# If God proved that God existed , then what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659 "2013-03-22T17:57:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2013, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/181 "2013-03-30T14:00:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I understand your thinking but I thnk there’s a few things to consider. > The significant increase in population. More people beginning their search can account for some new religions and philiosophies. > MAny religions and philosophies are varients of another, or built upon the foundation of another. The foundational truths are very similar. > The fakes, the ones who do it just for profit , or ego, or power. They wouldn’t count as a search for universal truth. > After looking at world religions and seeing the similarities , especially ancient ones that were much harder to share or teach because of distance, it occured to me that perhaps different men in different cultures were getting glimpses and insights into a universal truth that were being affected by their culture and education limits. Then we have the demonstratable fact that each major religion has been altered variable degrees by those that followed. The message may have been more consistent and pure in the begining and then distorted as other men interfered and interpreted. Here’s the problem with these explanations: if they are true, then whatever the universal truth is, it is indistinguishable from non-truth for the large majority of the population (since no religion claims more than 20-25% of the world’s people). If having more people dilutes the search for truth, if charismatic con men can fool people away from it, if it’s only glimpsed by a handful of prophets over the centuries…then how can we say that the universal truth is universal, or true? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I would also argue that progress has indeed been made. Look at the overall state of mankind now and the begining of recorded history. More human rights, Less Slavery, an elevation of women’s rights etc, progress. It seems clear to me that mankind is contiinuoulsy striving not only in knowledge of the physical world , but in the quest to advance the human condition through compassion, shared resources, advancing education, healthcare, etc. There’s no way to absolutely link that to any universal truth , but there doesn’t seem to be a way to completely dismiss it either. The links is not to religious understanding, but to material changes in human society. The morality that best serves a band of hunter-gatherers is markedly different from the morality that best serves settled farmers, which is different again from what best serves an industrial population. The progress you see is the result of technological advancement altering human society, and with it its morality. We won’t return to slavery in the West because slavery doesn’t benefit our society anymore; our economy isn’t based on cotton being picked, but rather services and technology. We won’t strip rights from women because it doesn’t benefit us anymore, women are able to be productive citizens and not solely mothers and housewifes. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’ve come to understand that we really don’t know what’s right or best for others, or where they should be and what they should do and when, on their particular personal journey. That’s exactly it; only you know what will make you happy and fulfilled, and you are in the best position to achieve whatever that is. The complete opposite of a universal truth; a _personal_ truth. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I wasn’t raised in a religious family, but after high school I became a believer. Later I began to reject certain beliefs, until I became IMHO 🙂 an agnostic. I’ve seen people go from agnostic or atheist to believer or believer to atheist. That’s their personal journey of self discovery and dealing with thier own inner selves. I have an opinion, and there will be moments of sharing and even confrontation but ultimately each person has to make their own journey and decide when they are mentally and emotionally prepared to let go of whatever is holding them back. > > That being said, IMO, fear of death, a pretty normal human trait, is not a positive, and has a lot to do with religion and the promise of a happy afterlife. Nitpick: you can’t go from agnostic to believer, because agnosticism is about _knowledge_, not belief. Otherwise, right on, but the journey has no common destination. We’re all on our own. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > There’s the physical measureable world. It’s not hard to believe that science has plenty left to discover and measure. I think another poster made a good point by saying any entity that created and sustains the universe is likley not able to be measured from within it’s creation but aside from that there are also important aspects of life we cannot measure. Certainly there’s plenty left to discover, but that doesn’t justify proclaiming things to be true without evidence. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It seems to me that if God created the universe he created it physically, but also created consciousness and emotions as well. How do we measure the qualities of love, compassion, charity, mercy, and their opposites? A [functional MRI](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9522399) is a start. > [@](#): > > In a previous study absolute regional cerebral blood flow was measured in 16 healthy individuals using quantitative H215O-PET during standardized happy and sad mood induction and during two non-emotional control conditions. During sad mood, blood flow increased in the left amygdala and these changes correlated with shifts towards a negative affect. In the present study blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) changes were measured with fMRI during the same experimentally controlled mood states and control tasks. Twelve right-handed normal subjects were examined with a T2\*-weighted FLASH sequence. A significant increase in signal intensity was found during sad as well as happy mood induction in the left amygdala. This converging evidence supports the potential of fMRI for advancing the understanding of neural substrates for emotional experience in humans. