Would the world destroy itself?

  • Thread starter DreadVile
  • Start date
  • #1
DreadVile
"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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Lewis
I'd say by the time that's happened, we'd have already beaten the world to it.
 
  • #3
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
We can never prove a negative. So this is a bit like asking what color their wings would be if pigs could fly.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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.
 
  • #5
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
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.
 
  • #6
rachmaninoff
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?)
 
  • #7
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
rachmaninoff said:
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?)
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....
 
  • #8
1,414
5
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.
 
  • #9
159
0
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.
 
  • #10
1,414
5
Atomos said:
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.

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

Omnipotence is an inherently self-contradictory concept.
 
  • #11
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
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:
 
  • #12
695
6
Ivan Seeking said:
We can never prove a negative. So this is a bit like asking what color their wings would be if pigs could fly.
They are Oinkrange.

edit: or maybe pornk, porkple?
 
  • #13
334
0
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
 
  • #14
1,414
5
Pengwuino said:
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?
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?
 
  • #15
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
franznietzsche said:
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?
What is the function, F(x)? :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • #16
695
6
I said. Oinkrange, porkple. come on. i'm not asking for much.
 
  • #17
81
0
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:
 
  • #18
695
6
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?
 
  • #19
81
0
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.
 
  • #20
695
6
unless they prayed for extinction. then it was spot on
 
  • #21
174
0
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
 
  • #22
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,205
DreadVile said:
"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?
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?
 
  • #23
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Astronuc said:
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?
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.)
 
  • #24
Evo
Mentor
23,154
2,804
"If I could prove there was no God I would keep it a secret lest the world destroyed itself" R. A. Underwood
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.
 
  • #25
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,205
BobG said:
But, who decides "what is right"?
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

Evo said:
Bottom line, I think people should take responsibility for their actions and not do anything that can affect others. I live by this and can't see why others can't.
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:

Related Threads on Would the world destroy itself?

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
54
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
55
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
82
Views
15K
Replies
105
Views
15K
Top