Hypothetical Question Wherein Christianity is True

[Seasanctuary]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary

[Mark Little]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?Easy. Nothing.

Up until the time of this new revelation, whatever it may be, I have examined the evidence that was presented to me and found Chrisitanity lacking credibility. Until this proof appears, I have no reason to believe, so there would be clearly no difficulty reconciling the past.


Mark

[HRG_new]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

What version of Christianity ? The fundamentalist, every-sentence-is-the-literal-truth version ? The RC version ? Universalism ? German liberal Protestantism (which, AFAIU, treats the resurrection as a symbolic, not a historic event) ? The menu is long.

Belief in the existence of a supreme being ? Why not? I'm conceding the possible existence of His Supreme Indifference right now.

When it comes to actual events, I'd rather start believing in the resurrection than in literal Genesis. The first wouldn't leave any physical traces today, but the second would have left unmistakeable traces - unless a deceiver god had carefully and miraculously removed every single one.

[Ursus maritimus]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct. I echo HRG's question. Which Christianity's claims? That a very good and decent teacher named Jesus lived and told us to be good to one another?

That Jesus was the Son of God, and came to earth to tell us to be good to one another?

That all human beings are sinners and bound to hell, but God came to earth to be crucified as an atonement for our sins?

That the entire Bible is literally true (subject to interpretation according to the usual apologetics)?

I think that these are some pretty significant differences between these four possibilities, and that a very different response would be in order depending on which scenario is proven to be absolutely true.

[plabius]

I would rejoice, in that at least something can be called true and proven. I guess it's beside the point to say that i fail to see HOW this proof could come about.

[John Powell]

SEASANCTUARY:
Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary

POWELL:
I like this kind of question because it challenges theists to show that they are as able to deal with serious hypotheticals as atheists are.

I realize this question is directed at the nonbelievers. However, since the nonbelievers are able to respond to what the Christians say to the reverse question in the Apologetics forum, the Christians should be able to do the same to us. Are you interested in asking that this be moved to Apologetics, Seasanctuary?

My answer? The reliability of logic as currently understood.

I would conclude that reality is far more complicated than our puny "logical" minds are able to comprehend or test using natural means. I would take on a more childlike attitude, concluding that a lot more things that don't make sense somehow are still true. Nevertheless, I would still strive to understand, hoping that God would help me out.

I would rely on prayer and scripture reading as valuable guides to truth.

Since the rules of this designed universe might be quite different from the rules in the afterlife, I would want to focus as much effort as possible learning those spiritual truths because I would be living a lot longer under them than merely 70 some odd years.

It would be like having it proved that we live in the Matrix. Rather than focusing exclusively on the rules of the Matrix world, I would try harder to figure out the rules of the "real" world behind the Matrix world.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

I realize this question is directed at the nonbelievers. However, since the nonbelievers are able to respond to what the Christians say to the reverse question in the Apologetics forum, the Christians should be able to do the same to us. Are you interested in asking that this be moved to Apologetics, Seasanctuary?
I have no objection, though no inclination either. If you want it moved, you have my blessing.

[Seasanctuary]

I would rejoice, in that at least something can be called true and proven.
Yes, it would be nice to have a major philosophical or religious point settled-for-sure.

I guess it's beside the point to say that i fail to see HOW this proof could come about.
It just does. :wink:

And to those of you who asked "Which Christianity?"...that is a quite valid response...and one that ought to disturb the Christians.

[steamer]

I think I would have to conclude that god was an evil entity, to be avoided.

[Ursus maritimus]

But if Christianity were true, God couldn't be avoided, be he evil or otherwise.

[steamer]

But if Christianity were true, God couldn't be avoided, be he evil or otherwise.
If it were true, some say hell would just be apartness from god.

[Jake]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary

The concept of actual, real life objectivity - objective morality, truth, etc. (as opposed to abstract objectivity, like mathematics) would profoundly shift my thinking in every respect. I dont know how I would adjust.

If people were to show me without any room for doubt that Christ was God incarnate and was resurrected for our Sins, Id be happy to believe in Him. However, my way of thinking about the world is based upon the search for truth, progress and enlightenment. Actually finding it could well drive me to nihilism.

[Intelligitimate]

I guess it would be just like waking up one day and knowing you're the only being in existence, living in a fantasy world of your own devising. Solipsism and Christianity are both so utterly false it would literally be impossible to reconile anything in the real world with either of them. Reality only make sense if materialism, atheism, etc, are true.

