Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[halbhh]

Assuming causality where there can be no causality

Ah! I see. As you know, in physics we are assuming a causality in some sense: that the future state is caused by the current state and the operation of nature ("physics") in some way we know partly about, but far from completely yet. (This is related to what you are talking about tho!)
Ergo, if God exists, then it follows as likely (to me that is, to my mind) that God would then be of a part with or includes physics. Perhaps the physics we know of so far is a part of God or such. In other words, as I was writing above, we have our own limited understanding where we have an idea, a dichotomy between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural' as if the 2 are unconnected or...not together. It might be the dichotomy is partly false, or it might be the dichotomy is entirely false even. (and we don't know which; further, we can say we don't know for sure there is no other existence outside of our own universe; so, if something exists outside of our universe, can we assume it could never enter our universe? See, there are very many unanswered questions)

 

[shunyadragon]

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)

Nice Duck Bob and Weasel and fail to answer my post with a hand wave.

The bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence for a finite beginning not possible ending of our physical existence, and it will likely always be an open question.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah! I see. As you know, in physics we are assuming a causality in some sense: that the future state is caused by the current state and the operation of nature ("physics") in some way we know partly about, but far from completely yet. (This is related to what you are talking about tho!)
Ergo, if God exists, then it follows as likely (to me that is, to my mind) that God would then be of a part with or includes physics. Perhaps the physics we know of so far is a part of God or such. In other words, as I was writing above, we have our own limited understanding where we have an idea, a dichotomy between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural' as if the 2 are unconnected or...not together. It might be the dichotomy is partly false, or it might be the dichotomy is entirely false even. (and we don't know which; further, we can say we don't know for sure there is no other existence outside of our own universe; so, if something exists outside of our universe, can we assume it could never enter our universe? See, there are very many unanswered questions)

Huh?!?!?!?

 

[Polymath257]

Ah! I see. As you know, in physics we are assuming a causality in some sense: that the future state is caused by the current state and the operation of nature ("physics") in some way we know partly about, but far from completely yet. (This is related to what you are talking about tho!)

Well, I would go a bit different tact: causality can only hold in the future light cone. But not all events are caused (a la QM).

Ergo, if God exists, then it follows as likely (to me that is, to my mind) that God would then be of a part with or includes physics. Perhaps the physics we know of so far is a part of God or such. In other words, as I was writing above, we have our own limited understanding where we have an idea, a dichotomy between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural' as if the 2 are unconnected or...not together. It might be the dichotomy is partly false, or it might be the dichotomy is entirely false even. (and we don't know which; further, we can say we don't know for sure there is no other existence outside of our own universe; so, if something exists outside of our universe, can we assume it could never enter our universe? See, there are very many unanswered questions)

So, introducing God actually doesn't solve the problem of why existence exists, nor why the laws of nature exist? So what is the point of hypothesizing a deity? It seems like a useless thing to add into the explanatory system. Is God just a place holder for our ignorance?

Well, one of my many issues with deities is that I don't see the notion of a supernatural as being coherent. If something interacts with the 'natural', then it is itself natural. The ways it interacts are determined by its properties and that means there are 'physical laws' that describe the interaction.

Furthermore, if something interacts, then it is, by that interaction, observable through its effects. Hence, an operational definition can be found that would allow for scientific study

On the other hand, if something does NOT interact with anything physical, then what is to say it exists at all? Hence, to fail to be observable, even in theory, means that there is no existence. More specifically, the existence has no bearing on anything, so why assume it at all?

 

[Polymath257]

Here in a moment we'll get to whether consciousness is entirely just a function of matter alone or is something floating on top of matter, sorta a bit analogous to mathematics or such.... but that's probably a question that has to do with how little we understand about it.

And ALL the evidence is the consciousness requires complex brains. At the very least, that implies a complex physics allowing for information collection, storage, processing, and action. That also implies sensory mechanisms as well as ways to interact with the rest of the world.

The vast majority of the universe is hostile to life as we know it (and much to life as we suspect could exist) and life seems a minimal prerequisite to consciousness.

