Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[nPeace]

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 am genuinely interested in what you would expect to see, in a universe where "a benevolent, omnipotent, personal god" exists.
I hope you would not mind sharing that.

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?

I guess by godless universe, you mean, a world void of God.
In a case like that, I would think that for one thing, intelligent human beings with a capacity to love, and be loved, would be absent.
In my mind, I could see only darkness, and erratic energy.

However, if I could somehow stretched my imagination to think that humans with intelligence could somehow, come from mindless matter "writing a blueprint" dictating how life should be, I could only imagine complete chaos, bloodshed, and slaughter... much like our world today, except that the moral aspect exists, because there is a God, who gave instructions, by which much of humanity lives, whether little, or much.

So, I would say, what I am seeing in the world, is what I expect to see, from a world that largely rejects God - a godless world, but yet a world that is not completely godless, because God exist, and there are god fearing people who "act as a restraint"... preventing total chaos, and annihilation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Kind of an ignorant point of view you're expressing. There are more ways to pass your genes to the next generation than having offspring yourself.

"I would gladly give up my life for two brothers or eight cousins." - J.B.S. Haldane

Are you familiar with bees, by any chance?

 

[halbhh]

There is no known beginning nor potential end of our universe,

Looking through telescopes, we've figured out this Universe began about 13.7 bn years ago, because it's visibly expanding at a rate that shows that about 13.7 bn years ago it was a singularity, and began from that starting point.

 

[shunyadragon]

Looking through telescopes, we've figured out this Universe began about 13.7 bn years ago, because it's visibly expanding at a rate that shows that about 13.7 bn years ago it was a singularity, and began from that starting point.

Looking through telescopes, we've figured out this Universe began about 13.7 bn years ago, because it's visibly expanding at a rate that shows that about 13.7 bn years ago it was a singularity, and began from that starting point.

Careful with the universe have a specific 'starting point' Yes. most of the prevailing theories our universe expanded from a singularity, but some demonstrate the possibility of the singularity in a Quantum World or a cyclic universe all within a possible Multi-verse. There is no evidence of a finite beginning. ,The Quantum World is potentially infinite and eternal.

 

[halbhh]

Careful with the universe have a specific 'starting point' Yes. most of the prevailing theories our universe expanded from a singularity, but some demonstrate the possibility of the singularity in a Quantum World or a cyclic universe all within a possible Multi-verse. There is no evidence of a finite beginning. ,The Quantum World is potentially infinite and eternal.

Sure, the Oscillating Universe (quantum based oscillation) theory is fun to imagine, but it's got problems --> even the recent new version of it that attempts to overcome the entropy problem seems to possibly have a funny other problem, though I'm not sure yet.... ask me in a few months if you are curious.

For the multiverse idea, I agree with such as Not Even Wrong and

...here, this will help illustrate my thinking without me having to write lengthy posts.

S. H. does have the same view as I do about multiverse theories (and it's nuanced, so it will be worth a listen in the background even if you have a physics degree (as I do)):

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure, the Oscillating Universe (quantum based oscillation) theory is fun to imagine, but it's got problems --> even the recent new version of it that attempts to overcome the entropy problem seems to possibly have a funny other problem, though I'm not sure yet.... ask me in a few months if you are curious.

For the multiverse idea, I agree with such as Not Even Wrong and

...here, this will help illustrate my thinking without me having to write lengthy posts.

S. H. does have the same view as I do about multiverse theories (and it's nuanced, so it will be worth a listen in the background even if you have a physics degree (as I do)):

ALL hypothesis and theories concerning the origins and nature of our universe and all possible universes. Our universe has no definable absolute beginning of anything considering the possible nature of Quantum existence.. I believe it is very reasonable to consider the possibility that our singularity began as black holes form. You tube references do not illustrate much of anything except a selective opinion without scientific references are three logged dogs in a horse race,

You missed some important words in my post that negate much of the above. I used possibly and potentially.

Our physical existence is potentially eternal without known end. Oscillating or cyclic universe are possible as well as the existence of a multiverse.

 

[halbhh]

ALL hypothesis and theories concerning the origins and nature of our universe and all possible universes. Our universe has no definable absolute beginning of anything considering the possible nature of Quantum existence.. I believe it is very reasonable to consider the possibility that our singularity began as black holes form. You tube references do not illustrate much of anything except a selective opinion without scientific references are three logged dogs in a horse race,

You missed some important words in my post that negate much of the above. I used possibly and potentially.

