Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?

[We Never Know]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

 

[MikeF]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

To me that is like asking what would the world be like if one person was in charge. Well, it would depend on the person, wouldn't it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

To me that is like asking what would the world be like if one person was in charge. Well, it would depend on the person, wouldn't it.

This is very much an Abrahamic view of what a god might be like.

Not all gods are "in charge" or desire to be...or desire at all.

 

[MikeF]

This is very much an Abrahamic view of what a god might be like.

Not all gods are "in charge" or desire to be...or desire at all.

Indeed. As well as assuming a single entity.

 

[ChristineM]

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

Assuming a one creator god who is claimed to me omni everything and loving of whatever he/she/it created, said god would not make errors in design. Would set the galaxies, suns, planets, asteroids in a motion where they didn't collide, there would be no death from disease because those diseases would not have been created. Suffering would be nothing etc, etc, all in all, a perfect universe.

 

[ppp]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

Sorry. Too vague. In order to evaluate, I would have to be presented with a description of a specific god.

 

[Heyo]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

Assuming a magical god (as most worshipped entities called "god" are), the world would be chaotic. Science wouldn't exist as it depends on an ordered universe. People would be in constant fear (or gratitude) of what happens/might happen to them. Nothing would be predictable.

 

[McBell]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

Define god.
Be specific.

 

[LuisDantas]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

That is entirely a function of what is considered a god and which variety turns out to exist.

You could argue that several gods did in fact exist, including Prince Phillip and Haile Selassie.

Or, going to the other extreme, you can go to Christian and Muslim conceptions of deities and point out that tend to be very self-contradictory, very immoral, or both. If you pick a subset of those that is reasonably coherent to consider as real, the logical consequence will be that existence is meaningless and/or that gods are unworthy and undeserving of any respect or attention. It is no accident that those creeds made atheism necessary as a concept.

Outside of the Abrahamic creeds, gods are most often simple expressions of values and aesthetical preferences. We can question whether it makes sense to talk of them as "true" or "false", but in any case they do not make existence much different from what we already perceive as real.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

Stuck in a perpetual church or temple forever?

Shoot me now.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A reverse offshoot from the thread "Theists: what would a godless universe look like"

What would the universe look like if a god did exist and how would it be different from the current universe?

Not sure this is a reasonable question, given we might have no knowledge as to the motivation (if such exists) of any such creator, and where any universe might depend upon such motivation. For all we know, life and the human form, so exalted by so many religious beliefs, might simply be a bad byproduct of the ultimate aim for such a creator - whatever that might be. After all, given the knowledge we now have concerning the immensity of the universe, and certain beliefs, we are an exceptionally small component of this universe. In my view though, the existence as it appears to us of the universe, could indicate either as to the existence or non-existence of such a creator.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm struck by the preconceived notions atheists who have posted here so far have about gods. Nearly all qualities assigned to a god in this thread so far are that of an Abrahamic deity...almost so much as I'm lead to think that many atheists don't lack belief in gods in general; they lack the belief in the God of Abraham, and that many of them have very limited knowledge of gods of any religions outside the Abrahamic paradigm.

 

[MikeF]

I'm struck by the preconceived notions atheists who have posted here so far have about gods. Nearly all qualities assigned to a god in this thread so far are that of an Abrahamic deity...almost so much as I'm lead to think that many atheists don't lack belief in gods in general; they lack the belief in the God of Abraham, and that many of them have very limited knowledge of gods of any religions outside the Abrahamic paradigm.

From the standpoint of non-belief in imagined entities there is no logical starting point to address these kinds of questions. To participate a non-believer will simply rely on context cues to hone in on the range of parameters implied by the believer from the literally infinite options available.

Non-believers are simply trying to anticipate and work within the imagined reality of a particular believer or implied belief set.

 

[idea]

To be a god it would have to be loving, just, powerful, wise - anything else isn't a god.

A powerful loving just god would protect, provide, nurture, and educate. The world would be a utopia.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From the standpoint of non-belief in imagined entities there is no logical starting point to address these kinds of questions.

