Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[Unfettered]

Both are an issue here. You stated: "I understand that a godless universe would look like "unorganized matter."

The problem is based on the facts the universe is as it is regardless of whether God exists or not. That is what I explained.

I do appreciate that the universe does exist, and that it is what it is regardless of what we understand about its origin. But since I do understand the universe to be the product God taking unorganized matter and organizing it, I have no idea what "would be" otherwise. That's like asking me how my house (which is built) would differ from a house for which a builder did not exist. I have no answer to either question.

 

[Bthoth]

It would be a universe devoid of any kind of life.

Cute as the universe had life before any man/woman created any of the gods.

 

[Unfettered]

Well, effect with mechanism would put the question into the realm of science, not religion. It would remove God from the equation, would it not?

Yes, it would put the question into the realm of science. As far as removing God from the equation, that would only apply if God were either not real, or were real but had nothing to do with the formation of the universe.

On a conceptual level, "religion" seems incompatible with this discussion, as it is interested in what we believe and how our beliefs influence our choices, rather than with organizational mechanisms.

God is usually conceived of as an invisible, magical personage, creating things "by His word" and breathing life into things. These aren't mechanisms, they're assertions of magic.

I see. I understand God to be corporeal; finite in form like you and me, not invisible or uncreated or ethereal. I also understand that he accomplishes his works "by his word," which I understand, conceptually, to be akin to me asking you to do a thing (communication), followed by you doing it (hearing and responding). Absent a complete understanding of that mechanism, I agree that it may appear to us as come kind of "magic." But I understand it to be as scientific as hammering a nail. Understanding of the mechanics of God's organizational power is what I lack.

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for pointing out the typo. You are correct in that I intended to write "unorganized," not "organized" twice.

What I posited did not treat the subject of the nature of god, just the absence of god as the organizing agent (general term) of the known universe.

Nor does what I said assume any particular scientific theory, such as the big bang. It asserts that the universe, without god, would look like unorganized matter.

But why? How the "organizing principles" came to be as they are is unknown. Perhaps it was just a dice throw, and the universe we got was the result. But however the laws and constants -- the organizing principles -- came to be, they did come to be, and they remain.

You seem to be saying these laws are insufficient to produce the organization we see. You posit some sort of magical intervention by an undetectable but intentional supernatural being -- Himself uncaused. Am I reading you right?

Me, I'm not aware of any natural processes that are unlikely to be accounted for by natural means.
True, much is still a mystery, but positing intentional, supernatural manipulation is a special pleading, and right at the bottom of the parsimony scale.
I defer belief, pending evidence.

 

[Unfettered]

But why?

Why? Because I do understand the universe to be the result of an intentional organizational influence. If that is my understanding, why would I be able to conceptualize a universe absent that influence? I don't know how I could; all I am familiar with is this universe.

How the "organizing principles" came to be as they are is unknown.

Because I understand that the organizing agent was God, I understand that the "how" of it, generally speaking, is known. Where someone does not share that understanding, it is reasonable that the person may conclude that nothing at all is known about it (this seems to apply in your situation; correct me if I'm in error there).

Perhaps it was just a dice throw, and the universe we got was the result.

I understand this perspective.

But however the laws and constants -- the organizing principles -- came to be, they did come to be, and they remain.

I agree. Regardless of how things got the way they are, they are the way they are.

You seem to be saying these laws are insufficient to produce the organization we see. You posit some sort of magical intervention by an undetectable but intentional supernatural being -- Himself uncaused. Am I reading you right?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm pointing to a condition of existence antedating the foundation of the laws to which you refer. IE, God is the source of the laws, themselves.

Me, I'm not aware of any natural processes that are unlikely to be accounted for by natural means.

Understood. For what it's worth, if we are defining "natural" in terms of things that can be known, even "super"natural things are natural. They can be known, but may not yet be. Nor may the immediately be understood even if known.

True, much is still a mystery, but positing intentional, supernatural manipulation is a special pleading, and right at the bottom of the parsimony scale.

I don't agree that it is special pleading because I believe the manipulation was natural, not imaginary.

I defer belief, pending evidence.

Understood.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, it would put the question into the realm of science. As far as removing God from the equation, that would only apply if God were either not real, or were real but had nothing to do with the formation of the universe.

Agreed. How would these alternatives be distinguished? If indistinguishable, which is the more likely?
In the absence of actual evidence of God, and His dubious necessity, I think parsimony and deferred belief is the more reasonable option.

On a conceptual level, "religion" seems incompatible with this discussion, as it is interested in what we believe and how our beliefs influence our choices, rather than with organizational mechanisms.

Good point. Non-overlapping magisteria.
Religion should learn to stay in its lane and avoid assertions of mechanism.

I see. I understand God to be corporeal; finite in form like you and me, not invisible or uncreated or ethereal. I also understand that he accomplishes his works "by his word," which I understand, conceptually, to be akin to me asking you to do a thing (communication), followed by you doing it (hearing and responding).

