-and also no matter what the wasted effort in case God does not exist. I emphasize: this argument holds no matter how low the probability of God's existence is, provided that it is assumed nonzero.

And of course, like every theory, it has conflicting arguments.
We can think of Pascal's Wager as having three premises: the first concerns the decision matrix of rewards, the second concerns the probability that you should give to God's existence, and the third is a maxim about rational decision-making. Specifically:
1. Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:
God exists God does not exist
Wager for God +infinity f1
Wager against God f2 f3
2. Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.
3. Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).
4. Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
5. Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.
We have a decision under risk, with probabilities assigned to the relevant ways the world could be, and utilities assigned to the relevant outcomes. The conclusion seems straightforwardly to follow from the usual calculations of expected utility (where p is your positive, non-infinitesimal probability for
God's existence):
E(wager for God) = *p + f1*(1 - p)

That is, your expected utility of belief in God is infinite---as Pascal puts it, "our proposition is of infinite force". On the other hand, your expected utility of wagering against God is

E(wager against God) = f2*p + f3*(1 - p)

This is finite. By premise 3, rationality requires you to perform the act of
maximum expected utility. Therefore, rationality requires you to wager for God. We now survey some of the main objections to the argument.

Objections to Pascal's Wager

Premise 1: The Decision Matrix
Here the objections are manifold. Most of them can be stated quickly, but we will give special attention to what has generally been regarded as the most important of them, 'the many Gods objection' (see also the link to footnote 7).
1. Different matrices for different people. The argument assumes that the same decision matrix applies to everybody. However, perhaps the relevant rewards are different for different people. Perhaps, for example, there is a predestined infinite reward for the Chosen, whatever they do, and finite utility for the rest, as Mackie 1982 suggests. Or maybe the prospect of salvation appeals more to some people than to others, as Swinburne 1969 has noted. Even granting that a single 2 x 2 matrix applies to everybody, one might dispute the values that enter into it. This brings us to the next two objections.
2. The utility of salvation could not be infinite. One might argue that the very notion of infinite utility is suspect---see for example Jeffrey 1983 and McClennen 1994.[6] <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/notes.html>

