Thread: Purgatory: Would you look in the box? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001177
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
You can't show the box to anyone else, nor will you ever be able to satisfactorily explain the proof to them.
For this thought experiment, we don't need to discuss what the proof might consist of - you just have to accept that it is absolute.
Do you open the box?
[ 15. June 2016, 18:50: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Of course - given the degree of commitment that living as a Christian means for me, 'proof' that I am right or wrong about it would be amazingly significant.
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
As you would expect, it's the existence of the box I'm having trouble with!
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on
:
Yes.
Does it change my life? Not really. It will just be one more question answered.
I personally go more for Tillich's version of what God is rather than seeing God as an existent being anyway, so if I found out that God did not exist and that there was no such being as God, it wouldn't change my faith very much anyway.
Again personally, I have no time at all for the type of 'Christian' who believes the Gospel as 100% fact but it doesn't affect their life beyond a Sunday morning. I have a lot more time for the type of Christian who throws it all up in the air and says 'I don't know' but spends their whole life trying to live it out.
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
Yes I'd open it. I don't think information is a bad thing. I'd rather deal with reality as it is than the way I wish it were.
However this:
quote:
You can't show the box to anyone else, nor will you ever be able to satisfactorily explain the proof to them.
is an interesting stipulation because with this condition then for all practical purposes I had looked in the box when I was an Evangelical. I couldn't have felt more sure if had some external proof.
Of course the fact that I am no longer so sure is sobering.
Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on
:
Of course I would open the box, but I think It wouldn't change much about how I live and relate.
Posted by MrAlpen (# 12858) on
:
It's got to be "yes." Whatever I _expect_ the answer to be, more data is better than fewer.
For me, if the answer were "no God" then it would change my life radically. Not because of the "degree of commitment" issue - the stuff I do is not an effort expended out of fear or in pursuit of approval, but just the outworked consequence of Theistic life-view along with the other usual personality, experience and situational stuff.
No, the change for me would be in my sense of identity. It would take time to echo up into behaviour, which is moderated by friendship networks, habits and so forth. But underneath I would feel it to be the deepest possible shifting of sand.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
No. Unless I was very drunk.
I believe that "God exists" (whatever that means). But it's my believing it that affects my life, not whether he actually does or not.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Certainly not. I'll let the "proof" kick in when they put me in my own box: in the meantime, the supernatural gift of faith will have to suffice.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course - given the degree of commitment that living as a Christian means for me, 'proof' that I am right or wrong about it would be amazingly significant.
Seconded. I can't think of any reason not to.
Of course, I don't need to look in the box given the premises of the OP. For there to be guaranteed, absolute and compelling proof of an ultimate truth, which can be infallibly conveyed to me but never communicated by me, would require some impressive supernatural contrivance to set up. Ergo, God exists.
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
Boxes can contain nasty surprises, just think of the Pandorica. You may be expecting an answer to a simple question but you may find something that you were not expecting. God chose to reveal himself through Jesus Christ and in him we can trust. I feel rather more comfortable with that than trusting a box given to me by a dodgy stranger.
[ 25. June 2010, 09:21: Message edited by: Merchant Trader ]
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on
:
I would be very wary of opening a box, simply because I am all to aware of the third state in which a cat enclosed in a box may be in... MAD!
AG
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Yes
1. I am very impulsive
2. I am impossibly curious
3. I feel like I've looked in the box already as I can't believe that God doesn't exist (hard 'tho I have tried)
4. If I found S/he definitely didn't exist I would change very little of what I do and say.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Would this boxed God be everyone else’s God too? It’s just that there seem to be almost as many ideas of what God actually is as there are people believing/disbelieving in Him. Therefore, I don’t see much point in knowing for certainty that my God doesn’t exist (or does), since it would leave every other God question unanswered- and those are the important ones.
No, I’d only open the box if it would answer for me the question about everyone else’s God too. But then, I would, yeah. It would be very cool to have me that certainty some around here seem to enjoy.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Do you open the box?
Yes, without the slightest hesitation. And the idea that someone wouldn't be excited about this, or worse, would not want to open the box is utterly alien to me.
Posted by Unjust Stuart (# 13953) on
:
So long as it's not Noel Edmonds offering me the box...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Do you open the box?
Yes. Simply because knowing that one answer would raise so many other questions.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
Without hesitation.
Also, if I had a time machine that could go just one place, it would not be forward in time, it would be back to Jerusalem 2000 or so years ago. This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Do you open the box?
Yes, without the slightest hesitation. And the idea that someone wouldn't be excited about this, or worse, would not want to open the box is utterly alien to me.
Precisely. I'd be very excited and very curious. Which is why I said "only if I was drunk" - i.e. if I wasn't thinking rationally. Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of faith. Knowing God exists would destroy my faith, and destroy me too most likely.
(And I like Sandemaniac's idea of "Schroedinger's God"!)
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Would this boxed God be everyone else’s God too? It’s just that there seem to be almost as many ideas of what God actually is as there are people believing/disbelieving in Him.
Let's make the assumption that there is only one God, and every single human conceptualisation of God (Thor, Yahweh, Flying Spaghetti Monster) is an imperfect attempt to define the divine.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Without hesitation.
Also, if I had a time machine that could go just one place, it would not be forward in time, it would be back to Jerusalem 2000 or so years ago. This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
Interesting! I read a short story when I was a kid where time-travelling holiday makers could travel anywhere to witness historic events, but they had to 'blend in' with the natives. A little girl's family went back to the crucifiction, and they'd all been told to shout 'crucify him' etc. as they couldn't change history. She couldn't bear to stay in the crowd shouting, so she wandered off around Jerusalem, where she saw everyone sitting in their houses looking sad. She then realises that none of the local people actually wanted Jesus dead, and the crowd shouting 'crucify him' are in fact ALL holiday makers from the future.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
What a great OP!
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
You can't show the box to anyone else, nor will you ever be able to satisfactorily explain the proof to them.
For this thought experiment, we don't need to discuss what the proof might consist of - you just have to accept that it is absolute.
Do you open the box?
Someone places a tree in your garden which grows lovely fruit. Someone else tells you that if you access this fruit you will become like God knowing all things. You know you've been warned off the tree, rather contrarily, by the person who put it within reach in the first place.
Do you eat the fruit?
I would open the box. Just call me Eve.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Would this boxed God be everyone else’s God too? It’s just that there seem to be almost as many ideas of what God actually is as there are people believing/disbelieving in Him.
Let's make the assumption that there is only one God, and every single human conceptualisation of God (Thor, Yahweh, Flying Spaghetti Monster) is an imperfect attempt to define the divine.
My feeling exactly.
If we reach out to God we can only reach out to what we know of him/her. And since all knowledge is ultimately subjective it figures that our perceptions of God will be subjective too.
And that's fine by me.
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
I still think that there's no real difference between "proof" that you can't share with anyone else and faith. In the end their both forms of revelation if you will - personal, subjective knowledge. There may be a degree of difference in the perceived certainty but that's not a qualitative difference IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of faith. Knowing God exists would destroy my faith, and destroy me too most likely.
Will it destroy you at the Resurrection?
If it wasn't a box but a time machine taking you back to meet Jesus would that destroy you too?
I really can't get my head round the idea that proof is the negation of faith. Faith in God is trust as well as belief in the fact of Him isn't it? Surely trust wouldn't be destroyed by proof.
I trust my best friend all the more because I'm sure she exists.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Would proof remove the ability to suspend disbelief - which is what some Christians seem to do (IMO)?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
It seems to me people are confusing two aspects of faith: one is holding something as true in spite of lacking compelling evidence, the other is staying true to a pledge or allegiance.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of faith.
Knowledge is better than faith as far as truth is concerned (first aspect). After all, that's what we are heading for: the beatific vision will negate all faith concerning truths about God, because we will know God to the limits of our capacity.
How can one possibly reject an advance on the beatific vision?
Faith as staying true (second aspect) isn't negatively affected by knowing that God exists. Why should one have less allegiance with God just because it has become undeniable that He is there? To the contrary, likely one's allegiance would increase. And if God did not exist, then one's faith would have been false, and it is good that it be destroyed.
How can one possibly reject an increase in one's allegiance to God or being disabused?
I see one possible negative effect, and one only: Faith that God exists is not meritorious anymore, once one knows that He does. But frankly, this faith is not particularly meritorious per se. The bible calls people who do not believe in God fools (e.g., Ps 14.1), and we do not get a medal for not being stupid. The faith so meritorious in Abraham is of the second, allegiance kind.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Knowing God exists would destroy my faith, and destroy me too most likely.
I find that completely baffling. How can knowing that God exists be anything but occasion for dancing with joy? OK, perhaps after rushing to the nearest confession booth, but still...
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I see one possible negative effect, and one only:
I could suggest another one: that there is spiritual benefit to be had in the process of looking for God while you are still uncertain. There may be occasions where someone who is unsure of God's existence and yet tries to obey him learns or practices a virtue more effectively than they would have done if they had proof that there was a God.
That wouldn't stop me looking in the box, though, because it seems to me that that sort of benefit comes from not knowing, but desperately wanting to know. An unsatisfied hunger for truth (or food) might make me work harder, but only because I want the hunger to be satisfied. So it seems to me that God might hold back full knowledge while we still have work to do, but that does not provide any sort of justification for us not snapping up any increased knowledge that he might put before us.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
It might have a negative effect on my sense of freedom if I looked and the answer was 'yes'
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I've opened the box. In it is a fortune cookie that reads:
"There is no God and He is eternal"
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I'd be more interested in how the box defined God and existence.
Without these nailed down, "yes" or "no" is kind of meaningless.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
IngoB and wilson, I refer you to the (CofE) post-communion prayer for the 3rd Sunday after Trinity:
quote:
O God, whose beauty is beyond our imagining
and whose power we cannot comprehend:
show us your glory as far as we can grasp it,
and shield us from knowing more than we can bear
until we may look upon you without fear;
through (etc.)
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I read a short story when I was a kid where time-travelling holiday makers could travel anywhere to witness historic events, but they had to 'blend in' with the natives. A little girl's family went back to the crucifiction, and they'd all been told to shout 'crucify him' etc. as they couldn't change history. She couldn't bear to stay in the crowd shouting, so she wandered off around Jerusalem, where she saw everyone sitting in their houses looking sad. She then realises that none of the local people actually wanted Jesus dead, and the crowd shouting 'crucify him' are in fact ALL holiday makers from the future.
