Kind of a philisophical question: Suppose that tomorrow you could receive hard proof that either God does exist or does not exist. (Let's just assume that it's proven and not quibble about how.) Which would you prefer: God's existance proven or disproven?
2007-07-05 16:07:41 · 27 answers · asked by Miss Heather 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
1) So sorry about the typo. (Can't believe I did that!)
2) Which god? Good point. Didn't think about that. I guess I was personally thinking of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god. I guess that may change my answer, too.
3) To those who think I'm questioning my own faith, rest assured I'm not. I don't need to ask the question of myself, for I am very sure I know my personal answer. I was wondering if my answer was in the majority or the minority. But I didn't want to phrase the question with my answer... I wanted yours.
2007-07-05 16:31:57 · update #1
I agree that it depends a lot on the nature of the "god".
Pretty interesting question, though. Thanks for leaving out the usual gratuitous dig that so many people seem compelled to include.
2007-07-05 16:30:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Catherine E makes a very good point that I would like to second - the truth, whichever it may be, is the most important thing. Although I am an atheist, I would much prefer a true proof of the divine than a false proof of its nonexistence.
Although I must confess, if this proof were to made to, and accepted by, everyone, I would be at least tempted by the prospect of humanity turning atheist.
2007-07-05 23:32:44 · answer #2 · answered by abba-dingo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would like proof of what the truth is. Does he exist, or not? If he DOES, then I would like proof of that. If he does NOT exist, then sure, it would make me feel better to see the proof of that, too.
Don't listen to people who say that we just want to hear that we're right and that God doesn't exist. Someone who is not an atheist does not understand what atheists think or feel. Any atheist I know wants ONE thing, and that's the truth. Right now we have no reason to believe there is a God, but if we were shown proof that there WAS a God, then we will admit we were wrong.
2007-07-05 23:15:44 · answer #3 · answered by Jess H 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would prefer the truth which ever that is..
If tomorrow irrefutable evidence were presented confirming the existence of any deity I would admit I am wrong.. I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.. All I can do is follow my gut feeling and that tells me there are no deity's now, in the past or to come in the future.. To profess otherwise at this point would be hypocritical..
2007-07-05 23:15:06 · answer #4 · answered by Diane (PFLAG) 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A true scientist/skeptic does not prefer one truth over the other. They are just interested in "The Truth". Now, personally, I would have to admit that I would prefer that there is no god. If there was and if he runs the world this way and if he, for example, made up the rules in the bible - then the universe is not a happy place.
But truth just is and I'll accept it no matter what.
2007-07-05 23:24:20 · answer #5 · answered by Alan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I love being wrong about things so I would say whichever god's existance that can be proven.
Of course I would also be a big fan of the non-existance.
2007-07-05 23:12:02 · answer #6 · answered by meissen97 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd of course rather have proof of God's existance. You betcha. Regular readers of my posts know that's saying something for me.
But for me to support Him... well, let's just say that the "proof" had better be damned good.
But we have plenty of proof in reality of God's NON existance. So this was a fun little ditty, wasn't it? I just want the truth. Nothing less.
2007-07-05 23:20:41 · answer #7 · answered by writersblock73 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No difference either way.
If the proof existed it would be very welcome.
Unfortunately it does not exist so the cruelties of religions will continue.
If there was proof that God existed that would be the death of religion.
Just think about that statement for a minute.
2007-07-05 23:14:11 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Proof of either would disprove the opposite, so it wouldn't make much difference, philosophically.
By the way, the word you are looking for is "atheist," derived from the Greek word "theos," meaning "god or gods," and the prefix "a," meaning without.
2007-07-05 23:12:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather it be disproved. The idea of God makes me a very unhappy person in general. Reasons?
1. Sends people to hell to suffer for trivial reasons.
2. Killed off the entire planet (except for a few chosen people) through use of a flood
3. I don't want someone controlling my fate--I make my own destiny
4. I don't like the idea of something with that much power ruling over me
5. Doesn't do anything to help mankind, even though he has the power to do so
6. Doesn't bother to show himself. He just "told" someone to write it, and expects everyone to believe through this stupid notion of "faith".
...And so on.
So, I'd rather him be disproved. Also, I would keep the information to myself.
There are plenty of people who are happy with believing in God, and I, for one, would like to keep it that way. I am just not one of them. I don't think people believing in God causes any harm, and this sort of information could really make a lot of people very, very miserable and confused. I don't want to be the person who causes mass-sadness in our society. :)
2007-07-05 23:36:08 · answer #10 · answered by Stardust 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with everyone that said "Which God?" All of the different religions in the world can't all be proven to be correct.
2007-07-05 23:23:00 · answer #11 · answered by AKA D2 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