Hence, the objection continues, whatever the utility of salvation might be, it must be finite. Strict finitists, who are chary of the notion of infinity in general, will agree---see. Dummett 1978 and Wright 1987. Or perhaps the notion of infinite utility makes sense, but an infinite reward could only be finitely appreciated by a human being.
3. There should be more than one infinity in the matrix. There are also critics of the Wager who, far from objecting to infinite utilities, want to see more of them in the matrix. For example, it might be thought that a forgiving God would bestow infinite utility upon wagerers-for and wagerers-against alike---Rescher 1985 is one author who entertains this possibility. Or it might be thought that, on the contrary, wagering against an existent God results in negative infinite utility. (As we have noted, some authors read Pascal himself as saying as much.)
Either way, f2 is not really finite at all, but or - as the case may be. And
perhaps f1 and f3 could be or -. Suppose, for instance, that God does not exist, but that we are reincarnated ad infinitum, and that the total utility we receive is an infinite sum that does not converge.
4. The matrix should have more rows. Perhaps there is more than one way to wager for God, and the rewards that God bestows vary accordingly. For instance, God might not reward infinitely those who strive to believe in Him only for the very mercenary reasons that Pascal gives, as James 1956 has observed. One could also imagine distinguishing belief based on faith from belief based on evidential
reasons, and posit different rewards in each case.
5. The matrix should have more columns: the many Gods objection. If Pascal is really right that reason can decide nothing here, then it would seem that various other theistic hypotheses are also live options. Pascal presumably had in mind the Catholic conception of God---let us suppose that this is the God who either 'exists' or 'does not exist'. By excluded middle, this is a partition. The objection, then, is that the partition is not sufficiently fine-grained, and the '(Catholic) God does not exist' column really subdivides into various other theistic hypotheses. The objection could equally run that Pascal's argument 'proves too much': by parallel reasoning we can 'show' that rationality requires believing in various incompatible theistic hypotheses. As Diderot 1875-77 puts
the point: "An Imam could reason just as well this way".[7]
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/notes.html>
Since then, the point has been represented and refined in various ways. Mackie 1982 writes, "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshippers of Kali or of Odin" (203). Cargile 1966 shows just how easy it is to multiply theistic hypotheses: for each real number x, consider the God who prefers contemplating x more than any other activity. It seems, then, that such 'alternative gods' are a dime a dozen---or aleph one, for that matter.
Premise 2: The Probability Assigned to God's Existence
There are four sorts of problem for this premise. The first two are
straightforward; the second two are more technical.
1. Undefined probability for God's existence. Premise 1 presupposes that you should have a probability for God's existence in the first place. However, perhaps you could rationally fail to assign it a probability---your probability that God exists could remain undefined. We cannot enter here into the thorny issues concerning the attribution of probabilities to agents. But there is some support for this response even in Pascal's own text, again at the pivotal claim that "[r]eason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which
separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up..." The thought could be that any probability assignment is inconsistent with a state of "epistemic nullity" (in Morris' 1986 phrase): to assign a probability at all---even 1/2---to God's existence is to feign having evidence that one in fact totally lacks. For unlike a coin that we know to be fair, this metaphorical 'coin' is 'infinitely far' from us, hence apparently completely unknown to us. Perhaps, then, rationality actually requires us to refrain from assigning a probability to God's existence (in which case at least the Argument from Superdominance would be valid). Or perhaps rationality does not require it, but at least permits it. Either way, the Wager would not even get off the ground.
2. Zero probability for God's existence. Strict atheists may insist on the
rationality of a probability assignment of 0, as Oppy 1990 among others points out. For example, they may contend that reason alone can settle that God does not exist, perhaps by arguing that the very notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is contradictory. Or a Bayesian might hold that rationality places no constraint on probabilistic judgments beyond coherence (or conformity to the probability calculus). Then as long as the strict atheist assigns probability 1 to God's non-existence alongside his or her assignment of 0 to God's existence, no norm of rationality has been violated. Furthermore, an assignment of p = 0 would clearly block the route to Pascal's conclusion. For then the expectation calculations become:
E(wager for God) = *0 + f1*(1 - 0) = f1
E(wager against God) = f2*0 + f3*(1 - 0) = f3
And nothing in the argument implies that f1 > f3. (Indeed, this inequality is questionable, as even Pascal seems to allow.) In short, Pascal's wager has no pull on strict atheists.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/notes.html>
Premise 3: Rationality Requires Maximizing Expected Etility
Finally, one could question Pascal's decision theoretic assumption that
rationality requires one to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one). Now perhaps this is an analytic truth, in which case we could grant it to Pascal without further discussion---perhaps it is constitutive of rationality to maximize expectation, as some might say. But this premise has met serious objections. The Allais 1953 and Ellsberg 1961 paradoxes, for example, are said to show that maximizing expectation can lead one to perform intuitively sub-optimal actions. So too the St. Petersburg paradox, in which it is supposedly absurd that one should be prepared to pay any finite amount to play a game with infinite expectation. (That paradox is particularly apposite here.)
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/notes.html>
Finally, one might distinguish between practical rationality and theoretical