The way I would describe it is that the mental world supervenes on the physical.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why not simply say that 'existence simply exists'? No 'cause' (since any cause would have to be outside of existence and hence, non-existent). No personality (since personalities are complex phenomena, not simple ones--and thereby need a cause much more than simply properties do). No 'creative force' (other than the simple properties of matter and energy--which are described by the laws of physics).

Do I follow you? I think I do. But I differ here. There has to be a cause to existence and consequently non-existence too must exist. At the moment it is in the realm of religion (Pralaya - the great dissipation). But I think science will come to it in future. Just like that of God, we cannot exclude existence from questioning.

 

[Polymath257]

Do I follow you? I think I do. But I differ here. There has to be a cause to existence and consequently non-existence too must exist. At the moment it is in the realm of religion (Pralaya - the great dissipation). But I think science will come to it in future. Just like that of God, we cannot exclude existence from questioning.

Why must there be a cause for existence? Causes are expressions of natural laws and so only exist within existence.

To me it makes no sense to even talk about the cause of existence. It is like asking for the cause of causality.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why must there be a cause for existence? Causes are expressions of natural laws and so only exist within existence.

To me it makes no sense to even talk about the cause of existence. It is like asking for the cause of causality.

This still doesn't answer the question of why the universe goes to all the trouble of existing in the first place. Just to say 'It is therefore it is', and leave it at that, is to take a philosophical position which begs some justification. And doesn't the fact the universe can be understood in terms of universal laws, itself require some explanation?

 

[Polymath257]

This still doesn't answer the question of why the universe goes to all the trouble of existing in the first place. Just to say 'It is therefore it is', and leave it at that, is to take a philosophical position which begs some justification. And doesn't the fact the universe can be understood in terms of universal laws, itself require some explanation?

Does it require any more explanation than a God? Why does God go through all of the trouble of existing? Just to say 'I AM that I AM' and leave it at that is to take some philosophical position that requires some justification.

My basic answer is that the most fundamental properties of anything (including existence) *cannot* have a deeper explanation simply because they are the most fundamental.

That *something* exists has no deeper explanation. Adding a deity doesn't help with that basic fact. Saying that things that exist have properties has no deeper explanation. That would be just as true of a deity as it is of anything else.

So, all that adding a deity does is put an additional, unnecessary, level to our explanations that actually doesn't solve any problems and doesn't actually help in explaining anything.

Once again, you are assuming some sort of causality when you ask for an explanation. But, when it comes to the existence of fundamental laws, there is no deeper set of laws to appeal to, so there can be no explanation.

Questions like 'why does existence exist' and 'what causes causality' are, by their very nature, asking for explanations that cannot exist.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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?

Why not just dissuade people from believing in crappy gods? Nice gods are okay. Their followers don't tend to do bad things. Get rid of the proselytizing religions.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Does it require any more explanation than a God? Why does God go through all of the trouble of existing? Just to say 'I AM that I AM' and leave it at that is to take some philosophical position that requires some justification.

My basic answer is that the most fundamental properties of anything (including existence) *cannot* have a deeper explanation simply because they are the most fundamental.

That *something* exists has no deeper explanation. Adding a deity doesn't help with that basic fact. Saying that things that exist have properties has no deeper explanation. That would be just as true of a deity as it is of anything else.

So, all that adding a deity does is put an additional, unnecessary, level to our explanations that actually doesn't solve any problems and doesn't actually help in explaining anything.

Once again, you are assuming some sort of causality when you ask for an explanation. But, when it comes to the existence of fundamental laws, there is no deeper set of laws to appeal to, so there can be no explanation.

Questions like 'why does existence exist' and 'what causes causality' are, by their very nature, asking for explanations that cannot exist.

Okay, so there’s a certain logic in saying that if you reduce everything to it’svelements, no further explanation is necessary; that which is fundamental needs no underpinning. But if we want to understand the universe and our place in it, don’t we have to think holistically as well as reductively? It’s all very well breaking everything down to elementary phenomena, but unless doing that gives us a new way of envisaging the whole, we haven’t learned much.