"Let's go to Golgotha" by Garry Kilworth. Amazing, chilling story.
Posted by MiceElf (# 4389) on
:
My immediate response was to say YES of course I would open the box, but my second response moved in quickly to question whether or not I would believe the 'irreputable truth' ... more so if the price of knowing was the fact I could not share it with any other person.
I am just reminded that Jesus said (dont quote me - cos I havent got a bible to hand) that many have seen the miracles and even seen the dead brought back to life, yet still don't believe.
Maybe just maybe if the box contained Elvis Presley,still singing the Blues, then some might believe... but then again he is often found working in a McDonalds near you alongside Michael Jackson.
If the box contained a video link to heaven and I had a conversation with people I have loved and lost... I would probably just ask my psychiatrist to increase my medication.
On reflection, I would not open the box, because I do not want to be faced with my stubborn refusal to embrace all that believing in an Immortal Invisible God only Wise would involve - especially the Worship and Adore demands from a God who is picky choosy whom he will bless with health wealth and happiness, while leaving others to question WHY if he can do it for them, then why not for me, or those I love too.
The flip side is the dilema of knowing that life is hard enough with just a flickering candle light of hope; if that small flame were extinguished there would be a darkness - so absolute and final, it would be like death itself.
But what I fear most is knowing one way or another and not caring a damm.
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
IngoB and wilson, I refer you to the (CofE) post-communion prayer for the 3rd Sunday after Trinity:
quote:
O God, whose beauty is beyond our imagining
and whose power we cannot comprehend:
show us your glory as far as we can grasp it,
and shield us from knowing more than we can bear
until we may look upon you without fear;
through (etc.)
ISTM (and I'm not Anglican but) that prayer is about how there are aspects of God we can't take/bear/understand right now.
However it doesn't say "shield us from knowing that you're really there". In fact prayer sort of assumes God does exist.
Let's not call it proof, let's just say the box contains more knowledge about God - how can that be a bad thing?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
I know that my Redeemer liveth. Handel said it best. I don't need proof, because I have faith that I will have it anyway, on the Last Day. In the meantime I live my life the best I can.
One of the problems I have with a box is that I think of that of Pandora's.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sparrow:
"Let's go to Golgotha" by Garry Kilworth. Amazing, chilling story.
Thanks! It was so long ago that I read it, and would never have remembered the title. Might look it up again now!
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
Sounds like "Behold The Man" by Michael Moorcock. It's quite good, in that it manages to offend almost everyone - Mary's a bit of a slapper, Jesus is a dribbling half-wit, but the protagonist decides that history needs to be kept intact, so steps up to the plate and generates the myth he's familiar with. Thus effectively putting the whole thing in the "It's a sham" bin ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Wikipedia seems vaguely accurate, from what I can remember of the story.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
My initial response to the OP was "absolutely" - I would open it. However, reading through the responses I feel more hesitant. It's not the answer as to the existance of God one way or the other that's troubling in itself, but rather the nature of the proof - that could be problematic. The nature of the proof provided might be, literally, maddening.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
To me, this question seems obviously modelled on the myth of Pandora's box in Hesiod - and, as such, it also parallels the biting of the forbidden fruit in Genesis.
Questions you need to ask are - will opening the box kill you? Or do you think you would have died anyway even if you hadn't opened the box? If so, then how does opening the box make any difference?
It also depends how hungry I was. If I hadn't eaten for a few days and was ravenously hungry, then I might go off and find some food to eat before trying to open the box. Unless I thought that the box might have some food in it as well as the proof. But if the catch or the hinges were a bit stiff and it defeated me, I wouldn't persist, I'd just go off and look elsewhere instead, and maybe resolve to come back to the box later on. If the process of finding food turned out to be too complicated, then I'd just give up on the box.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is relevant here.
This might also explain why the Panacea Society is unlikely to get Joanna Southcott's box opened any time soon.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I would never have enough faith in the box and the set-up to believe that whatever it revealed would be "the truth" anyway. I'd be tormented by the box, though, thinking "what if it really is a barometer of reality?" That would drive me nuts. But I don't know from this position whether it would drive me to open the box.
And if I did open the box, and it showed that God exists, I would still have the niggling doubt. And if it showed that God doesn't exist, well, I would still have the niggling doubt.
These kinds of thought experiments always involve a set-up that is so unreal that they don't really show much to me. I focus on the set-up because it's too dodgy to be a barometer of what's in my own soul.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I can get that faith as we know it is related to not knowing, but I'm not sure this isn't a reason to look in the box.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is an afterlife, then at that stage many of think that we will know definitely what it was all about and whether God was real. Would Heaven going be misery because we have certainty about the divine?
Don't think that consideration would stop me looking.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I think mousethief is onto something quite fundamental about the psychology of most persons - the so-called irrefutable proof still wouldn't provide certainty for most people. The set-up ignores the reality that most people harbour all sorts of doubts about the accuracy and truth of their own perceptions and beliefs about a variety of things (at least I should hope they do). Internet fora tend to hide this fact, with people coming across with much greater certainty about issues than they actually possess (IMO -- I tend to do it too, of course). My other thought about the OP is that we may get into a definitional problem about God and discriminating God from Processes-Within-the-Universe-Giving-Rise-to-Creation.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
You can't show the box to anyone else, nor will you ever be able to satisfactorily explain the proof to them.
For this thought experiment, we don't need to discuss what the proof might consist of - you just have to accept that it is absolute.
Do you open the box?
Too late. Already did open it. Nowadays I miss having the luxury of doubt.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
mousethief says
quote:
I'd be tormented by the box, though, thinking "what if it really is a barometer of reality?" That would drive me nuts. But I don't know from this position whether it would drive me to open the box.
Funny you mention that. I used to think the same way about the Bible - and, in particular, the book of Revelation.
Nowadays, I don't think that the Bible is any more a barometer of reality than the literature of the Trojan War legend, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Well, okay, it might be, but then who's to tell? Is there any such thing as an objective reality anyway? And what would be the purpose of our knowing it?
In practical terms, though, I find that my own ability to study simply can't keep pace with my developing curiosity. But meanwhile, work needs to be done and bills need to be paid - or at least, I think so anyway.
la vie en rouge says quote:
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is an afterlife, then at that stage many of think that we will know definitely what it was all about and whether God was real. Would Heaven going be misery because we have certainty about the divine?
Well, I for one am convinced that there's an afterlife - and I'm also convinced that getting into heaven would be a good thing. What's up for debate, though, is whether heaven is what conservative evangelical Christians say it is or not.
How do you get into heaven? Is it by (a) trying to avert your eyes from the top shelf? Or is it by (b) being a chivalrous knight and martyr, prepared to die for king and country? Or is it by (c) hob-nobbing with media industry interns? Or (d) paying money to Rupert Murdoch?
Incidentally, I don't see how the answers to those questions depends on the answer to the question of whether God actually exists or not. God doesn't necessarily need to exist in order for an afterlife to exist.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Yes, I'd open it. I'd want to know either way, to set my mind at rest. Given how things are generally in the world and that I'd abandoned the idea of God a while ago, I don't think I'd find this a particularly welcome discovery - but it would satisfy some curiosity.
It would leave me with something of a dilemma though, because although it had proved the existence of one deity it didn't mean I knew what was in store for me in the afterlife or whether there were any more deities. There might have to be a few more boxes around. I'd be asking a lot of questions at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Someone places a tree in your garden which grows lovely fruit. Someone else tells you that if you access this fruit you will become like God knowing all things. You know you've been warned off the tree, rather contrarily, by the person who put it within reach in the first place.
Do you eat the fruit?
No. I'd probably chop the tree down, as well. Imagine how awful it would be if you were completely omniscient: how boring it would be, there would be no mystery left, nothing to discover. All intellectual curiosity would be totally stultified. You'd know the outcome of every course of action, everything would be completely predictable. You'd know what people were going to say before they said it, you'd know all their motives, see straight through them, have no illusions about anyone or anything. You'd become something of a puppet of Fate, living out a timeline only you could see in all its awful clarity, every action predestined. Nothing would be a pleasure any more.
However, before I chopped the tree down, I might press some of the fruit for juice, which if diluted with a lot of water, might give partial knowledge. You could possibly then know, as it might be, the cure for cancer, but not the 6800 languages currently spoken in the world, what your neighbours are doing, who will win the next 12 World Cups, or when an asteroid will wipe out life on the earth (=information overload and burnout).
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
But there seems to be some conflation of the question of the existance of a Deity with the issue of an "afterlife" going on here. They are really separate issues. The OP is only addressing the former.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
Sounds like "Behold The Man" by Michael Moorcock. It's quite good, in that it manages to offend almost everyone - Mary's a bit of a slapper, Jesus is a dribbling half-wit, but the protagonist decides that history needs to be kept intact, so steps up to the plate and generates the myth he's familiar with. Thus effectively putting the whole thing in the "It's a sham" bin
Wikipedia seems vaguely accurate, from what I can remember of the story.
Yeah, that's the one. I remember that even though I wasn't a particularly committed teenage Christian (I was actually along the road to a type of agnosticism at that stage) the story offended me. Job done, I guess.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Ariel, I like the fruit juice idea ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. So do you reckon God, too, is bored, what with knowing everything?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you eat the fruit? I would open the box. Just call me Eve.
The setup of the OP has exactly nothing to do with the Fall. There is no indication that God disapproves. There is no serpent influencing the decision. There is also no attempt to "be like God", merely a replacing of what one believes by faith anyway with what one knows by proof.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
IngoB and wilson, I refer you to the (CofE) post-communion prayer for the 3rd Sunday after Trinity
The mere existence of God is not "more than you can bear knowing". Otherwise your faith is simply a sham. That there is God is a sine qua non of any Christian faith, otherwise it is merely a bizarre and dysfunctional form of humanism.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I focus on the set-up because it's too dodgy to be a barometer of what's in my own soul.
Really? I thought it exposed what is in your soul rather well, right in the answer you wrote.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The set-up ignores the reality that most people harbour all sorts of doubts about the accuracy and truth of their own perceptions and beliefs about a variety of things (at least I should hope they do).
I disagree, though I do not know if the OP was intentionally precise about this. Why can you not explain the proof satisfactorily to anyone else? Because it was tailored so precisely to you, making it so truly incontrovertible for you, that everybody else who is not you could still doubt this.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Being who I am, I would open the box. However, unless this box was personally given to me by God, it would probably be the wiser choice not to. Like everyone else, I'll find out eventually and the more I think about such a box, the more I suspect such a box would indeed be maddening.