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/182 "2013-03-30T14:24:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The idea that it’s the journey is the only thing that makes sense to me when I ask, if God , or something we call God, exists, then what’s going on here and why? This idea of a “journey” is just another word for living your life. It’s normal and expected to treat life as a journey of discovery; Discovery of self and the world we live in. I understand the desire by many (most) to want it to mean more than just our finite lifespan. It’s natural for humans to want to “go on” in some way after their life is spent. It’s equally natural to want our lives to have meant something, particularly when (I paraphrase) life is brutish and short and in the end it kills you. It seems unlikely that we’ll ever find the answers to, “what’s going on here and why?” to everyone’s satisfaction. But it’s evident that “because god” is the most popular answer in place of having that knowledge. To me, “dumb fucking luck” is a much more satisfying answer. That way, I don’t have to spend my life trying to figure out what god could possibly want from me and what’s the right way to gain his approval. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2013, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/183 "2013-03-30T14:34:45Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If God proved that God existed , then what? Put it on trial for crimes against humanity, and then execute it. If it does not have sufficient legal status to be sued, then just execute it without trial the way Zeus dealt with Asclepius. Either way, pickle it so that it cannot come back again the way that Christ did. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/184 "2013-03-30T15:11:19Z")
Ok, there’s some overlap between this post and the last one I responded to, so in areas where my previous post, #181, covered these topics, I will be brief or just move to the next point. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not sure how you conclude that. Lots of people today feel they know God exists , understand that the command is to love one another, and still fail to seriously try and fulfil that commandment. Sure, people come up short. Others, though, feel that they know God exists, but _don’t_ understand that there is a command to love one another. That is not some universal aspect of religion that’s merely going unfulfilled, it’s a specific religious idea that not all share, in spite of their sincere efforts. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > IMO, progress has been made. There is no standard to judge that progress would or should be easier and faster if God existed. We’re talking about progress toward a universally-understood religious message, and the implementation thereof, correct? Unless people exposed to that message are incapable of recognizing it as the True Message of God, (and if they are not, I question the validity of the message, God-backed or not), then once they heard it (or better still, prayed and heard it from God), they would adopt it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > It’s not just receiving a message. It’s having the will to follow through, and some idea of how to do so. That requires continued effort. Receiving the message is the key point, though, surely, since it’s the necessary first step. And at present, the only way to receive a religious message is to hear it from someone else, or to think it up yourself. Thus, how are we to know what God’s true message is? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > IMO, it would have to be continued proof and probably clear punishment for disobedience. Again, people believe now and the commands are not obeyed. They believe, but they don’t **know**. Here’s another analogy. Say I work at two convenience stores. At store A, my co-worker tells me that he heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, that the owner installed thousands of tiny hidden cameras all over the store. One guy, ten years ago, supposedly found one of the cameras, but no one working there now ever has, they are hidden _that_ well. No one’s ever seen the video feeds, and no one’s ever been disciplined for what was seen on the cameras. Even still, my co-worker tells me, better stay busy and not steal, or I’ll get busted by the cameras. At store B, my co-worker shows me the cameras the owner visibly installed in each corner, and the back room where the feeds are recorded. He tells me to stay busy and not steal, or I’ll get busted by the cameras. Which store am I more likely to steal from? Which owner sincerely seems to want to prevent misbehavior? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Because proplr brlieve now and still can’t manage it. I don’t think it would be casually brushed off. I agree it would be a major event and there would be changes. I’m saying without sustained regular proof, mankind would drift back. And how good would sustained proof be if people realized God didn’t punish or there was no reward for obedience. IN the long run, I think it’s not even about obedience, but choosing a path of sustained continued growth. That doesn’t mean that people are incapable of following simple rules, it means people respond to incentives. It’s that simple. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I guess that depends. Incentives would be things like punishment or reward that were fairly obvious. And how does one obey the command to love anyway? That’s a deeper issue, whether morality is judged by acts or thoughts. One reason, as I stated in the thread that inspired this one, that if there were a God I’d want it to stay completely out of human affairs is that morality cannot be imposed at the point of a sword or the edge of a lake of fire. Human morals are for humans alone to determine; neither animal nor God has anything to say on the matter. