• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

Sgt. Pepper

Well-Known Member
Not speaking for @Valjean, but so long as you express your beliefs AS belief, then I would not consider that preaching.

That's one of the issues I mentioned in another thread earlier today. I sort of vented in it. I bring it up because I referenced you, but not by name.

 

Bthoth

A Conscious and Capable, Pantheist
It appears to me that you are saying, if I as a Christian, share my thoughts, perspectives, or beliefs in a thread such as this in the Theism category … then it’s preaching. It that what you are saying?
the bible is not the last word about what IS REAL, the truth.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It appears to me that you are saying, if I as a Christian, share my thoughts, perspectives, or beliefs in a thread such as this in the Theism category … then it’s preaching. It that what you are saying?
I'm also going to answer even though this was addressed to another poster. I use the word preach to describe posters who only want to express their opinions, but are uninterested in the replies. If their opinions are religious and offered unsolicited, then it is literal preaching, but even if we are discussing politics or global warming or some non-religious topic, it's metaphorical preaching. Such people aren't interested in defending their positions from rebuttal, and often fail to acknowledge even seeing one. Then, they repeat themselves. That's what I mean by preaching.

I don't find you particularly preachy myself. You have shown interest at times in what others write to you. Many don't.
 
Last edited:

Sgt. Pepper

Well-Known Member
the bible is not the last word about what IS REAL, the truth.

I agree, and I believe the Bible to be riddled with contradictions as well as contains embellished and plagiarized stories about Jesus (references below). I basically studied my way out of believing in it and in God (see here). I also believe that no one should ever derive their understanding of morality, love, or justice from the Bible. I believe that it is inaccurate and misleading, and believing its stories about sinning against God, his wrath against "sinners," and going to hell for alleged sin can be detrimental to a person's mental health and well-being. It was true for me and many other former Christians I know.

According to the Christian theological and apologetic websites I read online, the Bible was authored over a period of 1,500 years by forty men, from three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, everyday Greek (called "Koine"), and Aramaic (an ancient language originating in Syria). And that's not to mention the number of times the Bible has been translated into different languages. I searched online to find out how many English versions of the Bible are now in print, and the results ranged from 50 to more than 60 (see the search results here). With all of that in mind, which Bible should we read? Should we read the Catholic Bible, with a 73-book canon; the Greek Orthodox Bible, with a 79-book canon; or the Protestant Bible, with a 66-book canon? If it's a Protestant Bible, then which version is more accurate? Is it the King James or another English version? Or perhaps we should read the Bible in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to ensure authenticity? I speak from experience when I say that Christians are quite divided about which version is accurate.

Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ

BibViz Project-Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

Finally, I'm including my previous post in another thread on a similar topic about Jesus Christ. You may read it here.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
No, that is *not* the current thinking. it turns out that the symmetry between matter and anti-matter is not perfect. This break in the symmetry is known as CP violation and is an experimental fact. This takes the slight imbalance out of the realm of chance and into the realm of certainty.

Now, there are aspects we don't understand. For example, the asymmetry we have found so far is rather weak and doesn't explain ALL of the imbalance we observe. There are also questions concerning leptogenesis. But these are areas of active research and there is every reason to think that there is no *fundamental* problem here.

Sorry, but this doesn't work to explain the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter. To do that, you would have to explain why the negatively charged anti-proton (which has the same mass as the usual proton) isn't favored. Also, the anti-electron (known as the positron) is just as fundamental as the electron.

Um, no. The nucleus does NOT contain positrons! A proton will *change* into a neutron and a positron (and a neutrino), but a neutron can equally well *change* into a proton and an electron (and an anti-neutrino).

And, once again, this does NOT explain the imbalance between matter and anti-matter since the corresponding reaction where an anti-proton emits an electron to become an anti-neutron (and an anti-neutrino) would be equally possible. This would also be an example of beta decay (and, similarly, an anti-neutron could change into an anti-proton and emit a positron and a neutrino).

What you have given is NOT an explanation of matter/anti-matter asymmetry!
The way I approach this is to look at our modern universe and notice that matter dominates. Typically, the most stable state, under any give starting conditions, will become the dominate product. This not random, but based on free energy. Since matter dominates it follows it was more stabile at some given formation conditions. If we change conditions we can get different results.

Say we had a reversible equilibrium of energy, matter and anti-matter. It is held under extreme pressure, so it can reverse as fast as it moves forward and then reverse back, etc. Atom smashers cannot simulate this, since they are based on very brief collusions, that do reverse due to lack of longer term pressure containment.

You would need something closer to a solid state matrix, made solid due to the early universe material forming in very limited space as it first expands. The solid state density gradually lowers and matter appears due to a slight stability difference.

Say we started with a neutron star. There is no charge since it has all combined to reach neutron density. If charge was to reappear, due to a sudden pressure drop, would you get electrons and positrons? Or would the neutron star reverse back to protons and electrons?

