And I mean completely. As irrefutable as 1+1=2. I asked my friend about this and he had a mini-breakdown so I thought I'd ask you guys. Still not certain if I'm just unsatisfied with his answer or I'm just evil. Or both.
sort by best latest
An excellent life mission whether or not one believes in a supreme being I'd say :)
I totally agree, Billie. At least I could look at myself in the mirror and know that I lived a life of integrity.
I think this is the answer that most non-believers are looking for when they ask the hypothetical question about god. It's certainly the best answer I've seen and I thank you for taking it seriously.
Trust me M.T it's definitely one of the answers I was hoping for. Honestly some of these answers make me hope god is never proven nonexistent or I'll have to arm myself with a rifle and pick off a few people...
Here's the irony, people can't prove God exists or that God doesn't exist - interesting isn't it?
christin -only those that first believe in God will ever be able to see the evidence to confirm He is there. Scripture says to all the others it is foolishness. So your foolishness will get you nowhere, except with other scoffers.
nafeelpc it's a hypothetical question. How do you think you would react if you were faced with a situation where you could no longer believe in god. If you must consider this a test of your mind and willpower to imagine the situation.
wise people do not answer stupid hypothetical questions
Actually every person who has ever invented anything of merit has had to first answer many hypothetical questions.
but those were not stupid questions, they were necessary. to reach the goal. SEE my answer under nafeelpc
Stupid is a matter of opinion. My opinion of stupid is anyone who refuses to look at all parts of something they choose to believe in. Or someone who refuses to see views outside their own.
peeples- that is good. PS I have looked at both extensively/ i dont believe in anything without extensive scriptural proof. i repeat see my comment above
celafoe you obviously have not looked extensively if you cannot even answer this question.
Part of the assumption is that you can't question it, that's what irrefutable means. It's so completely convincing that even you yourself cannot reject the logic and evidence. It's a question of how you would respond in that scenario.
sorry but buddha is NOT GOD the creator, He was a FALSE god. buddhism has nothing to do with God the creator
I am not referring to Buddha. Buddha is a messenger like Jesus. I believe in God as the Creator of mankind. He has different messengers or prophets to spread His Words.
You make some good points. I believe as you do everyone gets what they deserve. It has nothing to do with what people believe, and much more to do with how people act and what they bring to the plate in the end. It is about merit.
If that is the case,then we all have inventions.Even the ones without the belief that God exist.They invented there own God.They had to get their ideas from somewhere.
I'd say,"Thank you God. I appreciate this gold medal you placed upon my neck in recognition that my mind actively explored the possibilities of Your existence or non-existence. And yes, God, I DID understand that that was why you gave us intellect.
My answer to ur question - It would reset me and again put me back on the road of discovery because I would then have two 'irrefutable' evidences - one in support of God's existence and one in support of God's absence! :)
Great comment, Billie! :)
I'd probably still not worship him. Not because of doubt this time but because I disagree with quite a bit of the bible.
I'm reminded, by your comment, EP, of a concept Alan Watts put forth in the 70s in "The Book". My best interpretation of that idea is that the WHOLE is God. That intrigues me. I know that's not exactly what you you meant, but it reminded me of it.
Thank you for the insight expressing it well, in a nutshell. Separation from God is an illusion rigidly framed in the constructs of the mind and strongly reinforced by human society incl. religion. God can be experienced in moments of letting go....
Ironically, most atheists would feel the same about the religious - easily swayed. I can assure you I have no weak heart and a deep love for life and humanity, just not a belief in a diety.
Christin, Love your comment. It's interesting the assumptions people make about non-religious people . When I was 12, I went ON MY OWN to Church on Good Friday and knelt from 12 to 3 praying, saying the stations of the cross- one tiny exp.of many
This is not a question about whether you would believe the evidence Mike it's what would you do in a situation where you yourself knew for a fact there was no god (say gained temporary omnipotence and knew this without question).
well, since no one else is debating my observation, I'll debate it myself... if we choose to be, and are successful at, being kind and peaceful, doesn't that open the door for the psychopaths to take over unopposed? Good question, Mike.
Better question, Mike. With no deterrent, aren't we all capable of being psychopaths? I mean, right from wrong wouldn't matter anymore, would it?
IDONO.not sure you read my full comment when I said "do good for goodness sake". If you're doing good just so you can get some Heaven out of it for yourself, you're already motivated by evil.
Well thanks for not taking offense at the question (like half these people) but that really doesn't answer my question. If you were to gain omnipotence and know there is no god how would you react? Consider it a test of your imagination.
You're not thinking of this the right way -.- I'm asking that in the scenario you somehow were faced with evidence that you Can No Refute (can't argue against) how would you react. You have to follow the assumption for the scenario.
The problem here is that I asked you to objectively consider your reaction if such an event occurred. You respond by taking offense at a hypothetical situation that was obviously not intended for an insult. I pity god.
CrescentSkies; I sincerely apologize. However, I was not offended, but my comments DID appear that way. You are correct. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Blessings, Sparklea
Sparklea, your comments did not convey that you were offended. Maybe your 2nd paragraph expressed your passion for your beliefs, but you brought it around to quite a balanced and beautiful point of view. It feels sincere. And BEING is a key....
Emanate Presence: Thank you from my heart for your kind words! So much appreciated. You are correct, I was not offended at all. And I was sincere. Yes, BEING is the key. Thanks again...Sparklea :)
Why would you assume the person asking the question was a non-believer? There is NOTHING to indicate that this person is a non-believer. He or she may be more devout than any one. To NOT question is disrespectful to creation and to our intellect.
The problem here is that an assumption is the evidence is irrefutable. Which means that you cannot argue against it, you believe it to be true. Going by that assumption what would you do?
CS, I meant, that the person who answered the question is assuming your question was asked by a non-believer. I don't see why a person can't be a believer and still ask this question. It's simply a "what if" question.
I was directing that comment at the person who answered not you :P I agree with you.
This question is in the form of a psychological experiment which means the assumption that you must believe the evidence is critical. If I have to word it like this I will, "What would you do if you suddenly discovered there is no god?"
It's not a personal choice -.- the assumption for the hypothetical scenario is something that has to be followed or your answer is just gibberish. Just assume that you were suddenly faced with some weird epiphany that there was no god if that helps.
I like your explanation M.T. Dreamer - very astute observation
If you aren't meant to question or guess then why would God bother giving you a brain? I have a strange feeling god won't care if you think for about 3 seconds on this kind of question.