Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[Ostronomos]

Compassion.

You may use the word compassion to describe yourself. But at the end of the day you're still an atheist. And that puts you outside any attempt to unify humanity. Whereas others are aware that God is the only path to unity.

 

[Ostronomos]

Or maybe it is because theists always think they are right and cannot grasp that they commit great evil in the name of their God.

The only evil being committed is the misinformation atheists spread.

 

[Ostronomos]

For those of you who believe that there is no proof of God floating around cyberspace, may I present: Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language - CTMU Wiki

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For those of you who believe that there is no proof of God floating around cyberspace, may I present: Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language - CTMU Wiki

QED

 

[Polymath257]

You may use the word compassion to describe yourself. But at the end of the day you're still an atheist. And that puts you outside any attempt to unify humanity. Whereas others are aware that God is the only path to unity.

I disagree. Theism has divided humanity for way too long. Belief in gods has only served to promote bigotry, war, hatred, and a false sense of superiority.

The only evil being committed is the misinformation atheists spread.

Like what? That there is no solid evidence of deities? if that is wrong, please show us that evidence. That the Biblical deity has the morals of a spoiled 2 year old? Just read the book and see. That no supernatural is required to understand the world around us? Please give an example otherwise.

For those of you who believe that there is no proof of God floating around cyberspace, may I present: Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language - CTMU Wiki

Not only is that not a proof of God, i t is almost pure speculation with no reason to think it is true.

 

[Polymath257]

You're telling me how to read the Bible - you can't even follow your own prescription by reading the Book in its entirety - enough love, compassion , mercy and forgiveness that God bestows upon His all of us.

if that is your idea of love, then I want no part of it. Compassion on the part of the Biblical God? Show me one place.

Plus, you don't even understand anything that you read - God waited for them to repent, giving them ample and unwarranted opportunity to do so, and they all refused

God has the morals of a spoiled 2 year old throughout the Bible. Any time people question anything, He goes off the deep end an smites everyone.

 

[Polymath257]

You and other atheists on this forum are not above spouting slurs at theists. But unlike you I don't point fingers. If a theist uses a slur, it is because it is well-deserved. He is defending the righteous whereas atheism, like evil, is blind and beneath the level of anything remotely righteous.

Most atheists have better morals than the devout theists.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most atheists have better morals than the devout theists.

Yeah! We don't suppose we've got an "out" because we're God's pick-of-the-litter.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What atheists fail to understand is that they only cling to a superficial view of reality.

You have no access to any knowledge not available to others with working senses. What you call a deeper view of reality is likely your imagination. If not, you could demonstrate this deeper reality to other human beings with eyes and ears, or whatever faculty you think you use to detect it. Also, if you consider that apprehension valuable, you should be able to show some benefit to you and others that make such claims beyond placebo (comfort).

When in fact reality goes much deeper than we think. To the point where the separation between inner and outer realities converge and feedback becomes the new reality. This is known as "stepping out of the matrix". For those of you who lack a childlike sense of wonder.

This is fantasy. You consider magical thinking a virtue. Magical thinking is childlike, as is belief by faith. Neither is a virtue. Nor is being childlike beyond a love of playing and laughing.

Clearly you haven't explored the edge of existence.

Where do you think you've been?

we have ourselves an extremely perceptive person here, who claims that if it is not evident to them, then it therefore does not exist.

That wasn't claimed. His words were, "My beliefs are bolstered by empirical evidence and extensive evidence." Nevertheless, it seems imminently sensible to NOT believe insufficiently evidenced claims, and treat that which cannot be detected the same as the nonexistent.

you reveal your obtuseness.

Back at you.

I would strongly challenge your ability to perceive what is around you, and also to interpret it.

That's pretty much what I just told the last poster. He indulges in the same kind of faith-based magical thinking that you seem to like as well.

I'm sensing that this next statement will be above your head: God gave us all life, and the ability to love and be loved, and enjoy all that He has to offer to those who love Him and love each other.

