What would you do if the Christian God was disproved?

[Branden Holmes]

Hypothetically speaking, if the existence of the Christian God was disproved some how, what would you do? Interpret the question however you wish. I'm intrigued to know what most people would do.

[Soyeong]

I'd become a Jew, though I think the God of Christianity is the same as the God of Judaism.  If not that, then I think I would either become a deist or a Buddhist.

[Branden Holmes]

Nobody else wants to vote???

[Soyeong]

I'm interested in the person who voted for creating a new monotheistic religion.  It seems to me that if the God of Christianity was disproved, then other arguments for the existence a monotheistic God of theism or deism would still work.  However, without any sort of revelation, creating a new religion around that being would be problematic. 

[Branden Holmes]

I'm interested in the person who voted for creating a new monotheistic religion.  It seems to me that if the God of Christianity was disproved, then other arguments for the existence a monotheistic God of theism or deism would still work.  However, without any sort of revelation, creating a new religion around that being would be problematic.

Apart from apatheism, I tried to be exhaustive in the possible routes one could take, so I listed "create a new monotheistic religion". As I see it there are two possible reasons one could take this option. Firstly, one could view Jesus as a prophet (or something else, just not divine), as Muslims do, and use his teachings/prophecies/revelations to construct a new religion. Secondly, one could be using "religion" in an unorthodox sense. Hopefully they will be along to give us their reasoning because it intrigued me too.

[stupid_sinner]

I don't think I can vote. If Christian God is disproven (say, Jesus' tomb was discovered):
1. Become a Muslim: No way. There's no way I would believe in a god who tells people to kill non-believers.
2. Become a Jewish: Where's the good in being 'dehumanized' by having to obey a some rules? I'm human, not some robot programed to do this-or-that
3. Become an agnostic: This is my default position and there's no way I would be back to this stage
4. Become a pantheist: Actually a good option. But religion like Buddhism have one ultimate goal in common: To deny the self. If I am to deny myself, then it is as good as denying that I am a human.
5. Become an atheist: The only logical option left. But what good in living without a purpose, or living in self-delusion that there is purpose in live, while it actually isn't?

Maybe the best thing to do is to just commit suicide.

[hereLiesThisTroper]

If the Christian God is the only one disproven, then that would mean that only the Christian revelation is disproven and not the natural existence of God. Having said that, I'd go to being a Deist because aside from the arguments I have in believing Christ, I am still convinced of the arguments for a creator of the universe.

[Soyeong]

2. Become a Jewish: Where's the good in being 'dehumanized' by having to obey a some rules? I'm human, not some robot programed to do this-or-that

I challenge you to find anyone in the Bible who thought obeying God's law was dehumanizing.  Read the Psalms, such as 119, and you'll see that they thought it was anything but that. 

[MikeBrown]

I think I would either become a atheist.

[noncontingent]

One could as well ask the reverse.

What would you do if the Christian God was proved?

What I would do is do what I've always done, which is to listen to my conscience.

I'm not doing what I hope is morally upright based on one or the other.

Now if someone were to ask me if God told me to go sacrifice my son as a burnt offering on a mountain a three days journey away, and I knew for a fact it was God asking me to do this thing, I'd have to decline. An evil act is an evil act no matter who is asking it of me.

Unless I have more information than is explicitly recorded in the Bible which is the obviously the Sacrifice of Isaac.

For the purpose of examining the very hotly disputed event which superficially seems barbaric to ask of a loving father, I'll go on a bit.

Now some might say and I might agree that God's nature is good. That agreed to, I could still not simply comply without asking a lot of questions.

It may very well be that there was an exchange of this sort between Abraham and God, but this is not recorded. Paul, in one view is speculating on the possible thoughts entertained by Abraham relative to this situation when he writes about this - "19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back." Hebrews 11:19 ESV.

Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is this explicitly stated. Now I'm not arguing that Paul got this wrong, just that we would have to intuit the mindset of Abraham ,or have the witness of the Holy Spirit to the truth of this, or  admit that everything penned by Paul when he writes is 100% spot on (even though in his letters he speaks numerous times that this is his "opinion" and "I think I have God's spirit".

We can make a choice about what we'll be willing to choose to believe.

It also must be noted that much has not been written about things said and done by Jesus as well - see John 21:25 - "25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - ESV.

