Another triple hypothetical (maybe this time I'll offend atheists)

[Orrex]

If God exists and you still didn't believe in him and a pill existed that could cure you of your irrational disbelief, would you take that pill?

I sure as hell would. How about you?

[asthmaticeog]

1. I've had that stuff. The hairy dude I got it from called it "acid."

Its effects, alas, were temporary.

[maxsolomon]

2. if god didn't exist & you still believed in "him" & a pill existed

that could cure your of your irrational belief, would you take that pill?

the answer for the majority of this fucked up planet, obviously, is no.

but, sure, i would. i'm not afraid of the truth.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

3. But if God existed in such an absolute way...

... why would one need a pill?

[SledDriver]

4. I'm confused...

Are you counting as a hypothetical that not believing in god is an irrational disbelief?

Believing in an invisible man who lives in the sky is... rational?

[jobycom]

8. That's a pretty simplistic image of "god."

Obviously, some of the most advanced and intelligent minds of all ages have believed in a god in some form, but I doubt most of them, or most anyone beyond a Sunday school educational level, would seriously portray god as "an invisible man who lives in the sky." That's a straw man.

[cyborg_jim]

13. I've yet to see a congent image of "god"

The more abstract they get the more ridiculous they become. I don't think a man in the sky is any more ludicrous.

[jobycom]

14. I'm not sure what congent is.

But "god" isn't a matter of abstract, just a matter of something impossible to explain in sensual terms, since the concept has nothing to do with anything we can sense. A god who created existence itself would exist outside of questions of existence as we know it. That's not abstract, it's just beyond normal linguistic explanations. I don't believe in any divine being, either, but to argue that it's more than a matter of belief--that there is some empirical way to decide the issue, or that one conclusion is more intelligent or more worthy than the other--is to not understand the question. It's easy to laugh at anyone who believes in some jolly invisible dude with lightning bolts, but that's not what believers believe in. Or rather, not believers who have thought about it much. Those who believe in that material type of god understand the question as those who deny the existence of that same god. The real question is far beyond that level of understanding.

Not that it matters. People can function quite well without ever wondering one way or the other, IMHO.

[Orrex]

20. Any appeal to "it's beyond our ability to understand" is a get-out-of-logic-free card

If we're willing to assume that Deity X exists but is beyond linguistic (or, presumably, artistic/mathematical/etc.) explanations, then we have no basis for concluding anything concrete about anything. Everything we see and experience could be written off as "part of a larger and incomprehensible whole." Hell, for all I know, it might be, but that doesn't get us any closer to articulating the question, much less resolving the debate.

[jobycom]

21. No it's not.

It's a logical conclusion, and I'm not the first to reach it. You make a couple of leaps out of logic, though. "If we're willing to assume that Deity X exists but is beyond linguistic (or, presumably, artistic/mathematical/etc.) explanations, then we have no basis for concluding anything concrete about anything." Nothing logical about that statement. If Diety X exists beyond our ability to grasp, that statement is true only of Diety X. It may be true of other things, but you'd have to present an argument for each of them. To say that nothing concrete can be concluded about anything does not follow, is not implied, and was not said by me.

Use Wittgenstein here. Create a box containing everything you can experience and can know something about. Outside that box, you are dealing with matters of belief and guesswork (my phrasing, not Wittgenstein's--don't want to drag the poor man down with my weak explanations of his work). God is outside your box, and outside all boxes. He's a matter of belief. Anything inside the box can be argued empiricaly, scientifically, etc, because you can experience it, measure it, sense it, whatever. Outside the box, you take someone's word for it, or you don't. You can use logic or whatever scientific tool you want to strengthen that belief, but ultimately, since you can't experience it, you can't prove anything. It's all belief.

[Orrex]

23. Is to, is to.

Once you accept the precedent for something existing that's fundamentally beyond our ability to grasp, then you've forfeited any basis for describing another thing except in the most immediate and, possibly, fragmented terms.

Person One: "The object on that table is a plastic cup."

Person Two: "No, it's an infinite, omnibenevolent entity beyond our ability to grasp, of which the 'cup' is a mere facet. And so is the table."

Person One: "Good luck with that."

That seems consistent with your paraphrase of Wittgenstein. I mean, we can put the tangible cup and table into our box, but their "higher" existence is very much outside the box (forgive the use of that phrase, please!), and we have no logical basis for denying that higher existence. Sure, it violates Occam's Razor pretty definitively, but so does God.

If you invite the unknowable into the conversation, then you need to explain very carefully how you can say that you know anything about anything, outside of the immediately tangible and the logically demonstrable. I suppose that this borders on epistemological bullshit, but I'd like to hear how one sets definitive boundaries on the unknowable. The only difference between "God the unknowable" and "plastic cup the knowable" is that we have more evidence for the physical existence of the cup, but that doesn't preclude its simultaneous existence as an infinite unknown (if we accept the existence of this unknowable God thing, that is).

