Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[epronovost]

Oh, grief! Where to start?
The many symbiotic relationships between unrelated organisms, for one.


The arrangements of proteins within DNA... The proteins forming the bacterial flagellum...

These can all be explained through the evolutionnary process and by natural selection. The forms and "abilities" of animals and life forms present no challenge to a naturalistic worldview. In fact, many of these things have been discovered thanks to a naturalistic worldview and theories.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Could not exist" -- provided He exists -- as eternal energy, without beginning or end, and blah, blah, blah.

Your argument is that He exists because He exists. You're including His existence as a major premise in your argument. The argument is circular: The universe must have a God because it has a God.

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

Okay, it stops here.
I used to be an atheist, but I stopped, because I figured out, that arguments, about what the universe is, don't work either for theists or atheists.
Definition of FAITH
...
2 b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust

What I figured out, was that as an atheist, I had faith just like a theist and that all arguments about what the universe is, do not meet the standard required by some atheists in general. I.e. it is always ends in that any variants of truth, proof, logic, evidence or what not does cut it(1) and it applies to both sides.

Now a note, there are not just 2 sides in this debate. There are 3 - in effect you have to account for agnostics, but for the firm ones, it is the same. As per (1) here after called knowledge, nobody apparently knows what the universe really is and neither side meet the standard of knowledge.

So before I start going through how it is so, a note about showing that something doesn't work. That is a negative and something this negative is imbued with feelings. I.e. that is meaningless, absurd, doesn't make sense and so on. So if you experience that, it could be a sign, that you have reach the point of that you realize that there is no knowledge about what the universe is. Some people on both sides are functionally incapable of objectively holding a negative result, when examining what the universe is and realizing there is no positive knowledge about that.

So not regarding what you actually believe, but that you can disregard the rest, if you understand that there is no knowledge about what the universe really is.

So are you up for it? It can't be done with a few lines of text and if you really don't care and your belief system works for you, there is no reason to continue. So what do you say? So we continue the eternal dance of what the universe really is?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Valjean]

Oh, grief! Where to start?
The many symbiotic relationships between unrelated organisms, for one.

But they're perfectly explainable without resort to supernatural manipulation. Familiar, natural processes account for them.

The arrangements of proteins within DNA... The proteins forming the bacterial flagellum...

There are no proteins in DNA, it's a simple polymer. The genetic coding it contains is also perfectly understandable by natural selection, without resort to magical design.

What mysteries do you perceive in the flagellum? Its origin and function is understood. There must be a hundred you tube videos explaining this long debunked creationist trope.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Seriously? Lyndon, you're usually more reasonable than this.

How can we disparage that which doesn't exist? Your accusation relies on there actually being a God -- and a jealous, stroppy God, at that.

Show some evidence for this God and we'll give your concerns some consideration.

We don't need to, as long as the accusation still stands.

You have the sun to give you warmth, the rain to growth the plants that produce the food you eat, people who love you and care for you, things for you to do, hobbies, goals, dreams, a world that doesn't instantly flatten or suffocate you, and besides which plenty of miracles of good fortune. You have doggies, and kittens too. And if you live around Australia or whatever, you might even see chocobos (they're called "ostriches" ). There's also a number of meteorological, geological, and astrophysicists miracles that work together to make world where the Earth isn't hit by asteroids, isn't blown up by tornadoes, and isn't covered by lava so life can exist.

But with all of that, you can't even say "thank you"? I'm chronically depressed, that's my excuse, but still I understand God is in my life.

So since you won't say the above, I'm giving you homework. Prove that God cannot exist, given all of the things in the paragraph above.
Or pay rent. God mandates that we should give food/water/clothing/company. At the very least, the latter one might get you a partner.

 

[Valjean]

Is this the first and only universe to have ever existed, if not, how many other universal bodies do you believe have existed prior to this one, which is only some 14 billion years old?.

Why do you say this? How do you know this?
Cosmogeny is a new discipline, and words like "prior" presuppose an arrow of time that doesn't really exist.

So please explain how you believe that this boundless Cosmos and all its myriad of life forms were created from that energy which has neither beginning or end, in a mere 14 billion years .

I'm not sure what you're asking.
Chemistry and physics exist, and they are what they are, whatever their origins.
Abiogenesis occurred, through simple chemistry, though the details are not yet clear. Life forms evolved, by the well known mechanisms of evolution. This accounts for the myriad life forms we observe.

 

[Valjean]

We don't need to, as long as the accusation still stands.

You have the sun to give you warmth, the rain to growth the plants that produce the food you eat, people who love you and care for you, things for you to do, hobbies, goals, dreams, a world that doesn't instantly flatten or suffocate you, and besides which plenty of miracles of good fortune. You have doggies, and kittens too. And if you live around Australia or whatever, you might even see chocobos (they're called "ostriches" ). There's also a number of meteorological, geological, and astrophysicists miracles that work together to make world where the Earth isn't hit by asteroids, isn't blown up by tornadoes, and isn't covered by lava so life can exist.

