No, thought experiments must be rational.
That is a question that can be answered rationally.
The topical question commits the fallacy of assuming what it would otherwise be required to prove. It also commits the fallacy of assuming that there is such a way to prove what it supposes.
Yes, it is a hypothetical question, and embedded in it (“experiment”) is the belief that science could possibly ever prove such a hypothesis.
We walk by faith, not by sight.
OK, I’ll play.
If God doesn’t exist, I would live my short life indulging in every pleasure I could, whether legal or illegal. I would do whatever I could get away with, and if you said that you would not do this, I would consider you a fool and would think nothing of taking advantage of you in any way that appealed to me. And don’t you dare tell me I’m wrong, because I’m just a bag of electro-chemical reactions, and the concept of moral right and wrong doesn’t exist in chemistry or physics.
And that is exactly why God will not / can not “prove” His existence to us.
There is no answer to your question, because it is no question at all.
Stop smoking whatever I was smoking.
No, it is an ignorance experiment. A thought experiment requires thinking. Calling it a thought experiment to make it sound plausible, or even worth thinking about, does not remove its total divorce from logic. One cannot apply philosophy to meaninglessness.
You clearly don’t understand the nature of God, then, though you do understand proof as applied to the existence of a creature. To equate them is a false premise from the get go, however.
A pretty common response, but I actually think more highly of you than you seem to think of yourself. I don’t think you avoid doing bad things solely because of the fear of punishment.
To put this another way, to prove that there is no God, one would have to know absolutely everything about everything, everywhere, in which case, one would be, by definition, God.
What if one day it was proven that the craze for ‘thought experiments’ was a device that Satan managed to twist such that instead of humans say looking at a lightning-strike fire and thinking, 'what will happen if I approach this? If I touch it with a stick? If we try to determine how to make it deliberately?" etc.
he was able to make humans waste prodigious amounts of time, originally with ‘useless’ chatter and ‘smoke’, for ‘fun’, and later to waste even more time developing ideas and attitudes that weren’t just lazy, but tending to actively defiant and malevolent?
What if we became 100% aware that the majority of posts that involved ‘experiment’ and ‘thinking for oneself’ and ‘discernment’ were really aimed at turning us into creatures who could no longer ‘experiment usefully’ because only ‘novel, exciting, and fanciful defiance of truth’ were allowed to experiment with? Creatures who could no longer think for themselves because only thinking ‘against’ certain things was considered to BE ‘real thinking;’ thinking in FAVOR of certain things was automatically deemed not thinking at all? Creatures who first searched for ways to help others into finding unity and truth, but ended up searching for ways to make themselves feel more superior, ‘better’, and in charge of everything. . .and when that palled, to simply decide that since NOTHING is ‘real’ and all we ‘have’ is what we are living and then we just ‘pfft’ disappear, to ‘get what we can’, do what we want, in a nihilistic joyless materialistic orgy that demands we ‘get’ more and more while being less and less satisfied?
God exists. You can’t disprove objective truths. Even if you make up numbers. How people react is no different because changing subjective truth doesn’t change objective truth. God exists no matter what you think you’ve proved.
You think you would, but this would be at odds with how almost all, if not all atheists approach and live their lives.
Because atheists understand absolute morality?
No one understands absolute morality.
What is your proof for that assertion?
Don’t think proof is needed. Absolute morally could only be understandable by an entity that humans label “God” The reality that humans give this entity characteristics and pretend to understand its motives (if it has any) is oxymoronic. The lack of proof is the human assertion that this entity intervenes with earthly affairs.
Again, your understanding of the nature of God is very deficient. As is your understanding of what He has chosen to reveal to us through His Word and His Church–e.g., absolute morality.
That said, your deficiencies are correctable. You might start with the Catechism. I’d actually recommend the Catechism of St. Pius X, which wonderfully distills Catholic teachings in a Q & A format. There are also the writings of Peter Kreeft or the Evangelical philosopher William Lane Craig, who thoroughly dismantles atheist hangups on “the problem of evil.”