This means I have a choice about how to interpret what Abraham did and what he knew and any conversations he may or may not have had with God. (or even that matter with Isaac...see Genesis 22:8 "Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together." In that latter portion..."So they went both of them together" is pregnant with meaning. What if any conversation occurred? We don't know.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Again I have a choice. It's not forced on me so that I have no choice as to which explanation I'll act on.

I prefer to "Let God be true, though every man a liar" - Romans 3:4

Also "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1

I have assurance because I hope.

So one might ask that this business of faith isn't a simple binary transaction, such that one could answer this "What would you do if it were proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that your wife was a faithless harlot, who never loved you or her children" in a simple way.

You would be horrified, and you would fight tooth and nail not to establish the truth of such terrible accusations. If you loved your wife you would do all you could to maintain the relationship you've built up over the years and you would hold in abeyance the challenges to her integrity.

Think of Jobs so-called "comforters". Job had little to go on w/regard to his sufferings during the ordeal. His integrity was challenged, his family was murdered by Satan, his health fled, his wife told him to curse God and die. But...in the end he had witness borne to him that his faith was not in vain.

[jayceeii]

I prefer to "Let God be true, though every man a liar" - Romans 3:4

Noncontingent,

The sacrifice of Isaac, I’d say, was put into the Bible for consistency’s sake. I heard a Christian preacher the other day reverse-explaining the practice of animal sacrifice by saying it was a prelude to the sacrifice of Jesus. In other words, the Christian story goes, God was always going to sacrifice His Son, therefore He first showed favor to animal sacrifices. Then you see the sacrifice of Isaac is right in here, as a cameo of God sacrificing His Son. You’re supposed to dwell in the poignancy of the moment, rather than applying moral criteria like you do here. All the religions have self-consistency built into them, at rather deep levels. It doesn’t mean they are true or best, but just consistent.

In this case you might want to recognize that God might not be directly approachable by any of the religions. Perhaps all the religions lead to the same goal, but the people can’t be told where they’re really headed since they couldn’t comprehend it and might not even call it good. The critical thing about Job’s story, from my perspective, is that it predicts the current state of the church, how everyone prays for help from God because the neighbors never would. Men are naturally at enmity, which is why your economic problems don’t just disappear, if you join a religion. You seem like you might be nosing around for God, unsatisfied with the filters of religion. Perhaps God is seeking you, too.

[CorneliusC]

I don't mean to be flippant or rude, but this is really the wrong question to ask. As Christians, we know that Christianity is true because of the witness of the Holy Spirit (see William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith."). We don't need to engage in silly thought experiments, such as the OP's.

Interesting questions all centre around truth: is Islam true? Is Christianity? Is Judaism? Is Hinduism? etc.

Negative questions, like the above, don't really help with anything.

[jayceeii]

As Christians, we know that Christianity is true because of the witness of the Holy Spirit (see William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith."). We don't need to engage in silly thought experiments, such as the OP's.

How is this different from, “We don’t need to think, because God does it for us”? I’d have felt offended to be told the Holy Spirit enters my mind. I want to be free and independent, not to rely on a greater power to provide input into my being. But, I guess that relies on our Maker being good enough to endow us with full independence. Had He not done so, He might indeed need to help out here and there, with cantankerous humans.

[CorneliusC]

As Christians, we know that Christianity is true because of the witness of the Holy Spirit (see William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith."). We don't need to engage in silly thought experiments, such as the OP's.

How is this different from, “We don’t need to think, because God does it for us”? I’d have felt offended to be told the Holy Spirit enters my mind. I want to be free and independent, not to rely on a greater power to provide input into my being. But, I guess that relies on our Maker being good enough to endow us with full independence. Had He not done so, He might indeed need to help out here and there, with cantankerous humans.

The Holy Spirit's witness does not imply that we do not need to think carefully about our faith. I fail to see how you're deriving that conclusion from the premise.

[jayceeii]

The Holy Spirit's witness does not imply that we do not need to think carefully about our faith. I fail to see how you're deriving that conclusion from the premise.

If you say you are informed by the Holy Spirit, but are not receiving aid in thinking, what is the mechanism of this informing? Do you perceive the Holy Spirit as a glowing light within you? Do you hear Its voice in your inner ear, whispering to you? If you do claim these things, as Christians do, it is clear that you accept the external God is entering your mind in some way that you aren’t bothering to characterize, understand, or inquire about. So, exactly how is this done? Think carefully about this, or don’t you care? If you don’t care, you’re letting God do everything, as I aver. Let one Christian say how this is done.