What is your religion?

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You make too many assumptions. Current science cannot describe what happens at a singularity. But current science does not define what the actual natural laws are. It is only our best educated guess at what it is. I see no reason to believe that natural law (not our version of it) reigns everywhere. There are theories that suggest that our universe is one of a countless number of universes. They possibly work differently then ours. You might suggest that they work according to a different set of laws, but I believe that there is a superset of physical laws that you can derive the laws of any universe from. When a universe is born, physical constants are possibly set, such as the speed of light, charge of an electron, gravitational constant, etc. But there is a physical law superset that enables this to happen.

If you employ the anthropic principal, we as an observer will always be subject to those physical constants necessary for our own existence. Granted, this principal leaves open the possibility of other types of existence outside of our own, but by its own premise, we the observer can never be subject to anything other than our original premises of existence. The fact that natural law devolves to a degree at a singularity also suggests that our ability to act as an observe similarly degrades. This to me makes the concept of observational and empirical science a moot point when arguing things like the anthropic principle...Other types of reality MAY exist outside of our observational realm, but by the same logic, we can never observe these realms, so they remain hypothetical entities...Much akin to the idea of "God."

Similarly, the hypothetical ideas of multiverse theory lack any sort of observational or empirical evidence. At best, they can make certain predictions within a mathematical construct, but the larger theory is not falsifiable based on the devolution of physical constants at a singularity. Within a materialist paradigm, I see NO material evidence to suggest that multiverse theory is even remotely more plausible than the standard big bang model. The latter is backed up by observational evidence, thus if you apply Occam's razor, what seems more likely, just when discussing cosmology? The more complex theory (lacking true empirical evidence) of a multiverse, or the standard big bang model (which is backed by observational evidence)?

I'm not saying there are multiple universes, but it's a possibility. We've thought that our planet is the only one, only to be proven wrong. Same with our solar system. Our galaxy. Maybe our universe too.

There are two possibilities. Our universe (or whatever spawned it) came from nothing. And by 'nothing' I mean nothing - no energy or matter at all, no space/time, absolute nothingness. Nothingness could only be defined as a complete lack of any attributes because anything else used to describe it would be something.

The other possibility is that our universe came from something, or whatever spawned that, which has always been.

I would agree, I will admit the possibility of a multiverse, based on the same logic that I would admit the possibility of some notion of "God." As I said, I fear I may have offended you on the linguistic difficulties associated with words like "atheist" and "agnostic." If the word "atheist" is dissected to mean "opposed to theism," I ask on what grounds. I have never met an atheist that can definitively prove the non-existence of God, and one of the fall-back arguments for an atheist is that science does not seek to prove a negative. Burden of proof shifts to assertions. Much of the semantic debate then falls onto what the default position of this thing called "science" should be??? This is an interesting question, but I in my interpretation, if science can admit possibilities that MAY not be falsifiable on observational evidence, things such as multiverse theory, it can equally admit possibilities of theism. How do we KNOW (beyond doubt) that there may not be some litmus test for the existence of a "god-like" force far in the future and assuming great scientific advances?

Ultimately, I think we agree. I think it remains a question for the ages, and one that science and empiricism will NEVER ultimately answer. It just perturbs me within the semantics of such discussion, that what is often called "atheism" is more often used to support the logical assertion of what amounts to an agnostic paradigm.

Either possibility seems shocking to me. But to say our universe came from God seems even more shocking. Because you'd have to ask where did God come from? Nothing? That's even more shocking that a god capable of creating the universe could have come from nothing. I don't think we will ever really know which of the two possibilities happened. But I would at least like to see plausible theories that explain, without any holes, how it possibly could have happened. But like I say, I doubt we would be able to test it.

Your proposition here makes certain assumptions about causality. As I stated earlier, some arguments in ontology and cosmology employ two words to describe the dichotomy between the manifest world that is governed by natural law and the unmanifest world that existed prior to the singularity of the big bang. The manifest world is called temporal, the unmanifest is called atemporal. If the entirety of physics (as we understand it) breaks down at the singularity of the big bang, does causality apply to the atemporal realm? I would argue, not necessarily, and this at least seems a cogent argument against "God" having to have a "beginning." "God" is beyond the duality of beginning, end, and temporal concepts such as causality.

Now to wager against myself, I will employ Occam's razor. What is more probable regarding conceptions about complexity? Here, I'm utterly clueless. The hypothetical existence of "God" obviously adds degrees of complexity to our view...But does not the existence of a multiverse? Which is more complex? Which is more likely? And ultimately, if you defer to things such as statistics, which is statistically more likely? And more importantly, WHAT is even used to evaluate probabilities that exist outside of our observational realm?