What if God was proven to have never existed?

[Drew_2013]

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

If either I or atheists had better evidence we'd have put this question to bed along time ago. Even though some people promote the notion the Holocaust never occured or the US didn't land on the moon, no one seriously debates those issues because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of those events having occurred. There have been a multitude of beliefs previously held that have been discarded because of a preponderance of evidence against such notions. If there was as much evidence against belief in God as other abandoned beliefs the majority of theists would abandon belief in God also. Belief in God is not strickly a faith proposition or an irrational belief. I wouldn't characterize the belief we owe our existence to mindless non-god forces as irrational either, nor would I say there is no evidence in favor of such a belief, but that's because unlike most atheists...I'm reasonable.

---

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...

If freewill or volitional thinking didn't exist it wouldn't matter how much evidence there was in favor or against such a notion since if true there is no volitional person who can weigh the evidence pro and con. There also wouldn't be any reason to believe what anyone says about anything because they had no choice but to say it anyway the truth of which wouldn't matter.

[Sarcasm]

I'd be really confused on how we would prove it...

[Polaris]

You know, Evolution has been proven to be real, and yet...

And why should the existence of science disprove the supernatural?

[Gearbreak]

I don't believe in undeniable evidence anyway. EVerything I know could be a lie. THere's always the tiniest possibility of that.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

He couldn't be proven to be nonexistent, because God is beyond the logic itself , beyond even the self-evident axioms.

Who told you that and why did you believe them? What physical evidence do you have those are true statements? Why do you post bullshit you cannot backup?

[Simsim]

Who told you that and why did you believe them? What physical evidence do you have those are true statements? Why do you post bullshit you cannot backup?

What made you anxious and What made you ignorant and why are you proud of your ignorance?

I said:
[/quote]
OK ... I was religious one day, and I will answer to your question from my past level of consciousness:
[/quote]

So try to read, understand and write something can be appreciated !

[Esquilax]

You know, Evolution has been proven to be real, and yet...

And why should the existence of science disprove the supernatural?

Well, evolution does rather exclude the possibility of the literal account of the creation of humanity in genesis, so... It's not so much disproving the supernatural, as disproving specific supernatural claims that, despite being demonstrably wrong, are still believed by a startling number of people. I think that was the initial point, too.

If either I or atheists had better evidence we'd have put this question to bed along time ago. Even though some people promote the notion the Holocaust never occured or the US didn't land on the moon, no one seriously debates those issues because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of those events having occurred.

The fact of the matter is that, debated or not, there are still people who believe these nonsensical things. Why are you putting an upper limit on the number of people who need to believe in a proposition for it to become justified? That's just an argumentum ad populum.

There have been a multitude of beliefs previously held that have been discarded because of a preponderance of evidence against such notions. If there was as much evidence against belief in God as other abandoned beliefs the majority of theists would abandon belief in God also.

Yup, there it is: "Many people still believe this, therefore it must have something to it."

Belief in God is not strickly a faith proposition or an irrational belief. I wouldn't characterize the belief we owe our existence to mindless non-god forces as irrational either, nor would I say there is no evidence in favor of such a belief, but that's because unlike most atheists...I'm reasonable.

You're so reasonable that you stick to the same demonstrably false statements about secular beliefs as to the cause of the universe, despite having your falsehoods pointed out to you time and again through numerous threads. Hmm...

[Ryantology]

You know, Evolution has been proven to be real, and yet...

And why should the existence of science disprove the supernatural?

There have been prophets for many thousands of years before there was anything resembling a scientist in this world. The world was once lousy with prophets and seers and magicians and ghosts and monsters and gods. One of the reasons it was once so easy to believe in such things is because, when you might never stray more than a few miles beyond your home village in your entire life, that left the entire rest of the world pretty much entirely unknown to you. You could accept these things because you understood that your tiny, sequestered existence certainly did not feature all there might be to experience in the world. So, when a priest told tales of wrathful gods and angels, they sounded plausible to the rubes of the world.

You would expect that, if there was anything to even one of these tales, that the emergence of science would fortify, rather than negate, them. You would expect that science would examine the sun closely to find that it was being pulled across the sky in a golden chariot. You would expect to find the physical fingerprints of the wrathful god which moved mountains or oceans with giant earthquakes. Even if you allow for the idea that God could never be observed directly, there would be direct physical proof that phenomena attributed directly to God was, indeed, the direct and undeniable result of him physically interacting with the world and altering it to his whims. The Gods of the ancient world never hid from men, never tried to cover their tracks or rule entirely from the shadows. Certainly, the God of the Bible never had to have his followers justify his existence with apologetics. It was taken for granted by his followers that he was a direct, physical force affecting their lives in ways they certainly thought they could directly measure if only they had the tools.

Instead, every time science encroaches on religious claims, science comes out on top. The sun does not travel across our sky, but vice-versa, and it's because of gravity, not because it is pulled by a golden chariot. Earthquakes are the product of plate tectonics, not the jealous vengeance of a deity. If these claims had any veracity to start with, science would be verifying rather than debunking them, and the religious of today would not have to waste so much energy on theology and apologetics in an effort to move their gods safely beyond the reach of this mortal threat.

Science needs not disprove the supernatural, because the supernatural is nothing but creative ignorance. For the supernatural to be disproven, it would have actually had to prove something in the first place. It would have to actually be an answer to some question. All it is, and all it has ever been, is a gap in knowledge which has been papered over so that it looks legitimate. Supernatural claims are not deserving of honest inquiry, and those who attempt to equivocate them with things we actually know are nothing but frauds.

[goodnews]

What one of the great scientist had to say " Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpfull to religion " / " The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research , the more I believe that science excludes atheism " LORD KELVIN

[NoraBrimstone]

^Wow. That's a lot of bollocks to fit into one small post.