rationality. One could then concede that practical rationality requires you to maximize expected utility, while insisting that theoretical rationality might require something else of you---say, proportioning belief to the amount of evidence available. This objection is especially relevant, since Pascal admits that perhaps you "must renounce reason" in order to follow his advice. But when these two sides of rationality pull in opposite directions, as they apparently can here, it is not obvious that practical rationality should take precedence. (For a discussion of pragmatic, as opposed to theoretical, reasons for belief, see Foley 1994.)
Is the Argument Valid?
A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have
explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid---e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action.
However, Duff 1986 and Hájek 2001 argue that the argument is in fact invalid. Their point is that there are strategies besides wagering for God that also have infinite expectation---namely, mixed strategies, whereby you do not wager for or against God outright, but rather choose which of these actions to perform on the basis of the outcome of some chance device. Consider the mixed strategy: "Toss a fair coin: heads, you wager for God; tails, you wager against God". By Pascal's
lights, with probability 1/2 your expectation will be infinite, and with
probability 1/2 it will be finite. The expectation of the entire strategy is:
1/2* + 1/2[f2*p + f3*(1 - p)] =
That is, the 'coin toss' strategy has the same expectation as outright wagering for God. But the probability 1/2 was incidental to the result. Any mixed strategy that gives positive and finite probability to wagering for God will likewise have infinite expectation: "wager for God iff a fair die lands 6", "wager for God iff your lottery ticket wins", "wager for God iff a meteor quantum tunnels its way through the side of your house", and so on. The problem is still worse than this, though, for there is a sense in which anything that you do might be regarded as a mixed strategy between wagering for God, and wagering against God, with suitable probability weights given to each. Suppose that you choose to ignore the Wager, and to go and have a hamburger instead. Still, you may well assign positive and finite probability to your winding up wagering for God nonetheless; and this probability multiplied by
infinity again gives infinity. So ignoring the Wager and having a hamburger has the same expectation as outright wagering for God. Even worse, suppose that you focus all your energy into avoiding belief in God. Still, you may well assign positive and finite probability to your efforts failing, with the result that you wager for God nonetheless. In that case again, your expectation is infinite again. So even if rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility when there is one, here there isn't one. Rather, there is a many-way tie for first place, as it were.
Moral Objections to Wagering for God
Let us grant Pascal's conclusion for the sake of the argument: rationality
requires you to wager for God. It still does not obviously follow that you
should wager for God. All that we have granted is that one norm---the norm of rationality---prescribes wagering for God. For all that has been said, some other norm might prescribe wagering against God. And unless we can show that the rationality norm trumps the others, we have not settled what we should actually do.
There are several arguments to the effect that morality requires you to wager against God. Pascal himself appears to be aware of one such argument. He admits that if you do not believe in God, his recommended course of action will "deaden your acuteness." One way of putting the argument is that wagering for God may require you to corrupt yourself, thus violating a Kantian duty to yourself. Clifford 1986 argues that an individual's believing something on insufficient evidence harms society by promoting credulity. Penelhum 1971 contends that the putative divine plan is itself immoral, condemning as it does honest non-believers to loss of eternal happiness, when such unbelief is in no way culpable; and that to adopt the relevant belief is to be complicit to this immoral plan. See Quinn 1994 for replies to these arguments. For example, against Penelhum he argues that as long as God treats non-believers justly,
there is nothing immoral about him bestowing special favor on believers, more
perhaps than they deserve. (Note, however, that Pascal leaves open in the Wager
whether the payoff for non-believers is just, even though as far as his argument
goes, it may be extremely poor.)
Finally, Voltaire protests that there is something unseemly about the whole
Wager. He suggests that Pascal's calculations, and his appeal to self-interest,
are unworthy of the gravity of the subject of theistic belief. This does not so
much support wagering against God, as dismissing all talk of 'wagerings'
altogether.
What Does It Mean to "Wager for God"?
Let us now grant Pascal that, all things considered (rationality and morality
included), you should wager for God. What exactly does this involve?
A number of authors read Pascal as arguing that you should believe in God---see
e.g. Quinn 1994, and Jordan 1994a. But perhaps one cannot simply believe in God
at will; and rationality cannot require the impossible. Pascal is well aware of
this objection: "[I] am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you
have me do?", says his imaginary interlocutor. However, he contends that one can
take steps to cultivate such belief:
You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to
cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have
been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people
who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which
you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they
believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc...
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the
passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
We find two main pieces of advice to the non-believer here: act like a believer,
and suppress those passions that are obstacles to becoming a believer. And these
are actions that one can perform at will.
Believing in God is presumably one way to wager for God. This passage suggests
that even the non-believer can wager for God, by striving to become a believer.
Critics may question the psychology of belief formation that Pascal presupposes,
pointing out that one could strive to believe (perhaps by following exactly
Pascal's prescription), yet fail. To this, a follower of Pascal might reply that
the act of genuine striving already displays a pureness of heart that God would
fully reward; or even that genuine striving in this case is itself a form of
believing.
Then, of course, there's always the classical argument offered during the
Enlightnement by American, British, French, and Italian philosophers and
mathematicians:

(1) By definition, God must be
a. All-knowing
b. All-powerful
c. Infinite (there was nothing before God, there is nothing after God)
d. Everywhere (God exists everywhere in the Universe at the same time)
(2) By definition, anything in the natural Universe that contains patterns must
be by intelligent design. There is no intelligent design in true randomness or
chaos. (True randomness or chaos does NOT include things like the winter season
or a forest fire; both appear to be randomness or chaos on the outside, but
their existence is part of a larger pattern of Nature.)
(3) Math is the language of the Universe, and Physics, which is based on Math,
is the mechanics of the Universe. Math is based on patterns, and Physics is
based on Math. Math and Physics also exist throughout the known Universe.
Therefore, the Universe must have been designed intelligently - and only a being
all-knowing, all-powerful, infinite, and everywhere could design the entire
Universe.
(4) Proof by Induction of God's existence confirmed.

Now, of course, this proof does not attempt to even touch upon the various
religions that exist, or which religion is the "right" one (this was done on
purpose, because we are only trying to prove that God exists here; not try to
show which religion(s) God supports or other opinions of God).

Side note on this whole issue: I once saw a stand-up comedian on Comedy
Central (don't remember his name) say something which has stuck with me since
that day: "Since when was atheism a religion? Calling atheism a religion is like
calling bald a color of hair." :-)

[Chris Wood]

God exists, God doesn't exist.....

Isn't this a matter of personal belief? Not much hope trying to prove or disprove it is there? It's beyond the realm of facts anyway.

[Clayface]

I know in my life, I have a set amount of years. For me, that's fact. I run on the premise these are my only years. Again to me, that's fact. Therefore I live my life on those premises - whether there is a God or not. I refuse to live my life on what 'maybe' afterwards.

I live my life in the best way I can. If there is an afterlife. If there is judgement, then all I can say is that I am who I am. I've tried to be a good man, and live my life the way I have reasoned is best. I hope if there is anything beyond, it will understanding my reasoning.

I live to exist. At the moment, that's the only certainty I've got.


Well, once again you've completely summed up my feelings on a situation (its creepy how you manage to do that!). This is exactly my philosophy/approach to life, religion, and all things good. Well said.

[Singin' Stray Cat]

It does open a vacuum of alot of questions to ponder. That's what makes it such a fun question. Take away the biggest catch all piece of the puzzle and what would we find to fill it?

Sorry, I don't think I made myself entirely clear. What I meant was, the same person who disproves the existence of God must also offer an alternate explanation for things such as why the universe is here. Because a person's faith in God is not something they can easily change like a tie or a T-shirt. (And if they can change it that quickly, I doubt it's sincere.) That's something some people base their entire way of thinking on. Proving that there's no God will, basically, tell them that their entire life, the way they've been making decisions, the way they've been viewing things, and by extension, their very life and self - has been nothing but a waste. Think that's not going to majorly depress some people? Not everyone will see it as liberating. All I'm saying is, the messenger had better be prepared for the backlash, because not all these people will be strong enough to recover from his news.


Great things have been built in the name of God. But you must also understand that even though all those great things were made in the name of God, many other events in our history, mostly bad, were also done in the name of God. The Crusades, The Inquistion, The Salem Witch Trials, even 9/11 and were all done in his name.

Yes, I understand that. And I shouldn't feel this way, but I can't help but feel a little offended that you thought I didn't. In any case, I didn't mean to imply that all religious actions were faultless. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that I despise those events probably more than you do, because actions like that do absolutely nothing but mar the very religion they're trying to uphold. (Side note: I hope you don't honestly think that everyone who chooses to believe in God is some sort of extremist. Please tell me you don't. :( )

But two things I'm wondering here: First of all, should a faith, people, or its works or culture be ignored simply because it has some extreme believers? Should we pass blanket judgement on a faith because a handful of its most radical voices have attracted the media's attention? Also, I highly doubt the news that there's no God after all will prevent wars and killing from happening. Yes, it's possible that religious wars would stop, and the lives saved by that would be wonderful, invaluable. But it won't completely prevent all wars, all injustice. People who don't believe in God kill, too.

