Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?


The fool says in his heart that there are no dragons


Define for me what immoral or unethical behavior would be in a Godless world.


God cannot be proven by humans to exist or not exist. So in true reality, everyone is agnostic, since that term refers to knowledge.

I’m not sure why that is the question (only because you say it is) but if I were to answer it, I do think the majority of people, people of faith or not faith, do live their lives in pursuance of pleasure and the absence of pain. The key is to not infringe on someone else while doing it. How infringement is defined is the complication and usually the point of disagreement.


Obviously not. That makes no sense


What good are hypotheticals? Some people say they are atheists, but I don’t believe them.


Morality is a rather broad subject with quite a lot of avenues to explore it through. You my want to explore the concept of secular humanism if you’re actually interested. Many see morality as being rooted in empathy and expressed through things such as compassion, fairness, and the reduction of suffering, in particular with regards to sentient creatures. The reality is morality is complicated and for many of us adding a deity to the equation doesn’t make it simpler. Just as you’re probably already typing something to the effect of ‘why is empathy important’ or ‘why should I care about compassion or fairness or reducing suffering’ one could equally ask why one would care what your particular god or gods think is good or bad. If you gave a reason such as ‘you’ll be punished if you don’t’ then you’re really in turn appealing to the idea that reducing suffering is good.


I’m an atheist. Believe me


This is a good point also, even someone following God’s will is in essence seeking the pleasure of God’s presence in this life and in heaven and avoiding the pain of hell. So in that way @snarflemike is already living the lifestyle he claims he would, he’s just delaying gratification more than some.


Depends on what you mean by “God” and what you mean by “Proof.”

Traditional metaphysical proofs (like proofs from contingency and change) neatly lead to certain conclusions that form the most basic definition of God: The first, and only, principle and trans-physical reality that is the basis of all else that exists.

Now, can we move on from this foundation to a God that is an act of understanding, a God that is completely Good, a God that has a will, a God that has a plan for His creation, a God that revealed himself and became man?

The kind of proof for the latter will depend on which quality we’re talking about.


That presumes that all ‘knowledge’ is backed by ‘proof’. :wink:


I would argue that all human knowledge is. If you are giving knowledge a transcending quality, then it is above human comprehension.


Yes exactly. I support @laylow here, @gorgias


There are great minds that disagree on first cause, I do not see universal acceptance of this philosophy.


I could quibble about this wording, but that probably would not be helpful. But I will definitely say that I am not delaying gratification. As the saying goes, “the path to heaven is heaven.”


There are great minds that disagree on first cause, I do not see universal acceptance of this philosophy.

Not everyone accepts that the Earth is round, either.


That is true, but I did preface it with “great minds.” I do believe some individuals are higher credentialed than others, would you not agree?


Which statement?


Sorry, I’m trying to figure out how to do a partial quote (last time I was here the software was different). How would you prove that one cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God?


An infinite loop of unprovables equates to no proof to me.


To deny a First Cause would mean that all things – all of reality – are contingent. But if that were so, nothing could exist. But obviously, things do exist.

So to deny a First Cause is as absurd as denying the roundness of the Earth — if not more absurd.

Even atheists posit a first cause, but they often (without much philosophical or metaphysical reflection) identify it with some physical reality, or something which actually turns out to be contingent (like a “law of gravity”).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit