I have an honest question for theists.

[Paul the Human]

No one said that you have to stop pretending that your moral compass comes from some mystical fantasy. If it were proven that there is no god (that sounds silly), a lot of believers would keep on believin'.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Please let us know what this would look like. How would you live your life as if 'he' was real?

Well although this would be impossible, I guess the loving inspiring core is what would be removed. How can you be drawn to a positive force if that force were not there? My ethics should be the same, but uninspired and driven by reason alone. Much like being an atheist I guess.

Un INSPIRED???/ What the hell does that mean?

Mire like unDELUDED.

[fr0d0]

My ethics should be the same, but uninspired and driven by reason alone. Much like being an atheist I guess.

Reason and intelligence are pretty good sources of doing right, being moral, being productive and living peacefully. Live and let live, treat others how you would like to be treated. Basic moral standards based on reason.

Pretty good. But they pale in comparison. Are you inspired to lavish your lover with gifts or do you do so out of rational conclusions? Which do you think would be best?

[Ace Otana]

Pretty good. But they pale in comparison. Are you inspired to lavish your lover with gifts or do you do so out of rational conclusions? Which do you think would be best?

I'll lavish the lovely girl because I'd think much of her. Kindness, a show of love and the sort. What's your point hobbit from the Shire?

[fr0d0]

I'll lavish the lovely girl because I'd think much of her. Kindness, a show of love and the sort. What's your point hobbit from the Shire?

I know you would lovva

Point is: love beats logic

[Simon Moon]

Well although this would be impossible, I guess the loving inspiring core is what would be removed. How can you be drawn to a positive force if that force were not there? My ethics should be the same, but uninspired and driven by reason alone. Much like being an atheist I guess.

Really!?

Behaving ethically is not inspiration enough?

I think it's kind of sad that you have to believe your ethics have to come from a deity in order to feel inspired.

[Mystic]

How about this argument, which is not a knock out one (not conclusive):

Morality is inspiring with God.
Morality is not inspiring without God.
We are inspired by morality whether we acknowledge God or not.
Therefore God exists.

[Simon Moon]

How about this argument, which is not a knock out one (not conclusive):

Morality is inspiring with God.
Morality is not inspiring without God.
We are inspired by morality whether we acknowledge God or not.
Therefore God exists.

Not only is it not a knockout, it doesn't even lace up it's boxing gloves. It's loaded with fallacies.

Premise 1 begs the question and assumes the conclusion.
Premise 2 More question begging.
Premise 3 more question begging.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

[Reforged]

What? No don't "yep" that, thats ridiculous. What do you mean "I would live as if he was real"? What, so despite knowing for the purposes of this question you'd know he isn't you'd carry on acting like he was?
It wouldn't change your views in any shape, way or form?

Well I don't know if I would stop believing God (change my views), perhaps I would, perhaps I wouldn't.

I mean all my actions would assume he exists. I would act as if there is a higher purpose to life. I would act if morality as ultimate authority, and is metaphysical. See my post before where I elaborated.

Even if the evidence is strong enough to be conclusive, I wouldn't say God doesn't exist for sure, but have hope he exists and act as if he does.

It's a similar reason as to why I would ignore evidence that free-will is a delusion and act as if free-will is real.

But thats not comparable, if free-will was an illusion you'd have no choice but to act as if you had it because whatevers pulling your strings has chosen thats how you should behave.
If you were given conclusive proof God didn't exist, that is to say that its 100% certain, you're saying you'd willingly, knowingly ignore it to fit in with your own beliefs on how reality should be.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that be textbook definition of self-delusion that borders on psychosis?

If it were discovered that God was real and proven conclusively then that would be fascinating, it would change everything and it'd be a subject of intense study. Of course it would be met with intense scepticism but so is every subject of scientific study, if the undeniable proof was there then we'd concede it as a fact yet you wouldn't be willing to change your view God exists if it was irrevocably proven he wasn't? You wouldn't take an active interest in finding out how we really came to be? You'd just cling to your beliefs?
Is that really true?

[Mystic]

Well I don't know if I would stop believing God (change my views), perhaps I would, perhaps I wouldn't.

I mean all my actions would assume he exists. I would act as if there is a higher purpose to life. I would act if morality as ultimate authority, and is metaphysical. See my post before where I elaborated.

Even if the evidence is strong enough to be conclusive, I wouldn't say God doesn't exist for sure, but have hope he exists and act as if he does.

It's a similar reason as to why I would ignore evidence that free-will is a delusion and act as if free-will is real.

But thats not comparable, if free-will was an illusion you'd have no choice but to act as if you had it because whatevers pulling your strings has chosen thats how you should behave.
If you were given conclusive proof God didn't exist, that is to say that its 100% certain, you're saying you'd willingly, knowingly ignore it to fit in with your own beliefs on how reality should be.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that be textbook definition of self-delusion that borders on psychosis?

If it were discovered that God was real and proven conclusively then that would be fascinating, it would change everything and it'd be a subject of intense study. Of course it would be met with intense scepticism but so is every subject of scientific study, if the undeniable proof was there then we'd concede it as a fact yet you wouldn't be willing to change your views if it was irrevocably proven he wasn't? You wouldn't take an active interest in finding out how we really came to be? You'd just cling to your beliefs?
Is that really true?

Well I guess I would say it depends how convincing the proof is. If I was convinced 100% God doesn't exist, as opposed to 99.9%, then it changes. If I was 100% sure, I would not be able to act as if God exists.