However, at least for me, opening the box would be an act of faith. If God doesn't exist, I would rather remain convinced that he does. Only if the answer in the box is yes, would I want to know.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
No, I don't think I'd open the box - knowing me I'd probably put it down "somewhere safe" and then forget where I'd put it.
I don't think I'm particularly interested in the answer as I'm not sure that it is an important question.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I focus on the set-up because it's too dodgy to be a barometer of what's in my own soul.
Really? I thought it exposed what is in your soul rather well, right in the answer you wrote.
Accepting the set-up as stated, the test between opening and not opening the box is not a good one for me. Therefore I reject the set-up, which is a meta-response. This may say oodles about my soul. I never said otherwise; you twisted my words about not being a barometer to be a meta-meta-comment. Kind of like a Jesuit might.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Of course, I don't need to look in the box given the premises of the OP. For there to be guaranteed, absolute and compelling proof of an ultimate truth, which can be infallibly conveyed to me but never communicated by me, would require some impressive supernatural contrivance to set up. Ergo, God exists.
And come to think of it, even ignoring the improbability of such a box existing and being persuasive but not communicatable, you can't prove a negative. It's impossible to prove God doesn't exist, so what's in the box must be proof that God does exist.
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on
:
I'm going to surprise myself and say no, I wouldn't open it. My faith, nebulous, equivocal, and abstract though it may be, really does depend on a "real" God, even if even the meaning of "real" in is highly contested.
When I came to religion five years ago, I felt like I had a choice. On the one hand, I could believe in the universe of my physicist parents, beautiful, wondrous, and mysterious, but wholly inanimate and disinterested. Their universe is completely indifferent to what we do, how we live, what we suffer (though I should add that my parents seem to lead reasonably contented lives trying to do good in such a universe). Or I could conceive of a universe that somehow does care, that what happens in it does matter, in which there is good and bad, right and wrong, where joy and suffering matter, and there's a direction and a goal for existence. I have some sense, some intuition, some need to believe this is true, so I chose the latter. For me, "God" is a way of conceiving of such a universe, Christianity is a way to make sense of God, and engage with God.
Could I read the Bible, knowing that's it's really "just" myth, even if I'm perfectly willing to believe that much of it, perhaps even all of it, is mythical? Can I participate in liturgy, if it's been reduced to simply a stage show with fancy clothes and nice music? There's a reason I'm not Unitarian. That God stands behind it matters.
As I go about doing my Christian thing, in the background is a nagging suspicion that it's all some elaborate wish fulfillment fantasy. So be it. If it's a fantasy, it makes my life better, and make me try harder. I spent most of my life as some vague sort of humanist, and I could go back to that, but at this point, I would find that deeply disappointing. So, I believe, try to live my life as if, and keep the hope that it'll all come out in the wash. Knowing really wouldn't help matters.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras says
quote:
But there seems to be some conflation of the question of the existance of a Deity with the issue of an "afterlife" going on here. They are really separate issues. The OP is only addressing the former.
I'm pleased you noticed that, and that it wasn't just me.
However, I think there's a widespread assumption that if God doesn't exist, it follows that there's no afterlife. It's only possible for there to be an afterlife if God does exist.
But what if that assumption is faulty?
Personally, I can't see how the knowledge of whether God exists or not can be considered either a good or a bad thing, unless there's grounds for believing that our afterlives are in some way conditional upon that knowledge. If the existence or non-existence of God, and therefore also our level of knowledge and/or ignorance of the existence or non-existence of God, is of no consequence to our afterlives, then I can't see why anyone would care about whether the box is opened or not.
So I suspect that I might open the box, then tip the incontrovertible proof of God's existence or otherwise into the paper recycling bin, and then use the box to store some of my clutter, to help me tidy my flat.
[ 25. June 2010, 19:05: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Taking the "Schroedinger's God" notion a step further: Suppose opening the box will provide conclusive proof of God's existence or nonexistence, but until you open it, God remains in a state of indeterminate potential existence/nonexistence. Do you choose to open the box and collapse the probability wave?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you eat the fruit? I would open the box. Just call me Eve.
The setup of the OP has exactly nothing to do with the Fall. There is no indication that God disapproves. There is no serpent influencing the decision. There is also no attempt to "be like God", merely a replacing of what one believes by faith anyway with what one knows by proof.
My post was just a creative link between another occasion when human beings were tempted to do something arguably dodgy, in terms of being curious about something impacting on their mortal state of existence.
However, as you raise the issue, do we know God would approve of such a box and its contents; and do we know that he would approve of his creation choosing the option of absolute certainty over exercise of faith? He seemed to get rather miffed when, after waving the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil in their faces saying 'no touching', Adam and Eve did precisely that.
Myself, I'm not convinced the classic interpretation of the myth of Adam and Eve, ie, what you refer to as the Fall, is entirely the right one, anyway. To me, it says more about humanity's relationship with curiousity and certainty, than anything else. Rather like this thread, hence my link.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
...
Do you open the box?
I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe.
There is, then, nothing in the box that will add to the proof already available to every one of us.
Now, if it were to reveal something about God, I would definitely open it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe.
There is, then, nothing in the box that will add to the proof already available to every one of us.
Now, if it were to reveal something about God, I would definitely open it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Caledonian (# 15493) on
:
you might find Schrodingers cat in the box too!
Oh Dear !
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I'm also concerned about what the box would say about me by extension.
I mean, the absentee landlord who you don't see til you die is one way to see "God exists" as being a positive statement, but what if there's more to it than that? Is this a liberationist holy Marxist? A dispensationalist destroyer of worlds? A Unitarian Universalist pink cloud of warm fuzzies? A kind Wesleyan taskmaster or a Calvinist sorting hat?
As I think I mentioned somewhere else a few days ago, saying "God exists" (for some useful definition of "God" and "exist") is really just the beginning of the conversation...
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
I must say, I totally jived with mousethief's first page response.
ETA: As also Anselmina's anxiety that it would somehow be some kind of test, which I would be failing if I opened the box.
[ 25. June 2010, 21:51: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'd probably shout at the idiot who gave it to me. Because I'm OCD enough that it would torment me whether I opened the bloody thing or not, both before and after the opening (if any).
If I did not open it, I'd have the usual Pandora's temptation, simply because I'm like a cat in that way. I'd have the same temptation if you told me the answer to who wins the FIFA World Cup was in there (which I don't give two hoots and a holler about). I'd still go out of my mind wanting to open it.
If I DID open it, I'd spend the rest of my life being pissed at myself for bothering when I knew the answer already. And wondering what opening the bloody thing said about either a) my faith or b) my compulsiveness.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Crap. I'm never going to a shipmeet NOW--I've just told you exactly how to drive me into the loony bin. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
An interesting issue here is what a positive answer would do to one's free will. But I'm still fixed on the question of whether the mere answer provided by this hypothetical box would tell anything about the nature of God. That's not indicated by the OP. After all, there's quite a difference in the relevance of an impersonal deity with no real interest in human affairs or the individual person on the one hand, and a deity that is not only transcendent but also immanent. I think the revelation of a completely distant deity might not make much effect on me, but the certainty of a God who is genuinely personal might have a profound impact (not necessarily salubrious, however). The box would surely break the rules, because a condition of our present existance is that we don't get factual certainty about this matter; faith, yes; certainty of the facts, no. Perhaps this also underscores the undesirability of such factual knowledge in this life. In regard to the issue of the nature of God, however, I've already reached my own conclusion that a Deity who brings the universe into existance must also be a Deity "in whom we live, and move and have our being"; at once immediate and transcendent.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Anselmina says
quote:
Myself, I'm not convinced the classic interpretation of the myth of Adam and Eve, ie, what you refer to as the Fall, is entirely the right one, anyway. To me, it says more about humanity's relationship with curiousity and certainty, than anything else.
I'm pleased you mention that. Personally, I'm sceptical of the idea that there is a single "classical" interpretation of the myth. If you take the book of Genesis as a whole, but isolate it from any other books of the Bible, you've basically got a hodge-podge of mythological themes, starting with the creation of the world, and ending up with some tribe of people being enslaved by some powerful empire - but there's no obvious overall theme.
However, once you put it together with Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, it becomes clear that the whole point of the book of Genesis is to serve as a back-story for the life of Moses. Exodus to Deuteronomy is the narrative of the legends of the heroic deeds of Moses - and Genesis is a book which is intended to give those legends a cosmic significance, by drawing upon pre-existing Mesopotamian mythology. The legend of the life of Moses is the only thing that gives unity of purpose to the whole of the book of Genesis, which strongly suggests to me that it was never intended to be taken separately.
This is a bit like the way that Virgil's Aeneid draws upon the Trojan War tradition to form a backdrop for the foundation of the Roman empire. The Trojan War tradition is obviously older than the Aeneid - however, the things the Aeneid says about the Trojan War are for the purpose of putting Aeneas into a legendary context. Likewise also Genesis, Mesopotamian myth and Moses. Just because the Mesopotamian myth is probably older than the legend of Moses, does not mean that we can assume that the Genesis was written first, and that Exodus was added later. It's far far more likely to have been the other way round - that is, the legend of the heroic deeds of Moses had started to develop as an oral tradition first, before someone had the idea of tacking a creation and flood story onto the front of it.
Interestingly, in the Old Testament, whenever anyone asks what the point in worshipping God is, it's not because he has created the world - at least not in the pre-exilic text, anyway. In the pre-exilic passages, the reason for worshipping God is because he led the Israelites out of Egypt. Curiously, though, the credit for leading the Israelites out of Egypt is something that God shares with Moses. But apart from the passages in Genesis that deal directly with the creation, creation rarely gets a mention, and only in passing at most. So it's clear to me that in the pre-exilic text, the creation was only intended to be a side-show. The main feature was Moses.
All of the passages which say that the creation of the world is a reason for worshipping God are post-exilic. The most famous such section is Isaiah from chapter 40 onwards.
In the New Testament, the exodus from Egypt is most emphatically not a reason for worshipping God. It hardly even gets a mention. But on the other hand, there's a lot more emphasis on the creation. So, interesting theological shift going on there. It looks to me that when the story of the creation and the fall was put in the Torah in the first place, it was originally for the purpose of bigging up the deeds of Moses - however, as time went by, the importance of the Exodus from Egypt came to be eclipsed by the details of the creation myth.
