Next time we get a drive by apologist, I might steer them to this question. After all they keep asking atheists what evidence we would expect for a belief they hold, but that we do not. Time they explained this one I think.
Easy – it wouldn’t be here. Without God, the universe wouldn’t have been created. And you wouldn’t be here to ask that question. Infidel. 
3 Likes
Wow, I walked right into that one…
Of course irony will be wasted on the apologists when they get here, but yes I imagine there will be some question begging.
No difference at all so far as I can tell, but they would be convinced that it would be hell on earth without God – while they unironically MAKE it hell on earth, turning back the social advances of the past 100+ years (at least). Which is what’s already well underway.
Well hopefully we can convince the next visiting apologist to answer, we are forever being driven by their preaching and demands we answer why we don’t believe in any deity after all. I mean to me this is the type of question I would need a compelling answer to before I could consider belief.
NB It has to be an objective difference that supports the notion a deity exists / is possible, not anecdotal claims about belief has affected their lives, that fruit is too low hanging to bother with.
Well as the saying goes, “opinions are like assholes – everybody has one” – and I’d argue this is equally applicable to personal experiences, feelings, perceptions and anecdotes. But these folks grow up from the cradle thinking that you determine what’s true via, basically, gossip and hearsay (including recorded hearsay like holy books) – even about highly consequential things like what you should believe about reality or how to respond effectively to various crises that arise in life or how to treat others ethically (be nice to your slaves!!).
Then when it comes to a question like this one they will not think logically about it but scan their dogma or tradition or holy book or compatible thoughts and spout that. So good luck getting a thoughtful answer.
You Heathen!!! Stay away from the summoner!!! 
The world would not be so perfectly formed and humans not so perfect and blah blah blah…
UK Atheist
I can empathise with the frustration regarding demands for evidence to support a theistic/atheistic position, and atheism whether as a belief, or an absence of belief, does not require any inherent justification.
Philosophically, the question is complex because it presumes the universe exists without a deity and that any divine intervention would be observable. One could complicate it endlessly by considering hypothetical creators who set up natural chains of events or intervened selectively. From an atheist viewpoint, one could equally ask: what would look different if a deity existed and actively intervened? The answer is unknowable in either direction.
I think it is important to recognise that on both “sides” - theism and atheism, objective evidence is at the heart of the “problem”, but these problems only apply when a claim is made.
There’s nothing to be won by challenging someone to justify their held position, if no claim has been made pertaining to it.
On that note, I personally am happy to debate, discuss, etc. claims and questions, and perhaps ask reasonable questions to stimulate discussion and debate, but I see no need for anyone to justify their beliefs or absence thereof.
Well I am the thread author, and i made no such presumption, and the question clearly makes no such presumption.
Theism is a claim, atheism is not. One can disbelieve a claim without offering it’s negation. This then is how atheism is defined.
So your answer to the thread question is that a godless universe would look objectively identical to one with an extant deity? This is deism of course, not theism.
1 Like
to clarify, I mean it is being presumed that the universe (the one that would potentially “differ”) can exist without a deity involved to create it.
Theism is not an inherent claim. It is a word that indicate’s a person’s belief. A claim, whether for theism or atheism, only occurs when someone voices a belief as fact, such as: “God exists” or “No gods exist”.
Technically, someone stating they are atheist or theist is also a claim, but a self-proving one, as they are only claiming acceptance of a label.
Not sure how you misread what I wrote there. I said the answer is unknowable. That’s completely different to “they would look identical”.
No such presumption was made or intended on my part, it is the very simplest of questions for those who believe a deity exists, note the if at the start?
Theism is a belief, all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.
And a belief is the affirmation of a claim, in this instance that a specific deity or deities exist.
All beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, of course if they are not voiced then there isn’t much to discuss.
Indeed, but while theism is also a claim, atheism is not of course, anymore than not believing in mermaids is a claim.
How would they differ if it’s unknowable?
1 Like
Any positive position / belief IS a claim. If someone says, “I believe a god named Og exists, as revealed in the Book of Og”, that is a claim that there is convincing reasons to believe this. That is distinct from saying “I have read the book of Og, and find it and its deity attractive and interesting”. The former might motivate a person to become an Adept of Og and recruit others to join them; the latter reflects a relatively open mind but one that has not yet seen persuasive evidence.
There’s a line that’s crossed where one seeks to persuade others and to do that with someone who is more skeptical than credulous (or has more than just a desire to be told what to believe so they don’t have to do any heavy lifting in considering the matter) requires a defense of the claim.
1 Like
Precisely so, I am always a little taken aback when people assert beliefs are not claims.
The question asks “in what objective way would the universe differ” - which presumes there is a universe in this scenario.