[Seasanctuary]

I guess it would be just like waking up one day and knowing you're the only being in existence, living in a fantasy world of your own devising. Solipsism and Christianity are both so utterly false it would literally be impossible to reconile anything in the real world with either of them. Reality only make sense if materialism, atheism, etc, are true.

What would be nonsensical about a creator God?

[Gilgaron]

I'd be most puzzled about the choice of methodology for revelation up until now, and certainly engage in a dialog with God about it. Since occasionally biblical characters give God their opinions, I'd give him mine on several subjects so that at least I would get some clear reasoning on why a few things are the way they are. Those subjects would be dependent upon which sort of Christianity it was that was proven.

[cavegirl]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?
I too would have no problem with my past. I would be relieved if there finally was an answer. But I would feel a bit betrayed; I've been looking for God, and to the best of my knowledge have been open to him; but up to now he has been hiding from me.

[rach12]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary
Frankly, I don't think I would be bothered in the least. I followed my 'God-given' heart and reasoned with my 'God-given' brain and it led me to atheism. Big deal. So I was wrong. Move on.

I would simply think, "Cool! Now I can see my loved ones for eternity and learn the secrets of the universe." :smile:


Of course, that's assuming god doesn't punish me. :lol:

[olblucat]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary


I supppose I would have to get in line with all the other non-believers and our list of 4,872,943 various questions of "why in the Hell did you allow this to happen"? and then get in line for hell with all the rest of humanity.

I do know I would be extremely disappointed that this earth as I know it was actually created by an Intelligent Designer?.

and on the serious side, I would have a difficlut time of it. I have never and will never accept authority over me automatically. I have and will give permission to those I will obey to give me orders. I reserve the right to refuse to obey any order I deem illogical, incorrect, or by my personal standards, illegal.

[flipper]

If the bible was literally true?

Evo/Old Earth.

Assuming a divine creator who, it can be demonstrated, meets the attributes assigned to him by standard Christianity, then I wouldn't have a problem with the problem of evil.

[shunyadragon]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
SeasanctuaryIf something was true beyond a reasonable doubt it would be easy to accept.

The next problem would be which one of the hundreds of Christian churchs, sects, cults or secret societies is the true one.

[exile]

I think I would ask to be judged on my actions in life rather than my lack of belief. Whether this would work I don't know.

I would then find Pascal and tell him I should have followed his advice!

[bandecoot]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary
I am going to go with the which christianity to start with. The one based on the teachings of the Rabbi known as Jesus? Or the one espoused by Paul of Tarsus.

If its the former Im not going to have much trouble because I have no problems with his basic teachings. If its the latter, well it does not matter, nothing changes. I still would not worship that one.

Now this brings me to Pascals wager. If one God is true, where is the harm in shopping around some of the less fashionable Gods? Mind you Shiva is right out, as is Quetzcoatl, (that whole mutilation thing just creeps me out) I could probably fit in quite well with Odin.


The biggest problem I would face would be that if the universe is not uniform then I have wasted my life on a pointless diversion. That of studying the past. If I cannot rely on observation of the past then what is the point of doing it?

But then again any proof of accuracy in the Christian story would come from my field anyway. Hmm hang on if the universe is not reliable in terms of observation that would by definition negate any evidence from History.

I think thats called a paradox.

Oh well I am not good at hypotheticals.

Andrew

[Duder]

Let's say that it is proven that -- beyond a doubt -- Christianity's claims are quite correct.

Now, you're faced with trying to reconcile your past doubts with this definite truth.

My question is this: which aspects of your shown-wrong doubt would be most difficult for you to reconcile with the truth?

Cheers,
Seasanctuary


"Christianity's claims are quite correct" is pretty vague. Exactly what Christianity claims is a matter of debate. So the proof would verify Christianity without clarifying it very much. Maybe God stuck His head down through the clouds and made the brief announcement "Christianity is true", in front of billions of witnesses and news cameras all over the world.

It would be a wrap on atheism, but that's about all. It wouldn't end debate over the age of the earth, how life arose, whether life evolved, whether the Bible is inerrant, whether it's passages are literal or metaphorical, the divinity and/or humanity of Christ, the purpose of His ministry and death on the cross, whether or not He physically rose from the dead, whether some other religions may not also be true (properly understood), and so on.

So for me persnally, while it would be a very exciting revelation, it would not force me to change my views very much. I'm not an atheist.