Would it be better if God would exist?

[LucyDuke]

You'd think that realising that there's a natural limit to the human life span would motivate people to overcome it. I can understand that in the past there was motivation to describe death as a 'good thing', because of its ubiquity. However, these days we can see hope on the horizon, reasonable hope.

That first sentence, does that make sense? We realize there's a natural limit - a limit imposed by the laws of nature - and we should challenge it? I sort of see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a terribly reasonable proposition. I'm not saying "let's die when we die and forget about it" (though I think that's fine), just saying it's arrogant and futile to expect to live forever.

Death is a good thing. If there were no death, we'd run out of parking spaces.

 

[Guangxi]

Atheist here; if a god were to exist, and it would deign to let me live on after death; then yes it would be better than no gods.
presumably it [the god] wouldn't mind if i lived a reasonably good life without believing in it.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

If God exist, he would have absolute power.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Actually that would explain the world today.

 

[Perfection]

Heaven's so boring.

I dunno, I hear they have lots of steaks!

 

[Nylan]

If God exist, he would have absolute power.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, no.

Quotes are human constructs, and humans are flawed. Thus, one cannot rely on such a simple phrase to apply to a being who does/would have power beyond our comprehension, far more than any human ever has. There are too many unknown variables, and that quote is based on man and not God, therefore rendering it useless in this context.

 

[Xanikk999]

Quotes are human constructs, and humans are flawed. Thus, one cannot rely on such a simple phrase to apply to a being who does/would have power beyond our comprehension, far more than any human ever has. There are too many unknown variables, and that quote is based on man and not God, therefore rendering it useless in this context.

Why are humans flawed? We created the idea of god to begin with! So if we are flawed so is god.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I say it would. But, as we all know, how hard we even want something to exist, belief alone can't change everything. Sad, but true.

But he does exist, so it ain't that bad.

 

[Nylan]

Why are humans flawed? We created the idea of god to begin with! So if we are flawed so is god.

Only if you're the only one that is "magically" exempt from logical fallacy and circular reasoning

 

[El_Machinae]

That first sentence, does that make sense? We realize there's a natural limit - a limit imposed by the laws of nature - and we should challenge it? I sort of see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a terribly reasonable proposition. I'm not saying "let's die when we die and forget about it" (though I think that's fine), just saying it's arrogant and futile to expect to live forever.

Death is a good thing. If there were no death, we'd run out of parking spaces.

From a moral perspective, I don't think I want people to die merely so I can have some more parking space. OTOH, I can hope that people will restrict their breeding, and (given Western reproductive rate decline) it's not an unreasonable hope. *I* haven't bred at replacement, for example.

Anyway, there's no reason to not defeat aging, really, nothing that is compelling at a personal level. Even if you don't think you'll live forever, surely people want to live some more. If you don't believe me, clamp your hand over the nose and mouth of the next sad person you see. You'll find out right away that, even though life is rough at the time, they're quite interested in a little more life.

 

[warpus]

Of course if we ever attain immortality, reproduction is going to have to be restricted and most probably controlled by the government somehow.

 

[El_Machinae]

You can't really know if you've attained immortality; the best you can do is have an extended period of not (reasonably) expecting to die.

Anyway, I think that we won't have to restrict procreation; people will do that naturally.

 

[Xanikk999]

Only if you're the only one that is "magically" exempt from logical fallacy and circular reasoning

Ummm okay? I meant that if humans are flawed as a whole, then we could not create imagine a perfect god or how he exists, so our idea of god is flawed.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Ummm okay? I meant that if humans are flawed as a whole, then we could not create imagine a perfect god or how he exists, so our idea of god is flawed.

And that would be wrong. Our ability to imagine something has nothing to do with it's existence.

The correct answer to this question is yes, of course. Anyone that thinks it would be better if God did not exist most likely does not fully understand what is meant by the Judeo-Christian God or has not realized the implication of His absence.

If He is real then the only people better of without Him might be those who make themselves His enemy.

 

[Xanikk999]

And that would be wrong. Our ability to imagine something has nothing to do with it's existence.

The correct answer to this question is yes, of course. Anyone that thinks it would be better if God did not exist most likely does not fully understand what is meant by the Judeo-Christian God or has not realized the implication of His absence.

If He is real then the only people better of without Him might be those who make themselves His enemy.

Well i dont really care if your idol thinks im his enemy. God just has issues if i dont acknowledge his existence and he takes offense to it. He must be insecure.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Well i dont really care if your idol thinks im his enemy. God just has issues if i dont acknowledge his existence and he takes offense to it. He must be insecure.

He's not my "idol" and I didn't say anything about you being his enemy, I was just answering the question.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ummm okay? I meant that if humans are flawed as a whole, then we could not create imagine a perfect god or how he exists, so our idea of god is flawed.

That's why you can't take another human's word for it that He exists, you have to find Him yourself.

 

[CartesianFart]

If He is real then the only people better of without Him might be those who make themselves His enemy.

Not so.The people who are better off without Him will be the enemy of those who think He is real.

 

[Bill3000]

The correct answer to this question is yes, of course. Anyone that thinks it would be better if God did not exist most likely does not fully understand what is meant by the Judeo-Christian God or has not realized the implication of His absence.

I can absolutely guarentee that Plontius knows more about Christianity than you do, and he's an atheist.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

I can absolutely guarentee that Plontius knows more about Christianity than you do, and he's an atheist.

And Thomas Aquinas most likely knew more about Christianity then Plotinus though both facts seem pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

I wasn't aware that what you believed to be true had anything to do with what would be a better situation. How does Plotinus' atheism say anything about whether humanity would be better or worse off with a God? I know my agnosticism sure doesn't.

 

[El_Machinae]

If He is real then the only people better of without Him might be those who make themselves His enemy.

Yeah, if God existed, it's clear it's best to be on His good side and that would be an okay for you.

However, it does seem that 'enemy' is the default position when it comes to a person's status to God; you start as an enemy and can choose to not be one. A person is not given enough information to act reasonably wrt the "God question". Frankly, the best argument for submission is Pascal's Wager and it's not even a good one.