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > it’s not as if this message hasn’t been repeated. By humans. I’ve never heard it from God. How do I know it’s true? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > okay. But assuming the goal isn’t just to win games but to also enjoy the experience and maybe learn some principles about teamwork etc that will improve their lives, what happens when you give them the basics and some of them are willing to seriously work at it while others understand your words, but can’t find the motivation to take it seriously and truly apply themselves? No matter how good a coach you are and how clear and moticational your words are , they must have the will, and make the choice to apply themselves. > > You’ve adopted them. They’re yours. You can’t walk away from being their coach, and regardless of how bad they are , they are yours. Now,if the goal was simply to win games and you could reach in their minds and make them better players, you would. If the goal is the experience itself then doing that defeats the purpose. I argue that God has not given us the basics. Again, no matter how sincere I am, I have to take the word of other humans for what God’s message is, or create one myself. And which humans do I listen to? They aren’t all correct, how am I to know which ones are? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > You’re making the assertion that there is no communication or it is so weak to not matter. I’m saying that if the experience of choice and having somethings to choose from is the purpose , then how do we gauge and judge that “if God really existed , life would already be easier and better” I’m suggesting that if the experience itself is the purpose of creation then the world we have is not a contradiction to that God. If choice is the purpose, that seems to contradict the idea of one fixed, universal truth or message. A “choice” with one correct answer isn’t really a choice. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Love God and love your neighbor as yourself isn’t unclear language. It’s the doing that presents the challenge and the discovery through effort. How do we know that that’s what God wants from us? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m aware of the nuances. We’ve been able to address the OP without arguing the semantics and details of my personal belief. It didn’t seem relevant. What initially bugged me was the way he asserted something with so very little to go on, rather than ask a question for clarity. I saw a red flagg and thought that addressing it would lead to quibbling over details and nitpicking that amounted to a hijack. From the posts that followed , I think I was correct. Ok, I won’t address that point further then. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2013, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/185 "2013-03-31T12:38:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It has nothing to do with not being able to overcome a person’s preconcieved ideas. It has to do with people making conscious choices , and striving to become consciously aware. Again, why creation at all, and the perception of duality? In Christian mythology it’s Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil that makes them leave Eden. Without any perception of good and evil, pleasure and pain, there is nothing to choose. From the book of Mormon > > “And they would have had no achildren; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” > > So, in theory, it’s not that God couldn’t make everything perfect and do away with all suffereing in a blink. He could. Wouldn’t that put us back to where we were before creation, in a state where there was no option to choose anything? My own thoery is that if Creator and creation exists , then it seems the perception of duality and the ability to choose is an essential part {if not the essentail part} and purpose of creation. > > Seriously?? IMHO the teachings of Jesus and Buddha , which are remarkably similar, have the potential to make the world in general a much better place if only people actually tried to followed them and spent time comtemplating them. even if it’s just as a philosophy > The reality is that mankind as individuals and as a species has to grow into that. One could read Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection( 2 Books), and see the similarities of Osiris and Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/186 "2013-04-03T12:36:18Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > One could read Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection( 2 Books), and see the similarities of Osiris and Jesus. It seems abundently clear that mankind likes to create a good myth and embelish their heros both historical and fictional. Kinda funny that certain modern relions want to deny that it happened to theirs. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/187 "2013-04-03T13:39:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Here’s the problem with these explanations: if they are true, then whatever the universal truth is, it is indistinguishable from non-truth for the large majority of the population (since no religion claims more than 20-25% of the world’s people). If having more people dilutes the search for truth, if charismatic con men can fool people away from it, if it’s only glimpsed by a handful of prophets over the centuries…then how can we say that the universal truth is universal, or true? We can’t say that with certainty. However, because we can see mankind’s continual striving and progress being made in the ntangible areas of justice and equality etc. we ought to find the belief understandable. > [@](#): > > The links is not to religious understanding, but to material changes in human society. The