[athanatos]

Originally Posted by roscoestring

I am very happy with my life as I live it. I try to do all the "right" things. I think I do enjoy life for all it's worth. I'm not happy if I'm hurting someone so I wouldn't do that regardless or the existence of God.

I think I would be OK with going this route myself, except I would not think of it was an actual right/wrong distinction, but rather as a rationally beneficial way of life. I enjoy helping others, I like the praise of men, and I would not mind being remembered by these people around me by having them act like me and talk about me for years to come. Of course, there'd be no way of knowing, but that's okay. Life is short.

This is hard for me to grasp though. It would be kind of like saying, What if you had no head?

I realize that. Sometimes people have posed questions about God in this way, and I react similarly -- but only because of the awareness that I am NOT willing to fudge on this issue.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

To impress who? Other evolutionary accidents like myself? My dog doesn't consider the feelings of others, Why should I?

Because dogs don't think ahead. Many people like the praise of men, find it highly reinforcing or even addicting. It doesn't matter if they are "evolutionary accidents", we simply like the praise of men. In some respect, it is a great honor to have people imitate you and talk to others that they should be like you. Granted, you won't enjoy their posthumous praise. But that's okay, because you're no worse off than anyone else in the grave outside of the good name.

Doing good only makes sense if 1) there is a God who is good 2) human beings are created in His image and should be shown respect because of that. If number one isn't true, then neither is number two. Survival becomes the only real goal. And then, I'm not sure what for.

Perhaps. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and the Rational Egoism that follows in his philosophy makes an interesting case for morality on the basis of survival.

Originally Posted by Ted Logan

I'm not sure how this is a "theology" thread.

At any rate, I suggest that the very premise of the question is flawed because it presumes that God is not a necessary being, and since God is the very definition of a necessary being, a hypothetical situation where He doesn't exist is a completely incoherent idea.

In other words, it is impossible that God does not exist, and the very idea of proof presupposes things which require His existence.

I really wonder how you could conclude God is a necessary being. I've read Plantinga's Modal Argument, so ... maybe it might be a worthy thread to discuss why you think (a) a concept of God that you think is proven indubitably still bears something remotely close to what the Christian God, my God, resembles; and (b) that this God is not only possible but necessary.

With or without that thread, don't you think we CAN meaningfully talk about this scenario? I mean, all the talk about Yahweh being the one true God must seem pretty redundant if our concept of God implies the content that He exists.

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

My life was a wreck before I came to know Christ. I was not a good person, I was not living a good life. My life is infinitely better today. If it's not because of the work that Christ has done in my life, then it would have to be because of the belief I have that Christ has preformed a good work in my life. Either way, with out that I would have no hope. I'm with Oiboyz on this one. What would the point of living be if not simply for self gratification.

I think this does have some ground for proving God's existence, but not in the rigorous deductive route or evidentialist sense. I wonder what life is worth living if God doesn't exist. Like, it may be fair that there is something of value, but ... what? and how do we conclude the grounds?

Originally Posted by Rainer.

Though the question isn't "Is it possible to prove that God doesn't exist?"

The question is "What if I thought that God didn't exist."

It should be pretty clear that the human mind can consider all sorts of falsehoods to be correct.

True. Now, the question is, if you were convinced for 2-3 years that the conclusions you make regarding this matter seem air-tight and unassailable, would you believe God exists anyway? You already assumed that your mind will accept falsehoods; could it be that your fatal falsehood was unexamined and you were completely blind to it? would that be considered a legit doubt against the supposed definitiveness of your own reason you hold so dear, or a legit reason to forsake making yourself the final authority?

Though I do agree it's not a question of Theology at all. I think it might actually fit better in the Philosophy forum.

Aye. Thanks for moving it.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Metaphysically: how does one determine the "point" of anything anyway? Whether there is a God or not.

a. "I obey God"
b. "Why, what's the point?"
a. "Because I want to go to heaven"
b. "What's the point of going to heaven"
a. "to be happy / be with God / please God / etc."
b. "Why? What's the point of that?"

It seems that people prone to such nhilism can just as easily do so in a theist as an atheist existance.

Honestly. Can we find no good in itself? When something is good in itself, sometimes people still ask "but why is that good", asking for further reason to appeal to something... but it seems awkward. Like, what happened before the big bang, or what happened before God spoke creation? It's like an inappropriate question, or a misunderstanding of the subject.

This seems rather athiest-bashing: but perhaps I read unintended subtext?

Seems like she holds an attitude on the subject. She did, after all, say what she did in a forum that atheists don't post in and then it was moved here, so I don't think she was trying to be inflammatory in the least.