Our physical existence is potentially eternal without known end. Oscillating or cyclic universe are possible as well as the existence of a multiverse.

I'll just smile and nod in recognition of that kind of interesting speculation, as I don't object to people thinking what they like nor to extensive speculations, and consider them sorta like.....art, after a point (and I like art...).

(while my analytical thinking is very much like this physicist in the video -- "if you can't observe something, science simply says nothing about it..." -- I don't think it's wrong if someone has a speculative or imaginative idea or 5)

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. from a world that largely rejects God ..

Unfortunately, the world largely accepts God/Gods. Perhaps that is one of the major problems.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Looking through telescopes, we've figured out this Universe began about 13.7 bn years ago, because it's visibly expanding at a rate that shows that about 13.7 bn years ago it was a singularity, and began from that starting point.

Sorry to be a pedant, but Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedman actually worked back to the singularity using Einstein’s field equations; subsequent observations (redshifting galaxies leading to Hubble’s Law, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) have confirmed certain predictions implicit in those mathematical models.

No empirical evidence can be acquired in principle, prior to the release of radiation when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old. The singularity is a mathematical abstraction rather than a physical reality, and the early period of exponential inflation is entirely speculative.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry to be a pedant, but Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedman actually worked back to the singularity using Einstein’s field equations; subsequent observations (redshifting galaxies leading to Hubble’s Law, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) have confirmed certain predictions implicit in those mathematical models.

No empirical evidence can be acquired in principle, prior to the release of radiation when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old. The singularity is a mathematical abstraction rather than a physical reality, and the early period of exponential inflation is entirely speculative.

The second paragraph is wrong. That is the limit for which we can use *light* to probe things, but the CMBR does carry information about what happened prior to that time. So, one thing that has been actively looked for is Baryonic Ossciliations, which reflect information back to the period of inflation (that exponential growth period).

Also, gravity waves and neutrinos would be another way in principle to probe earlier. Neutrinos decoupled quite a bit earlier than the 'release of photons' and would actually be at a higher temperature than the CMBR because of that earlier decoupling. We don't have the technology at this point to detect those neutrinos, but that is a way in principle to probe much earlier.

And, like I said, gravity waves would also be a possible way to probe even further back. Again, our current technology can't do what is required, but it is there as a goal.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The second paragraph is wrong. That is the limit for which we can use *light* to probe things, but the CMBR does carry information about what happened prior to that time. So, one thing that has been actively looked for is Baryonic Ossciliations, which reflect information back to the period of inflation (that exponential growth period).

Also, gravity waves and neutrinos would be another way in principle to probe earlier. Neutrinos decoupled quite a bit earlier than the 'release of photons' and would actually be at a higher temperature than the CMBR because of that earlier decoupling. We don't have the technology at this point to detect those neutrinos, but that is a way in principle to probe much earlier.

And, like I said, gravity waves would also be a possible way to probe even further back. Again, our current technology can't do what is required, but it is there as a goal.

Fair enough. However, there is still a distinction to be drawn between the observable and unobservable elements of a theory; and as things currently stand, significant elements of the standard model of cosmology fall in the latter category. Particularly so with regards to the very early history of the universe.

 

[nPeace]

Unfortunately, the world largely accepts God/Gods. Perhaps that is one of the major problems.

Yes. That is the problem. The world largely rejects God, for gods which some call God, and which some do not call God, or gods... but they are all gods... even their belly, and cars, and money, and self. false, but nonetheless... gods.

 

[halbhh]

Sorry to be a pedant, but Georges Lemaitre and Alexander Friedman actually worked back to the singularity using Einstein’s field equations; subsequent observations (redshifting galaxies leading to Hubble’s Law, and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) have confirmed certain predictions implicit in those mathematical models.

No empirical evidence can be acquired in principle, prior to the release of radiation when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old. The singularity is a mathematical abstraction rather than a physical reality, and the early period of exponential inflation is entirely speculative.

Of course.
I wonder though if you are pointing out that correct detail about what we see and what is inferred because you yourself think the general big bang idea (or in particular cosmic inflation then) may well be wrong? If so, that's interesting in that case, and just for enjoyment I'd enjoy hearing what theory you currently think is a worth more consideration? (just for background, I've read astronomy articles since about age 12 when I first happened into 1, so I'm plenty conversant without needing basics explained (such as you just did, for me that is very basic stuff) (and I also have a background in physics)).