morality that best serves a band of hunter-gatherers is markedly different from the morality that best serves settled farmers, which is different again from what best serves an industrial population. The progress you see is the result of technological advancement altering human society, and with it its morality. We won’t return to slavery in the West because slavery doesn’t benefit our society anymore; our economy isn’t based on cotton being picked, but rather services and technology. We won’t strip rights from women because it doesn’t benefit us anymore, women are able to be productive citizens and not solely mothers and housewifes. I see your point but I think the timeline points to something else. We didn’t abolish slavery after the plantations went away. Women fought for their rights long before WWII put them in the factories. The quest to define human rights, justice, and equality, exists outside of our technilogical advances. It may be influenced by, but I wouldn’t say it’s determined by. > [@](#): > > That’s exactly it; only you know what will make you happy and fulfilled, and you are in the best position to achieve whatever that is. The complete opposite of a universal truth; a _personal_ truth. There’s no contradiction. Our individual search and path followed may be different, but we may ultimtely be finding the same truth. It apepars to me we are. > [@](#): > > Nitpick: you can’t go from agnostic to believer, because agnosticism is about _knowledge_, not belief. So a person can’t go from, I’m not sure if God exists or not, to "I’m now sure God exists? > [@](#): > > Otherwise, right on, but the journey has no common destination. We’re all on our own. Not quite what I said. We may be on individual journies to the same destination. > [@](#): > > Certainly there’s plenty left to discover, but that doesn’t justify proclaiming things to be true without evidence. I agree. That’s why I think the mentally and emotionally healthiest thing for believers is to follow their path or traditon while mentally and emotionally acknowledging that they don’t really know. Respect others journies in the same way you eish them to respect yours. Obviously mankind has a little more maturing to do in that area. > [@](#): > > A [functional MRI](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9522399) is a start. I don’t deny that it all may be evolution and chemical reactions. Is it emotion that triggers a chemical reaction, or a chemical reaction that triggers emotion? What causes whichever comes first? Can’t recall if I mentioned it in this thread, but years ago I had a pretty powerful experience. At a time of high anxiety and stress I had a dream that explained things to me and brought me to a place of profound peace and understanding. So I went to bed in a terrible state and woke up clear headed , and competely at peace. Since that time I’ve read about certain reactions the brain has to stress , but what still mystifies me is the insight and understanding I had from that dream. I understand that certain chemicals might account for the calming effect, but where did the profound understanding come from? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/188 "2013-04-03T14:09:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > This idea of a “journey” is just another word for living your life. yep > [@](#): > > It’s normal and expected to treat life as a journey of discovery; Discovery of self and the world we live in . > [@](#): > > I understand the desire by many (most) to want it to mean more than just our finite lifespan. It’s natural for humans to want to “go on” in some way after their life is spent. It’s equally natural to want our lives to have meant something, particularly when (I paraphrase) life is brutish and short and in the end it kills you. I agree. > [@](#): > > It seems unlikely that we’ll ever find the answers to, “what’s going on here and why?” to everyone’s satisfaction. But it’s evident that “because god” is the most popular answer in place of having that knowledge. agree again. > [@](#): > > To me, “dumb fucking luck” is a much more satisfying answer. That way, I don’t have to spend my life trying to figure out what god could possibly want from me and what’s the right way to gain his approval. I get that. I don’t see any real benefit or need in seeing God as some other out there somewhere ruler who appraoves or disapproves. I suppose that belief can sometimes bring some introspection that has a side benefit of personal growth but you don’t need that belief for introspection. IMO, if there is some creator sustainer we are all already a part of that. More importantly I think we need to take personal responsibility for our attitudes and beliefs and the actions that spring from them. It irritates the crap out of me when people pretend to know what God thinks and feels and try to hide behind that. Religious belief amounts to a personal opinion period. it has no extra divine weight. In fact I’d say the need to be right, and not waver is a denial of the history of relgion, and damed unhealthy. What I came away with in studying and gradually leaving Christianity and cetain beliefs behind is that what seems to matter is love and truth. We learn to become better people to ourselves and others by trying to understand love, sifting the crap we mistakenly call love from actual love and learning how to apply it in every day mundane life. If we value truth we value honesty and evidence and factor them in our judgements. The good news is that these things can matter just as much to a believer or non believer. Belief in something more isn’t nessecary, but doesn’t have to hinder either. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/189 "2013-04-03T14:30:14Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > We can’t say that with certainty. However, because we can see mankind’s continual striving and progress being made in the ntangible areas of justice and equality etc. we ought to find the belief understandable. Sure, it’s understandable. Most beliefs are, otherwise they don’t persist. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see your point but I think the timeline points to something else. We didn’t abolish slavery after the plantations went away. Women fought for their rights long before WWII put them in the factories. The quest to define human rights, justice, and equality, exists outside of our technilogical advances. It may be influenced by, but I wouldn’t say it’s determined by. We abolished slavery after it stopped being needed (and was abolished) in the Northern states. I’m not saying personal convictions played no role in it, but do you assert that the people of the South were just morally inferior to those of the North, and _that’s_ why the South sought to retain slavery? What “human rights, justice, and equality” means to the people of any given historical moment depends on the society they are in, not some absolute value. That society is tremendously influenced by technology. Liberal democracy wouldn’t have worked for medieval Europe, and fuedalism wouldn’t work for us now. The differences between their society now and ours are primarily the result of technological advancement. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > There’s no contradiction. Our individual search and path followed may be different, but we may ultimtely be finding the same truth. It apepars to me we are. Again, though, assuming you mean human rights and such, it’s a “truth” that works best for our particular society at our particular moment. As our society changes, so will our conception of human rights, justice, and equality. There’s no mysticism or spirituality to this. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > So a person can’t go from, I’m not sure if God exists or not, to "I’m now sure God exists? The difference is between knowledge and belief. “I’m not sure if God exists or not” = “I don’t know if God exists” = agnostic. “I’m now sure God exists” = “I know God exists” = gnostic. “I don’t believe in God” = atheist. “I believe in God” = theist. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Not quite what I said. We may be on individual journies to the same destination. Addressed above. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I agree. That’s why I think the mentally and emotionally healthiest thing for believers is to follow their path or traditon while mentally and emotionally acknowledging that they don’t really know. Respect others journies in the same way you eish them to respect yours. Obviously mankind has a little more maturing to do in that area. The problem with that is that professing such doubts removes much of the psychic benefit of religious belief, and since that’s the bulk of the benefit religious belief provides (aside from practical benefits like access to a tight community that helps members in need), it serves to undermine the belief. People don’t follow God for uncertainty, quite the opposite. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t deny that it all may be evolution and chemical reactions. Is it emotion that triggers a chemical reaction, or a chemical reaction that triggers emotion? What causes whichever comes first? That’s a whole other, complex, issue, I just brought up fMRIs in response to your question: How do we measure the qualities of love, compassion, charity, mercy, and their opposites? One approach is through neurobiology. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Can’t recall if I mentioned it in this thread, but years ago I had a pretty powerful experience. At a time of high anxiety and stress I had a dream that explained things to me and brought me to a place of profound peace and understanding. So I went to bed in a terrible state and woke up clear headed , and competely at peace. Since that time I’ve read about certain reactions the brain has to stress , but what still mystifies me is the insight and understanding I had from that dream. I understand that certain chemicals might account for the calming effect, but where did the profound understanding come from? Could have been a supernatural experience; could have been from your own mind. Up to you to decide which it was, and which was more likely. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/190 "2013-04-08T13:38:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Receiving the message is the key point, though, surely, since it’s the necessary first step. And at present, the only way to receive a religious message is to hear it from someone else, or to think it up yourself. Thus, how are we to know what God’s true message is? We don’t know, but we can put things in practice and see. By doing we discover if it’s true, or not. > [@](#): > > They believe, but they don’t **know**. Here’s another analogy. Say I work at two convenience stores. > > At store A, my co-worker tells me that he heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, who heard from his predecessor, that the owner installed thousands of tiny hidden cameras all over the store. One guy, ten years ago, supposedly found one of the cameras, but no one working there now ever has, they are hidden _that_ well. No one’s ever seen the video feeds, and no one’s ever been disciplined for what was seen on the cameras. Even still, my co-worker tells me, better stay busy and not steal, or I’ll get busted by the cameras. > > At store B, my co-worker shows me the cameras the owner visibly installed in each corner, and the back room where the feeds are recorded. He tells me to stay busy and not steal, or I’ll get busted by the cameras. > > Which store am I more likely to steal from? Which owner sincerely seems to want to prevent misbehavior? I get it. That’s why I’m suggesting the actual point is not to prevent misbehavior, but the experience of percieved choice. Rather than being intimidated into good behaviour , you choose it. > [@](#): > > That’s a deeper issue, whether morality is judged by acts or thoughts. One reason, as I stated in the thread that inspired this one, that