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

[ChristineM]

So ... you both can't and won't.

I told you that i answered, im going to change my reply from don't like my answer to you have no comprehension what my answer means.

​

I'm not an atheist,

Yet you are messing up a thread specifically aimed at atheism. Interesting eh?

 

[ratiocinator]

So ... you both can't and won't.

I can and did give one answer in #32 that illustrated the pointlessness of the exercise.

Is it really that hard just to be honest?

Why do you insist on accusing others of lying?

But it's certainly possible. So I don't think the thread was really asking anyone the impossible.

Of course it's possible, just pointless. It amounts to asking people to make up an arbitrary fantasy universe. The existence of some sort of god, with no restrictions as to its nature, places no restriction at all on the universe you could make up because an arbitrary god might have created any sort of universe at all, and even that is assuming that a 'god' has to be a creator.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have an imagination, and can easily imagine something I might wish to be 'God'. And then imagine how the world would be if it were so. I agree it's a somewhat odd thing to do. But it's certainly possible. So I don't think the thread was really asking anyone the impossible. And yet, it seems it is impossible for many atheists. Which I find odd.

He just told you how easy it would be to do. He also told you how pointless it would be to invent some god and then describe what the world would look like. Let me show you. I imagine a god that creates nothing. What does the world look like? What world? Now, I'm imagining one who creates a universe with no gravity. That universe would have no stars or planets. Now, I'm imagining a deity that created a universe without light. Things would be pretty dark for anything with eyes, which would be nothing unless the deity also created creatures with eyes in a dark universe.

Maybe you can see how pointless this exercise is now.

Is it really that hard just to be honest?

Is it really that hard to write a post without impugning somebody's character?

 

[Koldo]

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.

I would say that if a god is not "in charge" of something then I wouldn't call it a god in the first place since I associate godhood with power.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would say that if a god is not "in charge" of something then I wouldn't call it a god in the first place since I associate godhood with power.

Thus supporting my assertion.

 

[ppp]

Are you incapable of inventing one of your own?

Provide a rational justification for doing so. Your feels are not compelling.

 

[PureX]

He just told you how easy it would be to do. He also told you how pointless it would be to invent some god and then describe what the world would look like. Let me show you. I imagine a god that creates nothing. What does the world look like? What world? Now, I'm imagining one who creates a universe with no gravity. That universe would have no stars or planets. Now, I'm imagining a deity that created a universe without light. Things would be pretty dark for anything with eyes, which would be nothing unless the deity also created creatures with eyes in a dark universe.

Maybe you can see how pointless this exercise is now.

Is it really that hard to write a post without impugning somebody's character?

It's only pointless if you make it pointless.

If you actually were to consider the question honestly, and in earnest, it could be quite informative, I think.

 

[PureX]

Provide a rational justification for doing so. Your feels are not compelling.

Do you require a rational justification to employ your imagination? That would be quite bizarre.

 

[Koldo]

Thus supporting my assertion.

I find that only natural. Each of us was raised in a given environment where the words possess certain meanings. That is going to be our standard frame of reference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's only pointless if you make it pointless.

Show me how doing that can be anything other than pointless. Go ahead and answer the OP question and let's see you produce words of value - some insight that illuminates. I'm pretty confident you can't.

If you actually were to consider the question honestly, and in earnest, it could be quite informative, I think.

Then you ought to be able to demonstrate that. Show me why you think it can be informative to invent gods and then describe the universe they might create. Go ahead and actually do it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I find that only natural. Each of us was raised in a given environment where the words possess certain meanings. That is going to be our standard frame of reference.

Fair enough, but if I grew up in a house that only served okra as a vegetable, I would reject vegetables until I joined a vegetable forum and learned that not all vegetables taste (or smell) like okra.

 

[We Never Know]

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

"a god"
Pick one and go

 

[PureX]

Show me how doing that can be anything other than pointless. Go ahead and answer the OP question and let's see you produce words of value - some insight that illuminates. I'm pretty confident you can't.

Then you ought to be able to demonstrate that. Show me why you think it can be informative to invent gods and then describe the universe they might create. Go ahead and actually do it.

First, let's ask ourselves what conceptual niche our imagined "God" would be expected to fulfill. And that alone could lead to some interesting self-evaluation. I mean, if we wanted our God to stand in some sort of meta-judgment over all that is, what does that say about us? Or if we didn't, what does THAT say about us? And do we expect our God to have a purpose for having created us, each other, and 'the world'? And what might that purpose be? What would these say about us? Is our God omniscient or not? And so on. Seems to me that we could actually learn a lot about ourselves and each other by participating in this exercise of defining God for ourselves. Because "God" is mostly going to be the embodiment our unfulfilled ideals and desires. Certainly things that warrant some examination.

But you would have to stop attacking theists and theism and actually take some time to contemplate the possibility of a God, honestly, to get anything from such an exercise. And you weren't about to do that, were you. So of course you saw no value in it, since you automatically presumed that nothing involving theism ever has any value. And you just popped in to remind us all of this superior insight of yours.

That's what I'm seeing, and commenting on.

 

[PureX]

Fair enough, but if I grew up in a house that only served okra as a vegetable, I would reject vegetables until I joined a vegetable forum and learned that not all vegetables taste (or smell) like okra.

Unless you really just like complaining about how bad okra smells and tastes.

 

[McBell]

So then, based upon the "rules" set up per thread posts, I get to make up anything I want?

Sweet.

The third time the same lie is told, poof, the liar disappears.
completely.
Forever.

There we go, no more over population.

 

[MikeF]

"a god"
Pick one and go

Should pick a pantheistic one to cheer up @SalixIncendium. I believe he thinks pantheism is getting a short shrift.

 

[McBell]

And you just popped in to remind us all of this superior insight of yours.

 

[PureX]

View attachment 84617

The irony doesn't make me wrong, though.

 

[ratiocinator]

First, let's ask ourselves what conceptual niche our imagined "God" would be expected to fulfill. And that alone could lead to some interesting self-evaluation. I mean, if we wanted our God to stand in some sort of meta-judgment over all that is, what does that say about us? Or if we didn't, what does THAT say about us? And do we expect our God to have a purpose for having created us, each other, and 'the world'? And what might that purpose be? What would these say about us? Is our God omniscient or not? And so on. Seems to me that we could actually learn a lot about ourselves and each other by participating in this exercise of defining God for ourselves. Because "God" is mostly going to be the embodiment our unfulfilled ideals and desires. Certainly things that warrant some examination.

But none of that is part of the OP question. There was nothing about what sort of god we'd prefer. And why do you think atheists would have an opinion about these things? What would be the point of even considering these questions anyway, when we have zero evidence that any sort of god actually exists?

Even if some god does exist, why would anybody's preference matter? It would be what it was.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes. They really don't seem to want to consider the possibility of a God of their own conceptual design.

Fun fact - asking a question very similar to this is what broke me out of the mental cage I didn't even realize I was stuck in when it comes to the concept of gods. Prior to that, I was as stuck in the classical monotheist cultural hegemony as most are in English-speaking cultures and struggled very hard with theology as a new Pagan. When it dawned on me that gods were literally whatever humanity wanted them to envision them to be, it enabled me to approach diverse theologies with an open mind that didn't just go "but no, that's not what a god is" when encountering that theological diversity.

I'm not sure if this experience is why it frustrates me so much to see discussions about theism and atheism constrain themselves to classical monotheist ideas. But the experience also means I empathize with those who can't think outside of the cage of the classical monotheist cultural hegemony. It's not really about wanting to or not wanting to, in most cases - it's engrained foundational assumptions of Western culture that are simply not questioned or thought about critically.