Clock Crew

If you were to find definitive, indisputable evidence that god exists, would you destroy it, or share it?

IF YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER, AND VOICE THAT SO IN A POST, THEN I WILL AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME YOU WILL DO NEITHER TO THE EVIDENCE.

My first thought would be destroy it, because we should not need evidance of reprocutions to make us act good in this life. Truly good people are good without thoughts of rewards in the afterlife.
But sadly humanity is a disgusting race so I would probably have to share it, to make people realise the bigger scope of things and that life is always sacred.
I would not share it if it would portray god as the biblical god, I would only share it if it only prove that god created the big bang or such and then let it freefall.
I would never give fundamentalists a reason to inprision others in their faith and let a thousand year old book tell them what to think or do.

Just... God in general?
Proof denies faith, though, right? Wouldn't the possibility of evidence mean God would be some kind of entity that isn't necessarily beyond scientific study?

Could we extrapolate from it what He actually wants ?

I don't think I'd ever even consider not sharing it. I'd replicate the evidence and run a copy up to my 8th grade science teacher first thing.

I'd probably have an existential meltdown, though.
The only God I've ever known is the Catholic Christian one, and I'd have to ask myself why He would allow proof of Himself. To what end could it possibly serve? If it brought good to the world, wouldn't it be goodness wrought of fear? What would that mean?

make sure I keep the requirements I need to get into heaven but I'll live on the way I normally do, and I'd hand the evidence to someone else.

copy-paste




The question is extremely difficult in that suggesting that anything could be 100% indisputable isn't logical or free thinking. To think freely is to question everything, even if questioning it is counter-productive to your interests. Therefore, the most respectable answer to this hypothetical question is to share it, acknowledge that it has to be disputable, and even encourage scientists and religious leaders to find a way to dispute it.


If the question is taking place in a parallel dimension where the only difference from ours is that something can actually be indisputable, then we're dealing with a much, much, much more dangerous find and it's better left treated like the government treated the Arc at the end of the first Indiana Jones. I don't believe people would be able to comprehend something like that without having their face melt off. Also OJ would've been guilty the first time in this dimension.

share it.

You didn't say which god though. I hope i find Thor's hammer or Apollo's bow.

Quote from: Slurpee;1427353Just... God in general?
Proof denies faith, though, right? Wouldn't the possibility of evidence mean God would be some kind of entity that isn't necessarily beyond scientific study?

Could we extrapolate from it what He actually wants ?

I don't think I'd ever even consider not sharing it. I'd replicate the evidence and run a copy up to my 8th grade science teacher first thing.

I'd probably have an existential meltdown, though.
The only God I've ever known is the Catholic Christian one, and I'd have to ask myself why He would allow proof of Himself. To what end could it possibly serve? If it brought good to the world, wouldn't it be goodness wrought of fear? What would that mean?

So are you saying proof of God would be proof He doesn't exist? :\

To others: So you are saying you would share/destory it depending on what god it was? If that is the case lets try some categories: Christian God, Jewish God, Muslim God, Greek/Roman/Nordic Gods

(i would delete this, but soundt a fun talk, and debate)
if evidence is something bad, (something taht will cause great bad, and/or destroy the ethic of people, with causing deaths) i will dstroy the evidence.
 
if it, however proves the life and creation, and somethin taht ll help, i guess i would show it. yep?

I would share it

I would share it

Nordic gods? Well I'd start a new viking religion.

I'd share it on the internet, so in a way I'd be doing both.

Quote from: Peggey Hill;1428066Nordic gods? Well I'd start a new viking religion.

Sorry it wasn't called 'Viking religion' it's Nordic paganism. I'd just say the proof is that the pantheon of norse gods is real, no matter what it was.

Quote from: i'm a homo;1428112Sorry it wasn't called 'Viking religion' it's Nordic paganism. I'd just say the proof is that the pantheon of norse gods is real, no matter what it was.

This, and the Norse pantheon is based mostly on historical occurrences passed through a cultural memory abstraction filter.

Quote from: RomanClock;1427749So are you saying proof of God would be proof He doesn't exist? :\

Who the fuck said that?

Quote from: Slurpee;1428139Who the fuck said that?

I was just asking for clarification :(

I'm just saying it would bring up a lot of questions that I'd have to reflect on.

Quote from: RomanClock;1427749To others: So you are saying you would share/destory it depending on what god it was? If that is the case lets try some categories: Christian God, Jewish God, Muslim God, Greek/Roman/Nordic Gods

Oh no i would it share it anyways, freedom of knowledge baby. Also proof of one god does not mean others don't exist so in the long run it wouldn't change things very much, because basically all religions already have proof that their god exists (bible, koran, weird other stuff i don't know about).

BTW fun fact did you know that until recently it was illegal for Egyptians to worship their old pantheon. It's legal now though, i wish my country had awesome gods instead of lame pagan forest bitches.

I would link the evidence to me being god and then share it.