So - bearing in mind this evidence that the purpose of Genesis appears to have changed as time went by, what would anyone say the "classic" interpretation is?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Crap. I'm never going to a shipmeet NOW--I've just told you exactly how to drive me into the loony bin.
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
That is a brilliant analogy. It can be seen from all our reactions to the question how different we all are in both respects.
Clever, revealing OP.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
I gave my wife my passwords so if I should get hit by a bus, she could send out messages to my friends, and turn off the accounts.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
No, I wouldn't open the box. I'd put it up on a high shelf and enjoy the excitement of not knowing. (Just like now, really).
Which would be much better than going around looking unbearably smug (I know something you don't know, nada, nada, nada).
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
mousethief says quote:
I gave my wife my passwords so if I should get hit by a bus, she could send out messages to my friends, and turn off the accounts.
Course, splitting hairs, but you don't need passwords to send mail - only to receive it and read it. And if a letter or a message is sent to someone who is deceased, then to read it still means you're reading someone else's mail.
But it happens - so I suppose that means we have to be careful of complaining about people to their closest friends and relatives! Still, there are worse things that can happen than for the person you're complaining about to read what you've said about them as a result of the intended recipient of your message dying before they get it. Some might say the death itself is generally the bigger deal.
Having said that, when it's confidential information that government departments keep on its own citizens that's at stake, you'd have thought they'd have procedures for dealing with things like the deaths of the people who hold the keys to the filing cabinet. I wonder if the Data Protection Act covers that sort of thing. It almost certainly gets thought about in the context of military intelligence, though.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
mousethief says quote:
I gave my wife my passwords so if I should get hit by a bus, she could send out messages to my friends, and turn off the accounts.
Course, splitting hairs, but you don't need passwords to send mail - only to receive it and read it. And if a letter or a message is sent to someone who is deceased, then to read it still means you're reading someone else's mail.
You need a password to get into my mail accounts and use the addresses of the people that are stored there. The point is not sending email in and of itself, but sending email to MY mates. In the course of splitting hairs you missed the point.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Crap. I'm never going to a shipmeet NOW--I've just told you exactly how to drive me into the loony bin.
By the way, isn't this problem sort of analogous to coming across your spouse's e-mail/text message password, if you don't know it already? What you do with it depends on a combination of your relationship and your own personal insecurities.
That is a brilliant analogy. It can be seen from all our reactions to the question how different we all are in both respects.
I don't think it's the same thing at all. It's not even in the same class. The reason why it might be wrong to read your partner's private communications without consent is that they are private. It could also be (dependent on circumstances) an act of injustice, in that it might show a lack of trust in someone who in fairness is entitled to be trusted.
But it's not in the least wrong to look at the evidence for the existence of God. It isn't unfair to God to think about him, and it isn't an invasion of his privacy to learn about him. As far as I can judge, God positively wants us to seek the truth, and it seems to be profoundly misguided to pass up the chance to learn something on the grounds that it shows faith or trust in God to remain ignorant.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I do not know if the OP was intentionally precise about this. Why can you not explain the proof satisfactorily to anyone else? Because it was tailored so precisely to you, making it so truly incontrovertible for you, that everybody else who is not you could still doubt this. [/QB]
I was intentionally precise. If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
I framed the question to avoid any bias towards opening the box attributable to the "fame" aspect.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
I was intentionally precise. If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
I don't believe everyone would react the same way. Observe what happens when people supposedly have an alien encounter. Some spread the word far and wide and spend all their time trying to convince people that their experience was genuine. Others keep silent and never breathe a word to anyone - presumably from fear of not being believed, or perhaps for some other reason.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
IntellectByProxy says
quote:
If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
I don't think that's true. You seem to be overlooking the fact that that, besides the question of whether God exists or not, there's also an unending debate about the nature of God - or, to put it another way, what is meant by "God". There's no doubt that different people mean different things by the word "God".
And that's before we even get into the question of what "existence" means, and whether existence itself even - um - exists.
And then there's the definition of "proof". YOu could prove that a mathematical formula is correct by using "induction" - but you could not use the same technique to prove that, for example, Australia exists. You can't use it to prove that God exists or doesn't exist either. The meaning of the word "proof" in a mathematical or scientific context is far too narrow to be applied to most of the things that we take for granted in our everyday lives, never mind whatever it is that you call "God".
Even the earliest Christian literature reflects how loose these terms are, in my opinion. In the text of Martyrdom of Polycarp, Polycarp is accused of being an atheist on the grounds that he does not believe that the Roman Emperor is a god. But Polycarp then turns that back round, and says that the gladiator arena crowds are atheists for not believing that Jesus is the Lord.
And on a related note, there's the accusation in Aristophanes Clouds that Socrates is both an atheist and an introducer of foreign gods at the same time. Not unreasonably, Plato has Socrates argue in Apology that these two accusations contradict each other.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Someone gives you a box. In the box is definitive, incontrovertible proof that God either exists or does not exist.
You can't show the box to anyone else, nor will you ever be able to satisfactorily explain the proof to them.
For this thought experiment, we don't need to discuss what the proof might consist of - you just have to accept that it is absolute.
Do you open the box?
I read the OP, and 4-5 replies, and then stopped to seriously consider this proposition because something about it bothers me very much. (I haven't read other replies, so forgive me if I'm only repeating what others have already said.)
I refuse the box. I think what I'm being offered, in the form of this box, is a terrible temptation: the curse of certainty. In some odd fashion, it immediately put me in mind of the devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and the opportunity to rule them. Jesus rejected this temptation because it was (almost literally) beneath him -- small potatoes, compared to his real role.
Accepting the box, along with the decision of whether or not to open it, seems to me to be taking on a responsibility far too big for me to handle. Whatever the box contains, I would surely have a duty to investigate, and having investigated, I would surely have the duty to try to share the revelation within (whether or not I could, as the OP states that I would not be able to explain it).
So I tell that someone, "Take that box away. You have no business tempting me with it, and I have nothing to gain from having it in my possession. Get thee behind me!"
Posted by follower (# 15597) on
:
What would Richard Dawkins do I wonder?
In principle I would argue that the journey is more important than the destination etc. But I would probably sneek a look anyway.
I'm not sure weather God (or at least the old testament versoin) would approve though.
would this cause the universe to reset itself?
Posted by Phos Hilaron (# 6914) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Without hesitation.
Also, if I had a time machine that could go just one place, it would not be forward in time, it would be back to Jerusalem 2000 or so years ago. This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
I think that was, "Behold the Man" by Michael Moorcock, although I never read it.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Phos Hilaron:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Without hesitation.
Also, if I had a time machine that could go just one place, it would not be forward in time, it would be back to Jerusalem 2000 or so years ago. This reminds me of a book I read when I was younger - the name escapes me. Apparently Jesus was neither God nor anything else you would readily imagine. He was actually a time traveller who went back 2000 years in time to find that there was no Christ yet for some reason he felt the need to keep the legend going by becoming Christ - execution and all.
I think that was, "Behold the Man" by Michael Moorcock, although I never read it.
Snags beat you to it
My advices is not to bother reading it 'coz it's cack.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The point of the password comparison is that a person who was either a) totally insecure or b) in a troubled relationship or c) both, might feel terribly tempted to go and read the emails for the purpose of confirming that no infidelity is going on. In the same way a believer who is either a,b or c might have the same temptation with the box--that is, the creeping doubt and suspicion that makes opening the damn thing such a temptation.
By the way, for what it's worth, we know all of each other's passwords. This is necessary because we both have crappy memories. So the example was for rhetorical purposes!
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
Wouldn't Anselm just say that if you could conceptualize a God who didn't exist, it wouldn't be God? Open the box. If it says "no God" there's clearly something wrong with it.
But if it's a good box, it could be useful for storage...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The point of the password comparison is that a person who was either a) totally insecure or b) in a troubled relationship or c) both, might feel terribly tempted to go and read the emails for the purpose of confirming that no infidelity is going on. In the same way a believer who is either a,b or c might have the same temptation with the box--that is, the creeping doubt and suspicion that makes opening the damn thing such a temptation.
Yes - or it could mean the opposite, that all programmes are left open because there is nothing not to trust, nothing to worry about.
I don't know for certain that God is there, but I trust that s/he he is. So I open the box.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
If you have this putative empirical proof that God exists (or does not), your reaction would be to share your proof far and wide, likely gaining some notoriety and fame as a result.
No, it wouldn't. There are several reasons why not, as well. Not necessarily in this order:
1) You now know, either way, what the answer is. The box appeared to you, it's impossible to show it to anyone else: it stops there. For all you know, your experience may not be unique. Right now, your next-door neighbour might be experiencing the same thing too, though s/he may never tell you or refer to it in any way.
2) You may write the whole thing off, retrospectively. The fact that you haven't been able to show the box to anyone else suggests that, although it seemed convincing at the time, you may somehow have deluded yourself. Some people will go on to convince themselves that it couldn't have happened.
3) If you can't prove it, you can't convince other people.
4) Fame and notoriety, indeed. Mention it and you'd be written off as a crackpot by some; others would expect further revelations from you, while members of the lunatic fringe would start taking an interest.
5) If there is no God, you can't insist (as you can't prove it) that you're right; but you've no right to attempt to take away anyone else's beliefs. Those beliefs may be erroneous but that's something they have to find out for themselves.
6) Ditto, if there is a God. You can't prove it. Nor should you insist to others that they must adopt your belief. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. Those beliefs may be erroneous but that's something they have to find out for themselves. They may get their own boxes in due course. Or not.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Ariel said -
if there is a God. You can't prove it. Nor should you insist to others that they must adopt your belief. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs. Those beliefs may be erroneous but that's something they have to find out for themselves. They may get their own boxes in due course. Or not.
Yes - so certainty would turn out very little different from faith/trust. It would change what we said or did very little.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I've been kicking this around for a few days, and still am...
But I don't think I'd open the box, and probably would not even touch it. If the box were for real, I don't think I could live with either answer--or with making the choice. If it were a fake, a trap, etc., I might never know that. I don't need the grief.
Though, if in a playful mood, I might hide the box somewhere, and leave a trail of clues, legends, and myths to point to it!
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
No need to open the box as it would most certainly be empty; confirming ones preconception either way.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I refuse the box. I think what I'm being offered, in the form of this box, is a terrible temptation: the curse of certainty. In some odd fashion, it immediately put me in mind of the devil showing Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth and the opportunity to rule them. Jesus rejected this temptation because it was (almost literally) beneath him -- small potatoes, compared to his real role.
IMHO you are missing the point of that temptation: Satan is offering Jesus an illegitimate short cut to something which he will earn as a result of his death on the cross.
Though this brings us to a wider point about the nature of proof and its legitimacy: for me a central element of the Christian faith is that we will be resurrected and live with God for ever. So that offers the same level of 'proof' as the box - at least after my death. The question then becomes one of why God seems not to offer that level of proof now...
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I guess by nature we are all doubting Thomases and cannot accept in faith but require proof. I would be as guilty as everyone else in this regard, which disappoints me.
Posted by Looking Lost (# 15435) on
:
Knowing me, curiosity would undoubtedly get the better of me and I would open the box. What I'd be interested in, however, is whether my beliefs I have about God are accurate (as Yorick said, there seem to be almost as many ideas of what God actually is as there are people believing/disbelieving in Him)*. I'd love to know without a doubt what we accept as truth about God is true and how much of what is accepted/taught by the various denominations as true actually isn't.
* = Of course, I'm presuming that whatever is contained within the box proves God DOES exist. If, on the other hand, it showed there was no God and my faith was nothing more than a delusion, I'd imagine that would take a lot of getting used to.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
No need to open the box as it would most certainly be empty; confirming ones preconception either way.
I don't know. Most of the mysterious boxes I've ever opened usually have dead spiders in them.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Why do people actually care whether God exists or not anyway?
What difference does it make?
[ 27. June 2010, 15:55: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Why do people actually care whether God exists or not anyway?
What difference does it make?
There is an impression that the practice of the Christian religion is dependent upon the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then anything that relates to God's existence is profoundly broken.
To play on the marriage metaphor, it'd be like claiming to be legally married to a non-existent wife or husband, or to take orders from a non-existent boss.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Why do people actually care whether God exists or not anyway?
What difference does it make?
It would make little difference to the things I say and do (as I said further up the thread) but, if the box proved there were no God I would have many questions.
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Looking Lost:
...If, on the other hand, it showed there was no God and my faith was nothing more than a delusion, I'd imagine that would take a lot of getting used to.
I'm curious how faith could become an illusion when it's such an integral part of the human dynamic. Faith [to me] is the driving force within every creative act and is inseparable from the process. It's not simply belief in something unprovable, but gives form to imagination and inspiration through physical action. quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
No need to open the box as it would most certainly be empty; confirming ones preconception either way.
I don't know. Most of the mysterious boxes I've ever opened usually have dead spiders in them.
There's always the possibility the box would reveal a blazing golden light that would melt the observers face like the ark of the covenant in "Indiana Jones"! You'd be dead but have your proof!
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
*erm* replace "illusion" with "delusion" above. (I must be seeing things)
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Alfred E Neuman says quote:
I'm curious how faith could become an illusion when it's such an integral part of the human dynamic. Faith [to me] is the driving force within every creative act and is inseparable from the process.
I'm inclined to see it in a similar way.
I'm also coming to the opinion that the whole concept of "God", as perceived by Abrahamic religions, probably originally came about as a result of the frustrations of a migrant community who were trying to eke out an existence on the fringes of the Egyptian empire. The community was slightly integrated with Egyptian urban life, but not very integrated, and, as a result, they didn't have an awful lot of economic clout.
So they were continually annoyed with the ostentatiousness of Egyptian religion, and particularly with the showiness of the huge pyramids for the rulers. They were resentful of the fact that they tried to play along with Egyptian life for the most part, but they were never given any credit for it. The migrants would have liked to have had similar pyramids for their own dead, but they knew that they would never get pyramids built in the honour of their own ancestral heroes at Egyptian state expense, and they were never going to be able to muster the manpower or the resources to build such pyramids off their own back.
So what did they do? They cooked up a value system which taught that this kind of showiness is a bit shallow, so as to convince themselves that they were somehow morally superior to the Egyptian rulers. The purpose of life is not to ensure that you end up with the most impressive memorial after you've died. Icons aren't really what it's all about, they said. What it is all about is something else.
As time went by, that "something else" gradually morphed into the concept that Jews, Christians and Muslims now call "God".
So I think it's rather ironic that, here we are today, debating whether that "something else" exists, and whether it even matters or not whether the "something else" exists - and whether we'd even like to know if it can be proven either way.
If the "something else" was something you could physically see and touch, then we wouldn't be debating whether it exists or not. It would be plainly obvious that it does exist. But then again, it wouldn't be any different to the Egyptian pyramids.
Perhaps the ancient Egyptians had it right all along. Still, that's just my view.
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
Bullfrog: quote:
...or to take orders from a non-existent boss.
Well, I'm sure that's something we've all done!
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Bullfrog: quote:
...or to take orders from a non-existent boss.
Well, I'm sure that's something we've all done!
OK I'll bite. In what way have we all done this? I'm not aware of ever working for a non-existent boss.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Well for me it would save me my giving to my church and the hours I spend there each week... if there was no God, I really wouldn't be there each week
Posted by Foxy (# 2409) on
:
If the OP stated "There is a box..." as opposed to "Someone gives you a box..." I would open it with no hesitation.
If the truth of the universe were that there was no God, I would want to know, mainly so as to not teach my children lies. I do believe (now, by faith) that there IS in fact a God, and I would love to have that confirmed with certainty, as I expect it will be in the fullness of time. Just knowing that God IS wouldn't remove all need for faith as far as I can see. The OP doesn't state that the Incarnation or the Resurrection would be proved, for instance.
Likewise, if I'm simply foolish to believe in God, imagining things that aren't there...well, it would probably be painful, and would take time to come to grips with, but I value the truth. I would want to know.
The only thing that makes me think the box is best avoided is that vague "Someone" who's given it to me. If it merely exists, or if God himself created it for me, no problem. But from any other party, it subverts God's will as I understand it. In reality, there is no incontrovertible proof of God's existence--if the God I believe in by faith wants to leave room for doubt, then who am I to pull back the veil?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Well for me it would save me my giving to my church and the hours I spend there each week... if there was no God, I really wouldn't be there each week
I still think there's a lot of point-missing going on. I personally would still attend church, even if I knew for sure that there wasn't any God.
For me, the reason why I'm interested in religion is death. The death of friends and relatives who have already died and who I grieve, the future death of friends and relatives who haven't died yet, but who are perhaps ill or elderly (or just plain mortal) - and, not least of all, my own future death (seeing as I think I'm mortal too).
Science doesn't solve the question of how we feel about death. Okay, religion doesn't entirely solve it either, but unlike science, at least religion tries.
The story of the death of Jesus on the cross and his subsequent resurrection, plus the stuff in Revelation too about his future return and judgement, is useful to me because it helps me to articulate the way I feel about death. As a result, it also helps me grapple with existential questions like "What's the purpose of life?" and "Why do we do the things we do?" and "Will anyone remember us after we've died?" and "Do we care whether they do remember us or not?"
Whether God actually exists or not - and whether Jesus really died on the cross and rose again from the dead or not - doesn't actually make any difference to that, because either way, the story is still useful as a source of metaphor and imagery to help us talk about life and death. And for me, that's the whole point.
It's true that a lot of people bang on about how important it is that God really does exist, and that he can be conceived of in a certain way, and that the historical facts of Jesus are this, that and the other. But for me, that's missing the point. I don't want to put people off indulging in their messianic fantasies - however, when people start telling me that the resurrection of Jesus means that we don't have to worry about death any more, it can come across as though they're trying to shut us up.
It's as though death is a taboo subject, and they want to keep it a taboo subject. When we try to raise the issue of grief and bereavement, they shout us down about the resurrection, as though the fact that we still want to talk about death somehow implies that we don't believe in the resurrection, which in turn somehow implies that we are "bad people". Personally, I find that rather irksome.
Though I can't prove it, I suspect that all religion and mythology has its origins in people's attempt to come to terms with issues like honour and shame, and life and death. And that includes the Christian concept of "God". But those concerns don't go away just because you conceive of "God" in a particular way. That's why I don't think it's possible to prove whether God exists or not. I also suspect that to attempt to prove it one way or the other is to miss the point of why people thought up the idea of "God" in the first place.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
My answer's yes, but I like Wilson's observation that a 1-person-only proof looks quite a lot like 'faith' anyway.
Posted by Foxy (# 2409) on
:
A one-person-only proof looks like faith only if you are lucky enough to possess a faith that never fails you. My faith is disconcertingly likely to shimmer and vanish like a mirage for periods of time, and then mysteriously "firm-up" again, sometimes having shifted a little this way, or a little that....
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
The OP is hypothetical in the extreme, but I think for those of us who have faith that God exists, it begs for the very real question of why, if God does exist, does he not give us more and stronger evidence of that fact?
To me, the answer is partly that when our faith comes and goes because we lack conclusive proof and sensory evidence, we think about it more and struggle to hang on to it, which makes it all the more important to us. Also, earlier posts have touched on what seem to me to be other parts of the answer, like Eliab: "... there is spiritual benefit to be had in the process of looking for God while you are still uncertain." fletcher christian: "It might have a negative effect on my sense of freedom if I looked and the answer was 'yes'" and MiceElf: "I do not want to be faced with my stubborn refusal to embrace all that believing in an Immortal Invisible God only Wise would involve"
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Mousethief is, as usual, very perceptive about the realistic limitations of the OP. However, in the spirit of what I think IbP meant, my answer is:
No, I would not open the box.
There's a lot of baggage in that, obviously. Please forgive me while I unpack it a bit.
Having already discarded the tedious realities associated with Mousethief's concerns, I am still left with a profound sense that fundamentally it should not matter whether or not there is a god. To me, personally, I mean. Because - duh - if I can roll out this proof to the whole world, I'm just enough of an attention whore to do so. But since IbP cleverly nested the idea inside the realm of the purely personal, I have to face my own self-contained relationship with this particular Big Unknown.
That relationship is a complicated one - one that has been refined considerably during my time here, actually. I'm not sure if I can adequately convey my appreciation for the way different, even conflicting, viewpoints have come to play an active part in my Ultimate Outlook. Perpendicular weaves of "am I being the best person I can be" and "what cognitive bias am I blind to right now" have me questioning pretty much everything I think and feel and do, in a myriad of ways. But there is one constant that I have discovered about myself:
I like figuring it out for myself.
And there it sits. Egotism. I have my own self-constructed ideals, and I like forming plans and arguments from them. And patting myself on the back for not screwing up too badly (I lie to myself).