Interesting. An active, finite, corporeal god sounds like a discoverable god.
How did you come to this conclusion, if I may ask?

Absent a complete understanding of that mechanism, I agree that it may appear to us as come kind of "magic." But I understand it to be as scientific as hammering a nail. Understanding of the mechanics of God's organizational power is what I lack.

So a discoverable mechanism, as well. This seems to put the question of God squarely within the realm of science. I look forward to the discoveries.

 

[Unfettered]

Agreed. How would these alternatives be distinguished?

Absent input from God, they are indistinguishable. The question has always been, "Has God given input?" Clearly, I understand that God has.

If indistinguishable, which is the more likely?

If they're indistinguishable, I don't know that it makes a difference.

In the absence of actual evidence of God, and His dubious necessity, I think parsimony and deferred belief is the more reasonable option.

I agree, that is reasonable.

Good point. Non-overlapping magisteria.
Religion should learn to stay in its lane and avoid assertions of mechanism.

Only insofar as the question never touches religion, which it often does. Even then, though, the problem isn't religion—people need to learn to stay in their own lane, I'd say. Not, mind you, in terms of never sharing differences of understanding, but in imposing them. I'm guessing most objections to "religion this" or "religion that" stem from unwanted imposition of religion, rather than the simple fact or nature of religion (unless the nature of a religion is to impose!)

Interesting. An active, finite, corporeal god sounds like a discoverable god.
How did you come to this conclusion, if I may ask?

The simple equation is that God gave evidence to man (prophet), prophet told man (me), I sought evidence from God, God gave evidence to me.

So a discoverable mechanism, as well. This seems to put the question of God squarely within the realm of science. I look forward to the discoveries.

I don't know whether the mechanism is discoverable, or requires revelation, as in the equation above.

 

[Valjean]

Why? Because I do understand the universe to be the result of an intentional organizational influence. If that is my understanding, why would I be able to conceptualize a universe absent that influence? I don't know how I could; all I am familiar with is this universe.

Being able to conceptualize an unfamiliar paradigm seems do-able, to me. I'm still curious how you came to this belief in intentionality, absent actual evidence.

Because I understand that the organizing agent was God, I understand that the "how" of it, generally speaking, is known. Where someone does not share that understanding, it is reasonable that the person may conclude that nothing at all is known about it (this seems to apply in your situation; correct me if I'm in error there).

OK -- but I still wonder how you came to believe in an intentional organizer, with no actual, objective evidence I can see. Projection of a familiar paradigm seems insufficient.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm pointing to a condition of existence antedating the foundation of the laws to which you refer. IE, God is the source of the laws, themselves.

Understood, but the doctrine mystifies me. I can't see what facts led to such a belief.

Understood. For what it's worth, if we are defining "natural" in terms of things that can be known, even "super"natural things are natural. They can be known, but they're yet not understood.
I don't agree that it is special pleading because I believe the manipulation was natural, not imaginary.

I see the natural mechanism, and function, but I see no teliological intent or manipulation.
I don't understand why the natural laws and constants are insufficient.

 

[Unfettered]

Being able to conceptualize an unfamiliar paradigm seems do-able, to me. I'm still curious how you came to this belief in intentionality, absent actual evidence.

OK -- but I still wonder how you came to believe in an intentional organizer, with no actual, objective evidence I can see. Projection of a familiar paradigm seems insufficient.

Understood, but the doctrine mystifies me. I can't see what facts led to such a belief.

I see the natural mechanism, and function, but I see no teliolocical intent or manipulation.
I don't understand why the natural laws and constants are insufficient.

I think we've gotten out of sync and this post brings us back together: Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

 

[Valjean]

Absent input from God, they are indistinguishable. The question has always been, "Has God given input?" Clearly, I understand that God has.

If they're indistinguishable, I don't know that it makes a difference.

I agree, that is reasonable.

Only insofar as the question never touches religion, which it often does. Even then, though, the problem isn't religion—people need to learn to stay in their own lane, I'd say. Not, mind you, in terms of never sharing differences of understanding, but in imposing them. I'm guessing most objections to "religion this" or "religion that" stem from unwanted imposition of religion, rather than the simple fact or nature of religion (unless the nature of a religion is to impose!)

The simple equation is that God gave evidence to man (prophet), prophet told man (me), I sought evidence from God, God gave evidence to me.

I don't know whether the mechanism is discoverable, or requires revelation, as in the equation above.

There are numerous prophets, with widely varying revelations. How does one choose? Why should one choose?
If I'm going to be analyzing evidence anyway, I'll just dispense with the middle man, thank you.

 

[Unfettered]

There are numerous prophets, with widely varying revelations. How does one choose? Why should one choose?
If I'm going to be analyzing evidence anyway, I'll just dispense with the middle man, thank you.