Well first of Roman, The jewish, christian and muslim god are all the same
it is their teachings that differ not the god

And for me it is not about which god, it is about the scenario of the proof
Which "god" would it prove? My fear is that proving god would give fundamentalists a reason to prosper whilst I am one to endorse pragmatism and kognitive thinking.
If it just proved that something unexplainable labeled as "god" would exist I would share it but never if it would leave space for people to go apeshit and wage war about.

Again I said share it, but I don't think such a thing is possible.

Same as other thread. (http://www.clockcrew.cc/talk/showpost.php?p=1425690&postcount=27)

Quote from: billiardball-1;1428229Again I said share it, but I don't think such a thing is possible.

It would be more possible to prove a God exists rather than disproving them.

Quote from: billiardballH8;1428216Well first of Roman, The jewish, christian and muslim god are all the same
it is their teachings that differ not the god

The interpretation of God from each religion is different (ie Muslims/Jews think Jesus was not God etc.)

Quote from: RomanClock;1428946The interpretation of God from each religion is different (ie Muslims/Jews think Jesus was not God etc.)

Euhmm.. i went to a catholic school and im pretty sure they never said Jesus was god either.

Quote from: PirateClock;1428949Euhmm.. i went to a catholic school and im pretty sure they never said Jesus was god either.

Jesus = God+man

I wouldn't say you are a reliable source for something like this.

Quote from: RomanClock;1428962Jesus = God+man

i thought he was the son of god, like Hercules.

Quote from: RomanClock;1428962I wouldn't say you are a reliable source for something like this.

Im interested in all kinds of mythology, Christianity is one of them although one of the more boring ones.

Quote from: PirateClock;1428963i thought he was the son of god, like Hercules.

No, its not like Greek gods.

Jesus is God and Man at the same time. He's called the Son because he was born as a man. (To put it simply)

Quote from: PirateClock;1428963Hercules

Wow, that actually makes sense.

I'd share it of course

Quote from: RomanClock;1428964Jesus is God and Man at the same time. He's called the Son because he was born as a man. (To put it simply)

So that means that he died, became god, went back in time to create the world he would later be born on as a man, skipped forward a few millenia, impregnated his mother, and was born again.

Christianity is beginning to sounds like ancient mythology more and more.

Quote from: PirateClock;1428979So that means that he died, became god, went back in time to create the world he would later be born on as a man, skipped forward a few millenia, impregnated his mother, and was born again.

Christianity is beginning to sounds like ancient mythology more and more.

That's because a lot of bits of it are taken from earlier religions.

Quote from: Peggey Hill;1428983That's because a lot of bits of it are taken from earlier religions.

The story of Horus and Jesus are pretty much the same.

In a related note, i don't get why all religious people don't just band together and use the similarities between their and past religions to strengthen their believe in god. Surely the words of almost all the people in the world for several millenia counts more than that of a group for the last 2000 years. Instead of clinging on to small details like "who fucked who" and "where did this shit happen" they should all be focusing on the underlying message that there is a god out there. I don't see why theists need to overcomplicated things with vague backstories and bullshit rules.

Oh wait yes i do because no-one is willing to acknowledge the fact that they might be wrong.

Wait, why was my post deleted?

Quote from: PirateClock;1428963i thought he was the son of god, like Hercules.

It's both. He's his "son" in that he's his creation, born of him, but he's also a physical manifestation of him. Hence referring to himself as God.

Quote from: PirateClock;1428979So that means that he died, became god, went back in time to create the world he would later be born on as a man, skipped forward a few millenia, impregnated his mother, and was born again.

Christianity is beginning to sounds like ancient mythology more and more.

No. He was already God. See, basically, God turned himself into a man to live as one and understand our suffering. And even if he did "become" God after his death that would not mean God didn't exist until Jesus became him.

People would deserve to know.

Quote from: Blackmagic;1429041No. He was already God. See, basically, God turned himself into a man to live as one and understand our suffering. And even if he did "become" God after his death that would not mean God didn't exist until Jesus became him.

He didn't know our suffering before he went deep undercover? So would you say his knowledge about us was lacking and incomplete?

Quote from: PirateClock;1428991Oh wait yes i do because no-one is willing to acknowledge the fact that they might be wrong.

This is an outright disgusting sentiment. Why don't you just resolve the differences between the weak electromagnetic force and the strong electromagnetic force and treat them as the same thing? OH RIGHT IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING.

Quote from: PirateClock;1429047He didn't know our suffering before he went deep undercover? So would you say his knowledge about us was lacking and incomplete?

You're missing the point because you're looking to make it into being about trivial bullshit. Knowledge is not the same as understanding.

Quote from: Blackmagic;1429048This is an outright disgusting sentiment. Why don't you just resolve the differences between the weak electromagnetic force and the strong electromagnetic force and treat them as the same thing? OH RIGHT IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING.

philosophy/religion =/= science.

God impregnated a woman who then stayed a virgin and gave birth to him?
I am confused. No matter how it is explained, I just don't get it.