[heidler1]

15. Could it be that because 3/4 of humans claim belief then to be certified

as advanced and intelligent a person must get on the band wagon?

[jobycom]

22. Maybe for some. Doubtful for all. Or even most.

For one thing, the concentration of people willing to accept atheism in others is highest amongst the people the advanced and intelligent person is trying to be accepted by.

[T Wolf]

5. Not really sure. In this case, I might choose to remain irrational.

But that is my own (present) prejudice informing my decision.

Not that she would care one way or another.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. The question is still beggging: How do you prove with empirical

evidence with certainty that God exists? Can't take the pill or drink the Kool-Aid until God is indeed a fact.

[jobycom]

7. Fatal flaw in your scenario

In order to create a pill that would prove God's existence, one would have to have discovered empirical proof that God existed, thus there would be no need for a pill.

A better question might be the one Joan Osborne asked: If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see If seeing meant that you would have to believe...

I would, otherwise my disbelief would be a belief based on denial.

[Epiphany4z]

10. love Joan Osborn!!

I don't know what are the side effects? ...shortness of breath , sexual , sinus infection...sorry just thinking of the tv commercial with the little bee..for sinus spray...at the end a list of the commercial a list of side effects fly by

[Pattib]

9. No, I refuse to be with the likes of Fallwell, Dobson and his kind.

I just don't understand why it bothers some Christians? I mean I could care a less if they believe
they'll be floating on a cloud. So why should it matter to them if they believe I will be bar-b-qued? Free will.

[jobycom]

12. Ah, but you would really be with their likes?

If you took a pill that made you truly know that there was a God, I suspect you'd be very different from those posers, who are constantly trying to convince themselves and the world that they do believe in a God, but whose every actions prove they don't.

[moggie]

11. Is this pill taken orally?

I am not taking a suppository for God.

Firstly, I can't imagine any atheist being offended by this question.

The question presupposes that I'm presented with convincing proof of God's existence, and yet still choose not to believe. I don't think I'd do that. Sure, if I thought that God was evil, I would choose not to worship him, but I could no more choose not to believe in him after proof than I could choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. On the other hand, if I've become so irrational (perhaps through mental illness) that that's a possibility for me, I don't think in my current rational state I can make any sensible predictions about what I'd do.

If I'm not presented with proof, that's just the current situation, and I have not taken the pill / drunk the Koolaid.

[toddaa]

16. Logic error

p: God exists
q: I don't believe
r: Rationality pill

How does p&r->~q?

Rationality is orthogonal to belief. If god exists but there is still no rational evidence for its existence, then all the pill does is stop me from wearing my lucky socks when I play poker.

[Boojatta]

17. "Didn't believe" and "disbelieved" are different, aren't they?

You might not believe something simply because you have no opinion, right?

[Az]

18. Lots of problems here (aka Pascal's Wager revisited yet again)

You presume that if God existed that atheists would not believe in him. Perhaps if God existed there wouldn't be atheists. It is not an irrational belief to not believe in something that is not evidenced. If there is no evidence for God's existance then it is improper to say that the lack of belief in him is irrational (whether he really exists or not).

Now here is the counter question to your question. What if that same pill made you believe in God even if there wasn't a God? Would you still be as eager to take it?

[Orrex]

19. Did you happen to read the other thread?

I only posted this one because someone in the other thread was so pointedly offended that I thought it would be amusing to ask the reverse question.

As far as I'm concerned, "atheist" could mean "does not worship a deity," in which case the existence/nonexistence of a deity is really irrelevant.

[Az]

24. Ah... I did not see the other thread

:)

[TRYPHO]

25. I sell "pills" all day long, but I would never sell yours...

because you haven't thought about the drugs side-effect profile. In your tablets case I would venture 95 percent would kill themselves within the hour.

And the reason is exactly the same reason God cannot possibly ever, in any way shape or form, interact directly with anyone on this stupid little planet. It would fuck up our whole place in the universe. If you know God exists, why live, just get to heaven NOW! In fact, fuck it, take your kids and parents with you to the ultimate beach holiday in the sky, for eternity, completely free of charge, travel arrangements and tax included (excluding local tax).

There's another reason why God can't possibly interact directly with this universe, which is to do with equality of time - but that's more complicated to explain (and its my own theory/deduction).

There's a third reason. But that only works if you really don't believe in God, even if you died and s/he/it* took you out for lunch round the other side of the 19th Dimension, re-incarnated you 100 times with all your memories overlapping, shared the entire history of the Universe with you, and explained the great cosmic plan** to you, with simple diagrams and a 2000 year Q and A session afterwards.

Bottom line, good for a cop out, otherwise too dangerous, so a class A drug only available on prescription to people pre-diagnosed with a terminal and painful illness.

TRYPHO
* - Does that say sheit?
** - which can be boiled down to "what happens if I do....coool!"