Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

Well, we wouldn't be here. The universe wouldn't exist if God didn't exist, as He is the Creator in my religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, we wouldn't be here. The universe wouldn't exist if God didn't exist, as He is the Creator in my religion.

You have to tralize there is no objective evidence for the existence of God(s), our universe and our physical existence exists as it self without an evidence of anything outside our physical existence. Your assertion is statement of faith as to what you believe, and not an evidence based position.

 

[Valjean]

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?

The natural laws and constants of the universe are sufficient. They are the power and spark.
Purpose? Why must there be purpose? Water flows downhill. Chemicals interact. No purpose or intention.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Patently absurd to invent some invisible personage, out of whole cloth, to be magically manipulating things.
I have evidence that chemistry works. What evidence do you have for an invisible and unneeded puppetmaster? Why can't water flow downhill all on its own?

 

[Valjean]

Well, we wouldn't be here. The universe wouldn't exist if God didn't exist, as He is the Creator in my religion.

Any evidence to back up this fantastic claim?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Any evidence to back up this fantastic claim?

What fantastic claim? That my religion says that God is the Creator? I answered the OP's question. I have nothing to prove to you, just as you don't have evidence of your atheistic universe that can convince me otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Why would you need a separately existing power to impel things into existence? Why can they not 'simply exist'?

Why would there need to be a purpose as opposed to things that exist simply having properties?

 

[Polymath257]

What fantastic claim? That my religion says that God is the Creator? I answered the OP's question. I have nothing to prove to you, just as you don't have evidence of your atheistic universe that can convince me otherwise.

The claim that nothing would exist unless created by some entity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The claim that nothing would exist unless created by some entity.

Well, yeah - if God is the Creator and He didn't exist, obviously there would be no creation.

I see no evidence that the universe created itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I live in a godless world, no better or worse than a god-world, except that it has no hell. Life in the world will exist for approximately a billion years, though the world will continue to exist even after that.

It means matter/energy does not come from nothing. It has a source called Brahman in Advaita philosophy.

Perhaps nothing and something are not different.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Patently absurd to invent some invisible personage, out of whole cloth, to be magically manipulating things.
I have evidence that chemistry works. What evidence do you have for an invisible and unneeded puppetmaster? Why can't water flow downhill all on its own?

What you’ve done here is dismiss a literal interpretation of the Biblical God, then jumped to the logically erroneous conclusion that all God concepts are thereby shown to be absurd. I expected better of you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The natural laws and constants of the universe are sufficient. They are the power and spark.
Purpose? Why must there be purpose? Water flows downhill. Chemicals interact. No purpose or intention.

The natural laws and constants which appear to govern the universe are clear evidence of an underlying creative purpose.

How can it possibly be, that this universe in all it’s bewildering beauty emerged from nothing and rushes aimlessly nowhere?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why would you need a separately existing power to impel things into existence? Why can they not 'simply exist'?

Why would there need to be a purpose as opposed to things that exist simply having properties?

I don’t say that Power - let’s call it an underlying creative intelligence - is separately existing. It is true that many, perhaps most, theologies do posit a transcendent deity, existing beyond the natural world. But to me, that creative power is manifest everywhere in the material universe. That things have properties, implies to me that some great Power endowed those things with properties. Some great force or combination of forces animates the world, puts the fire in the equations. And all the evidence shows us that force is not directionless; if it were, the universe would not be the coherent symphony of light and wonder we awaken to when we are born.

 

[wellwisher]

So why would mechanical interaction and selfish self-interest evolve but not love, bonding and emotional attachment? Like selfishness, these are useful, hence, selective.

The Progressive movement away from two sexes and toward homosexuality and gender, is also a movement toward birth control, since only classic male and female can breed. Male and female is the cornerstone of evolution, since only that combination can pass selective genes forward. This is why Noah was told to gather two of each species, and not 27 of each species.

This is not to say that people who practice gender or homosexuality would not be selected in their lifetime. Many such people would make the world a better place. However, since they cannot breed based on these choices, their useful selective genes would be lost to humanity, after they are gone. Only their memory would be left. This is not as enduring as genes.

The Evolutionary Biologists; Richard Dawkins, in a recent interview, asserted that science, biology and evolution, only support 2 sexes. The godless leaders have this tendency to diverge from the choices of religion, which would cause their eventual demise. Belief in God helps one control will and choices, so they do not depart from the needs of procreation. Mistakes will still be made, but time will be on their side.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The Progressive movement away from two sexes and toward homosexuality and gender, is also a movement toward birth control, since only classic male and female can breed. Male and female is the cornerstone of evolution, since only that combination can pass selective genes forward. This is why Noah was told to gather two of each species, and not 27 of each species.