Say we go the other way and as the neutron stars forms, electrons and protons are still being compressed to neutron density. The energy release due to the charge cancelation is resisting, causing a reversible reactions. Will it form free electrons and positrons and therefore further anti-matter annihilation resistance to neutron density? Is this observed. If there is less resistance, then matter is more stable, with charges finding their correct mass stable partners so they can stay separated.

The term equal and opposite may also include the preferred masses being opposite; low mass electron and high mass proton. If change can go either way, in terms of matter and anti-matter, charges would not be equal and opposite.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Electrons are elementary particles meaning they cannot be broken down any further in particle colliders. Electrons contain negative charge and mass, which can be measured as two separate variables. However, being elementary particles, these two attributes cannot be separated when these are configured as an electron. This, to me, means the electron is using something like a unified force/state that causes its mass and negative charge to merge as one thing with two united attributes. This is loosely similar to a magnet with two poles, with neither pole able to exist all by itself; magnetic monopole.

The electron has internal energy, and it should be able to swing left or right to enhance its mass at the expense of charge and or its charge at the expense of mass; E=MC2, since they are both part of one thing; fat electrons with less EM or skinny electrons with enhanced EM. I would guess the neutron star appear to form fat electrons that will seem to have very little negative charge; neutral. This shift in balance would be based on the extreme gravity and mass density, shifting the electron pendulum to the mass side.

The positron is similar, but typically its positive charge exists as part of a composite called the proton. The proton is not an elementary particle but can be broken down further. The looser association of positive charge in our universe, tells us that positive charge is also part of a similar unified affects as the electron, but it also appears to have more affinity for mass; the fat positron setting with less repulsion between positive charge. The more balance electrons do not annihilate due to the difference in charge setting. It is the mobile of the electron that adds higher magnetic affects for enhanced charge stability; moving charge creates a magnetic affect.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
If you look at an atom like hydrogen, to make it simple, it has a negative and positive charge; electron and proton. What prevents these two opposite charges from finding each other an annihilating, like a positron and electron? What makes the positive charge when connected to the higher mass; proton, prevent the negative charge from getting close enough to cancel? Neutron stars can force the issue with extreme pressure and gravity.

One way to answer this is connected to Special Relativity. As electrons go into lower and lower orbital states, the speed of the electron increases, sort of like the skater pulling her ams in, so she spins faster. This extra speed places the negative charge of the electron in a different reference, within space-time; special relativity. As the electron approaches, the uncertainty in position and momentum between the two charges, increases. I would attribute that uncertainty to separated space and separated time.

The electron has much higher space requirement than the proton. The electron and its negative charge has more distance potential. As it approach the proton, its volume of space gets less; distance potential lowers. The enhanced velocity now has to occupy less space. Through conservation, there is a shift from distance potential, to time potential, so it can occupy the same linear space with less volume of space; velocity increases. Within space-time, this causes a reference change via special relativity, making the two references decouple via a level of uncertainty within their EM fields.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
There is a branch of Chemistry called Relativistic Quantum Chemistry.

Relativistic quantum chemistry combines relativistic mechanics with quantum chemistry to calculate elemental properties and structure, especially for the heavier elements of the periodic table.

For example, why is gold the color it is, when most of the metals, besides copper, are silver? The outer electrons in large atoms like gold are moving at fast enough speeds to create relativistic affects. The result is a time shift in the frequency of any reflected light; yellow shift. The relativity also causing a decoupling of EM fields, between gold and other atoms making gold nonreactive. Gold is very precious since the electron cloud is not exactly in our reference, even if the nucleus is.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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?
I would expect it to be loving anyway. I've written 8 books and some are on the subject.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Electrons are elementary particles meaning they cannot be broken down any further in particle colliders. Electrons contain negative charge and mass, which can be measured as two separate variables. However, being elementary particles, these two attributes cannot be separated when these are configured as an electron.
Right. An electron is a particle with those *properties*: positive charge and a (rather small) mass.
This, to me, means the electron is using something like a unified force/state that causes its mass and negative charge to merge as one thing with two united attributes. This is loosely similar to a magnet with two poles, with neither pole able to exist all by itself; magnetic monopole.
I see nothing similar to this at all.
The electron has internal energy, and it should be able to swing left or right to enhance its mass at the expense of charge and or its charge at the expense of mass; E=MC2, since they are both part of one thing; fat electrons with less EM or skinny electrons with enhanced EM. I would guess the neutron star appear to form fat electrons that will seem to have very little negative charge; neutral. This shift in balance would be based on the extreme gravity and mass density, shifting the electron pendulum to the mass side.
Huh??
The positron is similar, but typically its positive charge exists as part of a composite called the proton. The proton is not an elementary particle but can be broken down further.
Correct. A proton is made from 3 quarks: two up quarks with charges of +2/3 and one down quark with a charge of -1/3. There are also a bunch of neutrally charged gluons.
The looser association of positive charge in our universe, tells us that positive charge is also part of a similar unified affects as the electron, but it also appears to have more affinity for mass; the fat positron setting with less repulsion between positive charge. The more balance electrons do not annihilate due to the difference in charge setting. It is the mobile of the electron that adds higher magnetic affects for enhanced charge stability; moving charge creates a magnetic affect.
No, a proton is NOT a 'fat positron' any more than an anti-proton is a 'fat electron'. The positron is an elementary particle, just like the electron.