Nothing you say is above an educated, critical thinkers head. This is just more of your faith-based, magical thinking, all of which is easily understood and easily rejected.

don't insult God

Like sin and damnation, that's for you and others willing to believe the things you believe to worry about, not him.

open your eyes - it's called wisdom - a word and concept that is outside the atheist's vocabulary and comprehension

If intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, wisdom is knowing what to want to be happy. Are you happy? You don't seem happy. You seem agitated. And you seem to spend a lot of time thinking about things that aren't real. When I was a believer, thousands of hours and dollars were consumed supporting that belief. That ended up being wasted time and wasted money.

theists are humble and reverent towards their Maker.

Are you a typical example of that humility? I also consider worship, which is also a childlike mental state, something we can outgrow, and as a free, autonomous moral agent and citizen with guaranteed personal freedoms, beneath my dignity. My spiritual connection is directly with nature and involves no spirits and no worshiping - just respect and a warm sense of connection, belonging, mystery, awe, and gratitude for nature. That might have been over YOUR head. Can you conceive of spirituality without spirits?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For those of you who believe that there is no proof of God floating around cyberspace, may I present: Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language - CTMU Wiki

You know, I think everbody should actually read what that link says, so here it is:

Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language​

​

Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL is the meta-mathematical structure to which the universe is isomorphic. SCSPL is the language of the universe, a language so expressive that the universe creates itself and evolves through using it. The universe is in every way, everywhere, identical to SCSPL.​

​

Normally, languages are considered to be in the minds of people and they work on the basis of moving symbols around mentally, where said symbols represent things in the "outside world". By attempting to represent things in the "outside world" with language, one gets closer and closer in accuracy of description to the things one attempts to describe the more expressive/powerful the language is. What would happen if a language was so expressive that it contained every piece of information on the thing it wishes to describe, to the highest resolution possible? You would have the SCSPL "coding" of that object in the universe, which is identical to the object itself. Thought about in another way, if one asks themselves "what does the SCSPL coding of a tennis ball look like?"; the answer is the tennis ball itself! One can say that Mind=Reality=Language since mind and reality intersect at the SCSPL language, as the content of both. It is through language that the source (mind) maps to the target (reality).​

​

Other languages that SCSPL provides a syntactic covering for (see description of syntactic covering and Human Cognitive Syntax) include; the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, the expressions of the human mind or HCS.​

Definition​

According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist." Accordingly, the universe must adopt a reflexive form in which it can "select itself" for self-defined existence, with the selection function identical to that which is selected. This means that it must take a certain general or "initial" form, the MU form, which contains all of the requisites for generating the contents of reality. Due to hology, whereby the self-contained universe has nothing but itself of which to consist, this form is self-distributed.​

​

By the Principle of Linguistic Reducibility, reality is a language. Because it is self-contained with respect to processing as well as configuration, it is a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL whose general spatiotemporal structure is hologically replicated everywhere within it as self-transductive syntax. This reduces the generative phase of reality, including physical cosmogony, to the generative grammar of SCSPL. [1]​

Notes​

1. Jump up↑ http://www.teleologic.org/

Anyone on this forum with the ability to read will recognize fairly quickly that it purports to say a great deal, while in fact saying practically nothing at all.. One can't help but notice, for instance, that there is only one note -- one "citation," and that is simply a pointer to where you can sign up for more of this nonsense.

The attempt to describe a language which is (must be) both it's own source and object, both the language and the speaker of it, along with the source of all of its own ideas and raw materials -- while not even pretending to show a single part of that language, parts of speech, syntax, nothing -- makes abundantly clear that it is merely a flight of fancy based on a highly imaginative, perhaps intelligent in an idiot-savant sort of way, but not particularly sensible person.

The bit I marked in red is a very text-book example of a deepity.

Look at the phrase, in the above text, "and according to infocognitive monism." This construct, referred to as if it were from some other source, exists only within this "CTMU Wiki" site, demonstrates the inevitably circular reasoning employed to try and look like real science -- which it most emphatically is not.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, there you have it; another person who believe that animals are capable of love.

Yes, they are. Love is an emotion we share with other mammals.

