What can happen if there is no god?

The intellect makes us what we are, but it has to know when to bow out. It's pretty useless for appreciating the mystery of the ultimate reality, and better at defending against it.

"The psychologist Jung has a relevant saying: 'Religion is a defense against the experience of God.' The mystery has been reduced to a set of concepts and ideas, and emphasizing these concepts and ideas can short-circuit the transcendent, connoted experience."

I agree. I was being too flippant with my prior comment. I am actually in awe of the human intellect, but at the same time, I know it has its limits.

Who are you quoting here, who was quoting Jung? Apart from that, that's a vacuous appeal to authority. That Jung (may have) believed in god is not evidence that there is a god.

I don't know if Jung believed in a literal god. I doubt it. I read a letter he wrote to Phillip Wylie, prominent atheist, "You have understood (Jung's work) better than the others -"

Jung was saying that belief in a god is a defense against the experience of god or the ultimate reality.

Alan Watts said something similar, that belief is different from faith. Belief is holding on to, while faith is letting go. In that sense atheism can be as dogmatic as theism.

Excuse me, don't treat as though I were a moron, or not a native speaker of English. I understood what was said. Your sentence was enclosed in double quotation marks, and Jung's remarks in single quotation marks, as though you were quoting someone else. That was why I asked the question. I had no doubt as to its meaning. I then pointed out that Jung making a statement from authority on this topic is meaningless.

Like most god-botherers, you then take the opportunity to take a swipe at atheists. If "atheism" were dogmatic, it wouldn't be atheism. Atheism, means without god--I am bemused to think how some one can be "dogmatically" without god. There are certainly some people who consistently attack organized religion, and others who attack merely the assertion of the existence of go. That makes them anti-religionists or anti-theists, whether or not they deserve to be known as atheists. There are a whole heap of folks, by the way, who believe that there is a god, and who are anti-religionists. Your remarks suggest that you should know this.

Your quote of Jung, and your reference to Alan Watts (now there's an intellectual giant!) do not in fact offer any perspective on those who are "without god."

While some atheists can hold dogmatic beliefs, there is nothing dogmatic about wanting to get presented with things reasonable before accepting assertions that gods exist.

There must be some idea of God or dogma in order to reject it.

There must be some idea of God or dogma in order to reject it. That's why I said the intellect is useless at appreciating the mystery of the ultimate reality. Alan Watts was not an intellectual, nor was he an authority on spiritual matters because such a thing does not exist. The spiritual must transcend the intellect.

Well I've had a go at it but its not for me, and that 'me' is one which tended to dispense with the arbitrariness of SciFi many years ago, having read a lot in its teens.
It very difficult to recommend fiction to anybody even if you know them well. In terms of futuristic speculation, I think a book needs one foot in 'the present' to anchor at least part of the semantic field being generated. An example of this for me is 'The Glass Bead Game'...Hesse's classic.
Having said that, QM is obviously a potentially rich field for intellectual exploration given Bohr's characterization of its language as 'at best poetic'. On the other hand, it has also been described as a field in which 'whatever can happen does happen' (Brian Cox) thereby implying open speculation.

You're proceeding from an assumption about an "ultimate reality," which has not been demonstrated to exist. I'll pass.

oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

So, what's useful at appreciating the mystery of the ultimate reality?

You tell us.

Heh, we both don't know what you're talking about, then.

OK.

God is not a thing that exists in the universe. God is a way of understanding the universe, the same as 'self' is a way of understanding the body and/or the mind. The brain is a collection of cells and biochemical processes, yet you experience it as 'I,' 'myself,' etc. Why do you anthropomorphize a collection of cells just because you personally experience them as a unified consciousness? You could just as easily insist that no self exists, as many philosophers have, and refer to yourself as 'the body.'

Understanding the language of, 'God,' as an agent for the natural processes of the universe is just a way of attributing agency to natural phenomena. As I wrote earlier, primitive humans experience natural phenomena in terms of multiple agents, e.g. the god of the wind or the god of the water. If rain caused a flood and drowned their animals, they would experience that in terms of an angry god punishing them. Modern individuals have the same experience, i.e. that when natural events harm them, it is due to some supernatural deity punishing them or allowing them to suffer.

Monotheism is just the realization that the entirety of nature is unified as a single system. A singular God can thus replace all the many gods of the water, wind, sun, etc. etc. There's no 'proof' for the existence of these gods or God because they are just ways humans make sense of their experiences of nature. All atheists are really arguing for is that people should stop thinking of nature in terms of agency and think about it without agency. E.g. when your house floods, just think of it in terms of the water cycle and your house being in a spot with poor drainage or low elevation, not in terms of all the intersecting aspects of nature summing up to a single agency that humans can identify with as being like themselves.

When we say that humans are created in the likeness of God, another way to understand that is that humans are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe and therefore that we can model the rest of the universe in the same way we model ourselves, i.e. as having consciousness, willpower, intelligence etc. These human phenomena are not radically distinct from the rest of the universe. We just imagine them in terms of radical difference because our minds give us the ability to radically differentiate between otherwise similar things. If you think in terms of the commonalities between things instead of radically differentiating them, then you will see how everything is fundamentally similar to other things and only superficially different from them. We're just not used to thinking in terms of commonalities because differentiation and classification is how we make sense of things.

Utter babble-speak . . .

You're hopelessly biased against God (belief). Go away.

You're a hopelessly muddled poster, you don't make sense. You go away.