Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[epronovost]

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.

Considering that according to you God can create anything at will using some mysterious, unknown and undetected process, couldn't the divinity do it again and again? Most religious books make tall tales of miraculous events that defy physics and natural laws like stopping time, moving stars, moons and planets in the sky, creating things out of nothing, etc. Doesn't this describe a magical universe?

 

[sayak83]

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

My proposition is simple:

A "physical only" view of the universe cannot account for the emergence and embedment of non-material mathematical, logical and informational structures in the physical realm. Without such embedding, the reality would be a fragmented and illogical morass of patchy things: an extreme version of Alice in Wonderland world or the illogical worlds we see in our dreams.
But this is not what is seen. Nature has embedded non-material structures... the Dharmas if you will. This.. along with subjective sense of conscious experience points to a fundamental essence that is beyond ( but incorporates) the physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

That is not possible. You will run into the limitation of validity in regards to Agrippa's trilemma.
All knowledge is in practice a belief system, which subjectively appears to work and can't be shown to be valid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

No, you end up not meeting the requirement that the knowledge must be valid. This has been shown for a long time ago. I.e. Agrippa's trilemma.

 

[epronovost]

That is not possible. You will run into the limitation of validity in regards to Agrippa's trilemma.
All knowledge is in practice a belief system, which subjectively appears to work and can't be shown to be valid.

While you are completely correct on the nature of truth in regard's to the famous trilemma (I though it was from Münchhausen though). That doesn't mean that all investigative methodologies are equal and it would be dishonest to place them all on the same level. Some hold a hell of a lot more circular argument, regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments. Fries Trilemma and Popper's comments on it are also offering a certain form of "exit" out of the trilemma of Münchhausen

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

While you are completely correct on the nature of truth in regard's to the famous trilemma (I though it was from Münchhausen though). That doesn't mean that all investigative methodologies are equal and it would be dishonest to place them all on the same level. Some hold a hell of a lot more circular argument, regressive arguments and axiomatic arguments. Fries Trilemma and Popper's comments on it are also offering a certain form of "exit" out of the trilemma of Münchhausen

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

My proposition is simple:

Well, you can create something exotic out of it. I remain with the view of science. What is physical and what is not physical? What do we know about the fundamental forces of nature? Why do they exist? Where from they get their laws. You are inserting something akin to God here. I am satisfied that not me, but my progeny some day will get to know the answers from science. My elder grandson will not understand it. But I hope the younger one may understand. He is the smarter one.
People do not have patience. They want all answers now.

No, you end up not meeting the requirement that the knowledge must be valid. This has been shown for a long time ago. I.e. Agrippa's trilemma.

Sure, Agrippa's trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma is nice, but science is tougher than that. It will continue till the Trilemma is resolved.
What about Agrippa's trilemmas of religions?

Baron Munchausen pulls himself out of a mire by his own hair.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Sums up modern theoretical physics pretty well. Things are not as they appear, the 'impossible' happens all the time. God plays dice.

 

[Valjean]

Yet another Hindu that doesn't believe in Brahman

Where are you coming up with this abrahamanic stuff?

 

[sayak83]

Well, you can create something exotic out of it. I remain with the view of science. What is physical and what is not physical? What do we know about the fundamental forces of nature? Why do they exist? Where from they get their laws. You are inserting something akin to God here. I am satisfied that not me, but my progeny some day will get to know the answ3ers from science. My elder grandson will not understand it. But I hope the younger one may understand. He is the smarter one.

Mathemtics is not physical. Neither is information. Science uses both to explain the physical processes going on in the universe... which is what science does very effectively. But this very act by which science succeeds shows that Reality is a compound of non-physical entities embedded in the observable physical realm.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Sure, Agrippa's trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma is nice, but science is tougher than that. It will continue till the Trilemma is resolved.
What about Agrippa's trilemmas of religions?

Baron Munchausen pulls himself out of a mire by his own hair.

You don't know that Agrippa's trilemma will be solved.

As for religion I don't claim knowledge. I am an agnostic, but religious.

 

[Valjean]

My proposition is simple:

A "physical only" view of the universe cannot account for the emergence and embedment of non-material mathematical, logical and informational structures in the physical realm. Without such embedding, the reality would be a fragmented and illogical morass of patchy things: an extreme version of Alice in Wonderland world or the illogical worlds we see in our dreams.
But this is not what is seen. Nature has embedded non-material structures... the Dharmas if you will. This.. along with subjective sense of conscious experience points to a fundamental essence that is beyond ( but incorporates) the physical.

OK. Quite an assertion. Can you back it up?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. Quite an assertion. Can you back it up?