This is not to say that people who practice gender or homosexuality would not be selected in their lifetime. Many such people would make the world a better place. However, since they cannot breed based on these choices, their useful selective genes would be lost to humanity, after they are gone. Only their memory would be left. This is not as enduring as genes.

Perhaps many just see this as a progressive movement towards reality - as to the existence of the 'in betweens' rather than the binary expectations so often depicted in some old text but disproved by science. And alternatively, perhaps the 'in betweens' are just a negative feedback mechanism (from God) so as to reduce the (rather obvious) population explosion, and as to such if not controlled, might see us as just another defunct species.

Not sure that your views are not rather like Hitler's - as to breeding out these less desirables?

 

[Polymath257]

I don’t say that Power - let’s call it an underlying creative intelligence - is separately existing. It is true that many, perhaps most, theologies do posit a transcendent deity, existing beyond the natural world. But to me, that creative power is manifest everywhere in the material universe. That things have properties, implies to me that some great Power endowed those things with properties. Some great force or combination of forces animates the world, puts the fire in the equations. And all the evidence shows us that force is not directionless; if it were, the universe would not be the coherent symphony of light and wonder we awaken to when we are born.

Once again, why is such a 'power' even necessary?

And, of course, the question arises as to why that power doesn't need an explanation for its existence. Another power, perhaps?

Alternatively, why can't the universe itself be that self-justifying 'power'? Why is an intelligence required? There are many 'creative forces' that are not intelligent.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, yeah - if God is the Creator and He didn't exist, obviously there would be no creation.

I see no evidence that the universe created itself.

And I see no evidence that anything outside of it created it. In fact, I see no evidence that causality makes sense outside of the universe.

Why is a separate being required for existence to happen? And doesn't that being also require a separate creator, leading to an infinite regress?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Patently absurd to invent some invisible personage, out of whole cloth, to be magically manipulating things.
I have evidence that chemistry works. What evidence do you have for an invisible and unneeded puppetmaster? Why can't water flow downhill all on its own?

But you have no evidence that absurd is physical as it has no objective evidence. The joke about your kind is that you treat your evaluations of what matters as if they have objective evidence. Indeed that objective evidence matters, is without evidence.
That is the problem of that worldview.

There are more models of the world than yours and theism. But you are a one trick pony, because you can only deal with theism.

 

[Valjean]

The Progressive movement away from two sexes and toward homosexuality and gender, is also a movement toward birth control, since only classic male and female can breed. Male and female is the cornerstone of evolution, since only that combination can pass selective genes forward. This is why Noah was told to gather two of each species, and not 27 of each species.

There is no progressive movement toward homosexuality. It's always been there. There's simply a new recognition that it exists as a natural variation.

This is not to say that people who practice gender or homosexuality would not be selected in their lifetime. Many such people would make the world a better place. However, since they cannot breed based on these choices, their useful selective genes would be lost to humanity, after they are gone. Only their memory would be left. This is not as enduring as genes.

You need to keep up with your biology better.
Not every individual needs to breed to have a healthy, sustainable population. In many species, in fact, it's only the alpha couple that breeds, with the rest of the group supporting the breeding couple. Moreover, studies have found that the "homosexual genes" are useful, and that homosexuality is a socially beneficial variation.

The Evolutionary Biologists; Richard Dawkins, in a recent interview, asserted that science, biology and evolution, only support 2 sexes. The godless leaders have this tendency to diverge from the choices of religion, which would cause their eventual demise. Belief in God helps one control will and choices, so they do not depart from the needs of procreation. Mistakes will still be made, but time will be on their side.

Give me some context for this Dawkins declaration, please. Do you have a link?
What does "support two sexes" mean? Are you aware that homosexuality is also commonly found in other mammals and birds? This has apparently been going on for millions of years, How soon, then, should we expect this demise?

I don't see that religion has anything to do with homosexuality, left-handedness, red hair or any of the other minority traits we find in humans. From a theistic standpoint, we must acknowledge that God made some humans, deer, ducks, and penguins homosexual, and to criticizethis is to disparage his work. Do you really want to do that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is not to say that people who practice gender or homosexuality would not be selected in their lifetime. Many such people would make the world a better place. However, since they cannot breed based on these choices, their useful selective genes would be lost to humanity, after they are gone. Only their memory would be left. This is not as enduring as genes.

The godless leaders have this tendency to diverge from the choices of religion, which would cause their eventual demise. Belief in God helps one control will and choices, so they do not depart from the needs of procreation. Mistakes will still be made, but time will be on their side.

Nothing much can be done about the variations of genes of people who do not breed. This happens in animals too, not every male breeds, but only the dominant ones. But we have a large bank of 8 billion breeders (minus those few who do not). The species manage.
Why does your God create people with alternate physiology or mentality? Religions cannot change that, they should accept LGBTQ. No meaning of railing against them. It is senseless.