So what does opening IbP's box get me? Well, essentially, it means that my pretty little set of ideals can be measured against an Absolute Truth - but I don't get the feeling that I get to fathom that Absolute Truth beyond just the existence of god thing. Meh. All I find, when it gets right down to it, is that I know whether or not I can address a specific entity in my thoughts about... well, everything. Not sure if I care about that, really. I'll give it a pass. Probably mostly because I lack the required humility.
In the end, I'd just give the box to somebody else who needs it more than I do.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I just had this nasty thought:
What if you didn't open the box, and after a while it started to smell?
Acht! I spoiled The Truth!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Smell, you mean like dead cat?
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on
:
RooK: quote:
I just had this nasty thought:
What if you didn't open the box, and after a while it started to smell?
You mean that our human apprehensions of the Truth of God have a sell-by date? Now, there's a thought!
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Foxy:
A one-person-only proof looks like faith only if you are lucky enough to possess a faith that never fails you. My faith is disconcertingly likely to shimmer and vanish like a mirage for periods of time, and then mysteriously "firm-up" again, sometimes having shifted a little this way, or a little that....
I sympathise - because my faith certainly didn't "never fail". However when I said it looks like faith I meant by that either:
a) those times when your faith hasn't vanished
or
b) those times when it has but you kept up the practice of religion anyway.
In these times I would argue that the only difference between looking in the box and a)/b) above is the degree of personal felt certainty.[*]
I suspect it's actually more similar than that because I suspect that unless we're allowed to keep the box constantly with us and constantly open then we'll tend to lose the feeling of certainty anyway - similar to the feeling of "have I left the gas on?" when you know perfectly well you switched it off.
In that sense I do think it has a sell-by date.
[*]the case where one's faith vanishes and one gives up practising (assuming this is more than a brief blip) certainly doesn't look like 1-person-proof but I'm not sure how it can be called faith either.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I personally would still attend church, even if I knew for sure that there wasn't any God.
Really? Amazing. Well, perhaps not so amazing, I guess church can serve a social and/or entertainment function. Perhaps more precisely: Would you still attend church if you knew that there wasn't a God and there were better opportunities to socialize, hear good music, etc. readily available to you?
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No, I would not open the box. ... I am still left with a profound sense that fundamentally it should not matter whether or not there is a god.
Clearly it matters a lot to you whether there is a god or not, if that decides so clearly your course of action (namely, to not open the box). It's difficult to demonstrate indifference, just as it is difficult to follow a command to be spontaneous. Nevertheless, if you decisively didn't care, then you should rather think something a la Psyduck above: "But if it's a good box, it could be useful for storage..."
Posted by Piglit (# 15612) on
:
I'd open it.
My doubt over whether God's there or not has been a major reason my life has had so little impact. If I had proof, everything would change, knowing for certain what I struggle to believe.
Admitedly, it would leave an awful lot of interesting questions unanswered!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What's the point, I have the answer already.
Apologies if anyone has beaten me to that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Martin!! Good to see ya! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No, I would not open the box. ... I am still left with a profound sense that fundamentally it should not matter whether or not there is a god.
Clearly it matters a lot to you whether there is a god or not, if that decides so clearly your course of action (namely, to not open the box). It's difficult to demonstrate indifference, just as it is difficult to follow a command to be spontaneous. Nevertheless, if you decisively didn't care, then you should rather think something a la Psyduck above: "But if it's a good box, it could be useful for storage..."
I feel as if my rambling disclosure about my egotism was wasted in your case.
Yes, I do care. While I feel that whether or not there is a god should not matter (in terms of my philosophical methodology), it is clearly possible that it could matter. As clearly demonstrated by those who claim with certainty that they already know. And, burdened as I am by my ego, I want to be able to work it out myself. For the SAKE of working it out myself.
"Is it possible to climb that mountain?"
I'd rather be the guy who climbed the mountain to find out than to be the guy who waited in the pub eating pickled eggs until the first guy got back and told him the answer.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
RooK says
quote:
Because - duh - if I can roll out this proof to the whole world, I'm just enough of an attention whore to do so. But since IbP cleverly nested the idea inside the realm of the purely personal, I have to face my own self-contained relationship with this particular Big Unknown.
Interesting observation.
While I'm personally of the opinion that pretty much all afterlife myths are an allegory for honour and shame, it's quite likely that the reason I think that is because I try to rationalise the way I personally feel about life and death, and the things which I think would give my life a purpose, and the things which I think wouldn't. The questions I face go like this: What gets me so excited that I think death wouldn't matter? And what other ambitions do I have that I think the fear of death would put a dampener on?
Basically I'm just an attention whore myself too. In fact, I'm so much of an attention whore, that I'd like people to pay attention to me not just now, but in the future too. Forever! Assuming I'm not doing anything embarrassing, of course - but the point is, I wouldn't want some pesky inconvenience like "death" getting in the way.
What that means is that for me, there's no such thing as a purely personal spirituality. To me, the "Big Unknown", and other people's opinion of me, are one and the same thing.
So is it any surprise that I consider all hero legends and afterlife myths to be an allegory for some aspect of honour and/or shame?
Whenever someone tries to explain that myths and/or religious texts ought to be interpreted some other way, it just sounds .... well .... wrong. But besides, the people who say that honour and shame don't matter are generally weirdoes with few or no friends, so I don't tend to rate their opinions that highly. That doesn't mean I'm not a weirdo myself, though.
Posted by Foxy (# 2409) on
:
Jessie, I didn't get much sleep last night and my thinking is admittedly fuzzy today, but I can't quite get a bead on what you're saying--I feel like I'm missing something. Do you have a belief in a God of any sort? It sounds to me like your main points are that you have fear of death/annihilation, and that that fear is mitigated by thinking that people won't forget you when you're dead. But it doesn't sound like you have any belief in an actual "Other" greater than yourself. Is that right? If you did have concrete, undeniable proof that there was a "person" called God would that change your worldview?
Or have I totally misread you?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I feel as if my rambling disclosure about my egotism was wasted in your case.
Rambling about one's egotism is generally a waste to all but oneself. That's why one has to pay good money to see a shrink...
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And, burdened as I am by my ego, I want to be able to work it out myself. For the SAKE of working it out myself.
As scientist I've made some kind of career out of "working things out myself". And I've never ever had the impression that the world was running out of mystery just because I obtained some additional piece of information about it. To the contrary, the more knowledge I have obtained about anything, the deeper and more beautiful the mystery became.
So I doubt that this is about the informational content (does God exist or not) as such for you. Clearly gaining that bit of information can only broaden the general playing field for "working things out".
Rather, I reckon this is more subtly about a kind of mental voodoo. By working things out one becomes a kind of master over the subject, even if that's not so practically speaking. I may drown in the tsunami I correctly predicted. Yet though the tsunami can still kill me, I somehow have taken its measure by understanding when and how it will.
And so I reckon your desire to work out yourself whether God exists has to do with the desire to be on a level with God, or even His master, in that same mental voodoo sense. Yes, the Creator He may be, all powerful etc. But at least you would have found that out yourself, rather than having it revealed to you by Him (whether by a box or otherwise).
In that sense then perhaps it would be good if one would get such a box only once one had come the believe in God by faith in what has been revealed. For then one has already accepted some failure of mental mastery, one has already accepted that as human one requires assistance, mental alms from the Holy Spirit...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Eutychus, I've missed you guys. Life has been ... interesting. Keep away from that window!
As no one has taken my bait, which wouldn't have been worth the bite to all the rhetoricians, I'll wait.
You never know, one of the denizens might rise to snap the line.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of faith. Knowing God exists would destroy my faith, and destroy me too most likely.
OK, I haven't read through the whole thread so someone may have addressed this, but...
Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of not knowing. There is no such thing as "faith" in purely rational categories. That's probably why rationalists reduced the meaning of faith to believing in something you lack proof for.
Faith is much more than that - it's trust. You have to have faith in reason to even be a rationalist. You have to then have faith in all the sense data and in all the conclusions you draw from that data, and in all the processes whereby you draw those conclusions.
Nothing can be proven to the point that it's outside the realm of faith. Faith is a prerequisite for reason, not its negation.
I would open the box, because I'm a curious person. But whatever the "irrefutable proof" might be (and I seriously doubt there could be such a thing), it would raise questions and require interpretation, just as the irrefutable proof that the sky is blue requires interpretation. Once we all look up at the sky, we're not going to argue about whether the sky is blue or orange; we're going to discuss what that means: how it is that our sense perceptions register blue; what it is that is blue (what is the sky, anyway?); how is it we know we all see the same thing when we say we're seeing blue; questions like that.
If the box contains proof that God exists, then some of the questions it would raise might include:
--How should we then live?
--Why isn't this existence obvious to everyone? Why is it possible to disbelieve?
--What sort of God is this God who/that exists? And what does that mean?
--What does it mean that God's existence can be proven?
If the box contains proof that God does not exist, then some of the questions it would raise might include:
--How should we then live?
--Why isn't this lack of existence obvious to everyone? Why is it possible to believe in God?
--What sort of God is this who/that doesn't exist? Why do people believe in God, in the kinds of gods they do, and what is really being expressed by those beliefs if there really is no God? I.e., what function does a mythological, non-existent God fill in the human psyche, in human society, and so forth? And what can take its place?
--What does it mean that we can prove no God exists?
And either way, any use one might make of the information requires faith in the box and its contents!
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rambling about one's egotism is generally a waste to all but oneself. That's why one has to pay good money to see a shrink...
Or cleverly marries one...
But the rest is a reasonable regurgitation of my essential stance, albeit somewhat masticated. Egotism or insufficient humility; either works.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
But the rest is a reasonable regurgitation of my essential stance, albeit somewhat masticated. Egotism or insufficient humility; either works.
Problem is that you've become self-reflective. Your self-deprecation is parading an internal fight of "is" with "ought": you are putting yourself down to justify your status quo - justifying it mostly to yourself, not to us. But you cannot return to being innocently egotistic or prideful once you've noticed that you are. You doubt, and doubt is only metastable...
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Foxy says
quote:
But it doesn't sound like you have any belief in an actual "Other" greater than yourself. Is that right?
Not quite; my answer to that question would be to question the concept of "greatness". How do we decide what is great and what isn't?
Are kings, sportspeople and celebrities "greater" than people who modestly live out their lives in a one-bedroom apartment, doing a mundane 9-5? If not, then why do we talk about them as though they are?
And what about war heroes who get memorials built for them? And what about saints who come to be recognised in the Roman Martyrology?
