Would proof of God devastate humanity?

[HerCrazierHalf]

Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?

Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

Assume:
1) The evidence is understandable by everyone and conclusive.
2) #1 implies evidence about the nature of God sufficient to determine the "correct" faith.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would imagine it would depend on the state of the world at the time this evidence presented itself. If it appeared right now, it actually might resolve quite a few issues seeing as so much conflict is based in religion related disputes.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?

Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

Assume:
1) The evidence is understandable by everyone and conclusive.
2) #1 implies evidence about the nature of God sufficient to determine the "correct" faith.

What if it both reveals the self evident Truth and cuts through most all religious dogma? Both affirming and destroying central tenants?

What if God can be objectively "proven" by science to have an extremely high probability of existing...yet says nothing about God's subjective nature?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What if it both reveals the self evident Truth and cuts through most all religious dogma? Both affirming and destroying central tenants?

What if God can be objectively "proven" by science to have an extremely high probability of existing...yet says nothing about God's subjective nature?

Those aren't the questions being asked, you have to stick to the premise of the OP

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Those aren't the questions being asked, you have to stick to the premise of the OP

Sorry, still learning to color within the lines

OP: I would say it would fully confirm the faith aspect of religions going by a biblical definition of faith: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."

You would be providing the evidence (of God) and substance of things once only hoped for, now known as Truth.

I think it would be a great sword of division among humanity, one side for the better, the other side for the worse. It would be like a winnowing fork that separates wheat from the chaff.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?

Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

.

Assume:
1) The evidence is understandable by everyone and conclusive.
2) #1 implies evidence about the nature of God sufficient to determine the "correct" faith.

This is a funny question....as I already created a similar thread to this. I asked christians if they would change their beliefs if god appeared before them and told them christianity was false. If I remember correctly, only three that responded said they would...the rest would not, for various reasons.

Now, obviously the small number of replies I got for my thread cannot be claimed to represent the entire christian community. It's entirely possible that a large number, maybe even a majority, of christians simply didn't want to answer and admit that they would indeed stop believing in christianity. That's why I was so impressed with those who could admit it. However, if the replies I got could be said to represent the larger christian community...we could conclude one of two things.

1. Evidence simply doesn't matter when it comes to a christian's belief in christianity. I cannot imagine any evidence more convincing than god himself telling someone christianity is wrong. I even made it clear that this god could indeed prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was god and not some other deity of some sort.

2. Evidence is skewed dramatically in favor of the bible. That is to say, they would believe in evidence...but only if it confirms whatever they believe the bible says. Therefore, as irrefutable as it is to have god himself tell a christian the truth....that evidence weighs far less than what a 2000+ year old book claims is the truth.

So to answer your O P...I think I can say with some confidence that nothing would really change at all. Most people will continue to believe whatever they want to...regardless of what is true.

 

[Oafman]

Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

That's the peculiar thing about religion. A big part of what it means to 'have faith' is to believe in spite of the lack of evidence. It's about overcoming those moments of doubt, those dark nights of the soul when faith is in question, and coming out on the other side believing even more strongly than before.

With incontrovertible evidence, these moments would cease to exist. There would be no challenge in believing, and accordingly less reward in doing so, seeing as no challenge has been overcome.

It would just be one more thing that we all accept. And we would ALL accept it, so there would no longer be debate, or the opportunity to convince others of your positions, or convert others to your beliefs.

I do think that those who are religious now would lose something from their lives if proof was established.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[juvenissun]

Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?

Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

Assume:
1) The evidence is understandable by everyone and conclusive.
2) #1 implies evidence about the nature of God sufficient to determine the "correct" faith.

Humanity is good, is excellent. But we should understand that God is above humanity. Human is never God.

 

[KCfromNC]

Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?

Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

Faith has been pretty impervious to knowledge in the past. Why would another bit of knowledge change that psychology?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know that conclusively understood truth is ever a bad thing.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well, we discovered how lifeforms came about from common ancestry, and you see how that went. If proof for the divine were found, it'd be about the same. People believe what they wish to believe except for a distinct minority that accept facts as the driving force for their positions. If, for example, we discover that the universe is a simulation during your lifetime, it is unlikely that you will give up your Christianity. You will likely find ways to ignore evidence and continue on if that hypothetical occurs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's say that one day someone discovers conclusive easy to understand evidence of God. This would mean that some basics about the nature of God would be revealed including which faith and denomination was right or the closest and prove the others "wrong"?

Would this be a disaster for humanity? Would this knowledge destroy the faith aspect of religion?

Assume:
1) The evidence is understandable by everyone and conclusive.
2) #1 implies evidence about the nature of God sufficient to determine the "correct" faith.

Actually, such an event would engender faith rather than destroy it. Faith isn't believing without evidence, like so many proffer today.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Actually, such an event would engender faith rather than destroy it. Faith isn't believing without evidence, like so many proffer today.

Which is somewhat gullible if you think about it. Also, would the people who witnessed the miracles performed by Jesus then by that measure be without faith?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which is somewhat gullible if you think about it. Also, would the people who witnessed the miracles performed by Jesus then by that measure be without faith?

Exactly. Assuming the cogency and integrity of the first of the disciple's stories, the story structures show that they believed as a response to the evidences Jesus gave. All of their experiences might not do much for us today perhaps, but it would have for them.

 

[keith99]

Faith has been pretty impervious to knowledge in the past. Why would another bit of knowledge change that psychology?

DOH! No that was directed at myself. I was thinking a totally different answer then your post opened my eyes.

It would be Armageddon, Ragnarök, the true Y2k or whatever end of the world one cares to consider.

For with obvious and indisputable evidence those of Faith will oppose all the rest of humanity in violent conflict that cannot end until either the evidence is destroyed or those clinging to their faith are wiped out.

For those of irrational Faith will see only enough of the truth to realize it will destroy their faith system within a couple of generations.

Before any here protest too much remember I am speaking of only a very particular kind of faith, the kind that seems to think believing things in spite of evidence is the most glorious kind of faith.

Those who believe in God and Satan and who rather clearly know which side they have picked may overlap is some small number of individuals, but in general have a very different thing that they also call faith.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think it would help humanity, not devastate it.

And if faith means accepting something on insufficient reason, then there's nothing with with annihilating it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly. Assuming the cogency and integrity of the first of the disciple's stories, the story structures show that they believed as a response to the evidences Jesus gave. All of their experiences might not do much for us today perhaps, but it would have for them.

So they go to hell because they witnessed the miracles of Jesus

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So they go to hell because they witnessed the miracles of Jesus

Okay....either I misunderstood your previous comment, or we are talking past each other.

No, (lol) I'm not saying anyone went to hell because they witnessed the miracles of Jesus.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay....either I misunderstood your previous comment, or we are talking past each other.

No, (lol) I'm not saying anyone went to hell because they witnessed the miracles of Jesus.

Then no one would suffer if god presented itself to everyone with absolute proof.