Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Would the world destroy itself?

  1. Feb 25, 2006 #1
    "If I could prove there was no God I would keep it a secret lest the world destroyed itself" R. A. Underwood

    I read that quote and it posed a good question. Lets assume that someone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist.

    What would the world do, would the quote be right?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 25, 2006 #2
    I'd say by the time that's happened, we'd have already beaten the world to it.
     
  4. Feb 25, 2006 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We can never prove a negative. So this is a bit like asking what color their wings would be if pigs could fly.
     
  5. Feb 25, 2006 #4

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well I know plenty of people who don't believe in God and i don't see them running around destroying themselves or any substantial part of the world. Obviously a world without God doesn't mean a world not meant to be lived in.

    And yah, as Ivan put it, theres no way to prove a god doesn't exist.
     
  6. Feb 25, 2006 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is an old saying and I wonder how true it may still be: There are no atheists in fox holes.

    I have heard that seriously injured soldiers often call out for one of two things: God, and/or their mother. But this comes from people who fought in Vietnam, Korea, and WWII, so things could be different now I guess.
     
  7. Feb 25, 2006 #6
    Let me play the devil's advocate (no pun) and salvage this thread:

    If a substantial majority of the world's population were convinced of the improbability of the existance of a god and become atheists... (what would happen?)
     
  8. Feb 25, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I stand by my statement. Although my atheists friends are relatively less moral and ethical, i don't see anything like the end of the world resulting out of 6 billion of them.

    Then again 6 billion people acting like my friends would probably spell the end of mankind for other reasons....
     
  9. Feb 25, 2006 #8
    You would die in a horrible cataclysm for your balasphemy. The hand of Him that is God would come and squish your puny human form for such heresy.
     
  10. Feb 25, 2006 #9
    I am certian that there exists an a priori argument that proves that the concept of a judao-christian-islamic god is inherently self contradictory. I will report back on this after 2 months of thought.
     
  11. Feb 25, 2006 #10

    If god is omnipotent, can he create a boulder so big he can't move it?

    Omnipotence is an inherently self-contradictory concept.
     
  12. Feb 25, 2006 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was thinking about something the other day in terms of this and things we discuss in physics. I was thinking to myself about all the questions we pose about this idea, this concept called "god". We think, is omnipotence self-contradictory? Can god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? etc etc. Isn't it possible the questions are equivalent to asking what time a photon measures passing by some clock? I've heard from people on this forum that asking such a question is silly because our understanding of photons makes such a question completely meaningless contrary to our view of all other things in the universe. To us, the idea of a proton traveling at a certain speed having time dilation is perfectly acceptable, nay, ludacris to deny. When it comes to this one case of a photon however, such questions are just thrown out the window and accepted to be non-sense questions. Isn't it possible that the questions we see as contradictory or paradoxial in nature are just equivalent to the photon's time questions, unanswerable/irrelevant yet unindicative of the photons existance?

    I have only given this one days thought, be back in 2 months with my full proof i got from sciforums.com :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  13. Feb 25, 2006 #12
    They are Oinkrange.

    edit: or maybe pornk, porkple?
     
  14. Feb 25, 2006 #13
    There have to be morales in a society, and that is what a religion does. Germany's population is decreasing since fewer people are settling down and having kids because they want to continue to live the life of reily. I consider Germany a much more liberial country than the United States.
    -Scott
     
  15. Feb 25, 2006 #14
    Can you tell me what would happen when you take the limit as the power of an entity approaches infinity, and get a non-contradictory answer?
     
  16. Feb 25, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What is the function, F(x)? :rofl: :rofl:
     
  17. Feb 25, 2006 #16
    I said. Oinkrange, porkple. come on. i'm not asking for much.
     
  18. Feb 25, 2006 #17
    Ok, so most people don't believe in flying pigs and the world keeps turning just fine in spite of this. Why would it be different for a god, or God, or any variation on gods you can dream up?

    Wait! I take that back. I think the dinosaurs didn't believe in gods either, and they're extinct. Hmmm. :tongue:
     
  19. Feb 25, 2006 #18
    what proof do you have that the dinosaurs didn't believe in god?
    What did the T. Rex use those little arms for if it wasn't praying?
     
  20. Feb 25, 2006 #19
    You got me there. So T. Rex spent his time praying and became extinct anyways. That's proof enough for me: religion doesn't save afer all.
     
  21. Feb 25, 2006 #20
    unless they prayed for extinction. then it was spot on
     
  22. Feb 26, 2006 #21
    I think some cults of modern christians greatly increase the prospects of
    ending life on earth by their belife in END-TIMES as in trying to set the stage
    for the return of their god-man JC and belive what they are doing is GOD's WILL
    there by making these cults far more dangerious then any nonbelivers who have no reason to start a final battle
     
  23. Feb 26, 2006 #22

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    That is not something about which I ponder. I would prefer to think of ways to ensure that humanity does not destroy itself.

    Taken literally, the question is one of metaphysical speculation, and it leads to the question, "Does the world's existence depend upon the existence of God (or a god or gods)."

    However, I take the question to mean that if one could prove that God did not exist, then people would have no motivation to behave, and some, many or most would embark on unrestrained destructive behavior.

    I choose to do what is right, and sometimes struggle to do what is right in the face of temptation, whether God (a god or gods) exist or not! A very simple proposition, eh?
     
  24. Feb 26, 2006 #23

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But, who decides "what is right"?

    I take the question to mean that if I say that the "right thing to do" is take 50% out of everyone's paycheck and to use it to produce jobs in impoverished countries that the majority of the people would ask "Are you nuts?! Why should we listen to you?!" (Actually, if I made a proposition like that, they'd probably respond the same way, even if I said that God wanted them to do it.)
     
  25. Feb 26, 2006 #24

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I take it to mean that too many people can't live without the emotional crutch that someone is watching over them, guiding their lives, taking care of things and they will be rewarded after they die. If their crutch disappears, they would fall apart, and belief in a god is an emotional crutch in this sense. I'm not saying that it is right or wrong for someone to have that need, but for millions of people to suddenly be stripped of their crutch would be crippling to society.
     
  26. Feb 26, 2006 #25

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I try to live according to generally accepted moral and ethical norms. I am not perfect by any means, but I try as best I can. If I commit a 'wrong', I try to correct and make up for it as best I can - by my own choice.

    I firmly believe that moral and ethical behavior must be by individual choice rather than by coercion or intimidation. Having said that, I realize that it is necessary for society to remove those who cannot control their behavior to the point where harm is caused to others or themselves.

    I apologize if this response is too simple.

    and I would add

    from Calabasas bans smoking OUTSIDE (post #24) - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=112067&page=2 ,
    although I would say that I do take responsibility for my actions and try not to do anything that harms others.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook