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

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

On what basis did you reach this conclusion? Most atheists I've met say that, presented with such evidence, they would become theists.

Perhaps theists would have more difficulty adjusting to the reality of a God that differed, perhaps significantly, from their religion's concept of God.

 

[JGG]

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.

That doesn't follow. The most intelligent humans doesn't understand the nature of good and evil. On what basis do we conclude that the most intelligent being does?

 

[JGG]

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.

What if there was undeniable proof not only of God, but of a god that is wildly different from the one you believe in? How would you react? Would you give up your current faith in light of this proof, or continue to have faith in the faulty god concept?

 

[agua]

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.

Yup I'll jibe with those stats, thanks for the more researched information. This still allows for the premise that most humas are concerned with their origins.

Roughly %80 of humans currently indentify with theism ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I totally forgot about Conservapedia. This forum has the only people I know that use it for information and not just lulz. I think it speaks volumes for your political views when an entire wiki-style encyclopedia is created to inform your base about...everything lol.

It's almost as if those who created it didn't want conservatives trying to inform themselves through actual research into a topic...they might have learned something that way.

 

[Gene2memE]

Yup I'll jibe with those stats, thanks for the more researched information. This still allows for the premise that most humas are concerned with their origins.

Roughly %80 of humans currently indentify with theism ?

Belief or non-belief in gods does not conflate with a concern, or a lack of concern, about human origins, or the origins of the universe.

There are a plethora of reasons why people believe - historical, cultural, personal, spiritual or whatever.

But, I see no correlation between belief/lack of belief and thinking about human/cosmological origins. Which is what you seemed to be implying.

Why do we think about origins? Its scientifically and philosophically interesting and there are large and unanswered questions (more in the sciences than in philosophy, at this point).

Scientifically speaking, we have a reasonably good picture of modern homonid evolution, albeit a bit spotty in areas. We also have a picture about the evolutionary picture of the last ~3.4 billion years, and that picture gets clearer the longer we look and research it.

However, we don't have a proper picture of abiogenesis yet - although if some researchers are to be believed, this is just a matter of time.

Likewise, we don't have a good understanding of cosmological origins yet. We have good models for the very early universe and its large scale formation.

However, we don't have good models for the "birth" of the universe or what happened before that. It may be that we never will. Or it may be that we're looking at the problems incorrectly, or we're not even asking the right questions, or understanding the answers we're getting.

 

[agua]

I totally forgot about Conservapedia. This forum has the only people I know that use it for information and not just lulz. I think it speaks volumes for your political views when an entire wiki-style encyclopedia is created to inform your base about...everything lol.

It's almost as if those who created it didn't want conservatives trying to inform themselves through actual research into a topic...they might have learned something that way.

Oh boy what did I begin ? I grabbed a statisted from the web quickly and in hindsight it was a poor choice. I have accepted the more accurate information presented by Gene2memE. ( although would use a different analogy as to Conservapedia uselessness ) It is interesting though, as an aside, how google chucks sites according to our usual search subjects isn't it ?

 

[agua]

Belief or non-belief in gods does not conflate with a concern, or a lack of concern, about human origins, or the origins of the universe.

There are a plethora of reasons why people believe - historical, cultural, personal, spiritual or whatever.

But, I see no correlation between belief/lack of belief and thinking about human/cosmological origins. Which is what you seemed to be implying.

Why do we think about origins? Its scientifically and philosophically interesting and there are large and unanswered questions (more in the sciences than in philosophy, at this point).

Scientifically speaking, we have a reasonably good picture of modern homonid evolution, albeit a bit spotty in areas. We also have a picture about the evolutionary picture of the last ~3.4 billion years, and that picture gets clearer the longer we look and research it.

However, we don't have a proper picture of abiogenesis yet - although if some researchers are to be believed, this is just a matter of time.

Likewise, we don't have a good understanding of cosmological origins yet. We have good models for the very early universe and its large scale formation.

However, we don't have good models for the "birth" of the universe or what happened before that. It may be that we never will. Or it may be that we're looking at the problems incorrectly, or we're not even asking the right questions, or understanding the answers we're getting.

I don't think you know what I was implying; and neither do I know what you think I was implying. What do you think I was implying ?