Yes, you can't observe how the objective becomes subjective. It is unknown and thus doesn't meet your requirement of knowledge.

 

[viole]

Atheists say God does not exist, not, maybe God exists or doesn't exist. They are absolutely sure God does not exist but they have not explored even .1% of the universe so how would they know?

No atheist is absolutely sure that God does not exist. I am not even absolutely sure I am not a brain in a vat being fed by aliens looking like Mickey Mouse. Implausible, but not impossible.

People believe what they want to believe, that's why. Atheists think, if God is a loving God then how come I didn't get the toy I wanted one Christmas? You didn't get the toy you wanted one Christmas because your parents were bad people, not because God did not exist.

I think it has less to do with presents at Christmas, and more to do with kids cancer and such.

Why would a godless universe not exist? Atheists and scientists think that there is a grand unified theory of everything, basically math and theory that explains how the universe formed itself without a supreme being. There is no such thing because that is impossible.

Impossible means that there is a logical contradiction in the claim, at least in classical logic. Which is?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

More assertions w/o references. If that’s the case, why is he still serving as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh U?

I’m sure the mainstream academia wish he’d go away!
No one has ever reasonably explained any mechanism or mutations detailing the pathways evolution took to build irreducibly complex systems. It “just happened.” Saying “...likely happened....” and “.....probably....” and “....seems to indicate....” are just loose interpretations of the evidences. Now those are glossed-over gaps!

And your statement, “The "Cambrian explosion" for example, is very well and easily explained by the evolutionnary process,”.... are you for real? No, it isn’t. You know more than the researchers do, then.

You ever heard of the EES? Why is there a need for it?

 

[sayak83]

OK. Quite an assertion. Can you back it up?

What is there to back up. Reality without mathematical structure would be a fragmented soup. Do you disagree?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Mathemtics is not physical. Neither is information. Science uses both to explain the physical processes going on in the universe... which is what science does very effectively. But this very act by which science succeeds shows that Reality is a compound of non-physical entities embedded in the observable physical realm.

That is fine, Sayak. Remember what RigVeda says:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent." Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Existent, non-existent; physical, non-physical, are kins.

You don't know that Agrippa's trilemma will be solved.

And you, like a God's prophet, are predicting that it will never be solved.

No atheist is absolutely sure that God does not exist. I am not even absolutely sure I am not a brain in a vat being fed by aliens looking like Mickey Mouse. Implausible, but not impossible.

Well, Voile, I am absolutely sure about it.The eternity of God is the problem. That raises the question from where he came about. The same problem exists if we say that the universe is eternal. So, we need a new angle. That is not yet provided by Quantum Mechanics, but we could have it in years to come though not in my life-time (Corona, touching 80 now) - 'Existence itself is a two way thing whose other phase is non-existence'. This is the only way you can solve the eternity problem. Multiverse, Zero-Point Energy, etc,

Viole, you are certainly not what you seem like in a mirror. We are all (huge, very huge) groups atoms or points of energy that have come about and one day, they would disperse. Each one of them will go on a separate new journey and nothing would be dead.

ciao.

 

[rational experiences]

That is fine, Sayak. Remember what RigVeda says:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent." Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Existent, non-existent; physical, non-physical, are kins.And you are, like a prophet, predicting that it will never be solved.

The kin meaning is that without cold space you would not have physical form.

Non physical form is not space it is not physical yet, for if you use the word physical in a sentence, then you are inferring to it.

If you said space, then you knew it meant emptiness.
If you said physical space, it would mean it had not yet owned physical form but was becoming.
Space becoming more space allows non physical to manifest by cooling and allowing burning consuming to stop.

Science therefore said, the hot dense state was like a Sun, then never inferred cosmology to God at all in science.

God was only inferred to the presence stone. They actually once taught that a Sun was a larger body mass of stone. When o Earth burst it released spirit, when the Sun burst it released asteroids, and then metal. O as it was larger and the body of a rebelled God. So its mass got scattered in the cosmos and stated it was Satan, the fall ______________ as it fell burning, the spatial vacuum sucked it down into the deep pit and cooled the mass/froze it.

 

[ChristineM]

You didn't get the life you wanted so you don't believe in God. That's the atheist motto.

I never heard any atheist say anything like that and i am pretty certain that you haven't. So motto is something you seem to have fabricated.

 

[ChristineM]

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?

There is absolutely no evidence of any gods influence on the universe. There is however an awful lot of claims made (sans preuves) that attribute natural phenomena to god.

So a godless universe would look precisely the same as it does now, the only difference being the 80% or so humans inhabiting an small and insignificant planet would not worship their belief