If you could prove there was no God, would you?

[Lazarus]

This thread operates totally under the assumption that there is no God. I am not suggesting that there is no God - but for the sake of the idea to be discussed within this thread - we shall assume that there is not.

Right. Now that that's done

Lets say that you stumble across some 100% bulletproof, completely undeniable evidence that there is no God. You rush to your local paper and eagerly hold your evidence in your hand so that you can spread your magnificent finding. The question is - do you?

Whether you believe in God or not, surely you can agree that the idea of a compassionate being who will be there to notice us when we're gone, who has created another life where we can be eternal is a comforting idea. Would you shatter that idea, keeping in mind that so many people believe it? That some people even rely on it to function in their day to day? That some people have built their entire lives around that idea?

Discuss.

[spanish_emperor]

God gives some people hope, especially the poor, so why get rid of their delusion? I certainly wouldn't. My mother for example is a staunch believer in God and i never try to change her belief. Some people need religion and as long as they are morally in touch with reality i see no problem with religion.

[Blau&Gruen]

If you could prove there was no God, would you?

I would recommend you to set 'proofing something' separate from the notion 'no God'. It does not make sense to connect the two words. Because when I proof something, then I support a hypothesis.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Well there are still an infinite number of possibilities other than oblivion so I don't think it would change much, besides ending certain mainstream religions that could only be a good thing.

[Blau&Gruen]

Well, you could claim a private community talk related statement looking to you somehow as a 'hypothesis' when you check the shopping basket coming from the supermarket and you know, it ain't going to be perfect. Ok, you have to live with that, the carp in the basket has no stamp. You still can imagine one. On the other hand, what has this to do with proofing an actual hypothesis? Guess what, not much.

[Lord Romanus III]

God gives some people hope, especially the poor, so why get rid of their delusion? I certainly wouldn't. My mother for example is a staunch believer in God and i never try to change her belief. Some people need religion and as long as they are morally in touch with reality i see no problem with religion.

Define 'morally in touch with reality', as the above statements seem to be trash.

[LSJ]

If there was a religion with a compassionate god that gives us an afterlife on the basis of us just being good people regardless of what we believe, I would not refute it for the good it could do for people's happiness. I know of no such god - they all have serious issues, and tend to be repressive, murderous and generally immoral. I would never support a belief in something that promotes hatred and fear.

So if I could prove there was no God, I would. If God was different, and actually the compassionate being that people claim he is (ignoring everything that makes him exactly not that) then I wouldn't feel a need to.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

For the sake of the truth, yes I'd put it out there. Except you underestimate the religious community, nothing is 100% undeniable to them. I doubt anything would really change, religion would not disappear, and I'd probably get a package of anthrax at my doorstep in the morning.

[Taiji]

Lets say that you stumble across some 100% bulletproof, completely undeniable evidence that there is no God.

That's just not possible without damaging/reconfiguring the brain of the person you are trying to convince.

But assuming such a magic exists, there wouldn't be anything in it for me, and I haven't been asked to or told it would be nice. So no, I wouldn't try to change someone else's beliefs, about things that don't matter, against their will.

[Lazarus]

But assuming such a magic exists, there wouldn't be anything in it for me, and I haven't been asked to or told it would be nice. So no, I wouldn't try to change someone else's beliefs, about things that don't matter, against their will.

This is an extremely good point which makes me ask another question.

I'm going to require the cooperation of the religious community to step out of your comfort zone here...

Again, I will clarify, I am not suggesting there is no God. This is purely hypothetical.

If someone ELSE had irrefutable, 100% bulletproof totally undeniable evidence that God exists, would you want to be told? If they told you and said they would tell the world, do you let them? If not, how far do you go to stop them?

If any of the Atheist community can think of some kind of equivalent to the above scenario, feel free to chime in (or just chime in anyway) but you can understand that this hypothetical is more geared towards our religious community.

[Blau&Gruen]

Cases:

a) Affirmated existential statement: It is true that there is some pudding on my keyboard.
b) Negated existential statement: It is not true that there is some pudding on my keyboard.
c) Affirmated negative existential statement: It is true that it is not true that there is some pudding on my keyboard.

Your request:

If you could prove there was no God, would you?

Your request corresponds case c).

What is the difference between existential statements about pudding on keyboards and God? First you can test. Second you can't. It is actually their nature not to be testable. Should you test statements that are not included in the range of the set of testable statements? What can be the purpose to describe an impossible test? There are indeed purposes to deliever the kind of descriptions, e.g. in philosophy when you want to describe non conclusive states or in religions to describe practical problems.

[Lazarus]

Blau I have no idea what you're talking about, the question is simple and straightforward.

If there existed a piece of evidence that there was no God, and you had that piece of evidence, would you share it with the world or bury it...

[Blau&Gruen]

Well, you ask a question implying existential statements of a class (of statements) whose purpose is to be untestable. That makes your question containing a contradiction.

existential statements: see above

You could say: I prove that 'x is not' by showing 'y (efficence for x) is not'.

This is probably what you mean.

In fact when your evidence is negative then it does not follow with necessity that 'x is not' is true.

[Lazarus]

I never said the evidence was negative... all I said was that you had 100% bulletproof evidence that God did not exist. That evidence could be anything. It could be the existence of unique molecular bonds in bananas for all I care - the point is that you have some form of evidence that proves without a doubt that God does not exist. Whether the question is grammatically incorrect, or an existential quandary, or a tautology or whatever - I'm not interested in that. It's pretty clear what I mean. And what I'm interested in, is the answer to what I mean.

[Hazelnut]

God give hope and improves the lives of millions. Organised religion starts wars, destroys native cultures, ruining the lives of millions.
The only way to keep the good and destroy the bad is to blackmail the Vatican, and all other major bodies.

[Lordinquisitor]

Ofc i would. Even if it would cause many, many people to lose hope. Truth is more worth than hope.

[Blau&Gruen]

all I said was that you had 100% bulletproof evidence that God did not exist

No, what you say is, that it is necessary that a positive statement about evidence supports a negative existential statement.

You can say:

a) there is a full carton with six chicken eggs in the fridge
b) there is an egg in the egg-holder on the table
c) there is no full carton with eggs in the fridge

b) is your evidence
c) is your negative existenial statement

Now, try this with a statement whose true or false status is not accessible to evidence.

You see the problem.

[Taiji]

Blau I have no idea what you're talking about, the question is simple and straightforward.

If it was straightforward then I wouldn't need to use magic to damage people's brains!

If someone ELSE had irrefutable, 100% bulletproof totally undeniable evidence that God exists, would you want to be told? If they told you and said they would tell the world, do you let them? If not, how far do you go to stop them?

I wouldn't be able to confirm they had reliable evidence if I didn't let them tell me about it.

So (assuming such magic exists again) by the time I have assessed the situation I am already a gnostic theist. So it would then depend what I thought God wanted, since one of the points about Gods is to belittle the significance of people's desires.

[Macunaíma]

Religion may comfort some poor souls but it is also used for bad purposes (lots of them).

So yeah, I would spread the word.

[Col. Tartleton]

The only religion I'd consider suspending my disbelief in, is was one where everything, good, bad, or ugly would made right and rewarded regardless by a truly loving god.

Could I be shown that there was a creator? I guess, but I don't worship my parents, I wouldn't worship that God. But I could probably see myself with a mixture of respect and revulsion.