Guh...I need to come back to this thread after finals are over... >.<

[Drachentöter]

I believe Clayface and SJJ have it correct. Religion is such a huge establishment that abosolutely no proof that contradict it will end it. The discovery of dinosaurs hasn't ended it, Darwin hasn't ended it, and...no Homer Simpson-esque equation of God's non existance will end it. Some people just need to believe.

However, people who live for the sole purpose of not going to hell sadden me. It's so hypocritical. The fact that they need a motive to be a decent person. This, to me, is not why a person should be kind to all people and reduce the suffering of others.

JC, I haven't read everything you've posted, but it seems to me as if you're formulating your own theories on God. You're entitled to it, but I can see why many would disagree with you. I've had many of those thoughts.

"If God really loves humanity, why would he create a place for them to burn?"

"If God loves everyone equally, why do some religions get condemned to suffering in the afterlife?"

Etc.

I really do not know how that is justified, but I know it is little use to try to convince a devoutly religious person otherwise. Better to just ignore your differences and continue to be on good terms. Religion's never a topic which can be discussed easily.

[Daniel P]

"If God really loves humanity, why would he create a place for them to burn?"

"If God loves everyone equally, why do some religions get condemned to suffering in the afterlife?"Why should there be a heaven when there's no hell? Hell makes perfect sense to me.

[Chris Wood]

I think the point of this thread is what kind of beliefs might people have if no one (No one!) believed in the existence of a supreme being, a very intriguing scenario indeed.

However, people seem to want to change the topic to a debate over whether or not God exists, a tiresome cliche at best.

[Psilon]

Squall:

I don't understand, your post shows that Pascal's arguement was not logically valid - was this your point?

Second, we do not know if there is a design to our universe. In fact, through science we have learned that our universe seems to be random.

One small question, can God solve paradoxes?

[Squall]

Squall:

I don't understand, your post shows that Pascal's arguement was not logically valid - was this your point?

Second, we do not know if there is a design to our universe. In fact, through science we have learned that our universe seems to be random.

One small question, can God solve paradoxes?

Nah, my point was that this issue is as old as time itself, and a fun one to think about. :) I just wanted to show a few of the most famous theories, with its rebuttal if it had one. I like Pascal's Wager, though it does need to have the logic ironed out, as the rebuttal showed. The Enlightenment proof of God's existence is more of an indirect Proof, like trying to prove a circle is a circle by proving that it's NOT a rectangle or a triangle.

I do like the statement of the idea of a tornado 'randomly' assembling a Boeing 747, fully fueled and ready for takeoff, as a suggestion that the Universe is by design, and not random. True, nature left alone will gain entropy until it is disturbed again, but even in entropy the laws of Physics are vaild. It's the laws of Physics that make the Universe organized and functional; and, in fact, entropy IS one of the laws of Physics. But all this leads back to the "God exists because the Universe exists at all" theory...

[JohnCrichton]

Why should there be a heaven when there's no hell? Hell makes perfect sense to me.

Same reason you don't punch someone one given minute and punch them the next minute.

Because someone goes untortured does not mean someone else must be tortured.

[JohnCrichton]

Alright, I don't believe in it, but there is an argument that could logically support a universe that has a heaven and hell.

God always does good..... ALWAYS. Any thing is better created than not. So by that, since God by defination always does what's right, that includes making multiple universes.

More than likley got it right in one universe where people have free will and do nothing but good for each other.

But... a universe where one baby is sacrificed on New Years every year..... well, although that sucks, it would suck even more of none of those people in the alternate reality got to exist at all. Thus God has to make it.

And it would follow that in at least one of these universes he'd even have to go as far as to be unfair and create one with a heaven and hell.... cuz still those are better done than not done.

Still playing my odds against infinity.... I'd say my chances of scoring one of the good universes was pretty good. :)