What if God was proven to have never existed?

[Ryantology]

If we get to the point where we can disprove god, we'll have become gods in the process.

Yes, pretty much. If we ever acquire the knowledge and technology to create a universe ourselves (which is not technically impossible), that would put us right up there with the Christian God. Beings which might evolve into intelligence within that universe might describe the smelly primates who made their existence the way some smelly primates describe their gods.

I would personally find it hilarious if our universe was created as the result of a science experiment by a child, extremely advanced compared to us, absolutely regular amongst its own kind. How the religious would deal with that sort of revelation would be entertainment of the highest quality. Best of all, that hypothesis is 100% as valid as any of theirs and is backed by precisely the same amount of evidence, so I could be justified in believing it as strongly as Godschild or wooters believes in their god.

[ebg]

Here's even a more profound thought...what happened if "chickens" never existed...would everthing still taste like "chicken"? If your going to ask questions that are supposed to be profound, make sure they are!

[Ucaslog1]

I get the feeling no one understands my question. It seems that people are over complicating a very easy question.

Most people believe that, at this very moment in time, a god exists. So what I was wondering, is if tomorrow, a scientist found unarguable evidence that proved he didn't exist. I'm not saying god ever did exist. What I proposed at the beginning wasn't supposed to be profound in any way.

I guess this question is related to the Watermelon Atheist video, if any of you guys have watched it. If you haven't, a YouTube search would be the easiest route. Maybe then you would understand my question. Which already is very easy to understand but no one seems to be getting the point.

[Drew_2013]

I'm not a religious person I am however a theist because in my opinion we are the result of a Creator. However if a significant preponderance of evidence persuaded me there is no Creator, I'd still think humans are special and would probably adopt some form of humanist credo, there is much I agree with in the humanist credos anyway.

Nora,

It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. You can't even prove unicorns, leprechauns, faeries and rillyns don't exist.

That depends on the standard of proof. Neither scientifically or legally do we hold a standard of proof that is irrefutable and absolute. In a civil matter a mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove something. In that case proving something is merely providing enough evidence in favor of something as opposed to it. In criminal case the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something scientifically you have to create an experiment that proves your point and can be repeated by others.

---

This isn't for me, I know This isn't for me, I know without a doubt god has never existed,

What i am proposing is a theoretical situation, if there was a measurable factor that proved to theists that god does not exist. ,

Hmmm why is it a theorhetical situation if you 'know' without a doubt god has never existed? Why not just inform us of the information and facts you have that lead you to conclude without a doubt God doesn't exist and be done with it?

[Ryantology]

That depends on the standard of proof. Neither scientifically or legally do we hold a standard of proof that is irrefutable and absolute. In a civil matter a mere preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove something. In that case proving something is merely providing enough evidence in favor of something as opposed to it. In criminal case the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something scientifically you have to create an experiment that proves your point and can be repeated by others.

Scientifically, and legally, we hold a standard of proof that demands demonstrable evidence.

Demanding absolute and irrefutable proof is not even necessary because no theist has ever even gotten around to providing basic, examinable evidence of any kind. Even holding theistic claims to the lowest reasonable standards shows nothing of value from them.

[Fruity]

Oh, come on, guys. Cut the guy some slack. It's a "what if" type of question. He's not saying it's possible; he's just saying "what if".

I think, as a former Christian, that I would have thrown in the towel because it is in my nature. I don't think my sister would throw in the towel, though. I think she would find a reason to believe the evidence is false. She would find faith in her most insignificant bone and live off of it forever. That's the way things work. It depends on the way a person thinks. Is the person the type that will actually consider the evidence or is the person the type that will close her eyes and say, "I can't hear you with me eyes closed."

[Drew_2013]

Scientifically, and legally, we hold a standard of proof that demands demonstrable evidence.

Good what demonstrable evidence will you submit that the universe and life came into existence by mindless physical forces that didn't intend to cause human life to exist?

Demanding absolute and irrefutable proof is not even necessary because no theist has ever even gotten around to providing basic, examinable evidence of any kind. Even holding theistic claims to the lowest reasonable standards shows nothing of value from them.

Not true. In the thread 'The case for Theism' I laid out 5 lines of evidence in favor of theistic belief.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17548.html

Of course at the end of the day no matter what evidence or case is made the atheist will always say you've made no case and provided no evidence just on the basis it didn't persaude them.

[pocaracas]

That just means the evidence wasn't that persuasive, doesn't it?
That should motivate you to try and find better evidence.

[Tonus]

I get the feeling no one understands my question. It seems that people are over complicating a very easy question.

I think that it's because we each bring some baggage to that question. I figure that most people won't approach the question as a pure hypothetical with no strings attached, since experience will have shown them that such seemingly simple questions tend to have strings attached.

[Mystic]

I would most probably deny the evidence and dismiss the reasoning.

If I knew for sure God didn't exist, I probably would be in cognitive dissonance of that knowledge.

It's similar how if there is concrete evidence free-will doesn't exist, or morality is a delusional concept or self is a delusional concept, etc, I would hold on to faith in them despite the concrete evidence.

If I was not in such cognitive dissonance of that knowledge and acknowledged it, I probably would be cognitive dissonance of the knowledge that we need God for some properly basic beliefs and concepts like morality, self, praise, perpetual identity, human rights, justice, etc...