Does your dog love you for your character or for your altruism or and integrity - or because you feed him and treat him well?

Part of treating a dog well is having integrity and character. A dog can pick up on it if you don’t have those.

Will he not 'love' anyone that comes in a pets him enough, despite the fact that the person may be a troublemaker in many ways.

Nope. A dog will refuse pets from someone who is a bad egg.

Only humans are capable of loving, and doing so for the right reasons - not because they have something to gain, like all non-humans.

Sorry you think this. You miss out on a lot, I think.

 

[Polymath257]

You're telling me how to read the Bible -

I’m pointing out how to read any book. The Bible is, of course, several books put together. At the very least, each book should be read in its entirety before starting another.

It would also be instructive to read the books in the Bible in chronological order of when they were written, but often that isn’t known in detail.

 

[Brian2]

Or maybe it is because theists always think they are right and cannot grasp that they commit great evil in the name of their God.

Pride not only applies to theists, it is a human problem.

 

[Polymath257]

Pride not only applies to theists, it is a human problem.

I certainly agree with that. But why do the theists insist it is pride to require evidence before belief? Isn’t that the opposite of pride? Acknowledging you can be wrong?

 

[wellwisher]

Stars and planets arise from self organization, as do all the chemical compounds found in nature.

It's a fundamental feature of this universe, a consequence of matter and energy dynamically interacting with each other and the field forces of nature; gravity, electromagnetic, and the two nuclear forces.

This is not faith, this is direct observation.

What I like to do is not just look at laws of nature, now, but first go back to time=0, and figure out how all this order and self organization appeared from the singularity of the Big Bang. You start with a single thing the size of a point. That is pure order. None of the laws of physics we now know and experience were yet in affect. Anything could happen if we think in terms of random. The BB cause space-time to appear, then matter/energy divides, again and again, yet it remains self organized at each step.

Where the standard theory gets into trouble, with the whims of the gods, is it assumes matter and antimatter formed at a certain point in equal parts, from high energy photons. Somehow matter persisted and now dominates, which is what we see. This is not easy to explain with the existing laws of physics, without summoning the gods of chance. Matter and Anti matter want to annihilate. The current thinking is by some lottery affect, there was a slight imbalance in favor matter, which then grows with time; random push.

Seeing we live in a world of order and self organization, I like to assume this transition was just another part of self ordering, that was already in the plan. There is no need of dice and cards. I explain it, with the observation that the majority of the mass in the universe is attached to positive charge; hydrogen proton. This suggest that positive charge has more innate affinity, for mass, than does negative charge. This is not random but part of the plan. The proton has more mass, than an electron, and it can break down into smaller parts, while the electron is an elementary particle, where mass and charge, are unified since they both exist, but these cannot be broken down into two separate things; one unified thing.

If you start with matter and antimatter, at extreme pressure and temperature, at the conditions where matter and antimatter can form and/or annihilate; reversible equilibrium, the two charges of anti-matter, will want to swap to become matter. Anti-matter, such as in beta decay, is where an antimatter positron is given off by matter. This shows matter can safely contain antimatter and kick it out if need be. The positron will annihilate with an electron, but this is at ambient conditions and not at reversible equilibrium where the positive will find nucleus matter; where it began.

Even if you add random to this logic of order, to make variety, random was never in charge, or else chaos would be the rule and not the exception. Variety is connected to entropy , which itself has an order; has to increase complexity. Even natural selection, is not random. National selection is based on order that selects optimized self organization within nature.

Where religion and the God of Creation came in, was to dispel the random myths; whims of the gods, which today we call statistics. The God of Creation stresses one should favor a God of order, leading to self organization. With man made in God's image, this led to the rational mind, instead of a mind stuck in the darkness of chaos.

One was encouraged to look for explanations, based on cause and affect and order instead of mindlessly assuming you cannot know for sure, since the laws of whims, dice, and cards were in affect and there was nothing you could do. Less than 1/20 of a 1 percent of the world's population died of COVID, yet the laws of dice and cards made almost everyone live in the darkness of fear. One was not allowed to ook for logic and cause and affect, since this was censored to appease the gods of dice and cards. Even rational scientists got sucked in because many still worship the gods of casinos.

