What would you do if you found out God existed

[Catholic_Lady]

My point is we make educated guesses all the time.

"God" or "supernatural" is hardly an educated guess, it's a mere intellectually lazy response for people who cannot properly distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Just because there is no concrete proof of something doesn't automatically mean we should discard it as a possibility.

Sure it does; I don't see you scrambling to profess your belief in monsters under the bed.

Believing in the existence of the supernatural is no different.

By all means, believe in the existence of absolutely everything for which we have no evidence to support its existence; don't blame me for calling you out on your delusion.

My bold.

You're creating a strawman. 

I never said we should believe in every single thing that there is no concrete proof of. 

I said we shouldn't automatically discard the possibility of absolutely everything there is no immediate, concrete proof of. This is obvious. We can make assumptions, make guesses, theorize, believe certain things, etc. We do it all the time.

[Captain_Nemo]

Do you really want to discuss success rates of systems in a comparison between god belief and science.........?

No. That's outside of the field of play - it's a foul and a point for me
I don't want to compare systems, only assess strenghts of signal, signal disruptors etc.

Why talk about something in a way that is unproductive. 
If something cannot be expressed in a way that is undisputable it means that there is not enough data to create the full picture needed to assess a given parameter. In such a case the picture should be made bigger and incorporate variables that will make the explanation of things clearer. So that is what I'm trying to do. As long as information control as a variable has not been taken into account, one will not be able to talk about information that could be inside the category of "classified" information.

Arguing is a sign that shows that the discussion is unsaturated in variables/information.

[Foxaèr]

My bold.

You're creating a strawman. 

I never said we should believe in every single thing that there is no concrete proof of. 

I said we shouldn't automatically discard the possibility of absolutely everything there is no immediate, concrete proof of. This is obvious. We can make assumptions, make guesses, theorize, believe certain things, etc. We do it all the time.

Which is illogical and unrealistic. It is more rational to dismiss it until such a time that proper empirical evidence can be provided that supports its existence, at which time the mind can then change its course toward one of accepting it as being real.

I don't make guesses in relation to that which has no evidence to support its existence. I rely upon the evidence that supports the existence of something or the lack of evidence which supports that something does not exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Nemo
Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. / shrugs

I can un-disputably express that your god is make-believe....let me guess, you don't want to talk about that either, out of the field of play..yadda yadda yadda.

[JackRussell]

And then why believe in an un-evidenced god.

CL, the leap of faith you are happy with does not satisfy me.

Your god must know this, surely?

[Minimalist]

I never said we should believe in every single thing that there is no concrete proof of.

That's the problem, C/L.  You're cherry-picking.  We have as much actual evidence for your jesus as we do for Zeus.  But I don't see you saying we should give Zeus a fair shake.

The standard for scientific exploration is not what you find acceptable.

[Captain_Nemo]

@Nemo
Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. / shrugs

I can un-disputably express that your god is make-believe....let me guess, you don't want to talk about that either, out of the field of play..yadda yadda yadda.

That is called Ad hominem and is even cheaper.

It is as if we played ping pong and You smashed Your own had against the table and said it was me

[Catholic_Lady]

I never said we should believe in every single thing that there is no concrete proof of.

That's the problem, C/L.  You're cherry-picking.  We have as much actual evidence for your jesus as we do for Zeus.  But I don't see you saying we should give Zeus a fair shake.

The standard for scientific exploration is not what you find acceptable.

I don't mean to turn this into a evangelization type thread, but I just wanna say the bolded is simply not true. The vast majority of historians do agree that Jesus was a real person and that at the very least he was crucified.

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.[9][10] James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[9] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[11] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[12] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[13] Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[4] Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus 

There is no historical evidence of Zeus having been a real person. 

I don't think you can put Jesus and Zeus on equal grounds and say that I'm being completely unreasonable in believing in the existence of one but not the other.

[JackRussell]

An itinerant radical Jew, no problem.

Miracles and a solo god, made up of three bits, who acts morally evil in one book and the gets better....

[Harry Nevis]

My point is we make educated guesses all the time. Just because there is no concrete proof of something doesn't automatically mean we should discard it as a possibility. Believing in the existence of the supernatural is no different.

As far as the origin of the universe is concerned:

1. We don't have proof that there are certain things in the natural/physical world that have always existed or that can spontaneously start existing from nothing. In fact, we only have proof to the contrary. Things in the physical natural world have a beginning and come from something else.

2. We also don't have proof that there exists anything beyond the natural physical world which would defy these laws of nature - aka, the supernatural.

If you say , you're basically conceding that something in the natural physical world either has always existed or spontaneously came to exist, even though there is no proof that either of this can happen.

If you say "obviously there is more beyond our natural physical world that is not bound by the laws of nature", you're taking a position that also has no proof.

Either way, you're making some sort of guess that is not based on concrete evidence.

I wouldn't say that "there absolutely is nothing beyond our natural physical world".  I wouldn't say there is absolutely no god, but there is no reason to entertain the idea of god or the supernatural with no objective, testable evidence. And there is absolutely no evidence of that kind. And there can be no educated guess without any evidence.