45 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Here’s an interesting thought experiment: If you could push a button that would definitively tell you whether or not God exists, would you do it? (If you’re religious, the button would also tell you whether or not your version of faith is accurate.)
 


 
Robert Kirby, writing for the Salt Lake Tribune, says your desire to press the button depends on where you are in the “truth-seeking process”:
 

First is that you want to know the truth badly enough to push the button regardless of which answer comes up. Truth is more important to you than personal comfort.
 
Second, you’re the kind of person not willing to place what you believe in jeopardy. Ignorance is so blissful that you stay as far away as possible from the truth button lest your emotional security be undone accidentally.
 
Finally — and most stupidly — are the people who wouldn’t push the button because they already “know” their religion is true.

 

Like Kirby, I’d like to think I’m in that first group. I’d push the button in a heartbeat. I’m confident in my atheism. But if I happen to be wrong, I want to know so I can fix it.

I also understand people who would choose to remain in the second group. (Why mess with what’s working for you?)
 
But that third group really is hopeless. Let’s call them “Donald Trump‘s base.”
 
No amount of evidence will ever convince them they’re wrong. You can show them audio, video, unearthed classified documents, and Jesus Himself saying “I’m not real,” and they’d stick with their delusions. Advanced degrees and superior qualifications mean nothing to them. The only way to convince them to change their minds is to get someone who shares their fantasy-world bubble to speak even louder.
 
What’s scary is that entire political campaigns are now built trying to appeal to the third group.
 
Reposted from Patheos.com

[Manoka]

I think if Jesus himself said he's not real, that would kind of defeat the obvious so like, yeah most people would probs believe he was real if he came here in person no matter what he said. 

 

Although to answer you question, I think most Christians, Islamic people etc. are confident enough in their own religions to believe they are right and pick yes so, 
I don't think this is some kind of, proof that atheists are more willing to accept that they might be wrong. In fact this test more so is about how much you're willing to affirm your own beliefs.

Edited by Manoka, 25 January 2016 - 10:29 PM.

[He who posts]

I'm a liar so I wouldn't press it.

[*Anastasia]

Sure, I'd press the button.

I've pretty much been an agnostic my whole life, on varying degrees of that spectrum. I've been an atheistic agnostic, who didn't believe in God, but admitted I may be wrong; now, I am very much a theist, and believe in the existence of a God, but I'll still be the first to admit that I may still be wrong, either about the existence of God, or the nature of what "God" is or means.

From that perspective, I have no reason to not push the button. Agnosticism is the process of discovery that underlies faith. If we can determine the validity—or invalidity—of that faith, definitively, there's no logical reason not to do so (short of being in that 'second group' whose logical reason is the maintenance of their comfort zones).

[HordeLorde]

I voted yes at first, then thought better of it and changed my vote to no.

In my personal opinion I think everyone's mostly wrong...simply because were human. Is there a God. Idk...maybe, then again maybe not. My guess is no, but there are some pretty compelling philosophical arguments outside of religious belief that could lead one into saying yes there is...and vice versa. While religious belief doesnt do diddly for me, it does do alot for other. And by that i mean it gives them something to hope and strive for....yadda yadda yadda....

To answer the question at hand, i picked No for 2 reasons. 1. If i would say yes, id spoil it for everyone who said no...cuz im like that.... Dont ask me if ive seen a movie if you havent seen it yet.... i can't help but spoil it for you 2. My childhood was filled with with Catholicism(Irish Brand), then my step-dad came along and it turned to Southern Baptist for awhile, then i lived with my Aunt for awhile where i was exposed to Celtic Paganism, then i met my father when i was 19 and began researching his religion, Judaism (Nazarite sect). After all that (+ a slew of personal hardships and tragedies) i realized no one really knows what the hell they are talking about and stubbornly sat in Atheism for awhile. Then i realized that my reason for being Atheist was about as piss poor as anyone else's reason for believing their religion.... Yeah i thought i was definately closer but i still couldnt prove squat. So i turned the corner into Agnosticism/deism...Stating on the regular that if God does exist we as humans wouldnt beable to define it in any manner....mainly because it would defeat the purpose of its existence(or at least the majority concensus on the basic purpose of God's existence).And so i realized that whether or not it exists, absorbing as much as i can and learning different belief systems helps me connect with other people and understand where they are coming from, why they do and think the things the way they do(whether i agree with  them or not.) A button that would function like that would rob me of that kind of discovery and journey. So no i wouldnt press the button 

Edited by HordeLorde, 26 January 2016 - 03:13 AM.