What's more interesting to me though (and I hear that answer often from religious people) is that it says "left to my own devices, I would be a selfish sociopath: but I'm afraid of God".

Certainly I cannot imgaine "I want to please God because I like to" makes any more/less sense than "I want to make other people happy because I like to"; so other than the carrot/stick of heaven/hell: what's the difference?

Maybe different sense of grounds for duty to God and man. Why are you kind to your fellow man? (well, is it fair to assume you are kind to your fellow man?)

Generally speaking, what theists suppose they would do as agnostics / athiests is not what actual agnostics / athiests do (to any greater degree than the rest of the population).

I dunno. Maybe most of the people I know to be irreligious are just immature and not typical, but they seem to be less interested in the preservation of their body (alcohol to excess, heavy drugs, chain smoking, etc.), their relationships seem to lack something foundational, and they have a sense of pride or drive for doing whatever they want as far as the law lets them (doesn't catch them) and they don't "hurt" anyone.

Originally Posted by Ax

I would kill myself.

Really?

Even with God's existence firmly planted in my mind (well, some of its roots are showing) I have thought of that route, so I think it would be amplified with such persuasion I give in the scenario in the OP. Aside from that, are you sure you wouldn't run after things that gratify the sinful nature as the Christians doctrine categorize 'em?

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Whores.

I can see that being on my list. Except... why pay $$?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Honestly. Can we find no good in itself? When something is good in itself, sometimes people still ask "but why is that good", asking for further reason to appeal to something... but it seems awkward. Like, what happened before the big bang, or what happened before God spoke creation? It's like an inappropriate question, or a misunderstanding of the subject.

You have three options.
1) Find everything good.
2) Find nothing good.
3) Find some things good and not others.

Maybe different sense of grounds for duty to God and man.

Option 3 above.

Why are you kind to your fellow man? (well, is it fair to assume you are kind to your fellow man?)

Without diverging into questions of nature and nurture on human motivation, it's a combination of habit, choice, emotional pressure, and pragmatism.

I dunno. Maybe most of the people I know to be irreligious are just immature and not typical, but they seem to be less interested in the preservation of their body (alcohol to excess, heavy drugs, chain smoking, etc.), their relationships seem to lack something foundational, and they have a sense of pride or drive for doing whatever they want as far as the law lets them (doesn't catch them) and they don't "hurt" anyone.

Obviously neither of us can pull anything but antecdotes here: but I suspect that one of the following is the case:

1) Your experience is atypical.
2) Your perception of your experience is skewed.
3) (goes back to 1) your in a religious envyronment where the asserted rejection of religion is the consequence of the choice to behave in the manners described rather than the other way around.

"3" also touches on the subject of professed-vs-actual beliefs.

Obviously "1" and "2" are possibly my own: but I suspect my circles are bigger and more diverse here than yours.

[scared2mosh]

Originally Posted by athanatos

So, maybe this an inappropriate question. If so, I am not at all offended if it gets closed on the spot.

If you could prove to yourself definitively, without a doubt, that God did not exist, what would you do with your life?

Surely there are certain things that we accept whether Christian or not. For example, the depravity of man, but perhaps not to the extent and same ramifications as the doctrine of Christianity affirms. There are also certain pursuits that, Christian or not, we consider noble or worthwhile doing.

Would your life be radically different? Would you still go to church? Would you forsake everything you knew and run after the things you previously condemned? Would you become a Rational Egoist? A Utilitarian?

Or would you believe that your reason was clearly faulty, given that you could eliminate God entirely via deduction, and believe in God despite all reason to the contrary? (I just thought of this after the other ideas; kind of a Kierkegaardian move, eh?)

I would still be kind to other people and try to make people's day better but I can say withought a doubt that I would give into all of my vices instantly. Quite seriously I would probably ruin my life within a couple months.

[Napoleon17]

I don't really think we would all seriously start giving into every desire of our flesh if God were "proven" to not be real. Truth is, we live our lives a certain way to please all sorts of people too, not just to please God. I don't think many of our families would be happy with us if we started acting in ways that would hurt ourselves. For example, if today I thought I proved to myself that God wasn't real, I might not fear eternal punishment if I went out and had sex with multiple women, but my wife probably would not like that. So I probably wouldn't do that.