This is leading to my point. What are the "imagined entities" from the perception of a pantheist?

 

[We Never Know]

Define god.
Be specific.

A super natural being. Other than that you define a god.
If I tried it would lead to many questions of which, who, when, where, etc.

 

[MikeF]

This is leading to my point. What are the "imagined entities" from the perception of a pantheist?

Why? Of those who use the label 'God', an extremely small demographic percentage attach pantheistic concepts to it. A Western non-believer interacting with a predominantly Western audience will likely meet the imagined expectations of more believers by assuming an Abrahamic paradigm.

Presumably it's all nonsense to the non-believe and there is little incentive to be overly inclusive of infinitely imaginable alternatives.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm struck by the preconceived notions atheists who have posted here so far have about gods. Nearly all qualities assigned to a god in this thread so far are that of an Abrahamic deity...almost so much as I'm lead to think that many atheists don't lack belief in gods in general; they lack the belief in the God of Abraham, and that many of them have very limited knowledge of gods of any religions outside the Abrahamic paradigm.

I agree with most of that. When somebody refers to a god in Western culture, they usually mean the god of Abraham, the one that get the capital-G. Likewise, and the word religion generally refers to Abrahamic religion. I tend to think that that's what they mean until something they write or say suggests otherwise, and it's usually correct. When it's not, it's because somebody wrote capital-G "God" when what they meant was some other concept of a deity such as when Einstein did just that. That's the default meaning of the word "God," although that didn't appear in the OP. Still, as worded, the OP is suggesting monotheism with "a god" rather than "a god or gods."

Where I disagree is that atheists are only rejecting the Abrahamic god.

I do agree, however, that few atheists seem to know much about the other religions and gods that people adopt. I don't. I can tell you a little bit about the dharmic religions and almost nothing about the various forms of polytheism and their gods, but that's because that's not useful or interesting to me.

*******

To answer the OP in the language of monotheism, if the deity is noninterventionist like the deist deity, we would expect to find no evidence for that - just a clockwork universe obeying regular laws as we find the world, and having that knowledge would be useless. It would affect no decisions I make and thus the answer regarding its existence would be irrelevant - the position called apatheism.

Regarding interventionist gods like the Abrahamic god, it would depend how it intervened. That one is said to be benevolent, to have produced a revelation, perform miracles, and answer prayer, so we ought to see revelation that appears transhuman in origin - words no man would be expected to have written and which transform people positively. We ought to see evidence for supernaturalism in daily life - magic, or the suspension of the known laws of nature.

For other interventionist gods, we ought to see something similar - some compelling manifestation of supernaturalism, something nature wouldn't do without intelligent oversight.

And even with all of that, we still wouldn't know that we were detecting a supernatural entity. We shouldn't be surprised to learn that some transhuman extraterrestrial race that itself arose naturalistically via abiogenesis and biological evolution could appear to suspend the laws of nature, which is why the Abrahamic creation apologist are working in vain trying to falsify evolution theory, since even if they could successfully demonstrate that the theory was wrong, the new paradigm would become that a deceptive, transhuman with immense power arranged the earth to look like Darwin was correct but was found out, and we shouldn't assume supernaturalism to account for that, either.

In the end, the whole concept of the supernaturalism adds nothing even if the word has some meaning, which is another discussion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Where I disagree is that atheists are only rejecting the Abrahamic god.

I only ask this because as I was typing the post you replied to, I made a conscious decision to not use the term 'reject.'

Do you believe there is any difference between lacking a belief in a deity and rejecting a deity? I ask, because as I understand it, this is the primary difference between implicit (weak) atheism, and explicit (strong) atheism.

 

[MikeF]

This is leading to my point. What are the "imagined entities" from the perception of a pantheist?

As an aside, do you think it might be useful for pantheists to use a different label for their belief concept, rather than using the label 'God', which has a much longer history being attached to a different fundamental belief concept?