[the rebel]

I picked "I don't know".

I'd pick "Yes" as I'm curious about knowing and learning things, brain is like a sponge wanting more.

I'd pick "No" as even if I was wrong, well fuck God for being a degenerate hoping that some rag heads writing afew books which are more boring than other fiction books is an acceptable way to pass on knowledge of existence.

Yes I'm a stubborn old mule.

[Thrash]

Yes

[Lord Draculea]

I don't think the classification into the 3 categories of people, quoted by Jorost, is complete. I place myself in another category.

My answer is no, I wouldn't push the button, and I'll explain why. First of all, the biggest problem I see is: how do I know the button is telling the truth in the first place? (I'm surpised noone asked that question so far.)

There are only two possibilities: either I'm sure the button is telling the thruth, or I'm not. First case scenario: I'm sure the button is telling the thruth. Then it follows that I'm convinced that the answer is coming from God. So God exists. So there's no need for me to push any button. Second case scenario: I'm not sure the button is telling the thruth. So why push it? Case closed.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I said yes as well. Although I am effectively an atheist (I try to avoid that term because I find that most people who describe themselves as "atheists" are insufferable about it), it's not because I don't want there to be a god. I just think the evidence does not lead to that conclusion. I would probably be a much happier person if it turned out I was wrong and there is a god, because then I'd know exactly what I had to do to gain eternal paradise, which frankly sounds pretty good. Also if it turned out the Mormons were right I'd get my own planet.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

My answer is no, I wouldn't push the button, and I'll explain why. First of all, the biggest problem I see is: how do I know the button is telling the truth in the first place? (I'm surpised noone asked that question so far.)

 

The premise is that the answer is the truth.

[Lord Draculea]

In my view, that can only happen if the answer is "yes" (God exists). In other words, I do not believe there will ever be a credible button saying that God does not exist.

On another note, I find your position logically inconsistent. You cannot be an atheist on the basis of lack of evidence that God exists, but only on the foundation of solid evidence of the contrary. Do you have such evidence? If you ever do, please make sure to share it with me.

[the rebel]

On another note, I find your position logically inconsistent. You cannot be an atheist on the basis of lack of evidence that God exists, but only on the foundation of solid evidence of the contrary. Do you have such evidence? If you ever do, please make sure to share it with me.

Evidence isn't required only belief, if that works for the religious.
Then it works for the nonreligious, evidence isn't required as they lack belief.

The evidence question is a cop out question, you can't prove a God where as you can't prove there is no God.

[HordeLorde]

My answer is no, I wouldn't push the button, and I'll explain why. First of all, the biggest problem I see is: how do I know the button is telling the truth in the first place? (I'm surpised noone asked that question so far.)

 

The premise is that the answer is the truth.

"Assumption is the brotha of all fuck-ups"

"Its the motha of all fuck-ups, stupid"

"Motha, brotha, any other sucka....there are still fucking guns...that fire fucking bullets...turning what was a walk-in-the-park job into a bad day in Bosnia!"

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

In my view, that can only happen if the answer is "yes" (God exists). In other words, I do not believe there will ever be a credible button saying that God does not exist.

On another note, I find your position logically inconsistent. You cannot be an atheist on the basis of lack of evidence that God exists, but only on the foundation of solid evidence of the contrary. Do you have such evidence? If you ever do, please make sure to share it with me.

 

Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. The burden is not on nonbelievers to prove that god exists, but on believers to prove he/she/it does.

 

This is why we need that button.

[HordeLorde]

If you think about it though Jorost. Claiming God doesn't exist is just as an extrodinary assertion as Claiming God does exist, in that both parties are naming a winner before all the evidence has presented itself.  we still havent learned everything there is to learn about the universe. So there could very well be rock solid evidence that God does indeed exist, we just havent found it yet. Both parties have their hypothesis, both have "evidence" but its based on assertions...not based on solid facts. neither can come to an indisputable conclusion because youre both missing essential pieces to your argument. Sure an Atheist may be a little further along in their discovery of the truth. AN Atheist might say the big bang theory and evolution prove that God doesnt exist...however both could have been set into motion by a so called "God"

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Not really, HordeLorde. Like I said, extraordinary claims and all that. You don't have to prove that a thing does not exist, because if you did, where does it end? Do I have to prove unicorns don't exist? Or manticores? Or basilisks? Or fraggles? What about whatzits? And flobknockers? And flimspiddlers?

 

You see the problem. The list of things that do not exist is endless. If you had to prove that things do not exist, your task would never end.

 

Anyway, I'm not really interested in having another debate on religion. I was more curious about who would want to definitively know the answer yes or no, if it were possible (which of course it is not).

[HordeLorde]

But a unicorn....could indeed exist.... we just havent found it yet. Its just like extraterrestrial life. SUre we have some extraordinary stories, but no rock solid evidence. Just because there is no rock solid evidence doesnt exclude the possibility, nsimply because we dont know everything and havent seen it all.... If you could  travel 1000 years back in time and talked to the people back then about bacteria, viruses and electricity....youd get laughed at/called insane/burned at the stake for being a witch. Even if they took you somewhat seriously, youd still have to provide proof to them which would be virtually impossible to do. Theyd say you cant prove those things exist....so they dont. Even though you know for a fact they most certainly do.

[Redezra]

I would mash that button so hard. Truth is all that matters. No matter how mind destroyingly horrible it might be. Would play a staring match with Cthlulhu. Would listen to the mad music in the halls of Azathoth.

 

Must.

Learn.

Everything.

 

 

In my view, that can only happen if the answer is "yes" (God exists). In other words, I do not believe there will ever be a credible button saying that God does not exist.

On another note, I find your position logically inconsistent. You cannot be an atheist on the basis of lack of evidence that God exists, but only on the foundation of solid evidence of the contrary. Do you have such evidence? If you ever do, please make sure to share it with me.

 

 

Logic works from first principles. That's the whole point of "I think therefore I am", in the beginning, you assume that there is nothing, unless proven otherwise. The first one is "hey look I'm thinking about that nothing, so in some weird way I as an agent must exist!"

Extrapolating this out, the concept of god(s) must be proven, because the status quo is that nothing exists.

 

Also, how can you assume that a button that says "No, all gods are false, due to <reasons>" is unreliable? Can you not perceive a world without them? Is it that important to your worldview that it's a forgone conclusion? I find that line of thinking fascinating, and completely alien. To me, nothing is required, something clearly exists, but who's to say we have any grasp on what it is, what it is, or how it's here? The universe does not need to follow our understanding.

[Lord Draculea]

The principles of logic and deductive reasoning do not depend on how ordinary or extraordinary the assertions are. If you claim something, you are required to present the underlying evidence, end of story. Of course your assertion may still be true (or not), regardless of what you and I think, but due to lack of evidence its truthfulness (does this word even exist?) is not binding for me. In that sense, the rebel is right when saying that both the theist and the atheist stances are matters of belief, not reason. As a Christian, I can't prove that God exists but, more importantly, I don't even claim it. I just put my faith in a promise, and ask for help from the very instance whose existence I can't prove. That's how it works, and I admit it's totally paradoxical and not binding for anyone.

As for what Redezra is saying, the assertion that "nothing exists" is also a matter of belief. It's a philosophical stance, called nihilism (if I'm not mistaken). But just as Red (or anyone else) is entitled to her own beliefs, so am I. Well, my philosophical stance tells me that no button will ever tell us that God (or gods) does (do) not exist. The reason being that the spiritual quest is infinite (endless). If I didn't believe that, all my system of explicit/implicit assumptions and beliefs would simply collapse, liberty would make no sense, and humans would be reduced to a sort of (sophisticated) Turing machines. Not acceptable, by me.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Also, how can you assume that a button that says "No, all gods are false, due to <reasons>" is unreliable?

 

The premise of the question is that the button is reliable. Whatever answer the button gives is the correct one. Obviously that is impossible, but this is a hypothetical situation. IF you had a button that would give you the truth — no matter what that truth happens to be — would you press it? I would, because I would want to know the truth. It doesn't matter what I believe the answer will be. Even if I turned out to be wrong I would still want to know.