if there were a God I’d want it to stay completely out of human affairs is that morality cannot be imposed at the point of a sword or the edge of a lake of fire. Human morals are for humans alone to determine; neither animal nor God has anything to say on the matter. My suggestion is that if God is, and the purpose is the experience of choice, then it could easily appear as if God is not involved. And yet, if we are created in such a way that certain choices will lead us to a shared conclusion, through Karma, reaping what you sow, or whatever it’s called by different people. > [@](#): > > I argue that God has not given us the basics. Again, no matter how sincere I am, I have to take the word of other humans for what God’s message is, or create one myself. And which humans do I listen to? They aren’t all correct, how am I to know which ones are? That is what seeking and chosing is about. MAny people do accept the word of some “authorinty” but ultimately we must take personal responsibility for our belief system and the actions it prompts. I think there’s a moral an ethical obligation to question belief systems > [@](#): > > If choice is the purpose, that seems to contradict the idea of one fixed, universal truth or message. A “choice” with one correct answer isn’t really a choice. In that case I need to have another look at my Jr High grades. I think that teacher who like multiple choice was lying to me. Honestly, this doesn’t make sense. One correct answer in no way conflicts choice. Many religions talk of the many paths to same answer, like the spokes of a wheel all meeting at the hub. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/191 "2013-04-08T14:06:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > We abolished slavery after it stopped being needed (and was abolished) in the Northern states. I’m not saying personal convictions played no role in it, but do you assert that the people of the South were just morally inferior to those of the North, and _that’s_ why the South sought to retain slavery? The economics of it is interesting. I see your point, but the fact is that efforts to abolish slavery on moral grounds had been going on for generations. At the very least it seems it was some combination of the two. > [@](#): > > What “human rights, justice, and equality” means to the people of any given historical moment depends on the society they are in, not some absolute value. That society is tremendously influenced by technology. Liberal democracy wouldn’t have worked for medieval Europe, and fuedalism wouldn’t work for us now. The differences between their society now and ours are primarily the result of technological advancement. Again, interesting but I see it as some combination of the two. It seems to me that men have always been striving toward, not only knowledge of our physical world but in philosophical ways as well to better define human rights and how those are reflected in real life. That can be seen in the Enlightenment that influenced our own founding fathers. Certainly education and wider access to information , better communication and sharing of ideas plays a role. > [@](#): > > Again, though, assuming you mean human rights and such, it’s a “truth” that works best for our particular society at our particular moment. As our society changes, so will our conception of human rights, justice, and equality. There’s no mysticism or spirituality to this. I see it more as growing into the principles we espouse as people seek and push. > [@](#): > > The difference is between knowledge and belief. > > “I’m not sure if God exists or not” = “I don’t know if God exists” = agnostic. > > “I’m now sure God exists” = “I know God exists” = gnostic. > > “I don’t believe in God” = atheist. > > “I believe in God” = theist. OK. It still seems to me that someone can go from “I don’t know” to " I Believe" but no point in splitting hairs. > [@](#): > > The problem with that is that professing such doubts removes much of the psychic benefit of religious belief, and since that’s the bulk of the benefit religious belief provides (aside from practical benefits like access to a tight community that helps members in need), it serves to undermine the belief. People don’t follow God for uncertainty, quite the opposite. Personally I see the emotional need for certainty when there really can’t be any as a human weakness we need to overcome. We are capable of understanding that we don’t really know, but we follow a certain path because it works for us. > [@](#): > > Could have been a supernatural experience; could have been from your own mind. Up to you to decide which it was, and which was more likely. But what really exists is ultimately not supernatural, only things we haven’t discovered and can’t explain at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/192 "2013-04-08T14:08:03Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > We don’t know, but we can put things in practice and see. By doing we discover if it’s true, or not. How do we discover if it’s true? What feedback or outcome determines this? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I get it. That’s why I’m suggesting the actual point is not to prevent misbehavior, but the experience of percieved choice. Rather than being intimidated into good behaviour , you choose it. Then why have revelation as part of the process at all? The people receiving proof of God and a message aren’t getting the same perceived choice as the people who do not. What’s the point of revelation, if we’re supposed to figure it out on our own? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > My suggestion is that if God is, and the purpose is the experience of choice, then it could easily appear as if God is not involved. And yet, if we are created in such a way that certain choices will lead us to a shared conclusion, through Karma, reaping what you sow, or whatever it’s called by different people. To the extent there is a shared conclusion, which is minimal, it’s much more closely tied to the conditions a society finds itself in than anything else. Are Western democracies more spiritually evolved than feudal societies, or have each adopted a system that suits their conditions? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > That is what seeking and chosing is about. MAny people do accept the word of some “authorinty” but ultimately we must take personal responsibility for our belief system and the actions it prompts. I think there’s a moral an ethical obligation to question belief systems The seeking and choosing is a purely personal decision, though. You can judge the effects of your beliefs and choices for how well they are in accord with your moral code, but there’s no way to objectively compare them to God’s plan or message. Aztecs sacrificing tens of thousands of people at once were just as convinced that what they were doing was right and holy as any Christian or Buddhist practicing today. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > In that case I need to have another look at my Jr High grades. I think that teacher who like multiple choice was lying to me. > > Honestly, this doesn’t make sense. One correct answer in no way conflicts choice. Many religions talk of the many paths to same answer, like the spokes of a wheel all meeting at the hub. You got the point just fine: your teacher never said that the point of school was to choose, the point was the learn the correct answers. So he taught you the correct answers, rather than telling you you’d have to figure it out yourself, and that this seeking was the point, because that’s a foolish and ineffective practice, whether you’re a junior high teacher or a God. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/193 "2013-04-08T14:30:45Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The economics of it is interesting. I see your point, but the fact is that efforts to abolish slavery on moral grounds had been going on for generations. At the very least it seems it was some combination of the two. > > Again, interesting but I see it as some combination of the two. It seems to me that men have always been striving toward, not only knowledge of our physical world but in philosophical ways as well to better define human rights and how those are reflected in real life. That can be seen in the Enlightenment that influenced our own founding fathers. Certainly education and wider access to information , better communication and sharing of ideas plays a role. The problem is that what you’re doing is observing changes in human society over time, and declaring, “Ah, this must have been the plan!” You see striving toward human rights as a divine goal, rather than the rational result of material changes to society. If technology hadn’t developed in the course that it did, the same analysis would lead you to declare that God’s message is for the serfs to know their place, and toil in the fields for the protection of their divinely-chosen lord. Asserting that the way things are is because that’s what God’s steering us toward isn’t falsifiable, and you cannot demonstrate that this steering is even happening. Thus, how can your conclusions have any meaning? > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I see it more as growing into the principles we espouse as people seek and push. There’s always a gap between ideals and reality, no matter what the principles at hand are. I’m sure some Aztecs let a few captives escape, even though the principles they espoused demanded those sacrifices be made so that the Aztecs would have rain. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > OK. It still seems to me that someone can go from “I don’t know” to " I Believe" but no point in splitting hairs. I’m fine with letting that matter drop. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Personally I see the emotional need for certainty when there really can’t be any as a human weakness we need to overcome. We are capable of understanding that we don’t really know, but we follow a certain path because it works for us. I’m with you there, but people aren’t in a hurry to abandon their false certainty. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > But what really exists is ultimately not supernatural, only things we haven’t discovered and can’t explain at the moment. Ok, “could have been a external experience, could have been from your own mind”, then. ---
**Author:** ![LaughingMoon93](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecb155/32.png) [@LaughingMoon93](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LaughingMoon93)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2013, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659/194 "2013-04-16T07:14:07Z")
of course there is a God. You see things bigger than us in the universe, the sun, the stars, planet etc… It is a force and spirit in us humans also. and its up to humans to create heaven on earth with the gifts they possess. you see, that is our purpose… to bring heaven to earth by having the right mind and spirit. and isn’t about picking a religion. wake up people. I believe right now there are angels on the planet doing work to help humans, such as the current technology that seemed to come out of wherever? oh come on, don’t tell me your arrogant to think that an actual human invented technology. oh sure you may have seen videos of people, but how do you know they aren’t angels in disquise! just like the ancient pyramids, do you really think people built these in perfect alignment with the stars. so you see, there is something powerful out there. people don’t want to admit it because it freaks you out. technology is here to help, because now those bad forces are being exposed, and that some try to use it for evil purposes. the only ones going around talking about aliens and all these crazy things, they should be more focused on CELESTIALS, not TERRESTRIALS. know the difference people! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-god-proved-that-god-existed-then-what/653659.md?page=9)