The proton and electron do not annihilate because they are *completely* different compositions. They are not even close to being anti-particles.

If you look at an atom like hydrogen, to make it simple, it has a negative and positive charge; electron and proton. What prevents these two opposite charges from finding each other an annihilating, like a positron and electron? What makes the positive charge when connected to the higher mass; proton, prevent the negative charge from getting close enough to cancel? Neutron stars can force the issue with extreme pressure and gravity.
First, it is not a matter of being 'close enough'. The electron density of a hydrogen atom is actually concentrated at the nucleus.

What is relevant is that protons are made from quarks and electrons are not.
One way to answer this is connected to Special Relativity. As electrons go into lower and lower orbital states, the speed of the electron increases, sort of like the skater pulling her ams in, so she spins faster. This extra speed places the negative charge of the electron in a different reference, within space-time; special relativity. As the electron approaches, the uncertainty in position and momentum between the two charges, increases. I would attribute that uncertainty to separated space and separated time.
Not even close. The uncertainty effect is NOT sue to relativistic effects. It is seen in classical settings as well. Also, you are thinking of electrons too much in classical terms. They are NOT 'little balls' with definite positions and speeds.
The electron has much higher space requirement than the proton.
The uncertainty in position is due to a smaller mass.
The electron and its negative charge has more distance potential.
Huh?
As it approach the proton, its volume of space gets less; distance potential lowers. The enhanced velocity now has to occupy less space. Through conservation, there is a shift from distance potential, to time potential, so it can occupy the same linear space with less volume of space; velocity increases. Within space-time, this causes a reference change via special relativity, making the two references decouple via a level of uncertainty within their EM fields.
So much confidence, so little understanding.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There is a branch of Chemistry called Relativistic Quantum Chemistry.



For example, why is gold the color it is, when most of the metals, besides copper, are silver? The outer electrons in large atoms like gold are moving at fast enough speeds to create relativistic affects. The result is a time shift in the frequency of any reflected light; yellow shift. The relativity also causing a decoupling of EM fields, between gold and other atoms making gold nonreactive. Gold is very precious since the electron cloud is not exactly in our reference, even if the nucleus is.

The relativistic electron(s) in gold are NOT the bonding electrons (which are much farther out).

Your phrase 'not in our frame' betrays a certain misunderstanding of what frames represent.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There would be no "godless universe" because there would be no source of order through which the universe could define itself.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There would be no "godless universe" because there would be no source of order through which the universe could define itself.
So your argument seems to be that the universe needs defining, that this requires order, and that order requires an intelligent designer. Why should anybody accept that claim? Where's your evidenced argument to go with those claims? Nowhere. Nature seems to order itself spontaneously.

Each epoch of material evolution appears to have arisen naturalistically and perforce due to the cooling that accompanied expansion. Matter appeared from energy, which then organized into filaments of galaxies of solar systems separated by large voids made of atoms made of fermions that exert and respond to forces mediated by bosons, which atoms then evolved into heavier atoms in stars, then molecules of these atoms, then eventually life and mind. It appears inevitable and automatic once the process began.

Are you now ready to introduce a fine-tuning argument for why it happened as it did, one involving a god of the gaps? Don't bother. Gods don't answer the question of why the universe needs fine tuning. It makes them just another part of nature constrained by laws that they didn't create, but had to discover like man has done since and is still doing - not supernatural at all.

Gods appear to be unnecessary to account for anything. That doesn't mean that they don't exist or weren't involved, just that we have no need of that hypothesis, which presently explains nothing not also explainable without them. Why does the universe appear finely tuned? We can posit naturalistic hypotheses for that such as a multiverse hypothesis, in which every universe possible arises uncountable times.

Since this universe was obviously possible, its existence and the existence of countless other universes that can support life and mind either just like it or in any other way in which that would be possible would be inevitable. Did that happen? We don't know, but we also don't know that it didn't. To assume otherwise is to be guilty of an incredulity fallacy and to have taken an unjustified leap of faith.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
In a universe with no God, things would still have properties. Those properties would still determine how they interact with other things. That means there would still be natural laws. If those natural laws allow for strong positive feedback (non-linear dynamics), that would inevitably lead to more and more complexity. So life and consciousness would eventually arise.

In other words, a universe with no God would look very similar to our own.

At least, that's how I see it.
 
Top