But with all of that, you can't even say "thank you"? I'm chronically depressed, that's my excuse, but still I understand God is in my life.

So since you won't say the above, I'm giving you homework. Prove that God cannot exist, given all of the things in the paragraph above.
Or pay rent. God mandates that we should give food/water/clothing/company. At the very least, the latter one might get you a partner.

Show me evidence of a creator whom I should thank; who wants thanks, and I'll thank him.
I'm not going to prove God doesn't exist. It's not my burden. You're the one making the extraordinary claim.
Prove magic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you say this? How do you know this?
Cosmogeny is a new discipline, and words like "prior" presuppose an arrow of time that doesn't really exist.
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Chemistry and physics exist, and they are what they are, whatever their origins.
Abiogenesis occurred, through simple chemistry, though the details are not yet clear. Life forms evolved, by the well known mechanisms of evolution. This accounts for the myriad life forms we observe.

Show me evidence of a creator whom I should thank; who wants thanks, and I'll thank him.
I'm not going to prove God doesn't exist. It's not my burden. You're the one making the extraordinary claim.
Prove magic.

So the combination of these and other posts by you gives me a picture of what you mean by knowledge and what you require of knowledge. Knowledge requires objective evidence and can't be illogical as e.g. circular argument. Is this correct?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

These can all be explained through the evolutionnary process and by natural selection. The forms and "abilities" of animals and life forms present no challenge to a naturalistic worldview. In fact, many of these things have been discovered thanks to a naturalistic worldview and theories.

You can say that, but references are needed, without the Koolaid. I.e., Articles without the "likely"s and "probably"s.. because that is all Common Descent evolution has.

"(Dr. Michael J.) Behe calculates the "edge of evolution" - the point at which Darwinian evolution is no longer an efficacious agent of creative biological change - by taking into account the number of mutations required to "travel" from one genetic state to another, as well as population size for the organism in question. He concludes that purposeful design plays a major role in the development of biological complexity, through the mechanism of producing "non-random mutations", which are then subjected to the sculpting hand of natural selection.

Design that favors the development of intelligent life, argues Behe, is not only demanded by "the most recent findings concerning biological complexity", but also by discoveries in the fields of chemistry (he uses the example of the peculiar, life-supporting structure of water), and of cosmology (referring to the anthropic principle)."

-Excerpt from
The Edge of Evolution - Wikipedia

Yes, the ToE is valid to a point, but it can't explain the basic evidence uncovered from the Cambrian, nor (realistically) the huge diversity of creatures. Neither can it explain how sexual reproduction diverged from asexual reproduction.
It goes on and on.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not speaking as a theist but more as an agnostic, the problem I have is that a universe might look just the same whether there is a God or not. How clever of God, or perhaps a more obvious answer.

Anything seen as evidence for a God - such as the special conditions for life to develop (and even the laws of physics), the apparent benign conditions here on Earth, and our uniqueness as a species - all can be turned on their head. The timescales for life to develop and the short span of human life so far, the ignoring of so many natural occurrences that don't favour life, and our apparent relationship to so much other life (being even so close genetically to some), all these and no doubt many more could provide (selective) evidence for either position. And all this apart from an explanation for such a vast universe and our supposed unique (little) place in such. This latter is for me more an indicator of no God - or no God having any influence or control over human existence.

 

[stvdv]

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

Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

I believe that God is the essence of everything that exists
Hence "without God" there would not be a universe

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Hubert, the universe has no God or Allah or Bhagwan or any synonym of the name. You have a Godless universe right before your eyes, you are living in it. So, what exactly are you asking?

2 b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Very funny, laughable, but I will not, in deference to you.

So since you won't say the above, I'm giving you homework. Prove that God cannot exist, ..

I take up the challenge, Samantha. Where did God arise from? Explain his eternity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hubert, the universe has no God or Allah or Bhagwan or any synonym of the name. So, what exactly are you asking?

You have no evidence, proof or whatever of that kind.
Here is a short way of explaining:
#1 X is Y and X is not Z
#2 X is Z and X is not Y
#3 Both are unknown and without evidence, proof or whatever of that kind.

 

[Valjean]

So the combination of these and other posts by you gives me a picture of what you mean by knowledge and what you require of knowledge. Knowledge requires objective evidence and can't be illogical as e.g. circular argument. Is this correct?

Yes. Objective knowledge requires evidence. The evidence must be assessed mathematically to be valid.

 

[Valjean]

You can say that, but references are needed, without the Koolaid. I.e., Articles without the "likely"s and "probably"s.. because that is all Common Descent evolution has.