I do agree with the idea that morality does come from somewhere besides primordial ooze, and that if God truly had never existed, then ultimately the notion of a wife might not exist in the first place, etc. It is debatable, though, why humans have a sense of right and wrong, and I suppose that it is possible to argue that it is possible that there exists a sense of right and wrong, of good and evil, apart from any deity. I would disagree, but that is beside the point of this thread because the question is not whether or not there would be morality, but what we would do if we thought God didn't exist. I think we would act in much the same way, but with less purpose, perhaps.

[OiBoyz]

Are you saying that a belief in God doesn't effect your actions at all, except for some undefinable feeling of purpose?

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Are you saying that a belief in God doesn't effect your actions at all, except for some undefinable feeling of purpose?

First, it's not undefinable. It's critical. If a higher power exists, there is meaning to life. If it's just us, and when we die we are worm food, life has very little meaning.

I think if I had never believed in God, I would be in a very different place right now in my life. But that was not the question. The question was if, starting today, we "proved" to ourselves that God did not exist, what would we do? Since I am already in the habit of trying to live an ethical, moral life in order to try to please God, and since that is what my wife, friends, and family know of me and expect of me, would I really start living a completely carnal life if I suddenly didn't believe in God? I really doubt it. Why would I betray my wife? Why would I start alienating myself from my friends and family by becoming a completely selfish person who only cares about bringing myself pleasure? That would not make sense. It would be counterproductive, actually, because after about a month of doing so, I would actually be bringing myself less pleasure, because I would be all alone with no wife, no real friends, no family, etc. In other words, yes, I am motivated to try to be a "good person" partly by the fact that that is what God wants and partly by the fact that it is what my friends and family want, too. My actions would not change, but my motivations and my purpose in life would. I think it's shortsighted to just say "screw it all there is no point so I'll just screw up my life by having tons of sex and eating as much food as I can because I'm the only person in the world that matters". I don't know of anyone would really act like that after changing the views about God.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Really?

Even with God's existence firmly planted in my mind (well, some of its roots are showing) I have thought of that route, so I think it would be amplified with such persuasion I give in the scenario in the OP. Aside from that, are you sure you wouldn't run after things that gratify the sinful nature as the Christians doctrine categorize 'em?

I don't think I could ever be so depraved. I've struggled with... scary thoughts... many times. Some semi recently. If I didn't believe in God, I don't believe I'd have a reason for living.

[OiBoyz]

I'm not picking on you, Napoleon, just replying to your post. I find it interesting that you claim that your belief in God doesn't effect your actions. For me, it effects most of what I do.

Just one example: I live with my parents because my mom's health is failing. If I didn't believe it was God's will and wish for me to be here doing what I'm doing, I would leave. Why should I put up with the crap I do from her if not for the fact that I believe I am ultimately doing it for God? It's not like she appreciates it, in her mental state, I am a horrible person who does nothing right, and I am here just to torment her. My life would be considerably more peaceful for me if I walked away. If there is no God, then what obligation do I have to this crazy old woman?

[Napoleon17]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

I'm not picking on you, Napoleon, just replying to your post. I find it interesting that you claim that your belief in God doesn't effect your actions. For me, it effects most of what I do.

Just one example: I live with my parents because my mom's health is failing. If I didn't believe it was God's will and wish for me to be here doing what I'm doing, I would leave. Why should I put up with the crap I do from her if not for the fact that I believe I am ultimately doing it for God. It's not like she appreciates it, in her mental state, I am a horrible person who does nothing right, and I am here just to torment her. My life would be considerably more peaceful for me if I walked away. If there is no God, then what obligation do I have to this crazy old woman?

I know you're not picking on me... I took no offense at all to your post. Sorry if it came across that I did.

I understand that as Christians we do things to please God, and try to go above and beyond what we would normally do. This makes sense. But the general sentiment of many in this thread (or maybe just the consensus that I gathered as I skimmed it) is that their reaction would to go be a complete hedonist, caring only for yourself, being promiscuous, saying F you to the world, etc.

I am just saying I doubt this reaction would happen. I'm glad that your love for God is causing you to do the right thing in this scenario, but if tomorrow you suddenly didn't believe in God, I'm guessing that you would stop helping your parents because they bug you, but that is a lot different from the complete evil debauchery others in this thread are claiming they would do. And IDK, maybe some of them really would act like that.... I'm just saying I doubt that and I believe that I would not instantly start acting completely crude and horrible if I were to stop believing in God. So yes, I agree that God does affect our actions, but again, other people affect our actions too.

[crazymoose]

Honestly, I think the only difference for me would be that I would no longer feel a need to preach the gospel or pray or go to church. I would still follow the Bible for its morality because regardless of whether God exists or not, the moral codes of the Bible lead to a happier life in the long run. A lifestyle counter to the Bible brings short-term benefit with long term consequences. I would follow the Bible in a way that it would make my life better. (for example, saving sex until marriage, being selfless, not lying or stealing or cheating)

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I can see that being on my list. Except... why pay $$?