 

[Conscious Z]

To the OP (I haven't read the last 13 pages):
I can't imagine how any scientific finding could "lead to god." Science is, by its very nature, only interested in the natural world. No natural finding could prove or disprove god, so long as god is purported to have some given effect on the natural world.

Let's say that science discovered that literally every tenet of science currently held is wrong. That wouldn't prove god existed. That would prove that the current beliefs were wrong. There's literally no scientific finding that would justify the assertion "God exists."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure. For science does deal with theoretical (unobservabele) entities, like neutrinos IIRC, and infer their existence from indirect observation.

After all if one were to cite prayer-is-useless studies as evidence against theism, what if prayer had actually worked?

 

[MoreCoffee]

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!

Have you seen "The Wizard of Oz" film? Remember what happened to the wicked witch of the west when water was thrown on her? That's what will happen to atheism if indisputable evidence for the existence of God were discovered by somebody who was a scientist doing science.

I'm melting ... all my beautiful atheism ... who would have thought ...

 

[Conscious Z]

I am not sure. For science does deal with theoretical (unobservabele) entities, like neutrinos IIRC, and infer their existence from indirect observation.

After all if one were to cite prayer-is-useless studies as evidence against theism, what if prayer had actually worked?

Making inferences via indirect observation is still making a claim about the natural world.

Prayer studies are useless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Have you seen "The Wizard of Oz" film? Remember what happened to the wicked witch of the west when water was thrown on her? That's what will happen to atheism if indisputable evidence for the existence of God were discovered by somebody who was a scientist doing science.

I'm melting ... all my beautiful atheism ... who would have thought ...

Why are you assuming that that would be the case? It seems much more likely that certain theist (fundamentalists in particular) would imitate the Wicked Witch's demise upon learning that the dogmas of their particular religion are untrue.

 

[quatona]

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

Pascal´s Wager would not be thrown around anymore.

 

[madaz]

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!

I think if such an event were to occur, all the proponents of all the worlds religions would finally realize they were worshipping man made god concepts after all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why are you assuming that that would be the case? It seems much more likely that certain theist (fundamentalists in particular) would imitate the Wicked Witch's demise upon learning that the dogmas of their particular religion are untrue.

Yeah, but it was way more fun to paint the word picture with atheists

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Have you seen "The Wizard of Oz" film? Remember what happened to the wicked witch of the west when water was thrown on her? That's what will happen to atheism if indisputable evidence for the existence of God were discovered by somebody who was a scientist doing science.

I'm melting ... all my beautiful atheism ... who would have thought ...

You go on condescendingly as if the proof of a higher power, is proof of the Christian God.

What if this higher power is not even a God, or if it was a God but not the Christian God?

Christianity would just melt away like the wicked witch of the west also.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You go on condescendingly as if the proof of a higher power, is proof of the Christian God.

What if this higher power is not even a God, or if it was a God but not the Christian God?

Christianity would just melt away like the wicked witch of the west also.

I like Jesus Christ so I choose to believe in him. God comes with Jesus, I'd explain why but most of you would already know or at least have a vague idea of why that is so. Now, if you think it is condescending to equate God with the Christian God what can I say? He is God. It would be disingenuous of me to say otherwise given that I believe in him.

But carry on, no doubt you have some specific god in mind as a replacement or was that not your intended point?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

There already is proof God exists. People just choose not to accept it.

Think about it like this, Jesus (God in the flesh) walked, ate, breathed, slept with us. He shared our life. Yet vast amounts of people that could hold him and see him in the flesh still rejected him. That is the utter depravity of the human condition. That God did reveal himself in flesh and blood and people STILL chose darkness over light.

So people who say, give me proof of god before I believe are really only making excuses for remaining in unbelief. All of creation speaks of God's wisdom and power therefore we are all without excuse.

 

[bhsmte]

There already is proof God exists. People just choose not to accept it.

Think about it like this, Jesus (God in the flesh) walked, ate, breathed, slept with us. He shared our life. Yet vast amounts of people that could hold him and see him in the flesh still rejected him. That is the utter depravity of the human condition. That God did reveal himself in flesh and blood and people STILL chose darkness over light.

So people who say, give me proof of god before I believe are really only making excuses for remaining in unbelief. All of creation speaks of God's wisdom and power therefore we are all without excuse.

What is this "proof" that some do not accept?