If you mean “If no deity or deities exist, in what objective way would the universe (or absence thereof) differ to the one we observe now?” that would be clearer.
I understand the motive from your perspective is that you consider the universe we observe now to be godless, and you’re asking how a theist would expect it to be different - my point is that in some beliefs (where the universe is a creation), there wouldn’t be a universe in the first place, so the question potentially rules out this possibility by asking how the universe would differ.
Theism is a belief, yes. I accept that one can contextualise belief as an internal claim at the very least, and/or a reaction to a claim that has been made to the person; but the distinction here is that in a discussion, someone with the label of “theist” isn’t making a verbal/written claim by happening to exist and participate in a discussion.
Atheism is recognised as having two types - weak and strong atheism.
Weak/negative atheism is as you describe - a simple lack of belief.
Strong/positive atheism is where a belief is held in the absence of any/all gods
So yes, in some cases atheism isn’t a belief, but there are atheists who have a belief.
That’s a circular question.
It’s like asking “If we don’t know X, what is X?”
It’s unknowable, therefore an answer can’t be given - it isn’t and can’t be known. That’s the definition of unknowable, something that can’t be known.
Sure, if someone makes such a statement in a discussion, by expressing that belief as a point in a discussion, it is open to challenge. I am not disputing that.
But if someone happens to have a belief but doesn’t raise it in a discussion, I don’t see any purpose in a person needing to justify their belief or being challenged to justify their belief.
In my case, my profile indicates I am a theist. The site asked me to select an option when I signed up, and I did. I have acknowledged I am a theist when it has been asked, but I have not given any more specific detail about my belief in this regard, nor I have proactively expressed it as a statement, certainly not in any manner that you presented in your example.
I fully agree. If that line is crossed, then by all means, a challenge is fully justified. I have no issues with that position whatosever.
I haven’t crossed that line though.
That’s fair enough. I agree that you have not proselytized or advocated for any particular theistic beliefs, nor made any galloping assumptions about the ethics/morals/whatever of people who may not share those particular beliefs.
My past in theism, as I think I may have mentioned, is fundamentalist / evangelical. I try very hard not to assume any particular theist substantially holds those beliefs or assumptions, but (1) despite it being some 30+ years in my rear-view mirror, it’s the brand of theism I know best; (2) it’s a group with outsized influence here in the US for multiple reasons; and (3) historically most theists who have come here have been Christian (or very occasionally, Muslim) fundamentalists, so that’s the mindset we’re largely accustomed to – one the carries a lot of arguments that are made in bad faith, are risible, or both. Hence the “give an inch and they’ll take a mile” subtext around here.
Speaking only for myself – I have no animus to whatever someone believes so long as it is a fully private belief that is able to afford genuine respect to those of different (including no) belief, except in the very generic sense that I think religious faith is a failed epistemology even in its more benign forms and so apart from a lot of compartmentalization tends to influence people’s reasoning and thinking about all sorts of things, most often for the worse. I’d like to see humanity eventually outgrow it, when it is ready and willing to (which is, in my judgment, hundreds and possibly thousands of years in the distance as yet).
Yet more generically still, I think a lack of critical thinking skills is one of our biggest problems in human society.
With all that said, thus far I’ve appreciated your engagement here.
The user know as Fireflies has been permanently banned for racism.
1 Like
That’s pedantry, we only have one universe to observe, and I asked how it would differ if no deity or deities exist.
Nope, once again then, "How would the universe differ if no deity or deities exist.
Clearly the question is aimed at those who believe a deity exists.
Straw man.
All beliefs are the affirmation of a claim, theism is a belief, you have claimed to be a theist, it’s in your profile.
Nope, your talking about atheists. The OED defines atheism as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. This definitions covers both atheists you describe.
Again, you’re describing atheists, not atheism, atheism is not a belief, and atheists hold all manner of beliefs, but not that one.
If you can’t conceive of any way they would differ, one wonders why you believe a deity exists?
So youre a deist not a theist?
Yiu have declared, it’s in your profile, and in a public debate forum with atheist in the title.
You’re not the first visiting theist to be reticent in this way, one is forced to wonder why.
Wow, I missed this…
Anyho, the question couldn’t be simpler, and is aimed at anyone who believes a deity exists.
How would the universe (we only have one to observe) differ, if no deity existed.
Our recently departed theist said that’s unknowable, so he is asserting he wouldn’t indeed couldn’t know the difference.
So the universe he sees would look exactly the same as if no deity existed?
Then why is he adding a deity?
Or, he’s saying he believes it’d change, but he can’t know how. In which case how does he know it’d change, if he can’t offer a single objective difference?
1 Like
I guess I missed out on the fun that you all had with that troll. 