It seems to me that you don't even have to exist in order to be considered great. How many of us believe that all of the gods and heroes of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Norse, Celtic and Arthurian legend actually existed? In spite of their apparent non-existence, they still get poems written about them.
And I don't see why the Christian concept of God is any different. So, in answer to the next question:
quote:
If you did have concrete, undeniable proof that there was a "person" called God would that change your worldview?
Probably not, seeing as I don't believe that greatness is conditional upon existence alone.
IngoB says
quote:
In that sense then perhaps it would be good if one would get such a box only once one had come the believe in God by faith in what has been revealed. For then one has already accepted some failure of mental mastery, one has already accepted that as human one requires assistance, mental alms from the Holy Spirit.
I'm intrigued by the theory that that might have been the way the Eleusinian Mysteries in ancient Athens used to work. You used to have to have "faith" until the secrets were revealed to you. But once the secrets were revealed to you, there were state-sanctioned penalties for revealing them outside of the context of the formal initiation ceremonies.
So who got nailed for spilling the beans? And could this be part of the reason why only a small number of the Athenian tragedies that are thought to have existed have actually survived?
churchgeek says
quote:
Faith is much more than that - it's trust. You have to have faith in reason to even be a rationalist. You have to then have faith in all the sense data and in all the conclusions you draw from that data, and in all the processes whereby you draw those conclusions.
Good point. For example, I have some level of faith that if you sign up to join the armed forces, and you are killed in battle, then the government isn't going to slander you and your family in the national papers, by saying that it was your fault you died, because you failed to keep with the discipline, and you were somehow a coward (oh, and your mother was a whore).
But then - sometimes, I don't have that faith. It's okay to have doubts. But Christian belief isn't the only thing that counts as having "faith", in my opinion.
Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on
:
No box opening for me, not a chance !
Putting all the highbrow arguments aside, as they boggle me grey cells, for the box to contain absolute proof that God exists would mean the Gospels were wrong, totally wrong and therefore so was Isiah etc. and therefore we all disappear up our own singularities.
If the contents of the box say God doesn`t exist then whats the point ?
However it is all academic as I too know the answer.
Many thanks to sharkshooter
quote:
I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe.
and for quoting Psalm 19, which has for some reason been following me about for the last wee while
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
No box opening for me, not a chance !
Putting all the highbrow arguments aside, as they boggle me grey cells, for the box to contain absolute proof that God exists would mean the Gospels were wrong, totally wrong....
How so?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
How so?
I was wondering that too. But I was also wondering - what's wrong with being wrong?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The box is open and the 'proof' is understood according to disposition.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Problem is that you've become self-reflective. Your self-deprecation is parading an internal fight of "is" with "ought": you are putting yourself down to justify your status quo - justifying it mostly to yourself, not to us. But you cannot return to being innocently egotistic or prideful once you've noticed that you are.
"Become" self-reflective? Let's just ignore that outrageously incongruent falsehood.
Putting myself down? You know, I'm really sort of not. I'm pretty OK with my current degree of humility-lacking, but can be humbly honest about it. And it has nothing to do with innocence - I've been completely conscious of this facet for some time now.
quote:
You doubt, and doubt is only metastable...
Actually, I doubt that.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
"Become" self-reflective? Let's just ignore that outrageously incongruent falsehood.
OK, sorry for overestimating your development.
Actually, I was interested in your current state rather than in how recently it came about. And I was praising by faint criticism. But feel free to take offense, it appears to exercise your vocabulary.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Putting myself down? You know, I'm really sort of not. I'm pretty OK with my current degree of humility-lacking, but can be humbly honest about it.
Shrug. Even in this very reply you continue making self-deprecating excuses.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And it has nothing to do with innocence - I've been completely conscious of this facet for some time now.
Time really doesn't matter that much here, except that you only have a finite amount. And I repeat: foundational searches never end by finding, rather it gives them a new lease of life.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You doubt, and doubt is only metastable...
Actually, I doubt that.
For now...
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Time really doesn't matter that much here, except that you only have a finite amount. And I repeat: foundational searches never end by finding, rather it gives them a new lease of life.
In other words, the search is more important than the result - which implies a certain obsession with procedure over process. Like Martin PC said, the proof is understood according to disposition and it seems both our resident mental collosi would rather stroke themselves than see the light.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I just had this nasty thought:
What if you didn't open the box, and after a while it started to smell?
Acht! I spoiled The Truth!
I have smelled the smell and forsooth it is incense.
Yes, I would still attend church if you all opened the box and discovered there was nothing there (as previously stated I wouldn't open it myself, of course). But only if I can still have a choir.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
In other words, the search is more important than the result
That's not what I said. My point was that finding (fundamental) results always opens up new vistas. If I learn that a god exists, this immediately raises the question what kind of god this is. Etc.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
If the contents of the box is, as Sharkshooter has posted:
[QUOTE I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe. ] [/QUOTE]
Is it a large or small box? If small, then it contains that infinite small speck of energy and mass (e=mc2). And where is a god in that?
If it is large enough to contain the universe as we now see it, where does a god exist outside of it?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
...Is it a large or small box? ...
You are totally missing the point I was making.
There is no need to look in the box. The proof is all around you.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
it seems both our resident mental collosi would rather stroke themselves than see the light.
Quite so, especially in my case. I attribute it to my nocturnal nature: light hurts my wee beady eyes.
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
In other words, the search is more important than the result
That's not what I said. My point was that finding (fundamental) results always opens up new vistas. If I learn that a god exists, this immediately raises the question what kind of god this is. Etc.
You're supporting my assertion. If you expect that 'learn[ing] a god exists' simply leads to more searching, with no interest in applying that knowledge, you're more interested in the search than the result. ISTM that to know god exists implies full knowledge of his attributes which makes the question "what kind of god this is, etc." rather moot.
But then, Purg has always been the place for semantic wordplay.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
ISTM that to know god exists implies full knowledge of his attributes which makes the question "what kind of god this is, etc." rather moot.
I don't agree.
I know that my parents exist, but I'm still learning things about their personalities, even at 48 (me, not them).
I know that my car exists, but I recently learned a much better way of how to drive it, so clearly I didn't know all there was to know about how to operate with it. And I'm still learning things about the car itself; just yesterday I got a warning light on the dash that I'd never seen before.
I know that the Empire State Building exists but apart from going to the top once a long time ago, I know very little about it -- what kinds of businesses are housed in it, how many elevators it has, whether there's a restaurant there.
I know President Obama exists, but I don't know as much about him as I know about my sister.
Etc.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
If you expect that 'learn[ing] a god exists' simply leads to more searching, with no interest in applying that knowledge, you're more interested in the search than the result.
You are making a distinction that I did not have in mind. As far as my argument is concerned, application a la "God exists. What does that mean for my life? What shall I do?" is simply another search that immediately suggests itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
ISTM that to know god exists implies full knowledge of his attributes which makes the question "what kind of god this is, etc." rather moot.
As argued already by Autenrieth Road, this is certainly not the case for the regular inventory of the universe. But maybe you have some interesting philosophical ideas about "god" and "knowing" that would support this?
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
Anthropomorphism with respect to describing god is a well-worn subject here. I can't appreciate the relevance of knowing god exists as a building or automobile or that there's always more to learn in that respect. To claim bits of knowledge about a concept so completely other as proof of existence is to lose oneself in a hall of mirrors. The whole premise of the OP is an impossible scenario. I can't see any other "proof" for existence of deity than knowing and understanding intimately the whole ball of wax - which suggests becoming.
Ingo, I've attempted several times here over the years to explain my "take" on the creator. It's a mish-mash of principles cobbled together from kabbalism to zoroastrianism - christianity to hermetics and everything between. The truths I've understood are those that are common to all theologies and as such are abhorrent to rigid christian 'rules and regulations' type thinking. The principles that I "know" are those that I'm able to apply in my daily life - mostly through my limited understanding of the creative principle as described in the paths between the sephiroth.
"Proof" is intimate and personal in that all my physically creative action, simple or complex, has become vastly more predictable and efficient - like grease in the gears.
Posted by Process Deist (# 15494) on
:
Religion hangs in the balance while we cast lots on the box. I guess that means that religion is about as predictable as the lottery.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Process Deist:
Religion hangs in the balance while we cast lots on the box. I guess that means that religion is about as predictable as the lottery.
I swim.
Fish swim.
Therefore I'm a fish.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
To claim bits of knowledge about a concept so completely other as proof of existence is to lose oneself in a hall of mirrors. The whole premise of the OP is an impossible scenario. I can't see any other "proof" for existence of deity than knowing and understanding intimately the whole ball of wax - which suggests becoming.
Let's try to make this a bit more concrete. Say the proof in the box shows conclusively (at least to the one who opened it) that the existence of the universe requires the existence of an uncaused cause, a "creator". I would then say then that that person knows that there is a god. Clearly they don't know all that much about this god. But they do know about the existence of a god, because what they know points to something other and greater than the world.
You appear to disagree. In what way then would this person merely be lost in a hall of mirrors?
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
"Proof" is intimate and personal in that all my physically creative action, simple or complex, has become vastly more predictable and efficient - like grease in the gears.
And how would you know that this is not also just a hall of mirrors? To realize your "proof" still requires the activity of your mind judging things. Just in this case the modes and experiences of your life, instead of a more abstract proposition. But while you know more about your life, you are also more biased about it, and it is way more complicated. I see no a priori reason why judgment must be true in that case, but must fail about something like an "uncaused cause" argument.
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You appear to disagree. In what way then would this person merely be lost in a hall of mirrors?
The proposition is impossible as you well know - so speculation regarding the condition of knowing that god exists, by that hypothetical proof, is futile wordplay. Still, I would suggest any proof under your conditions would necessarily be filtered through mental/emotional biases and symbolic imagery (senses)... a hall of mirrors. quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
"Proof" is intimate and personal in that all my physically creative action, simple or complex, has become vastly more predictable and efficient - like grease in the gears.
And how would you know that this is not also just a hall of mirrors? To realize your "proof" still requires the activity of your mind judging things. Just in this case the modes and experiences of your life, instead of a more abstract proposition. But while you know more about your life, you are also more biased about it, and it is way more complicated. I see no a priori reason why judgment must be true in that case, but must fail about something like an "uncaused cause" argument.
