Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[shunyadragon]

A universe without a source wouldn't exist (call that source what you like). The universe cannot be explained by finites without acknowledging Infinites.

Our physical existence is 'potentially infinite' and eternal according to Aristotle. Yes, as defined by Aristotle 'actual infinities' likely do not exist.

 

[rational experiences]

No man is God.

In biology being science human beginnings. Two adult life bodies. Not babies had sex. Nothing like a baby.

Baby human life owned by all of us.

Biology says two humans have sex.

Male sperm owner impregnated female ovary owner.

We have lived the sexual human life for whatever time a human being owned a human life.

Science. Science knowledge. Human self advised by science as aware by observation.

No other description of words owns the topic why a human exists today. As science advice claiming I am the most aware human by observation.

 

[mmarco]

What would you expect this universe to look like if no gods existed, and how would that be different from the current universe?

For example, the universe should not manifest itself as a mathematically structured entity and it would not contain any conscious being; since I am a physicist, let me try to explain these points from a scientific point of view.
The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God. I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer. Nevertheless, I think there are solid rational arguments which confirms my beliefs.
All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.
I think that atheism does not account for such fundamental scientific information about the physical reality and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing scientific argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.

 

[ChristineM]

For example, the universe should not manifest itself as a mathematically structured entity and it would not contain any conscious being; since I am a physicist, let me try to explain these points from a scientific point of view.
The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God. I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer. Nevertheless, I think there are solid rational arguments which confirms my beliefs.
All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.
I think that atheism does not account for such fundamental scientific information about the physical reality and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing scientific argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.

So as a physicist you have falsifiable evidence for your claims and conclusions?

Because my understanding of the fundimental force of gravity indicates this universe is chaotic.

And of course the universe and it's reality would still exist if there were no consciousness to observe it.

I also believe your consciousness is irriducible to be contrary to your lead in on quantum mechanics accounting for it.

 

[mmarco]

So as a physicist you have falsifiable evidence for your claims and conclusions?

As I said, I have rational arguments which consist in a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges.

Because my understanding of the fundimental force of gravity indicates this universe is chaotic.

As I said, all what scence has shown is that the unverses manifests itself as a mathematically structured entity.

And of course the universe and it's reality would still exist if there were no consciousness to observe it.

I disagree; a mathematically structured universe can exist only if an intelligent mind conceives it as mathematical concept.

I also believe your consciousness is irriducible to be contrary to your lead in on quantum mechanics accounting for it.

I find your statement above simply nonsensical.

 

[shunyadragon]

For example, the universe should not manifest itself as a mathematically structured entity and it would not contain any conscious being; since I am a physicist, let me try to explain these points from a scientific point of view.
The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God. I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer. Nevertheless, I think there are solid rational arguments which confirms my beliefs.
All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abstract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.
I think that atheism does not account for such fundamental scientific information about the physical reality and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physics). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing scientific argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.

You are presenting an extreme Intelligent Design agenda, which is not science. If you are a physicist (?) you would realize that Methodological Naturalism, which applies to physics cannot draw the conclusions you assert above. At present science can only falsify natural causes and origins. It does not demonstrate, and is neutral, to the existence of God(s) nor spiritual worlds beyond the physical existence.

 

[ChristineM]

As I said, I have rational arguments which consist in a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges.

I would dearly love to see it, because no one has ever managed to provide and rational argument or evidence for your statement

"The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth .."​

As I said, all what scence has shown is that the unverses manifests itself as a mathematically structured entity.

Wrong, science has shown the universe can be measured as it stands now, and how it was in the past with ever increasing inaccuracies. As for future, if it were a mathematically driven structure predictions should ne accurate, again, the further into the future one tries to mathematically predict the more inaccuracies creep in. Its a case of every body gravitationally interacting with every other body, i.e, chaotic.

I disagree; a mathematically structured universe can exist only if an intelligent mind conceives it as mathematical concept.

Evidence please...

I find your statement above simply nonsensical.

You would. That does not nullify the findings of QM that have to this date shown to be robust and predictable.

 

[mmarco]

You are presenting an extreme Intelligent Design agenda, which is not science. If you are a physicist (?) you would realize that Methodological Naturalism, which applies to physics cannot draw the conclusions you assert above. At present science can only falsify natural causes and origins. It does not demonstrate, and is neutral, to the existence of God(s) nor spiritual worlds beyond the physical existence.

I have never said that science demonstrates the existence of God; what I have written is that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong arguments supporting the existence of God. So, it is not science that directly proves the existence of God, but it is our reason which can provide valid arguments based on our scientific knowledges.

 

[ChristineM]

I have never said that science demonstrates the existence of God; what I have written is that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides strong arguments supporting the existence of God. So, it is not science that directly proves the existence of God, but it is our reason which can provide valid arguments based on our scientific knowledges.

So, your opinion then. Very good.

 

[Thief]

I have a genuine question for theists and it is not meant to be a trick in any way. There are many things that I would expect to see in a universe containing a benevolent, omnipotent, personal god that I don't see in this universe, which leads me to conclude that such a god is unlikely to exist. I'm curious as to what theists would expect to see in a godless universe, and how a godless universe would differ from one in which a god existed. What would you expect this universe to look like if no gods existed, and how would that be different from the current universe?

no light.......no form of any kind

void

but of course......the Spirit moved

you can ask Him how that came about after your last breath

 

[halbhh]

So as a physicist you have falsifiable evidence for your claims and conclusions?

I do.