"(Dr. Michael J.) Behe calculates the "edge of evolution" - the point at which Darwinian evolution is no longer an efficacious agent of creative biological change - by taking into account the number of mutations required to "travel" from one genetic state to another, as well as population size for the organism in question. He concludes that purposeful design plays a major role in the development of biological complexity, through the mechanism of producing "non-random mutations", which are then subjected to the sculpting hand of natural selection.

Behe is a pseudoscientific charlatan, adept at pseudoscience gobbledygook. Don't be taken in by this creationist nutter.

Design that favors the development of intelligent life, argues Behe, is not only demanded by "the most recent findings concerning biological complexity", but also by discoveries in the fields of chemistry (he uses the example of the peculiar, life-supporting structure of water), and of cosmology (referring to the anthropic principle).

"This is absurd. No reputable scientist would give it a second glance.

Yes, the ToE is valid to a point, but it can't explain the basic evidence uncovered from the Cambrian, nor (realistically) the huge diversity of creatures. Neither can it explain how sexual reproduction diverged from asexual reproduction.
It goes on and on.

Yes it can, and there's nothing mysterious about sexual reproduction.
This is all just typical creationist techno-babbel. Its goal is to discredit science, with the assumption that if the science is wrong then creationism must needs be right.[/quote]

 

[sayak83]

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?

It would look irregular

 

[Aupmanyav]

So the combination of these and other posts by you gives me a picture of what you mean by knowledge and what you require of knowledge. Knowledge requires objective evidence and can't be illogical as e.g. circular argument. Is this correct?

Science will clearly explain what it knows and what it does not know. It will also tell you the stage to which investigation of something has reached (4 sigma, 5 sigma, etc.). Science will not claim false things as most religions will (barring my belief which has no false belief). There are enough safe-guards in science against that.

 

[epronovost]

You can say that, but references are needed, without the Koolaid. I.e., Articles without the "likely"s and "probably"s.. because that is all Common Descent evolution has.

"(Dr. Michael J.) Behe calculates the "edge of evolution" - the point at which Darwinian evolution is no longer an efficacious agent of creative biological change - by taking into account the number of mutations required to "travel" from one genetic state to another, as well as population size for the organism in question. He concludes that purposeful design plays a major role in the development of biological complexity, through the mechanism of producing "non-random mutations", which are then subjected to the sculpting hand of natural selection.

Design that favors the development of intelligent life, argues Behe, is not only demanded by "the most recent findings concerning biological complexity", but also by discoveries in the fields of chemistry (he uses the example of the peculiar, life-supporting structure of water), and of cosmology (referring to the anthropic principle)."

-Excerpt from
The Edge of Evolution - Wikipedia

Yes, the ToE is valid to a point, but it can't explain the basic evidence uncovered from the Cambrian, nor (realistically) the huge diversity of creatures. Neither can it explain how sexual reproduction diverged from asexual reproduction.
It goes on and on.

You are aware that Behe has been disgraced about a decade ago for his spurious arguments and misrepresentation of science do you? His testimony in the Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District trial covered him in ridicule for his sloppy to the point of willful, dogmatic ignorance research. All of Behe's objections were either already solved by others or were in the process of being investigated with some success. The "Cambrian explosion" for example, is very well and easily explained by the evolutionnary process while the origin of sexual reproduction has advanced a lot in the last decades though research on it isn't completed yet. It's basically a giant argument from ignorance and "god of the gaps" type of scenario.

 

[PruePhillip]

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?

This universe would be a MAGIC universe where things appear out of nothing
and for no reason whatsoever. On the surface it would appear to be a rational
universe with physical laws, but one would need to be aware that as it created
itself before it existed, the universe is going to do weird things, for no reason.

 

[Lyndon]

Hubert, the universe has no God or Allah or Bhagwan or any synonym of the name. You have a Godless universe right before your eyes, you are living in it. So, what exactly are you asking?Very funny, laughable, but I will not, in deference to you.I take up the challenge, Samantha. Where did God arise from? Explain his eternity.

Yet another Hindu that doesn't believe in Brahman

 

[Aupmanyav]

It would look irregular

What do you mean, Sayak? I am sure you have something up your sleeve.

This universe would be a MAGIC universe where things appear out of nothing
and for no reason whatsoever. On the surface it would appear to be a rational
universe with physical laws, but one would need to be aware that as it created
itself before it existed, the universe is going to do weird things, for no reason.

Oh sure, it is a magic universe. Does weird things. Double slit is one such thing and I have heard of Schrodinger's cat, alive as well as dead.

Yet another Hindu that doesn't believe in Brahman

That is not true, Lyndon, I do believe in Brahman, but Brahman is not God. It is the stuff which constitutes all things in the universe. Furthermore, it might have the property of existing as well as not existing, just like Schrodinger's cat.

Brahman is the only thing I believe in
"Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya ..": Sankaracharya, 8th Century.
(Brahman is truth, the perceived world is untruth ..)