 

[Yazata]

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.

From that, it looks like the problem of evil is your concern.

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?

I'm not a theist exactly, perhaps more of an agnostic deist in some of my moods. But I'll take a shot at that.

Suppose we conceive of "God" as the whatever the answer is to the ultimate metaphysical questions: What accounts for the existence of existence, where did reality get the order that we perceive it to have, and all the other questions like that.

Seen that way, a universe without God wouldn't exist at all.

 

[halbhh]

Neutrinos decoupled quite a bit earlier than the 'release of photons' and would actually be at a higher temperature than the CMBR because of that earlier decoupling. We don't have the technology at this point to detect those neutrinos,

Yes, excellent. You have been reading up on this. If we could figure out how to detect lower energy neutrinos, that would be quite something, and possibly might even help with 'dark matter' is one thought.

 

[halbhh]

gravity waves would also be a possible way to probe even further back.

Well, for that, such events would have to stand out (or be separable) from the stochastic background gravity wave 'noise'.

Is there any reason/speculation to expect any such larger (distinct) events earlier on....? I'd say "no".

But...if you do have some other view that gravity wave events would be occurring that could stand out earlier on (back before the 380,000 year mark) that would be interesting to hear! Though I don't expect any such thing, I enjoy hearing new ideas....

 

[osgart]

From that, it looks like the problem of evil is your concern.



I'm not a theist exactly, perhaps more of an agnostic deist in some of my moods. But I'll take a shot at that.

Suppose we conceive of "God" as the whatever the answer is to the ultimate metaphysical questions: What accounts for the existence of existence, where did reality get the order that we perceive it to have, and all the other questions like that.

Seen that way, a universe without God wouldn't exist at all.

I like that question, what accounts for the existence of existence. That leads to the question how does anything become non existent. Not that any of this is answerable, but it opens the door to metaphysical questions. I suppose we could call it a day and say all that exists is revealed by the senses, but that isn't an absolute known. That's just an intuition many have.

Humans come into being in a way that they didn't previously exist in the way that they do when alive. And all the qualities of being alive add other dimensions to existence. Why doesn't existence just fade away into nothing? Yet it holds itself here like an eternal brute fact.

If God then is God the brute fact. What exists holding God in place? Where's the eternal default of existence?

What categories of existence are temporary vs. permanent?

 

[Polymath257]

Fair enough. However, there is still a distinction to be drawn between the observable and unobservable elements of a theory; and as things currently stand, significant elements of the standard model of cosmology fall in the latter category. Particularly so with regards to the very early history of the universe.

Oh, agreed. We do have probes for the time of nucleosynthesis (which ends at about the 3 minute mark), but things prior to that are certainly more speculative than things during that time and later.

Yes, excellent. You have been reading up on this. If we could figure out how to detect lower energy neutrinos, that would be quite something, and possibly might even help with 'dark matter' is one thought.

At one point I was contemplating a PhD in astrophysics. One thing I was interested in was the effect a MOND-type theory would have on the CMBR. I recall one article that claimed to see the neutrino decoupling signature on the CMBR, although I have never seen that validated or followed up on.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Of course.
I wonder though if you are pointing out that correct detail about what we see and what is inferred because you yourself think the general big bang idea (or in particular cosmic inflation then) may well be wrong? If so, that's interesting in that case, and just for enjoyment I'd enjoy hearing what theory you currently think is a worth more consideration? (just for background, I've read astronomy articles since about age 12 when I first happened into 1, so I'm plenty conversant without needing basics explained (such as you just did, for me that is very basic stuff) (and I also have a background in physics)).

To be honest, I'm not well enough informed about alternatives to the standard cosmological model, to be able to comment on which may be worth consideration. As far as I can gather, the Big Bang theory, the name of which some cosmologists appear to consider a little misleading, is the paradigm within which the most fruitful research is taking place. There are problems with it though; the missing monopole, the fact no dark matter particle has yet been observed, the 'fine tuning' controversies, and that there is no direct evidence for the early period of rapid inflation. I don't imagine the Big Bang model getting thrown out anytime soon, but if you consider the theory from the perspective of Thomas Kuhn's ideas about scientific revolutions, there are reasons to believe we may be on the cusp of exactly that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Polymath does not generally give new ideas, though he explains the current ideas very nicely.