As for cause, first or otherwise, there are more ways of looking at that concept, more perceptions available, than that of the physicist who naturally thinks in terms of cause and effect. What about purpose, intent, will? It comes back to the question, what is it that animates the world? Did it all
the restless activity of existence originate in a cypher, rushing aimlessly nowhere, or is there a will in play here? Is some force, some intent, some consciousness, expressing itself through this infinitely complex and confounding mystery we call nature? To me, it’s simply axiomatic that there is such a force, such a will, such an underlying creative intelligence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why must there be a cause for existence? Causes are expressions of natural laws and so only exist within existence.

To me it makes no sense to even talk about the cause of existence. It is like asking for the cause of causality.

In that case why should there be a cause for existence of God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance? Free will? That is how this God created the world. His fancy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That *something* exists has no deeper explanation.
But, when it comes to the existence of fundamental laws, there is no deeper set of laws to appeal to, so there can be no explanation.
Questions like 'why does existence exist' and 'what causes causality' are, by their very nature, asking for explanations that cannot exist.

How would we know that? We have to investigate if there is a cause.
I am assuming nothing. I just want science to investigate. How do we know that this and this law is fundamental requiring no further explanation?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It comes back to the question, what is it that animates the world? Did it all the restless activity of existence originate in a cypher, rushing aimlessly nowhere, or is there a will in play here? Is some force, some intent, some consciousness, expressing itself through this infinitely complex and confounding mystery we call nature? To me, it’s simply axiomatic that there is such a force, such a will, such an underlying creative intelligence.

Quantum Mechanics. At the moment there are five forces. Science is looking for a grandpa force. Intent, will, consciousness is, IMHO, woo. No evidence for that. Like Polymath at this time, you are taking things for granted. Buddha said in his Kesamutti Sutta (release of hair-hold).. (see the details here: Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia)

 

[shunyadragon]

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 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.

Since we totally lack any objective knowledge of a God or Gods, our physical existence likely is as it is objectively observed regardless of wherer it is Created by God or simply exists naturally as is.

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.

By far most people in the world believe in God. What do you mean by 'a world that largely rejects God.' Is it a problem that they do not believe in your belief in God?

 

[shunyadragon]

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)

I kind of saw this idea or better yet a foolish notion of the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance:' "if you can't observe something, science simply says nothing about it," Much of today's physics functions very well 'without seeing it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But isn’t the fact that Modified Newtonian Dynamics has been given such serious consideration - including by yourself - evidence that there are anomalies within the Big Bang model which are being called into question for good reason?

Yes, science always has data to contend with that wasn't predicted and isn't currently explained. Is this part of an argument for gods? The reason I ask is because the commonest reason for a believer to comment on science's problems is to imply that science is wrong or inadequate, as when we see creationists not that this or that can't be proven or that we don't know what man's last common ancestor with the chimps looked like. I don't know that that is your purpose, so I ask what your interest in those anomalies is, since both believers and unbelievers contend themselves with the problems of science, but often for different reasons.

if we want to understand the universe and our place in it, don’t we have to think holistically as well as reductively? It’s all very well breaking everything down to elementary phenomena, but unless doing that gives us a new way of envisaging the whole, we haven’t learned much.

Isn't that what you're seeing here? This discussion has ranged from quantum scales to cosmological scales. Arguments about causality have been rejected because they are too local in perspective - seen from within the universe rather than considering it as a whole.

What about purpose, intent, will? ... Did it all the restless activity of existence originate in a cypher, rushing aimlessly nowhere, or is there a will in play here?

There is no evidence that will was required or existed before the advent of complex animal life within the universe.

Do you ask the same questions about gods? Why would one exist? Was it the will of something already in existence? If not, how did its components find one another and organize into a god?

Moreover, what would a god's role be in creation? Why would one be needed? For what purpose? It obviously can't be the creator of either consciousness or intelligence since it would not be a god and could not become a god if it didn't have those first.

The objections of theists seem to be a series of special pleading arguments that subject the universe to scrutiny and rigorous logical requirements, but have none for the god they assume is the necessary source for all of the rest.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, science always has data to contend with that wasn't predicted and isn't currently explained. Is this part of an argument for gods? The reason I ask is because the commonest reason for a believer to comment on science's problems is to imply that science is wrong or inadequate, as when we see creationists not that this or that can't be proven or that we don't know what man's last common ancestor with the chimps looked like. I don't know that that is your purpose, so I ask what your interest in those anomalies is, since both believers and unbelievers contend themselves with the problems of science, but often for different reasons.

