Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[halbhh]

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.

The only conclusion that I drew from the surprising outcomes of that instruction done in real life, was a thought like this: 'Wow, that worked, and even over and over.... I wonder if there is something else I can dig up in this stuff that might work well.'

That was it. I didn't take it to be evidence that Jesus did miracles or such.

Instead, it was only evidence that the instruction itself, alone, worked when done in a full way.

So, I decided to do an archaeology dig for more.

I might find another working item in the dig. That was my attitude.

I began to test the 'forgive...over and over' instruction. It was quite easy since I'd already been learning in various psychology articles about the benefits of letting go, forgiving, for one's own benefit. So, I kinda knew that one was a likely one, ahead of time. Of course it worked. I was indeed unburdened. It was a real change, for the better.

So, there I had 2 real gains, of significance. I then proceeded to look for more.

 

[ChristineM]

The only conclusion that I drew from the surprising outcomes of that instruction done in real life, was a thought like this: 'Wow, that worked, and even over and over.... I wonder if there is something else I can dig up in this stuff that might work well.'

That was it. I didn't take it to be evidence that Jesus did miracles or such.

Instead, it was only evidence that the instruction itself, alone, worked when done in a full way.

So, I decided to do an archaeology dig for more.

I might find another working item in the dig. That was my attitude.

I began to test the 'forgive...over and over' instruction. It was quite easy since I'd already been learning in various psychology articles about the benefits of letting go, forgiving, for one's own benefit. So, I kinda knew that one was a likely one, ahead of time. Of course it worked. I was indeed unburdened. It was a real change, for the better.

So, there I had 2 real gains, of significance. I then proceeded to look for more.

So what you are saying is that being a decent human being makes you a decent human being. Yes, i do thst too, no religious belief involved.

 

[halbhh]

So what you are saying is that being a decent human being makes you a decent human being. Yes, i do thst too, no religious belief involved.

Well, I'm may not be 'religious' I think in the way you might mean (just a guess). Christ was actually executed because the religious leaders of that time were so offended by his truth telling about their wrongs and hypocrisy and such.

He is a teacher. The thing about a teacher is that they may have a few things right, or a lot, and the way to find out is to actually test their teachings.

I think though that because there are so many Christians that show up and argue odd stuff, it's hard for most people to ever find out what Christ taught past 1 or 2 things (if they even hear 1 or 2 things accurately).

 

[ChristineM]

Well, I'm may not be 'religious' I think in the way you might mean (just a guess). Christ was actually executed because the religious leaders of that time were so offended by his truth telling about their wrongs and hypocrisy and such.

He is a teacher. The thing about a teacher is that they may have a few things right, or a lot, and the way to find out is to actually test their teachings.

I think though that because there are so many Christians that show up and argue odd stuff, it's hard for most people to ever find out what Christ taught past 1 or 2 things (if they even hear 1 or 2 things accurately).

I have a very different view of why christ was executed. When you teach against Rome it didn't go down well in Rome

 

[halbhh]

I have a very different view of why christ was executed. When you teach against Rome it didn't go down well in Rome

Well, trust me (or else read it carefully and see), Pilate did not want to execute Jesus, because Pilate decided he was innocent, basically, and the Jewish mob (and priests) demanded he execute Jesus, and Pilate acceded to their demand, as a way to keep them under control.

John or Luke can show this detail.
e.g. John 19:4 Once again Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing Him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against Him."
Luke 23:4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

Anyway, I know this stuff like the back of my hand, at this point, since I repeatedly sifted through the accounts looking for more things to test.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, trust me (or else read it carefully and see), Pilate did not want to execute Jesus, because Pilate decided he was innocent, basically, and the Jewish mob (and priests) demanded he execute Jesus, and Pilate acceded to their demand, as a way to keep them under control.

John or Luke can show this detail.
e.g. John 19:4 Once again Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing Him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against Him."
Luke 23:4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

Anyway, I know this stuff like the back of my hand, at this point, since I repeatedly sifted through the accounts looking for more things to test.

Yes i have read the bible, 3 different versions actually, i have also read the history of Rome +/- 100 years of the fall of the republic with considerable research into the Flavian dynasty. Of the two the history of Rome has indipendent evidence to validate it, whereas the bible? Not so much.