I can only speak from my own experience here.

One doesn't have to care. One doesn't have to choose.

That said, if a prophet presents an idea that, for a person, carries with it no cause to believe, I would expect the thing to be dismissed and forgotten. If the idea does carry with it cause to believe, it is reasonable to investigate—to test the idea according to the means and conditions said to be attached to the it. If appropriate investigative effort yields further cause to believe, faith results and additional investigation is reasonable. As long as the cycle of faith remains (cause to believe, followed by investigation, followed by confirmation), it is reasonable to continue investigating. Etc.

A prophet is not a middleman, but a witness who acts to start the process (or not).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why would that be the case? Would not matter still be composed of protons, neutrons and electrons? And would those not still have properties? So, the electrons and protons would attract each other, the protons and neutrons would *spontaneously* form nuclei, and so we would have atoms.

Of course, in the *very* early universe, we do have such: free electrons, neutrons, etc because of the incredibly high temperatures. When things cooled down due to the expansion, atoms formed. Upon further cooling, those atoms started clumping together and eventually stars formed.

Why does any of this require a deity? As long as matter has properties, structure will naturally form. Matter organizes itself.

Do you think attraction equals arrangement? No way! It requires a Mind.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you think attraction equals arrangement? No way! It requires a Mind.

No it does not. Having attractive forces that are different between the different types of atoms will inevitably give rise to structures, like crystals, without any outside intervention.

Having the attractive force of gravity on large amounts of mass will inevitably lead to spherical structures without any outside intervention.

If you take a collection of magnets and they are gently shaken, they will align parallel to each other.

In fact, the vast majority of the structures in the universe form spontaneously through the action of natural laws.

If anything, minds are the result of structures and not the other way around in most cases.

 

[Little Dragon]

If there were such a thing, it would be without love. All actions would be mechanical and automatic with all relationships between people totally superficial.

Isn't love just emotional attachment? A product of hormones, fundamentally.

 

[Little Dragon]

In fact, the vast majority of the structures in the universe form spontaneously through the action of natural laws.

Absolutely, emergent phenomena, products of chaos. (highly complex dynamic and interactive order)

 

[Little Dragon]

Considering that God is the eternal energy, which has neither beginning or end, and that He, who is all that exists and has manifested himself as this living universal body, a godless universe, could not exist.

Surely an unproven and unprovable opinion? Puzzling...

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No it does not. Having attractive forces that are different between the different types of atoms will inevitably give rise to structures, like crystals, without any outside intervention.

Having the attractive force of gravity on large amounts of mass will inevitably lead to spherical structures without any outside intervention.

If you take a collection of magnets and they are gently shaken, they will align parallel to each other.

In fact, the vast majority of the structures in the universe form spontaneously through the action of natural laws.

You mean those finely-tuned attractive forces? (There are also repellent ones, too.) How they work together in harmony!

And the universe - at least the part we live in - encompasses much more than just crystals, spherical structures, & parallel molecules, doesn’t it? It also includes things that are orders of magnitude more complex, like the basic unit of living structures — the cell — and the multitude of nano machinery we’ve discovered within them.

To say life arose through self-organization, takes a lot of faith.

“If anything, minds are the result of structures and not the other way around in most cases.”


Then all that needs to be done, is to prove it.

(But to do any lab work, would take intelligence…so we’re back to square 1.)

IMO, it’s the other way around.

And BTW, what are “most cases”?

@Little Dragon said something like. ‘…an unproven opinion.
Puzzling’

Indeed!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Theists: What would a godless universe look like?​

The Mucinex Mucus Man. Lol.

And he wouldn’t be alive.

 

[Little Dragon]

To say life arose through self-organization, takes a lot of faith.

Well, abiogenesis is still a testable scientific hypothesis. Not a scientific theory. However, they're searching for the evidence, to make it unnecessary to require faith. Work in progress.

 

[Valjean]

You mean those finely-tuned attractive forces? (There are also repellent ones, too.) How they work together in harmony!

Had the laws been different, maybe a different "fine tuned universe" would have formed; maybe a better, more salubrious one. Who can say? But from a sample size of one,a conclusion of fine tuning is quite a stretch.

How many other universes have been formed? With enough hands, you're sure to draw a royal flush occasionally, no intervention needed.

And the universe - at least the part we live in - encompasses much more than just crystals, spherical structures, & parallel molecules, doesn’t it? It also includes things that are orders of magnitude more complex, like the basic unit of living structures — the cell — and the multitude of nano machinery we’ve discovered within them.

To say life arose through self-organization, takes a lot of faith.

Or a lot of time and opportunities.
And then there's natural selection, which selects and keeps each tiny change that proves useful and discards thise that don't -- all automatically. With billions of primitive organisms and trillions of generations, over a couple billion years, a lot of complexity can accumulate.