Final answer:
Debates on God's existence often depends on personal belief systems and philosophical reasoning. No argument has irrefutably proven God's existence or non-existence, and belief or disbelief remains a matter of personal conviction. The absence of evidence for God does not equate to evidence of non-existence, making the existence of God an unresolved question in philosophy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of how one would respond if there were irrefutable proof that God does not exist is one steeped in personal belief systems and philosophical inquiry rather than empirical evidence. Throughout history, many arguments have been posed both for and against the existence of a divine being, ranging from the Cosmological and Teleological arguments to challenges like the problem of evil and appeals to ignorance. However, none have reached a universally accepted conclusion, as faith in a deity is not typically grounded in evidence that can be deemed either irrefutable or universally compelling .Philosophical dialogues often highlight an important aspect: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus, a lack of evidence for something does not necessarily prove it does not exist. The arguments presented on either side have their merits and downfalls, indicating that belief in God often resides in the realm of personal conviction rather than incontestable proof. In scenarios regarding proof or disproof of God's existence, the weight of evidence and rational argumentation may shift an individual's belief. The rational person may require compelling evidence or arguments to sway their beliefs one way or the other. The possibility of psychic phenomena and their potential to support the hypothesis of a spiritual realm is a contested claim and does not provide a definitive proof of a deity's existence. The complexity of arguments and the individual's subjective experiences and reasoning determine their stance on the existence of God, and such personal convictions are often resilient to even the most rational debates.