Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Why? Love is a subjective emotion and experience, and is very important for individuals to be successful in the survival of their genes through many generations. There is no reason why love could not be a product of evolution by natural selection.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Nothing. (Nothing begets nothing.)

If there was a creator but he was evil.....there’d be no sunsets, no beautiful scenery, no tasty food. No happy times.

Maybe a better question is....Why has God stayed away for the most part?

If nothing begets nothing, then why does God exist? God is unexplained by definition, but why posit an unexplained God to explain the universe when you could just save a step and accept the existence of an unexplained universe?

 

[syo]

Explain your reasoning. I don't see any sense in this.

The universe has a set of rules. The Gods are the setters of the rules.

 

[Valjean]

The logical contradiction is that the universe could create itself without God. Can't happen.

WHY can't it happen?

No, there is nothing logical about this. You're claiming magic is a more reasonable "explanation" than familiar, observable, measurable, testable processes. You're claiming an undetectable god must have poofed the universe into existence -- apparently because you can't understand the physics involved, and have resorted to a familiar, human explanation. Yet you have no evidence for this god, and no purported mechanism by which he did this. So God isn't even an explanation, it's just an unfounded claim of agency.

"God did it -- by magic." Yeah, that's a much more reasonable and intellectually satisfying "explanation."

So how did this god come to be? Did he create himself?

 

[Super Universe]

WHY can't it happen?

No, there is nothing logical about this. You're claiming magic is a more reasonable "explanation" than familiar, observable, measurable, testable processes. You're claiming an undetectable god must have poofed the universe into existence -- apparently because you can't understand the physics involved, and have resorted to a familiar, human explanation. Yet you have no evidence for this god, and no purported mechanism by which he did this. So God isn't even an explanation, it's just an unfounded claim of agency.

"God did it -- by magic." Yeah, that's a much more reasonable and intellectually satisfying "explanation."

So how did this god come to be? Did he create himself?

Why can't the universe create itself? Because it's impossible. How many samurai swords does lava make? How many Boeing 777's? Never? Why not?

I'm claiming magic formed the universe? Not magic, science, you just don't understand it.

I'm claiming an undetectable God? Nope, science is finding Him, they just don't know it. Any CORRECT physics equation that produces an infinity result is finding God.

God is an unfounded claim of agency? You have made an incredible claim, do you have any evidence to support it?

Did God create Himself? Yes.

If things can't create themselves then how do you explain virtual particles? Also, if things can't create themselves then how do you explain the universe?

You atheists are extremely angry. Were all of you molested by Christians? Now things are making sense.

 

[Valjean]

The universe has a set of rules. The Gods are the setters of the rules.

So this is just an unevidenced appeal to intentional design, for...... why?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Why can't the universe create itself? Because it's impossible. How many samurai swords does lava make? How many Boeing 777's? Never? Why not?

I'm claiming magic formed the universe? Not magic, science, you just don't understand it.

I'm claiming an undetectable God? Nope, science is finding Him, they just don't know it. Any CORRECT physics equation that produces an infinity result is finding God.

God is an unfounded claim of agency? You have made an incredible claim, do you have any evidence to support it?

Did God create Himself? Yes.

If things can't create themselves then how do you explain virtual particles? Also, if things can't create themselves then how do you explain the universe?

You atheists are extremely angry. Were all of you molested by Christians? Now things are making sense.

As Richard Dawkins famously points out, God is the ultimate Boeing 747. If you think the universe must be designed, imagine how unlikely it would be for the designer, who would be more complicated than the universe, to be undesigned.

 

[Super Universe]

As Richard Dawkins famously points out, God is the ultimate Boeing 747. If you think the universe must be designed, imagine how unlikely it would be for the designer, who would be more complicated than the universe, to be undesigned.

Unlikely is not proof.

Ask a tribe in New Guinea how likely it is that humans have sailed across an ocean of water that is thousands of miles wide.

Ask that tribe how likely it is that tiny things you can't even see can make you sick.

Ask that tribe how likely it is that turning a generator creates electricity.

Ask that tribe how likely it is that a rocket could take a human to the moon.

Ask that tribe how likely it is that we could build a bridge miles long over water.

Ask that tribe how likely it is that an airplane can fly and not just fly but even land on a ship.

You're not in a position to know even 1% of everything but still you think you know everything.

 

[epronovost]

The problem is that the bold part is subjective and relative. It ends being dogmatic as per the Trilemma.

Not according to Fries trilemma. According to Fries trilemma this would be accepted through psychologism (AKA on personnal experience and comparisons through a common standard). According to Popper, the idea itself of absolute truth, while unatainable (and perhapse a complete mirage) doesn't mean it's impossible to arrive to useful results and that all investigative methods are equal in that regard. A method of investigation that relies on less appeal to any of Agrippa's trilemma is better than one that requires more appeals.