Isn't that what you're seeing here? This discussion has ranged from quantum scales to cosmological scales. Arguments about causality have been rejected because they are too local in perspective - seen from within the universe rather than considering it as a whole.

There is no evidence that will was required or existed before the advent of complex animal life within the universe.

Do you ask the same questions about gods? Why would one exist? Was it the will of something already in existence? If not, how did its components find one another and organize into a god?

Moreover, what would a god's role be in creation? Why would one be needed? For what purpose? It obviously can't be the creator of either consciousness or intelligence since it would not be a god and could not become a god if it didn't have those first.

The objections of theists seem to be a series of special pleading arguments that subject the universe to scrutiny and rigorous logical requirements, but have none for the god they assume is the necessary source for all of the rest.

Perhaps I should make it clear that I am most certainly not anti-science. Nor am I a creationist; very few people in the developed world actually are, outside of the United States. So my questions about the Big Bang theory are coming off the back of a genuine interest in astronomy, in which subject I have recently completed an introductory course at undergraduate level. As for my general point about the significance of scientific anomalies within a paradigm, that should be seen in the context of Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. I don’t know if you are familiar with Kuhn’s ideas about paradigm shifts in science, but some familiarity with them would make my position there clearer.

As for ranging from the quantum to cosmological scales, we humans are positioned midway between the atom and the stars, as a certain Carl Sagan once observed. And we are drawn to look in both directions, always with an open mind of course.

As for my belief in God, that is not dependent on logic, reason, or science; nor does it cause me to be suspicious of the tools and methods science employs, nor the discoveries thus unearthed. I do not see a scientific perspective and a spiritual one as being mutually exclusive. My faith in God is no more threatened by the BB theory than was that of one of it’s founders, Georges Lemaitre.

There’s a reason why I rarely respond to your posts btw. I’m interested in exploring ideas, on a wide range of subjects. I’m not particularly interested in conversation which is adversarial, belligerent, and which constantly demands justification of a position, especially when that position appears to have been deliberately misunderstood. Conversations like that are tiresome in the extreme.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

my questions about the Big Bang theory are coming off the back of a genuine interest in astronomy

OK. I accept that.

As for ranging from the quantum to cosmological scales, we humans are positioned midway between the atom and the stars, as a certain Carl Sagan once observed. And we are drawn to look in both directions, always with an open mind of course.

But this doesn't address the reason for which the comment was made - your criticism of a reductionist view.

There’s a reason why I rarely respond to your posts btw. I’m interested in exploring ideas, on a wide range of subjects. I’m not particularly interested in conversation which is adversarial, belligerent, and which constantly demands justification of a position, especially when that position appears to have been deliberately misunderstood. Conversations like that are tiresome in the extreme.

That's fine. Sorry you see it that way. I get that a lot, but not just me. The Baha'i threads have half the believers saying something like that to most of their collocutors. They want to claim that their messengers are sufficient evidence to justify a god belief, and they get testy when that is challenged. They didn't like to provide "justification of a position" much more than you do.

And another theist became emotional in a recent discussion of free will. He was arguing that knowledge limits free will - his argument for why his god doesn't show itself. A little prodding into why that doesn't make sense led to an emotional outburst pretty much when he couldn't answer that.

It seems to define the reaction of many to debate - adversarial and argumentative. They just want their ideas to be read but not discussed except to be agreed with. I like to explore an idea in depth, but this is apparently off-putting to many.

But you seem familiar with academic standards and methods, and shouldn't mistake disputation with fighting, but your comment above suggests that you do.

Deliberately misunderstood? Really? Well, that's my fate here - to be seen as an enemy rather than engaged in what ought to be a experienced as a constructive and cooperative effort to resolve differences by subjecting them to critical analysis. I enjoy that - for as long as the other guy can respond in kind.

You might like to take a look at this: Do atheists believe in magnetism? It's very much to this point.

 

[nPeace]

By far most people in the world believe in God. What do you mean by 'a world that largely rejects God.'

Explained here.