How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[The Barbarian]

Well it took me a while, but I finally appreciated how, unlike me who was mainly focused on debate, your primary purpose was (and still is) to educate. So when a creationist would ignore what you posted, you were perfectly fine with moving on to the next item (because you'd already gotten the info out....whether the creationist acknowledged it was irrelevant).

Yep. Took me a lot of years to figure it out, but I always wanted to teach. Eventually, I caught on, and did that. Much more satisfying.

[Miles]

.

I haven't followed this thread since I made my last post (#2) on Nov. 17 of last year, but every so often while skimming New Posts I notice its title, "How is there reality without God?" and the question pops into mind: Why is it even necessary that god exist in order for reality to exist?

What do you think?

(If this question has already been asked and answered please forgive my unnecessary intrusion into the thread. If not, it would be nice to see a reply or two)


.

[Jose Fly]

Yep. Took me a lot of years to figure it out, but I always wanted to teach. Eventually, I caught on, and did that. Much more satisfying.

I'd like to try that approach some time, but I'm not sure I have your patience. Inevitably, at some point the creationist gets so absurd and ridiculous that I have to just walk away.

Glad you're here!

[Tcg]

So did the carnivores have to eat meat or is that an adaption after the flood? A lion is said to be an animal that is not supposed to be able to live on plants and yet this one did.

Of all the lions in the world we get one that somehow survives without meat. Did they investigate how or why? It doesn't account for the entire population on the ark though, does it? So you suggest that vegetarian animals adapted to a drowned world by becoming carnivores? Carnivores with specific preference for their diet, as well as the herbivores mind you. There's an awful lot of spin required to get any of the flood story to hold water. It's nonsense from start to finish.

Well, the animals that survived the flood would have a tough go of it. The earth would be a total waste land after such an event. It's not like the water receded (pretending it had a place to recede to) to reveal vast grasslands. It would reveal an empty and endless mud pit devoid of all life including plant life. Animals wouldn't have to "adapt" to survive on plants. They'd have to "adapt" to survive on mud. That is indeed a lot of spinning. Now my head is too.


Tcg

[boatsnguitars]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

A few questions:

1. Does God exist?
2. What is "God"?
3. How does God's existence impact reality? What are the mechanisms that make God a constant observer?
4. Is God, actually, a constant observer?
5. Is God everywhere (and see #4, since he could be everywhere but not observe everything)
6. Is the quote an actual fact, or do trees fall in the forest all the time without any observation?
7. Is this a case of a Theist selectively accepting what a Physicist says, only to reject all the other things they say, or even demonstrate?
8. Isn't the quote actually by John Archibald Wheeler?