To the point the NT was selectively compiled some 350 years after jesus death, so to be honest i don't take it as gospel.

 

[halbhh]

Yes i have read the bible, 3 different versions actually, i have also read the history of Rome +/- 100 years of the fall of the republic with considerable research into the Flavian dynasty. Of the two the history of Rome has indipendent evidence to validate it, whereas the bible? Not so much.

To the point the NT was selectively compiled some 350 years after jesus death, so to be honest i don't take it as gospel.

I didn't assume the bible was accurate at all in order to try out things in it. I actually thought it had to be at least in part in error, just as a normal kind of thing.

This was my attitude: it might be...for instance, like Socrates.

Did Socrates really say all of that, or did Plato make things up? Both?....

Consider: Either way: you don't really have to know whether Plato just made it up(!).

No need to know.

If there is something Socrates is reputed to have said, regardless of whether Plato made it up or it was really Socrates -- that doesn't even matter -- you can simply just test it out.

Ergo: reputed saying of Socrates: "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

From this one might expect that if they are winning a debate with someone, it could happen that person on the other side may start trying to slander the person that is winning the debate.

With this concept, one could then take note of any slander during a debate as a clear sign the person doing the slander is definitely losing and knows it or intuits it. Even if they pretend otherwise.

And you'd not need to know whether Plato just made that up and put it in Socrates's mouth. That would be irrelevant to whether it is true.

That was my attitude at the outset and for very many years about the gospel accounts: no need at all to know or guess anything at all about how accurate or made up they were. It was just irrelevant.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't assume the bible was accurate at all in order to try out things in it. I actually thought it had to be at least in part in error, just as a normal kind of thing.

This was my attitude: it might be...for instance, like Socrates.

Did Socrates really say all of that, or did Plato make things up? Both?....

Consider: Either way: you don't really have to know whether Plato just made it up(!).

No need to know.

If there is something Socrates is reputed to have said, regardless of whether Plato made it up or it was really Socrates -- that doesn't even matter -- you can simply just test it out.

Ergo: reputed saying of Socrates: "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

From this one might expect that if they are winning a debate with someone, it could happen that person on the other side may start trying to slander the person that is winning the debate.

With this concept, one could then take note of any slander during a debate as a clear sign the person doing the slander is definitely losing and knows it or intuits it. Even if they pretend otherwise.

And you'd not need to know whether Plato just made that up and put it in Socrates's mouth. That would be irrelevant to whether it is true.

That was my attitude at the outset and for very many years about the gospel accounts: no need at all to know or guess anything at all about how accurate or made up they were. It was just irrelevant.

Nice but irrelevant

 

[halbhh]

Nice but irrelevant

To me, all those speculative ideas about Jesus where people have this theory or that one become irrelevant.

I am a person that wants to know what works, and have it for myself.

Of course, I suggest what I think is the best gain to others: trying stuff out and seeing.

 

[rational experiences]

Rational. Two forms of human thinkers.

One thinks only in natural highest total support.....everything. human thinking.

Everything a variable non quantifiable by variation. What info is aware told by observation.

Think to support survival of all states aware of. Yet they exist...
Already support you so why did you think opposing information when being supported is first observation ......as a God is present rationale? Lovingly supporting natural.

O planet self reactive. God is dangerous. Reactive naturally supporting life. Rationale.

First self advice in natural survival basis. Human aware.

Common sense used first for self survival.

Then there is the theist. Total opposition.

Just a human thinking on behalf of an imposed measure maths.

Imposed for reactive change logically wanted and sought.

How you use the measure today was not why you brother...s owned an intention to impose the measure originally. Just for design. Machine reaction.

What you do not refer to today. Original group man intent to impose maths upon natural variables.

When you say basic common denominator or denominators as one form want if origin basics......what is varied naturally you then try to force it to be your basics. By your human design thesis origin basic form. Want of.

Which first was machine gained by mineral melt to build. Building machine to reaction only. Yet you impose that rationale to the universe.

why you destroyed life. Called your brother a satanist and own archaeological machine parts that proved it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

“To observe it”? As in, us? No, I agree. But is that what you meant?

I found Einstein’s view informative:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the **illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself** in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional **conviction** of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
— Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.