Power. I guess I could go pick up some chick in a bar, but then I'd just feel like a liar if I wanted to have power. No lies necessary with whores, no facade of power. She already knows you're pathetic, but it doesn't matter.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I really wonder how you could conclude God is a necessary being. I've read Plantinga's Modal Argument, so ... maybe it might be a worthy thread to discuss why you think (a) a concept of God that you think is proven indubitably still bears something remotely close to what the Christian God, my God, resembles; and (b) that this God is not only possible but necessary.

With or without that thread, don't you think we CAN meaningfully talk about this scenario? I mean, all the talk about Yahweh being the one true God must seem pretty redundant if our concept of God implies the content that He exists.

Right, you've got to split up metaphysical and epistemological necessity. Plantinga's "maximally exists" predicate stands squarely on the shoulders of pretty much the entire theological tradition before him -- in other words, metaphysical necessity, absolute Being, has long been spoken of God -- but he himself realizes he doesn't get epistemic necessity out of it. (Unfortunately, the legions of Bible Churchers who followed him into the academy don't seem to grasp this point adequately.) So from the viewpoint of my own subjectivity I don't see any reason to be unable to answer this question, even while I'm committed to the impossibility of God's non-existence. It's like thinking that arithmetic is necessarily true but admitting that you might have made an error in addition or division or whatever.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Just one example: I live with my parents because my mom's health is failing. If I didn't believe it was God's will and wish for me to be here doing what I'm doing, I would leave. Why should I put up with the crap I do from her if not for the fact that I believe I am ultimately doing it for God? It's not like she appreciates it, in her mental state, I am a horrible person who does nothing right, and I am here just to torment her. My life would be considerably more peaceful for me if I walked away. If there is no God, then what obligation do I have to this crazy old woman?

Sounds like my grandmother. I don't take care of her alone: the family all pitches in. My uncle most of all, as he lives in the same city; but we drive down to help out as often as we can. Only I don't believe in God. I take care of my grandmother because I love her, and because I love the people, like my uncle, who I am taking some of the burden off. (and, I suppose, because I have a sense of responsability, and because helping people makes me feel good and seeing people suffer makes me feel the need to help)

So you would abandon your mother except that God wants you to watch her?

I'm curious. Why do you choose to do what God wants? I assume it's not "because you love God", since I assume you love your mother and you've stated you would not care for her for her sake. So what is the reason?

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you would abandon your mother except that God wants you to watch her?

There are some days when that's the only thing that keeps me here. You have a taste of it, helping with your grandmother. Try living it with no breaks for going on ten years now.

I'm curious. Why do you choose to do what God wants? I assume it's not "because you love God", since I assume you love your mother and you've stated you would not care for her for her sake. So what is the reason?

Because my life, my affection, my will are His. Not perfectly, of course. But it's what I aspire to. He gave up Heaven and bled and died for me. My mother never did that for me. Yes, she loves me. And I love her. But my commitment to God is deeper and more fundamental to who I am. Without Him, and His purpose in my life.... yeah. I could walk away. My sisters, in theory love our mother too. But they are not here. They're off living their own lives. Why shouldn't I be? I do love my mother, but ultimately it's because of my commitment to my Savior that I stay even when it's hard. Even when it's not fun. Even when I want to be anywhere else in the world.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Because my life, my affection, my will are His. Not perfectly, of course. But it's what I aspire to. He gave up Heaven and bled and died for me. My mother never did that for me. Yes, she loves me. And I love her.

This part reads to me as "but I don't love her *enough* to do this, I love God enough to do this". And I mean no inferred insult: I'm simply reiterating what I percieve as written.

The next part gives a second, different motivation.

But my commitment to God is deeper and more fundamental to who I am. Without Him, and His purpose in my life....

This, to me, reads that your self-image is tied in. You have decided who you are and are attempting to mold your own patterns to that self image.

Athiests have a similar trait. Sometimes with phrases like "have to look at myself in the mirror" or "I choose not to be that person".

To me, it seems that you've done the same: chosen a code of ethics to follow. You have chosen one with a rational built around a diety: but you could have chosen something else.

And I think this ties into a subtext I often see in such discussions. Because the thiest has rationalized that his set of ethics is objective and non-arbitrary; he feels that anything else should be ignore. He imagines (though I think few who loose faith actually follow) that without this particular set of ethics and rational he would choose none.