For example, if the economy got bad, in the land of dice and cards, nobody is at fault except the whims of the gods. But in a world of order and self organization, one will need to think in terms of cause and affect, and ask what was the cause, and if we know that, we can fix it. We do not have to wait for a jackpot from heaven. There is a time and order for all things. God creating an ordered universe was mind expanding, and still leads the self organizing mind, that is needed to create and build to the future.

 

[Brian2]

I certainly agree with that. But why do the theists insist it is pride to require evidence before belief? Isn’t that the opposite of pride? Acknowledging you can be wrong?

I'm not sure I have heard that before.
I would say that atheists and skeptics demand a different standard of evidence and a different type of evidence. That standard and type of evidence required imo puts belief out of the reach of most atheists and skeptics.

 

[wellwisher]

I developed a physics theory, which I call the Heisenberg Certainty Principle. This theory is a contrast to the classic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This certainty theory is connected to reality not only existing in space-time, but also where time and space are not connected. This offers a second layer of logic instead of uncertainty.

Space-time constrains the laws of physics to have everything with attributes of time and/or space, for space and time to be connected. Photons of energy have wavelength and frequency which are measures of space and time. These two attributed of time and space go around connected. If we see one, the other is nearby. We do not expect to see a photon wavelength without an attached frequency or vice versa. This is the nature of space-time.

In the other dimension, for lack of a good descriptive word, where time and space are not connected, the laws of physics become different, since a main constraint does not apply; have to be connected. The speed of light, where speed equals v=d/t (how space and time connect via division) and light equals wavelength connected to frequency; both have connected attributes, have an upper limit in terms of how long it takes to go somewhere in space-time. But if we separate space and time, so we can move in distance apart from time, we can be everywhere at the same time; omnipresent.

In terms of the experimental observation of Heisenberg, he noticed that you cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle, like an electron or photon, at the same time. The more accurate you become with one, the other becomes inaccurate. This was attributed to randomness; the uncertainty principle. But in reality, it actually proved that time and space were not always connected as space-time, or else you should be able to know one from the other, like wavelength always connects to frequency. Heisenberg noticed this was not the case. Physics was not ready for the big change, into separated space and time, but assumed randomness in space-time as a stepping stone.

The wave function of an electron orbital; its probability function, were approximations for the election's mini omnipresent affect in an orbital; had extra distance potential to be everywhere in the wave function. Separated space and time is easier to see at the quantum level. It may appear random, relative to the laws of space-time, because it creates +space-time and space-time+ .that have a logic all their own, instead of being a fuzzy subset of space-time modeled with probability.

Consciousness has a connection to this other dimension, where space and time are not connected. When we plan for the future, such as a vacation, our minds are moving and planning in space and time; trip to the tropical island next week, while the body is sitting stationary in space-time. Our minds are not exactly under the laws of space-time, since we can also imagine things that will never happen in space-time realty; fantasy island. The Russian Collusion Coup was never connected to space-time, but the collective mind was able to go there. It did create an omnipresent affect in time, with all having the same focus for months independent, of our position in space.

To make, separated space and time; consciousness, connect to space-time, we need to play by the rules of space-time, which is which is what science tries to do. This limits what can be considered. Although blue sky research is allowed to go outside the laws of space-time, but most other science stays closer. However, playing around in the area where space and time are not connected, such as via religion, helps us understand how consciousness and the quantum world both work.

There is a connection between the fundamental nature of matter, and the basic properties of consciousness. For example, the innovator may imagine what does not yet exist in space-time reality; does not appear naturally. There is a detachment. However, reality can be reorganized to allow what is not connected, to connect. Since this type of connection has separated space and time leading, and that dimension connects to the quantum world; it needs to come from deep within. How do you think they built the pyramids with basic tools. Many attribute this to future tech; time potential.