Also, your use of Agrippa's Trilemma is itself absolute and a fairly ammusing paradox. You are claiming as aboslute truth that it's impossible to know absolute truth. If you consider all claim to knowledge to be fruitless and equal, than Agrippa's Trilemma should also be discarded for it ends up being dogmatic per itself.

 

[Koldo]

You'll know.

On what basis do you claim this?

 

[Super Universe]

On what basis do you claim this?

Because I know.

 

[epronovost]

The universe has a set of rules. The Gods are the setters of the rules.

Correction, the observable universe doesn't have "a set of rules"; it IS "a set of rules". The "Laws of Nature" aren't prescriptive laws; they are descriptive laws.

 

[Polymath257]

@Valjean
@shunyadragon
@Aupmanyav
@Polymath257


Okay, first off.
What goes on in this thread is not unique to this thread.

Second off, I have been told by a member of the staff that if I claim something which I don't have evidence for, I must say that.
I don't have neither evidence or any logical proof for the fact, then the monitor I can see in front of me is there independent of me. Further I don't know if there is a God or if this is a physical, objective, real universe. I short I have faith and nothing else.

Part 1. I can move around. Well, at least most people can do so, so chances are that I can. Now that I have mobility, I can use it to show the limit of mobility. I can't fly solely by the use of only my body. The general principle is that if I can do something, it might have limits. So I can do evidence and logic, but it might have limits. As some of the naturalists are fond of saying: Science is not an Absolute or True claim. Remember that one. It also applies to them and their faith.

But already, talking about moving around means you have an external world in which you are moving.

Part 2.
Am I God? Well, no, I don't believe so. I do believe that I am the effect of something which caused me. Henceforth I will talk about that something as the universe, whether it is a natural or God universe. The universe caused me. Now could it be cheating without me knowing it? Well, yes, I know (By know I mean I believe and I don't doubt.) that my brain can cause hallucinations and the outside processes can cause changes in my brain and thus alter my experiences.
So since I know I can't trust my brain, I can't rule out that I am a Boltzmann Brain. Look it up if you have to. So here is what I can't rule out. I am in Boltzmann Brain universe, which consists of a power source and a computer. On the computer is I as a program and the rests of the universe as it appears to me, is simulation to me by the computer. This possibility also applies to you BTW. To you I am not really there and neither is the rest of the universe. It only appears.
I have no way of checking, because for a real universe or Boltzmann Brain universe my experiences would be the same and thus the evidence is the same.

And I put Boltmann Brains, brains in a vat, Descarte's demon, etc all in the same basic category. Because they have no way to test them, they are the poorest possible model for what i experience.

Part 3.
Solipsism and the universe in itself. First off, I am not an ontological solipsist, because I don't believe that I am all that exist. I am an epistemological solipsist. I can only talk about the universe as I experience it. Secondly if the universe is in itself independent of me, then I can't be in it, because I can't be a part of something, which is in itself.
Here is the problem in the standard model of the universe. It is not me, because it caused me and is in itself. But how can something not me become me? That is logic and the limit of logic. At one moment the universe is itself. The next it is not, because it caused me. That leads to a contradiction and thus is the limit of logic.

Well, the universe is *not* in you. You are in it, though. So there is no contradiction. Your experiences are in you, but those are not the same as the universe (experience of a thing is not the same as that thing).

Furthermore, by hypothesis formation and testing, and requiring hypotheses to be testable, you can quickly and easily get away from solipsism in all forms.

Part 4. Pantheism, panuniverse and monism. The solution is that there is no difference that the core level, the rest of the universe is just like me. The universe is in me. Not that I am the universe as such, but it makes no sense to talk of something in itself as independent of me. If for the universe in itself caused me, then I can't become me, because then the universe became me and is not in itself.
The in itself is a version of dualism and indeed ontological dualism. The universe is, whether it is, around me and in me and I am a part of it.

You keep saying that the universe is 'in you', which to me is clearly false. So, can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I can't see any actual sensible meaning to it.

Maybe that is the essence of why we see things differently?

Part 5. Neutral monism and what God is? I don't know what God is. I know this about the universe. It can't be psychical in the strong sense, because the model of physicalism in the strict reductive sense can't explain the universe. It is simple. The physical is objective and independent of me, yet I am subjective.

And the physical universe can explain that there are subjective states inside of it.

The simple problem is that all of the universe is with evidence and logic, yet I can do some things without evidence and which are illogical. The same problem applies to God. If God is all loving and I come from God and God has caused me, then I can't be bad, but I am sometimes.
So the universe as for what it is at the ontological level seems to be one, yet even that has its limits.

You are confusing the meta-level with internal mental states. An easy mistake, to be sure. But simply because a meta-lvel has a property doesn't mean that all simulations within it have that property.