Had it happened that all the 15 or so things Christ said to do which I've repeatedly done didn't work out the way He said they would work out, then that would have (had it happened) falsified His claim of their functional (often amazing) reality and effectiveness.

But, you'd have to test them yourself, like a scientist, to find that out, as they are only for individuals to do individually, and God intentionally doesn't allow obvious proof of Himself before one meets His stated requirements.

 

[halbhh]

For example, the universe should not manifest itself as a mathematically structured entity and it would not contain any conscious being; since I am a physicist, let me try to explain these points from a scientific point of view.
The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God. I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer. Nevertheless, I think there are solid rational arguments which confirms my beliefs.
All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.
I think that atheism does not account for such fundamental scientific information about the physical reality and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing scientific argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.

Welcome. Glad to see you here. I like your suggestive speculation about consciousness.

I do not myself rely on such inferences to know whether God exists, but instead have simply tried out doing the things Christ said to do, and found they work better than other ways (of which I tried very many at great length also), and that Christ's ways work consistently and perfectly, and so I tried more and more of what He said, and thus became rescued.

There are some other interesting ways to address the nature of reality, which I view even different ones as complementary to what you stated, in a way, that I might try to add. As I see it, though it does seem from QM likely that it is consciousness that...crystallizes (catalyzes?) reality -- causes it to take form, alters it also -- I've often thought that possibly (speculatively) that also all matter/energy participates in some degree (but this is quite speculative really).

 

[ChristineM]

I do.

Had it happened that all the 15 or so things Christ said to do which I've repeatedly done didn't work out the way He said they would work out, then that would have (had it happened) falsified His claim of their functional (often amazing) reality and effectiveness.

But, you'd have to test them yourself, like a scientist, to find that out, as they are only for individuals to do individually, and God intentionally doesn't allow obvious proof of Himself before one meets His stated requirements.

Please list these things and consider whether there are other explanations to magic

 

[halbhh]

Please list these things and consider whether there are other explanations to magic

You have to try out "love your neighbor as yourself" in person yourself, in your own life, to discover what happens, on an individual level, to gain any real certainty about what happens.

All you could ever learn from me is that I had really good results that were far above what I thought would happen.

Do you want to see a post about that? I feel I've repeated it many times, and it's best to just link to the post where I last did.

 

[ChristineM]

You have to try out "love your neighbor as yourself" in person yourself, in your own life, to discover what happens, on an individual level, to gain any real certainty about what happens.

All you could ever learn from me is that I had really good results that were far above what I thought would happen.

Do you want to see a post about that? I feel I've repeated it many times, and it's best to just link to the post where I last did.

Yes done the love thy neighbors thing, got hurt...

Personal results are not evidence, they may have worked for you, not necessarily for others

 

[ChristineM]

You have to try out "love your neighbor as yourself" in person yourself, in your own life, to discover what happens, on an individual level, to gain any real certainty about what happens.

All you could ever learn from me is that I had really good results that were far above what I thought would happen.

Do you want to see a post about that? I feel I've repeated it many times, and it's best to just link to the post where I last did.

Yes done the neighbors think, got hurt...

Personal results are not evidence, they may have worked for you, not necessarily for others

 

[halbhh]

Yes done the love thy neighbors thing, got hurt...

Personal results are not evidence, they may have worked for you, not necessarily for others

Well, this might help: when a group of scientists hear about a result from some other group in their own field, they often want to replicate the result, or test it. Try to see if they get the same result.

When they do, great care and effort is spent in trying to very precisely account for all variables and unexpected effects.

If they don't get the same result, they start trying to find out what was different in their experiment from the other one.

So, I'd suggest, if you wanted to, you could do a similar thing. You are already aware I think that sometimes people love you back and sometimes they do not, right? So.... therefore, you'd want to know the details if you wanted to try to replicate a result. That's my approach (perhaps due to my background).

 

[ChristineM]

Well, this might help: when a group of scientists hear about a result from some other group in their own field, they often want to replicate the result, or test it. Try to see if they get the same result.

When they do, great care and effort is spent in trying to very precisely account for all variables and unexpected effects.

If they don't get the same result, they start trying to find out what was different in their experiment from the other one.

So, I'd suggest, if you wanted to, you could do a similar thing. You are already aware I think that sometimes people love you back and sometimes they do not, right? So.... therefore, you'd want to know the details if you wanted to try to replicate a result. That's my approach (perhaps due to my background).

Like i said, done the love thy neighbour thing, it doesn't work in all cases. And as i also said, they may have worked for you. So my experience disproves the idea.

 

[halbhh]

Like i said, done the love thy neighbour thing, it doesn't work in all cases. And as i also said, they may have worked for you. So my experience disproves the idea.

If you would like, we could compare details, by PM to avoid derailing this thread, and try to see what was different past just the particular people we encountered. I couldn't believe the good results, and kept testing it over and over with new people in different places and times. So I actually have a lot of instances with the full 100% love effort (that all-in way that fits the "as yourself" part of the instruction), and those outcomes.

 

[ChristineM]

If you would like, we could compare details, by PM to avoid derailing this thread, and try to see what was different past just the particular people we encountered. I couldn't believe the good results, and kept testing it over and over with new people in different places and times. So I actually have a lot of instances with the full 100% love effort (that all-in way that fits the "as yourself" part of the instruction), and those outcomes.

No i am not willing to pm about the details, i have not long since stopped having nightmares, i don't want to trigger them again.

I am sure you are happy with your experience, hardly evidence of jesus or god but certainly evidenced that you have been fortunate.