To Theists: How would the world be different if there were no God?

[Willamena]

Well, I have a worldview and I can conceive of a world where God exists. If atheism is wrong, the world doesn't stop existing. Look, someone tells me they cannot even conceive of the possibility of a world where they are wrong...do you call that open minded?

But do you concieve of "God" as a necessary and intregral part of the world, or just as "another thing that exists"? If the latter, is it any wonder you became atheist?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But do you concieve of "God" as a necessary and intregral part of the world, or just as "another thing that exists"? If the latter, is it any wonder you became atheist?

I can conceive of god as a necessary and integral part of the world. Crap, was I supposed to say that? Am I theist now?

 

[Beaudreaux]

... I gave a description of what would happen if God suddenly disappeared, and you refused to answer it. Who are you to complain that it's impossible to have an intelligent debate with a theist?

I'm this guy:

Seriously though, you just told me that the only alternative to you being right is that the universe does not exist. Could you possibly think of a more close minded stance?

 

[Beaudreaux]

But do you concieve of "God" as a necessary and intregral part of the world, or just as "another thing that exists"? If the latter, is it any wonder you became atheist?

Tell you what. I'll answer your question directly if you will answer mine directly as well. Deal?

Of course conceived of God as a necessary and integral part of the world. I also considered gravity to be a necessary and integral part of the world. I also had no problem imagining a world where neither existed.

Now, how about a direct answer from you? If I tell you that any idea other than mine would mean the universe could not exist, would you call me open minded?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I can conceive of god as a necessary and integral part of the world. Crap, was I supposed to say that? Am I theist now?

May He bless your footsteps forever.....

 

[Willamena]

Tell you what. I'll answer your question directly if you will answer mine directly as well. Deal?

Of course conceived of God as a necessary and integral part of the world. I also considered gravity to be a necessary and integral part of the world. I also had no problem imagining a world where neither existed.

Now, how about a direct answer from you? If I tell you that any idea other than mine would mean the universe could not exist, would you call me open minded?

I would call you open-minded if you could entertain both the idea that upholds the universe and the one that doesn't; and the upheld universe, and the one that isn't; and the upholder, and no upholder; and none of the above.

Gravity is neither a necessary nor integral part of the world --it is just "another part of the world." I would suggest as an indicator of "God" that is "necessary and integral" that if "God" is removed from the picture, the picture ceases to be the picture. Further, if "God" can be removed from the picture and the picture remain unchanged and intact, then "God" never was a part of that picture to begin with.

I would further suggest that regardless of how fervently one may have believed in something they called "God" and considered themselves fundamentalist, it wasn't any fundament that they were believing in.

 

[Jeremiah]

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

 

[Jeremiah]

Yes, I cannot conceive of anything existing
without God.

If I can do it then so can you.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I would call you open-minded if you could entertain both the idea that upholds the universe and the one that doesn't; and the upheld universe, and the one that isn't; and the upholder, and no upholder; and none of the above.

Gravity is neither a necessary nor integral part of the world --it is just "another part of the world." I would suggest as an indicator of "God" that is "necessary and integral" that if "God" is removed from the picture, the picture ceases to be the picture. Further, if "God" can be removed from the picture and the picture remain unchanged and intact, then "God" never was a part of that picture to begin with.

I would further suggest that regardless of how fervently one may have believed in something they called "God" and considered themselves fundamentalist, it wasn't any fundament that they were believing in.

[sigh] I guess you'll get back to me on that straight answer (it would be a yes or no, btw with explanation welcome afterward.)

BTW, I am really offended that you would have the bald arrogance to claim that I did not really believe what I believed. Not only do you not know me anymore than anyone else on this message board does, even if you did....what kind of chutzpah does it take to suggest that someone couldn't possibly have been sincere in their belief if they changed their mind???? If that's how you really feel, then I am sad for you, honestly.

 

[Willamena]

[sigh] I guess you'll get back to me on that straight answer (it would be a yes or no, btw with explanation welcome afterward.)

There is not enough information in the question for me to determine if the respondent is being open-minded (hence I provided a more sufficient example). A single side of an issue by itself isn't open- or closed-minded.

BTW, I am really offended that you would have the bald arrogance to claim that I did not really believe what I believed. Not only do you not know me anymore than anyone else on this message board does, even if you did....what kind of chutzpah does it take to suggest that someone couldn't possibly have been sincere in their belief if they changed their mind???? If that's how you really feel, then I am sad for you, honestly.

I apologize if it appeared that way --I made no claim of what you believed, nor that it wasn't sincere; simply that it wasn't a fundament.

Edit: If it was a fundament it couldn't have been lost from that worldview picture.

 

[Kerr]

Gravity is neither a necessary nor integral part of the world --it is just "another part of the world."

Without gravity there would be no stars, planets... or humans for that matter. In what way is it not an integral part of the world?

 

[themadhair]

Without gravity there would be no stars, planets... or humans for that matter. In what way is it not an integral part of the world?

The fact the we have imagery of zero gravity with space travel makes this much easier to visualise than...say....

 

[SHANMAC]

Your OP is this:

There have been several threads going on about evidence for God, yet theists and atheists seem to have difficulty agreeing on what constitutes evidence. Maybe it would be helpful to take a different approach. To quote the great Mr. Spock from an episode of Star Trek:

My question to theists is "How would the world be different than it is now if God did not exist?" Or would we notice anything at all absent without the presence of a deity?