Part 6. Faith. I know the science believers won't like this. I used to be one and I believed I had no faith. I then discovered, that I have a fundamental faith in that the universe is fair. I am not in a Boltzmann Brain universe nor is God a trickster God.
How is that fundamental faith? I live every moment of my life as if the universe is real. I.e. Google: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I live with complete trust that the universe is fair and I believe in the universe.

Well, I guess it is how you define the notion of 'real'. I do it through testable models. As for 'trust', that seems to be not an issue when applied to the universe as a whole (as opposed to people inside of the universe).

Part 7. What is the universe? Natural or God? I don't know and I really don't care. I believe as a combination of an atheist and theist depending on what is at play.

Part 8. For the strong agnostics this doesn't really matter, but for the True Believers in science, it does. They are special, because they have evidence and logic for what the universe really is in itself. Well, they don't! It is no different than those religious believers, who try with evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not and who try to do the same. Just as mobility is limited so is evidence, proof, reason, logic and what not. If you ask, what is really real and you know that in the strong sense, you don't. You have faith.

Well, evidence is anything that shifts probabilities. And, we do have evidence based on observations and testable models.

I see the term 'real' (as well as terms such as 'exists') to require definition.

 

[Polymath257]

What percent of the universe do I think you need to explore to be sure that God does not exist anywhere? I think most people would say that 1% is not enough. Maybe 90% but even then you can't be entirely sure until you've seen all of it.

What are we supposed to find? God.

I'd say that we only need to explore a small part if God is everywhere. So, the detection and classification should be easy.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a distant 'God' (whatever that means), then you may be right and we need to search more. But that has deep theological implications.

 

[Valjean]

Why can't the universe create itself? Because it's impossible. How many samurai swords does lava make? How many Boeing 777's? Never? Why not?

You're trying to fit the universe into a human, technological model. That makes no sense. Chemistry and physics don't need intentional manipulation to work. There is no need to posit a magical manipulator.

Nature doesn't make Samurai swords or airplanes, but it can make planets and lava and chimpanzees. The natural mechanisms by which this happens are known and familiar.

You say it's impossible for the universe to make itself. Why? The universe exists. We don't fully understand it, but attributing it to magic, from an undetectable personage, just because the processes responsible for it perplexes you -- that's absurd. Worse, it's unreasonable.

I'm claiming magic formed the universe? Not magic, science, you just don't understand it.

But science has no place for the supernatural. Its explanations rely on evidence, not incredulity.
Are you sure you understand what science is?

I'm claiming an undetectable God? Nope, science is finding Him, they just don't know it. Any CORRECT physics equation that produces an infinity result is finding God.

Please point out an instance of science finding god. How is sciencing finding something and not recognizing it?
You make a lot of claims, but you don't back them up with any evidence.

God is an unfounded claim of agency? You have made an incredible claim, do you have any evidence to support it?

Goddidit is not an explanation of mechanism. It doesn't address 'how,' it just posits a 'who'. So goddidit is not an explanation. It explains nothing. Capiche?

Did God create Himself? Yes.

Do you seriousy think you're being reasonable, here?
A nonexistent god poofed himself into existence? How does something that doesn't exist do anything?

If things can't create themselves then how do you explain virtual particles? Also, if things can't create themselves then how do you explain the universe?

It's usually you religious that claim nothing comes from nothing. In claiming god created himseld you're not claiming a thing created itself, you're claiming nonexistence created a personage.

OK, fine. Are you seeking an explanation for this; a mechanism, like science is?

You atheists are extremely angry. Were all of you molested by Christians? Now things are making sense.

Where are you getting this? We're perfectly happy. It's you theists that feel put upon; who feel threatened by reason, logic, science and technology.
If anyone/s angry it's you theists.

 

[halbhh]

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?

2 Answers, because of the 2 different premises one can use --

Premise A: The Universe wouldn't exist at all.

Premise B (premise/idea 'God' doesn't exist but that something causing this Universe to arise, such as a 'multiverse' etc., does exist): People would eventually realize (universally instead of only a few) that of course the fact that something exists means that something caused it to exist. This something (larger physics of the multiverse, etc.) is in ultimate control. I.e., is "God" in a sense.

But, you appear to incorporate a premise of you own in your question! Have a look --

"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...."

What premise am I seeing? This very reasonable and common one --

First, consider that if one assumes that death of this body is the final real death, extinction of the person, then God would logically be a murderer, or worse, doing genocide, really.

But assuming death of this body is final is an assumption! A premise.

A basic part of the definition of "God" in Christianity is He Who makes death only temporary.

In other words, if God exists, the death of this body is only door to another life.

And then the question of what is 'benevolent' depends profoundly on the rules, and the goals, and the outcomes, in that next-life.