(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Underlining & double asterisks are mine, to highlight.)

Take care.

 

[rational experiences]

Father the same multi human father of everyone spiritual

Has babies with our spiritual mother.

Baby brother grows becomes adult man like his father.

Father spiritual.
He is baby man adult not his father.

Yet he invented science and reactions.

Father a man owned living life. Psychics teach. Life living gets recorded. You own a living life human recording.

The heavenly gas body owns a lived life living recording of your own man human father.

Who you reference as your spiritual man male in heavens.

Always was just our human father.

I learnt this advice by study of human spiritual healing and psychic vision including hearing recorded voices.

One day an irish young male told me he had just died. I was gardening when it occurred. I just accepted that it was real as I did not seek it. His Irish accent allowed me to know it was real.

Father rationally is our human spiritual advisor. His interactive recorded life and incredible guidance of human life and morality that you overlook as being innately human is natural.

 

[ChristineM]

“To observe it”? As in, us? No, I agree. But is that what you meant?

I found Einstein’s view informative:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the **illimitable superior spirit who reveals Himself** in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional **conviction** of the presence of a **superior reasoning power**, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
— Excerpt from (Barnett, L.,) "The Universe and Dr. Einstein", Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.

(Capitalization of 'Himself' and 'God' were in the book.
Underlining & double asterisks are mine, to highlight.)

Take care.

Yes, precisely what i meant, without life to observe it the universe would still exists. We are of the universe, to think our miniscule presence on an insignificant ball of rock orbiting a sun in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of such suns im a universe of hundreds of billions of such galaxies in any way makes it more real strikes me as pure arrogance.

Yeah, Einstein's personal god, it struck me as odd that people should assign such power to someone ideas god

 

[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.

Let me say further this interesting post has a lot in it (as you know), and there is a lot that would be fun to discuss. We can discuss in the DIR Christian subforum, where Christians can discuss together without interference from ideologies that want to interpose themselves and push in other directions.

Basically, a DIR Christian discussion might allow an in-depth discussing without getting side tracked answering some basic talking points from various ideologies that usually are brought up over and over. (though of course there are also some Christian ideologies that can do that too) It might allow us to get more in depth I think. Please just message me or reference my name like this if you start a thread there:
@halbhh

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

There is no valid argument for the existence of God based on science. Science can only falsify theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable physical evidence. The questions concerning the philosophical. theological questions concerning the existence of God is beyond the perview of science.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

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?

I do not see it as possible. The universe moves in consistent maintenance, random events and circumstances cause major problems in timing and in stability.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why?
Wouldn't useful features like photosynthesis, co-operation, bipedalism, tribal solidarity, cellular respiration, bonding and love develop through natural selection?
Why would people be asocial creatures like bears or frogs if co-operation conferred so great a survival benefit?

No, none of those things could possibly exist without the power that impels them into existence. How could anything but stillness exist, with no creative spark, no energy, no purpose driving it?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, none of those things could possibly exist without the power that impels them into existence. How could anything but stillness exist, with no creative spark, no energy, no purpose driving it?

No, none of those things could possibly exist without the power that impels them into existence. How could anything but stillness exist, with no creative spark, no energy, no purpose driving it?

Our physical existence is possibly always eternally and infinitely existed as a Quantum world whether Created by God or not.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Our physical existence is possibly always eternally and infinitely existed as a Quantum world whether Created by God or not.

The world is restless, dynamic, ever changing. Some power, some vitality, something deeply hidden, must cause it to be so. It is, in my view, patently absurd to think otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

The world is restless, dynamic, ever changing. Some power, some vitality, something deeply hidden, must cause it to be so. It is, in my view, patently absurd to think otherwise.

I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), but without an agenda. There is absolutely no objective evidence for God. It is not patently absurd to believe otherwise, particularly considering the anthropomorphic ancient tribal God of the Bible.

There is a problem of the many diverse conflicting beliefs in God(s) as to determining which is the true God. The only possibility is the existence of a 'Source; of our existence that is more universal than any one God of the different religions.

As far as the origins and nature of our universe there is no evidence of a necessary outside source There is no known beginning nor potential end of our universe, much less the possible multiverse,