You received responses from theists indicating that no God = nothingness; the world would cease to exist. You then responded with the following:

Yeah. That is what I'm coming to realize. It's hard to take, though. I mean, even when i was a fundamentalist, I could imagine a world without God. I would never have believed it possible, but I could imagine it. I'm now coming to understand that it is simply not possible to have any kind of intelligent debate with theists about whether or not God exists. They are unable to see things any other way.

Your response is offensive. Moreover, I'm not quite sure what is so difficult to understand about the answers you received to your question. You asked theists (and by the title of your OP, specifically theists) what the world would be if God did not exist. Like myself, many theists believe that God is the creator; and, therefore, if there is no God, there is no creation. If there is no creation, there is no world. Hence, no God = no world. It's an honest answer to your question. If you wanted a different answer, you should have phrased your question differently.

 

[Kerr]

The fact the we have imagery of zero gravity with space travel makes this much easier to visualise than...say....

Yeah, but gravity has a huge effect on the world. If gravity disappeared the Sun would go supernova I think (because it would destroy the balance between the gravity keeping the star together and the pressures from within trying to make it explode). That would likely happen to every other star as well. No new stars would form, because stars form because gas in nebulas collapse under their own gravity. I am also sure we humans would die a rather painful death, because gravity is the force that keeps the atmosphere in place. Some of us would drift into space. Ohhh, and I think galaxies would be destroyed as well. The universe would keep expanding forever, may even tear itself apart because of that dark force expanding it.

Of course, none of this is sure to happen. I just mean, remove gravity and the universe as we know it may be completely destroyed.

 

[Willamena]

In what way is it not an integral part of the world?

In the way that it can be removed, imaginatively, from the picture and we can still have "a picture," it is not integral to the picture. With or without gravity, or any individual bit, the picture of "what is" would still be a picture of "what is" (however different a picture that might seem).

An analogy for the fundament in the "picture" would be the canvas contrasted to things that are painted, in live-motion, on the canvas. We can paint gravity here, in the interactions between illuminated objects, but if we didn't paint "gravity" we could still have a picture.

 

[Dunemeister]

Moreover, I'm not quite sure what is so difficult to understand about the answers you received to your question. You asked theists (and by the title of your OP, specifically theists) what the world would be if God did not exist. Like myself, many theists believe that God is the creator; and, therefore, if there is no God, there is no creation. If there is no creation, there is no world. Hence, no God = no world. It's an honest answer to your question. If you wanted a different answer, you should have phrased your question differently.

Frubalicious.

 

[Kerr]

In the way that it can be removed, imaginatively, from the picture and we can still have "a picture," it is not integral to the picture. With or without gravity, or any individual bit, the picture of "what is" would still be a picture of "what is" (however different a picture that might seem).

An analogy for the fundament in the "picture" would be the canvas contrasted to things that are painted, in live-motion, on the canvas. We can paint gravity here, in the interactions between illuminated objects, but if we didn't paint "gravity" we could still have a picture.

So basically you mean it is not integral if the world, if all existence, does not cease to exist without it?

 

[Erebus]

In the way that it can be removed, imaginatively, from the picture and we can still have "a picture," it is not integral to the picture. With or without gravity, or any individual bit, the picture of "what is" would still be a picture of "what is" (however different a picture that might seem).

An analogy for the fundament in the "picture" would be the canvas contrasted to things that are painted, in live-motion, on the canvas. We can paint gravity here, in the interactions between illuminated objects, but if we didn't paint "gravity" we could still have a picture.

Very well said.

Beaudreaux, when people say they can't imagine existence actually existing without God they aren't saying that they can't imagine being wrong. Take pantheism for example (a viewpoint that most of the posters have at least roughly presented) this is, simply put, the belief that God literally is everything. Therefore it follows that without God nothing exists. You may aswell ask "what would cake be like if cake didn't exist?".

Now just for a moment I'll answer your question in accordance with MY views on deities. First off there is God (capital G) who literally is reality. Obviously then, without reality, reality doesn't exist.
Other deities, angels, demons and various other "spiritual" entities do not have to exist for reality to exist and the vast majority of humans would be completely unaware of their absence. For those who are aware of these entities however, the sudden loss of these beings would probably be too much to take and would most likely drive them mad.
Assuming these entities NEVER existed, then I would imagine the only difference humanity would face is a reliance on their own abilities for magical purposes. Again, this is something that doesn't affect the vast majority of people.

Simply put, without some of these entities, life would be just that little bit more bland.

 

[Willamena]

So basically you mean it is not integral if the world, if all existence, does not cease to exist without it?

I mean that things that are integral but lacking from the world would mean "no world." Yup. For example, if existence is integral to anything, then without it that thing would cease to exist.

As for that canvas. . . the world is here, around us, now. We are each immersed in it, and our view of it requires something in order to be. We could assign that "something" to time/space, to consciousness, to a material brain, to "god" --but whatever we assign it to, we should also recognize that those things we've assigned it to are there, in the picture, around us, now. Part of the world. We have assigned a bit of the picture to be what paints the picture. We've not really touched on the painter.

The image of "God" as Creator and world as Creation is as if the canvas were painting the picture, each and every moment including those when we experience the world. We are (alternately) a part of the picture and having the "picture" appear to us, and hence also a "part" of the canvas.* There is no "action" done to execute this "act of creation" --it is a metaphor for "what is" appearing to us.

My two cents.

*We are also apart from the canvas, but that's another story.

 

[Kerr]

I would probably either commit suicide or just stop believing in God. Eventually, I'd probably end up coming up with a new religion that went around the disproof of divinity.

Sorry for the delayed response. Mind if I ask why you would maybe commit suicide? Would life feel that meaningless? Not trying to put you down or anything by this question, genuinly curious (since I am not religious myself these kind of things escape me).