If AI was able to interface separated space and time, it would become truly conscious. Semi-conductors may not allow this interface since its quantum interface is somewhat limited. It may require organic computers. Life already does it this way; ecosystems and natural selection.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not sure I have heard that before.
I would say that atheists and skeptics demand a different standard of evidence and a different type of evidence. That standard and type of evidence required imo puts belief out of the reach of most atheists and skeptics.

And, in my mind, it isn't evidence at all. If it wouldn't be good evidence if used for Bigfoot or for a subatomic particle, it isn't good evidence. It might be personal opinion, but that isn't a good reason for *other* people to believe.

 

[Polymath257]

What I like to do is not just look at laws of nature, now, but first go back to time=0, and figure out how all this order and self organization appeared from the singularity of the Big Bang. You start with a single thing the size of a point. That is pure order. None of the laws of physics we now know and experience were yet in affect. Anything could happen if we think in terms of random. The BB cause space-time to appear, then matter/energy divides, again a nd again, yet it remains self organized at each step.

Where the standard theory gets into trouble, with the whims of the gods, is it assumes matter and antimatter formed at a certain point in equal parts, from high energy photons. Somehow matter persisted and now dominates, which is what we see. This is not easy to explain with the existing laws of physics, without summoning the gods of chance. Matter and Anti matter want to annihilate. The current thinking is by some lottery affect, there was a slight imbalance in favor matter, which then grows with time; random push.

No, that is *not* the current thinking. it turns out that the symmetry between matter and anti-matter is not perfect. This break in the symmetry is known as CP violation and is an experimental fact. This takes the slight imbalance out of the realm of chance and into the realm of certainty.

Now, there are aspects we don't understand. For example, the asymmetry we have found so far is rather weak and doesn't explain ALL of the imbalance we observe. There are also questions concerning leptogenesis. But these are areas of active research and there is every reason to think that there is no *fundamental* problem here.

Seeing we live in a world of order and self organization, I like to assume this transition was just another part of self ordering, that was already in the plan. There is no need of dice and cards. I explain it, with the observation that the majority of the mass in the universe is attached to positive charge; hydrogen proton. This suggest that positive charge has more innate affinity, for mass, than does negative charge. This is not random but part of the plan. The proton has more mass, than an electron, and it can break down into smaller parts, while the electron is an elementary particle, where mass and charge, are unified since they both exist, but these cannot be broken down into two separate things; one unified thing.

Sorry, but this doesn't work to explain the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter. To do that, you would have to explain why the negatively charged anti-proton (which has the same mass as the usual proton) isn't favored. Also, the anti-electron (known as the positron) is just as fundamental as the electron.

If you start with matter and antimatter, at extreme pressure and temperature, at the conditions where matter and antimatter can form and/or annihilate; reversible equilibrium, the two charges of anti-matter, will want to swap to become matter. Anti-matter, such as in beta decay, is where an antimatter positron is given off by matter. This shows matter can safely contain antimatter and kick it out if need be. The positron will annihilate with an electron, but this is at ambient conditions and not at reversible equilibrium where the positive will find nucleus matter; where it began.

Um, no. The nucleus does NOT contain positrons! A proton will *change* into a neutron and a positron (and a neutrino), but a neutron can equally well *change* into a proton and an electron (and an anti-neutrino).

And, once again, this does NOT explain the imbalance between matter and anti-matter since the corresponding reaction where an anti-proton emits an electron to become an anti-neutron (and an anti-neutrino) would be equally possible. This would also be an example of beta decay (and, similarly, an anti-neutron could change into an anti-proton and emit a positron and a neutrino).

What you have given is NOT an explanation of matter/anti-matter asymmetry!

 

[Little Dragon]

Where the standard theory gets into trouble, with the whims of the gods, is it assumes matter and antimatter formed at a certain point in equal parts, from high energy photons. Somehow matter persisted and now dominates, which is what we see..The matter antimatter asymmetry problem, does not necessitate invoking Gods to "explain" it.

There are various hypothesis for why this is so. The anti matter/matter asymmetry problem.
A challenge to physicists certainly, but the God of the gaps (in knowledge) will not explain anything.