I make no claim to objective proof for the existence of god. I said that it was intimate and personal. My personal bias requires that knowledge of god be expressible physically through creative action - and it is. "As above - so below", others have said.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I always love how, when someone asks a hypothetical question with well-defined parameters, some people simply can't resist pointing out their problems with the initial parameters.
It's perfectly fine to question the basis for a question if the question purports to be about practical, real-life issues and aimed to come up with practical, real-life answers. But when something it explicitly acknowledged to be a hypothetical, there are two sensible options:
1. Answer the question as posed.
2. If you don't like the question as posed, don't answer it.
I suppose within option 2 there are two reasonable sub-options:
(a) go create a hypothetical question you DO like somewhere else.
(b) SAY NOTHING.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I always love how, when someone asks a hypothetical question with well-defined parameters, some people simply can't resist pointing out their problems with the initial parameters.
It's perfectly fine to question the basis for a question if the question purports to be about practical, real-life issues and aimed to come up with practical, real-life answers. But when something it explicitly acknowledged to be a hypothetical, there are two sensible options:
1. Answer the question as posed.
2. If you don't like the question as posed, don't answer it.
I suppose within option 2 there are two reasonable sub-options:
(a) go create a hypothetical question you DO like somewhere else.
(b) SAY NOTHING.
Oooh. Look who wants to keep other people from openly voicing their opinions.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Only when the opinions aren't actually on point.
It's the height of intellectual wankery to respond to a hypothetical question by saying "THAT'S not the question you should have asked, here's what I think you should have asked..."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
On the contrary. It is an extension of the discussion of the parameters. Not at all off-topic, and not at all wankery. You assume that the conditions as set up constitute everything that can be said on the subject, or at least the only conditions under which the subject can be discussed. Discussing the terms themselves IS discussing the OP. At worst, and I don't accept this but it is a possible reading, it is a tangent, but not a very tangential one, and even then avoiding such a tangent is not something the OPer can dictate.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You assume that the conditions as set up constitute everything that can be said on the subject, or at least the only conditions under which the subject can be discussed.
This is precisely why I made a distinction between hypotheticals and other situations.
There is plenty of room within the question to discuss WHY your answer would be 'yes' or 'no', and to discuss the merits of either answer. But when people start saying things along the lines of "I don't accept there is a box", it really does come across as wankery. No-one ever claimed there actually WAS a box, so why waste everybody's time arguing that there isn't a box?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It clearly chafes you that people want to discuss the subject in ways other than what you want to straightjacket them into. Whatever.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
The proposition is impossible as you well know - so speculation regarding the condition of knowing that god exists, by that hypothetical proof, is futile wordplay.
No, I don't know that. In fact I believe that such argument can exist, and even that the ones we have now have a fair shot already at being compelling. That people are not as compelled by them as one might expect has many reasons, some of which are somewhat reasonable. Anyway, my point is that what I said wasn't intended as outrageously hypothetical...
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Still, I would suggest any proof under your conditions would necessarily be filtered through mental/emotional biases and symbolic imagery (senses)... a hall of mirrors. ... My personal bias requires that knowledge of god be expressible physically through creative action - and it is.
So you are claiming that no knowledge of God is possible, which is not entirely conditioned on the person knowing? On what basis do you make that claim then? Clearly humans have managed to gather some knowledge that transcends their individual experience, so why is that not possible with God? In fact, is your claim not simply self-contradictory? After all, it is itself claiming to know something about God in an "objective" (valid for all) sense: namely that nothing "objective" can be known about God.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But when people start saying things along the lines of "I don't accept there is a box", it really does come across as wankery. No-one ever claimed there actually WAS a box, so why waste everybody's time arguing that there isn't a box?
Pointing out that there cannot be such a box is not wankery in the least. Because "there cannot be" is really not at all the same as "there is not".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pointing out that there cannot be such a box is not wankery in the least. Because "there cannot be" is really not at all the same as "there is not".
What? The effect,when dealing with a hypothetical, looks pretty much the same to me.
I agree that they are entirely different when dealing with a real-life question. One is about whether something exists in fact based on the available evidence, and the other is about whether something's existence can be ruled out as a matter of principle (therefore ensuring that existence won't be proved later on with better evidence).
But evidence for a hypothetical is an entirely irrelevant and meaningless consideration. The parameters of a hypothetical are axiomatic. They don't require evidence, nor can they be refuted by contrary evidence. That's what makes it a hypothetical. It's BUILT on an assumption, for the sake of argument.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But evidence for a hypothetical is an entirely irrelevant and meaningless consideration.
Nope.
Question: "Assume that there is a square circle. Does it have more corners than a triangle?"
Answer: "There cannot be a square circle. Hence your assumption is nonsensical and the question has no meaning."
Thought experiments are fine, and do not have to be practical in all regards. That's after all why one employs thought experiments. However, if they are essentially at odds with reality/logic, then they are pointless exercises and it is important to say so.
By the way, I do not believe myself that our box here is a nonsensical notion. I think that's an entirely valid thought experiment. But you are simply out of line accusing people who think otherwise and say so of "intellectual wanking".
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...rambling disclosure about my egotism...
In other news: bears recently discovered to shit predominantly in the woods.
(apologies for my absence; I have been in a tent up a mountain for a week, a situation not known for its excellent WiFi access, but terribly relaxing nonetheless. And, yes, I did shit in the woods)
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Yes, I would open the box. But somehow the answer, whichever way it would go, seems largely semantic. Martyrs still went to their deaths singing alleluias, monks went forth to tame the wilderness, and Bach composed a mass in B minor. Whatever caused them to do this would remain an intriguing mystery that I would want to know better.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But evidence for a hypothetical is an entirely irrelevant and meaningless consideration.
Nope.
Question: "Assume that there is a square circle. Does it have more corners than a triangle?"
Answer: "There cannot be a square circle. Hence your assumption is nonsensical and the question has no meaning."
Thought experiments are fine, and do not have to be practical in all regards. That's after all why one employs thought experiments. However, if they are essentially at odds with reality/logic, then they are pointless exercises and it is important to say so.
Since when is reality limited by logic?
And BTW:
Squircle--Wikipedia
You can also stretch a circular rubber band around 4 pegs (a square) on a pegboard, or around a cubical block.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's the height of intellectual wankery to respond to a hypothetical question by saying "THAT'S not the question you should have asked, here's what I think you should have asked..."
Surely the point of a hypothetical question is to get the questionee thinking. If their thoughts lead to other hypothetical questions, isn't that, by extension, a good thing?
Where would philosophy be without such processes?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Was thinking about it last night and I think I have realized exactly how this box could work. In fact, I believe there have been shipmates who have said this has happened to them. The box is just one's own head. If God spoke to you Clearly in your head, you would suddenly be unable to doubt his existence, not enlightened on the rest of his thoughts/essence/etc., and unable to persuade anyone with the information you have.
Posted by Foxy (# 2409) on
:
Or you might just be convinced you have schizophrenia.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
But doesn't believing you have schizophrenia prove you don't? Psychotic people don't believe they're psychotic. They're out of touch with reality.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But doesn't believing you have schizophrenia prove you don't? Psychotic people don't believe they're psychotic. They're out of touch with reality.
I'm pretty sure it is entirely possible for some psychotic people to know that they're psychotic. It's more problematic when they're oblivious to it, or when they don't care.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Maybe it's the "psychotic episode" thing -- you don't realize that you're psychotic while you're in an "episode" but when you're not, you might realize it.
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Still, I would suggest any proof under your conditions would necessarily be filtered through mental/emotional biases and symbolic imagery (senses)... a hall of mirrors. ... My personal bias requires that knowledge of god be expressible physically through creative action - and it is.
So you are claiming that no knowledge of God is possible, which is not entirely conditioned on the person knowing? On what basis do you make that claim then? Clearly humans have managed to gather some knowledge that transcends their individual experience, so why is that not possible with God? In fact, is your claim not simply self-contradictory? After all, it is itself claiming to know something about God in an "objective" (valid for all) sense: namely that nothing "objective" can be known about God.
I'm poor at expressing these things but will try again. Perhaps we're talking past each other on the "proof of" and "knowledge of" aspects. Proof suggests the hard logic of mathematic formula - able to be shared using symbols understood universally. I don't think that sort of clean, objective proof is possible regarding god - there are no universally accepted symbols (that I know of).
Knowledge is much more nebulous than hard logic. It's personal understanding of a subject (to me) and subject to individual interpretation. Think of a schematic that shows a design that can be built upon - but doesn't necessarily prove a Grand Engineer. The schematic contains no scale references or materials list - and was drawn in such a way that anyone attempting to seriously study the design would discover it didn't describe a concrete object but the act of designing and creating objects. This is my personal understanding of god - as a creative principle that can be acted upon but not shared as proof objectively.
[sorry for the tangent off your 'box' analogy, IbP.]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd be very excited and very curious. Which is why I said "only if I was drunk" - i.e. if I wasn't thinking rationally. Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of faith. Knowing God exists would destroy my faith, and destroy me too most likely.
In the message directly below where you wrote this, IntellectByProxy clarified:
quote:
Let's make the assumption that there is only one God, and every single human conceptualisation of God (Thor, Yahweh, Flying Spaghetti Monster) is an imperfect attempt to define the divine.
On this assumption (which I had made from the outset), it seems to me that a "No" answer would vindicate atheism, but a "Yes" answer would vindicate... what? That Christianity gives us the truest understanding of God than any other religion would still require faith.
It reminds me of the joke in which a cardinal rushes to the pope saying, "I have good news and bad news. The good news is that Jesus is returning to earth. The bad news is that you'll need to go to Salt Lake City to meet him."
As to our choices if the answer is "no", there are still various philosophies available, and the choice would likewise require a sort of faith. Epicureanism would probably suit my temperament the best.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But evidence for a hypothetical is an entirely irrelevant and meaningless consideration.
Nope.
Question: "Assume that there is a square circle. Does it have more corners than a triangle?"
Answer: "There cannot be a square circle. Hence your assumption is nonsensical and the question has no meaning."
Thought experiments are fine, and do not have to be practical in all regards. That's after all why one employs thought experiments. However, if they are essentially at odds with reality/logic, then they are pointless exercises and it is important to say so.
By the way, I do not believe myself that our box here is a nonsensical notion. I think that's an entirely valid thought experiment. But you are simply out of line accusing people who think otherwise and say so of "intellectual wanking".
Depends how you've defined square and circle, doesn't it?
As already demonstrated by the Squircle.
Anyway, an example where you deliberately pick two axioms that contradict each other is a straw man.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0