What will happen if, science runs across definitive proof of God?

[agua]

quatona
I was responding to your question as it read. It didn´t come with such a qualification - it said "humans[...] in general."

Yes sure but if %97 of humans today identify with some form of theism doesn't this imply they're concerned with their origin ? ie. it's an important subject for them

 

[AionPhanes]

Do you really think we're so stupid as to not see that as an insult? We may be sheep, but we're not brainless. Don't mock our way of thinking.

I apologize it was supposed be a psuedo-witty "something to think" about line with a small amount of humor for added benefit. I didn't mean it to insult anyone. With all the obvious and intended insults flying around in daily life it's hard to tell the difference sometimes though I'm sure. I think faith is very important. So is questioning. I like to ride the middle path whenever possible. It was just a "funny" way of saying that.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I apologize it was supposed be a psuedo-witty "something to think" about line with a small amount of humor for added benefit. I didn't mean it to insult anyone. With all the obvious and intended insults flying around in daily life it's hard to tell the difference sometimes though I'm sure. I think faith is very important. So is questioning. I like to ride the middle path whenever possible. It was just a "funny" way of saying that.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I'm not good at "detecting" insults and jabs, and I just thought that was one. No hard feelings, just don't say things like that

 

[AionPhanes]

I remember a catchy saying I read once in a book I can't remember the title of at the moment. "The inquisitive atheist is closer to God realization that than the content theist." That might be more of a paraphrase but I think it was in a book written by some Hindu fellow. If anyone knows the exact quote or the book it was from I would be much obliged if they post it for me. I also think I read a different version of that quote in a book about Gurdjieff too. In that book it was stated something to the effect of "It takes half the time for an atheist to gain englightened than a theist." Honestly I think the former quote is more to the heart of the matter than the later though. I was always wondering what was up with the two F's in Gurdjieff's name too.

Anyway, that's what came to my mind when I saw the discussion regarding atheists and the theoretical God they would most like to have if they had to accept one. Maybe temporary atheism can help one purify the god image?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe. But it is a potential answer to the question of the OP. There are so many vastly different god concepts that any given person is likely to be wrong about it. That assumes that there even is one, and that someone, somewhere has even a broad idea of what it is.

If most Christians are prepared to embrace the new, proven concept then that's probably what most people will do. If most deny this proven god, then that is what most people will probably do.

Agree.

Being able to demonstrate that a God exists is one thing. Being able to demonstrate that a God that exists is the God one chooses to believe in, takes it to another level.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes sure but if %97 of humans today identify with some form of theism doesn't this imply they're concerned with their origin ? ie. it's an important subject for them

Where do you get these numbers that 97% of the world population agrees with some form of theism?

 

[AionPhanes]

Agree.

Being able to demonstrate that a God exists is one thing. Being able to demonstrate that a God that exists is the God one chooses to believe in, takes it to another level.

Excellent point. Thus the need for what is often called negative theology. The writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite among the Eastern Christians and Meister Eckhart in the West are interesting in that regard. Me I tend to go with the negative theology of Plato, Plotinus, and the crown of all philosophers (imho) Iamblichus, but I can see echos of it in most of the major world religions. I can't help but loving them all.

Imaginative atheists just take negative theology to an extreme. Some might say that they have gone to far and thrown the baby out with the bathwater but I think it might be a legitimate step on the path. For what my opinion is worth at least.

 

[Colter]

What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?, or a force that they find has a mind and a will, and is exerting that will in our world in measurable quantum ways? or something like that...

How would our world change if something like this happened?

God Bless!

For the Atheist, nothing. It would be like giving a drunk coffee, you just end up with a wide awake drunk! The stubborn ego's would remain intact.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What will happen if science someday runs across definitive proof of a God?, or a force that they find has a mind and a will, and is exerting that will in our world in measurable quantum ways? or something like that...

I imagine that it would be pretty much the same thing as if science someday runs across definitive disproof of a God. Some people would change their minds and some people would not. I can't even begin to guess at the percentages.

How would our world change if something like this happened?

Probably nothing significant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[agua]

Where do you get these numbers that 97% of the world population agrees with some form of theism?

Google of course I haven't seen a meta study so if you have some different data I'd like to see it.

Atheist Population - Conservapedia

 

[Gene2memE]

Google of course I haven't seen a meta study so if you have some different data I'd like to see it.

Atheist Population - Conservapedia

I'd trust Conservapedia about as much as I'd trust a wire mesh condom. If they told me that water was wet, I'd want it verified independently, twice.