Ergo, questions arise, starting from the easier:

What is "love"?

What then, is "faith"?
(as an aid, ask what is 'trust')

How does faith affect love over long periods of time (more than just decades)? -- e.g.: Can love last without war arising in the absence of trust and a mutual willingness to "forgive" and demonstrated tendency to "love one another"

(these italicized words are key scriptural words or phrases about our conditions to be in eternal life)

 

[Polymath257]

Atheists don't believe because there is no evidence? Nope, that's a lie and atheists know it. They're angry because they think if God exists then He didn't do what they wanted Him to do.

Anger has nothing to do with it. Even if a God exists, I don't see why it would have an effect on anything I care about.

If there was evidence for God that is as good as, say, the evidence for dark energy, it would be sufficient to make the hypothesis possible and worthy of study.

If the evidence was as good as that for dark matter, it would be convincing to many atheists.

I'm not arguing for the belief in everything. The evidence for God is the universe itself.

And how do you distinguish between a universe created by a God and one that was not?

Thining involves critical analysis of facts? Humans are emotional beings, not robots.

Of course we are. But emotions are a very poor determiner of truth.

Why is the Abrahamic God less primitive? God is the most complicated thing in existence. Humans ideas of God will evolve over time. We won't have a clear and truly accurate understanding of God for another 1,000 years.

Why don't I believe in Martians? Because we have probes there and there is no evidence. How much of the universe have atheists explored?

And how much have theists? Answer: the same amount. But the theists claim God is everywhere, so extensive investigations aren't required to show non-existence.

Academics don't blame others for their messed up lives? Oh, they do, they really do.

Why do you assume academics always have messed up lives?

Folklore is not evidence? Really? So the Jews never existed and never escaped Egypt? And the City of Troy never existed? And the Battle of Thermopylae never happened? Do you have any evidence for your claims?

Well, the archeology shows that Troy existed and that Thermopylae occurred. It also shows that the Exodus never happened.

Do theists not call it faith? They do. I'm not a man of faith. I know.

You've noticed atheists merely withhold belief pending evidence? Remember the thread titled "Jesus body was eaten by dogs?" That's a lot of anger. That's not "Well, maybe God and Jesus do exist, I don't know." That is "I'm pissed off because a Christian did something to me and ruined my life."

What evidence do I have for unicorns? I know more about how the universe works than you do. If you can think of it then it has to exist because humans are incapable of thinking of an original thought.

Really? You think that a horse with a single horn that is magical actually exists?

I'm using God as a premise? No, the universe is the premise.

GUT is the Grand Unified Theory. The math that finally gets quantum math to fit in with relativistic math.

OK, what does that have to do with deities?

I'm a slave to my upbringing? Nope. My parents divorced when I was 4. My mom was not religious at all, she was actually very angry at God/religion, nothing was ever her fault it was always someone elses fault. Dad tried to raise me to be a Jehovah's Witness but I resisted it and once he realized I wasn't buying into it he abandoned me at 16 because JW's are not supposed to associate with anyone who does not accept their beliefs, and that really was one of the best things that ever happened to me.

I believe in God because I had a vision that woke me up. I cannot choose to not believe.

And I cannot choose *to* believe. I have also had 'visions', but I realized they were my mind playing tricks on me and not anything due to a supernatural.

 

[Polymath257]

2 Answers, because of the 2 different premises one can use --

Premise A: The Universe wouldn't exist at all.

Why not?

Premise B (premise/idea 'God' doesn't exist but that something causing this Universe to arise, such as a 'multiverse' etc., does exist): People would eventually realize (universally instead of only a few) that of course the fact that something exists means that something caused it to exist. This something (larger physics of the multiverse, etc.) is in ultimate control. I.e., is "God" in a sense.

Why do you think the universe needs a cause? Or, for that matter, the multiverse? Causality is PART of the universe, not external to it.

 

[epronovost]

People would eventually realize (universally instead of only a few) that of course the fact that something exists means that something caused it to exist.

You are falling prey to an outworld paradox here. An outworld paradox is when you impart a characteristic of the universe to something outside of the universe or, as you are doing above, as a necessery precondition to the universe itself. Causality is a characteristic of the universe, thus you cannot make a causal chain to explain the universe since without the universe there is no causality.

 

[Super Universe]

I'd say that we only need to explore a small part if God is everywhere. So, the detection and classification should be easy.

On the other hand, if you are talking about a distant 'God' (whatever that means), then you may be right and we need to search more. But that has deep theological implications.

God is everywhere but you don't have to accept the evidence. Find the matrix (with experiment and theory), accept that it is a matrix (ask Suskind to explain it to you), that will lead you to the infinite source of the matrix which is God.

You don't have to go there to find it.