Quote from: GearBox;1429052God impregnated a woman who then stayed a virgin and gave birth to him?
I am confused. No matter how it is explained, I just don't get it.

He cleverly disguised himself as a fetus and planted himself inside a virgins womb to avoid all suspicion.

I don't get religion. Did God impregnate a woman with himself, so the Romans could nail him to a cross, so he could then forgive people?

Quote from: PirateClock;1429051philosophy/religion =/= science.

I'm Pirate and I don't understand comparisons.

Quote from: GearBox;1429054I don't get religion. Did God impregnate a woman with himself, so the Romans could nail him to a cross, so he could then forgive people?

This is a lot more like it.

Quote from: Blackmagic;1429062I'm Pirate and I don't understand comparisons.

I'm Pirate and i actually do understand them. Comparing similarities between two ideologies is something different then comparing the differences between the weak electromagnetic force and the strong electromagnetic force. Which don't exist btw, you are thinking about strong nuclear force  and weak nuclear force. Know your fundamental forces mate; electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational force.

Quote from: PirateClock;1429070I'm Pirate and i actually do understand them. Comparing similarities between two ideologies is something different then comparing the differences between the weak electromagnetic force and the strong electromagnetic force. Which don't exist btw, you are thinking about strong nuclear force  and weak nuclear force. Know your fundamental forces mate; electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational force.

Really? I could have sworn it was electromagnetic. :(

Anyway, the point was that they're exclusive concepts. They're completely separate THINGS. They may have some similarities, like determining what happens when something else happens, but that doesn't mean you can just lump them together as the exact same thing. Absurdism, for another example, is basically the idea that life is pointless. Nihilism is basically the idea that life is pointless and so everything that's a part of it should be annihilated. Superficially, you might think you can just lump them all together into a neat little ball of homogeneity, but in doing that you fail to realize the point of either of those philosophies. Especially because they're mutually exclusive by the very idea of Absurdism being that destroying everything would be just as meaningless as anything else you could do, and is not any more of a logical progression from learning that existence is futile than any other action you could take.

I'd probably suicide, because it would destroy the foundation of how I percieve everything, and that already happened when I became an atheist. I don't think one's mind can take that kind of an upheaval twice in a lifetime. If I didn't kill myself, I'd probably go Satanist or something, because I really don't like the idea of following a supreme omnipotent being.

EDIT: If I found evidence of an ancient pagan god, though, it would be quite awesome. The pagan gods were cool.

I wonder how hard it would be to kill a god?

Quote from: GearBox;1429182I wonder how hard it would be to kill a god?

Pretty hard!

Quote from: GearBox;1429182I wonder how hard it would be to kill a god?

Mildly difficult.

Depends on the religion. The Norse gods are mortal, obviously, but technically they're all already dead, assuming you subscribe to the idea that Ragnarökr already happened, not the one that it will happen in the future of our present situation.

Actually, I probably wouldn't go Satanist, because I don't like the idea of following any deity. I'd just be neutral or something, I think.

Quote from: Brooklyn;1430770Actually, I probably wouldn't go Satanist, because I don't like the idea of following any deity. I'd just be neutral or something, I think.

There are branches of Satanism that strictly worship mankind and nothing else.

Quote from: GearBox;1429182I wonder how hard it would be to kill a god?

If you don't have Pandora's Box? Fugettabatit.

Quote from: GearBox;1429182I wonder how hard it would be to kill a god?

I dunno the crucifixion really didn't seem all that difficult.

Quote from: Flux;1430982I dunno the crucifixion really didn't seem all that difficult.

I think a requirement would be to take 'em down and keep 'em down.

Quote from: billiardball9;1430984I think a requirement would be to take 'em down and keep 'em down.

Well fuck......



If you're a master archer taking out Achilles isn't really too hard I guess.

I thought he was just a mortal who was dipped into the river Styx that made him virtually immortal. I never got why the dumb bitch couldn't dip him in the whole way.

Might be just me, but once you get dipped in the river Styx and made virtually immortal I no longer consider you a mortal. You're definitely above mortal at that point.

Quote from: billiardball9;1430995I thought he was just a mortal who was dipped into the river Styx that made him virtually immortal. I never got why the dumb bitch couldn't dip him in the whole way.

She didn't want to get her hand wet.
I dunno, maybe she had just put on finger nail polish or whatever.

His mortality was burned away by a fire, you fools. His immortal parent was burning away the mortal part of him that came from his mortal parent's side.

I thought she got interrupted during that ceremony.

Quote from: Brooklyn;1429133I'd probably suicide, because it would destroy the foundation of how I percieve everything, and that already happened when I became an atheist.

Har har, you can't handle the truth.

Quote from: Flux;1430975There are branches of Satanism that strictly worship mankind and nothing else.

Which is ridiculous, because Lucifer's original beef with God was that he didn't believe humans were worthy of worship, especially in contrast with worship of God.

Quote from: billiardball9;1431626I thought she got interrupted during that ceremony.

Yes, and that's why the mortal part of the heel was never burned away, the part she was holding Achilles by.