The 2012 WIN-Gallup Global Index of Religion and Atheism found that 13% of the world's population identify as atheists. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life gives a slightly higher number for 'Unaffiliated' at 16% - although that's a broader measure which does include some believers in an unidentified 'higher power'. University of Cambridge, surveying the top 50 countries with a lack of belief in god/deities (accounting for just under 60% of the global population), came up with a figure of 505-750 million in 2007. Adding the rest of the world, even if the rates of the irreligious were under 5%, would add another 140-150 million.

Buddhism, a non-theistic religion, accounts for around 475-535 million practitioners - that's somewhere between 6.5% and 7.5% of the global population.

So already, you have somewhere north of 20% of the globe's population that have no belief in gods/deities.

Then you have smaller groups which identify as religious, but again have no belief in god/deities. There's Jainism, the various atheistic sects of Hinduism, Toaism, Animism, the practitioners of traditional African and Latin American shamanistic religions, and lots of different belief systems that are 'theistic' but don't involve a deity.

You can, conservatively, chuck in at least another 100 million, or about another 1.5% of the world's population.

It depends on how you slice the numbers, but if you have a broad category of 'non-believers' to include atheists, agnostics, secularists and humanists, then conservatively you can estimate the global population at about 850-900 million. If you add the non-theistic religions/subsects, then its easily above 1.5 billion.

 

[Smidlee]

If science could save people no doubt God would have used science to win souls. Science will not be man's savior.

 

[durangodawood]

If science could save people no doubt God would have used science to win souls. Science will not be man's savior.

Who knows?

Perhaps physical immortality tech will bring in a spiritual revolution we have havent even imagined.

 

[Smidlee]

Who knows?

Perhaps physical immortality tech will bring in a spiritual revolution we have havent even imagined.

Do you really believe this? As noted in Babylon 5 it would more likely turn man into vampires; immortality at the cost of other people's lives.

 

[Paradoxum]

...Sweet. Well, no one said that we have to be "brainless sheep," Para. Of course, for us to make equitable, philosophical evaluations about the potential morality of a Supreme Being, we would have to establish that we know what good and evil are conclusively. We can't just be a 'little right' about it....

I don't think we would have to perfectly understand good and evil to reject some ideas from a God.

If there were a God, I'd hope it would explain to us it's reasoning behind it's morality. But clearly in our universe there isn't a God which has explained that.

Quite unhelpful.

[And with that, we can do the mutual hat-tipping to each other, knowing that if we attempt to progress further into this discussion...it'll likely get closed.]

 

[durangodawood]

Do you really believe this? As noted in Babylon 5 it would more likely turn man into vampires; immortality at the cost of other people's lives.

"Perhaps".

I doubt you or I can forsee the consequences of physical immortality for the personality or the soul.

That drives some significant doubt through your certainty: "Science will not be man's savior."

 

[Achilles6129]

What if it doesn't care about good and evil?

Even if God didn't care about good/evil, he'd still understand the true nature of good/evil since he's the most intelligent being. So it would still make sense to follow his definition.

 

[Achilles6129]

If there were a God, I'd hope it would explain to us it's reasoning behind it's morality. But clearly in our universe there isn't a God which has explained that.

Well, if God is the only definition of good then by definition nothing good can come from outside of God. So by definition everything God says is good is good and everything he says is evil is evil. God's reasoning behind his "morality" can simply be that he's good and therefore everything in line with his nature is good and everything not in line with his nature isn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think we would have to perfectly understand good and evil to reject some ideas from a God.

If there were a God, I'd hope it would explain to us it's reasoning behind it's morality. But clearly in our universe there isn't a God which has explained that.

Quite unhelpful.

Yes, I admit that God is a mostly quiet Chap, and that He continues to be much more quiet than I would have preferred (meaning that I've never had any experiences I would qualify as miraculous; perhaps a few breezes of providence here and there, but no miracles. No brilliant revelations of light. No sudden booming voices. No angels heard on High. No amazing cases of healing. No fantastical prophecies made on my behalf coming true. No visions of sugar plums. .....Just the love of Christ making my family a family.)

So, I sympathize, Para.

Peace

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, if God is the only definition of good then by definition nothing good can come from outside of God. So by definition everything God says is good is good and everything he says is evil is evil. God's reasoning behind his "morality" can simply be that he's good and therefore everything in line with his nature is good and everything not in line with his nature isn't.

Enter Euthyphro.