What is your religion?

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Atheist.

The universe and everything within it (and everything outside it?) runs entirely according to natural laws.

There would seem to be a contradiction in the paradigm that you espouse as your belief. I would assume that you claim the title of "atheist" based largely on a materialist ontology that relates to the alleged superiority of logical empiricism in Western culture. (Maybe I'm wrong in this assumption, but it seems to be the statistically most popular claim to atheism, so grant me some leniency if you arrive at the atheistic paradigm through routes other than classical.)

Herein is the problem of your statement, it relies on a materialist and empirical ontology and then assumes a dualist (?) ontology perhaps? You reference the realm of the empirically physical, and seemingly defer the majority of your premise to natural law. However, at the same time, you mention the possibility (by virtue of your parenthetical clause) of something existing outside of the universe. This admission clearly falls outside of the realm of empiricism and materialism, and even the heart of your world view. As best as contemporary science can tell, anything that exists outside of the universe is not bound by natural law, as natural law breaks down at the singularity of the big bang. What then, if not natural law, guides this realm outside of the universe? (Various ontologists have referred to this realm as the "atemporal" in exploring these possibilities.)

So, by admitting a possibility of existence beyond the universe, you have to admit possibilities beyond the materialist and natural law-bound. You would perhaps better refer to yourself as an agnostic than an atheist, as you seem to have some leniency regarding your paradigm. No offense friend, I've met very few truly hard-core atheists, as the underlying architecture of their view does not in fact exclude the possibility of God. Alas, much of this discussion devolves into a matter of semantics of how we define words such as "atheist" and "agnostic," so I mean no offense if you care to disagree on semantic grounds.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

You reference the realm of the empirically physical, and seemingly defer the majority of your premise to natural law. However, at the same time, you mention the possibility (by virtue of your parenthetical clause) of something existing outside of the universe. This admission clearly falls outside of the realm of empiricism and materialism, and even the heart of your world view. As best as contemporary science can tell, anything that exists outside of the universe is not bound by natural law, as natural law breaks down at the singularity of the big bang.

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

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)?

If there are multiple universes that does not replace the big bang theory.

Originally Posted by GRH

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."

I think a multiverse is more of a possibility than a god. Some process created our universe. It is not a stretch to say that that same process has created other universes. God is different. There is no observational evidence of even one.

Originally Posted by GRH

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???

No offense taken. In the absence of evidence, science would be agnostic about a god. One could hypothesize about a god, but then they would have to formulate an experiment to test the hypothesis. I know why people believe there is a god. They saw the sun come up, earthquakes, storms, or babies being born, or whatever. They saw things that couldn't be explained with their knowledge so they hypothesized that there's a god. For me, there's no problem that prompts me to formulate an hypothesis that there's a god because I have the analytical tools to find other better possibilities to hypothesize.

My life isn't all science though. I interact with the rest of society, and to me it seems that the progression of society is hampered by society's belief in a god. Many refuse to accept things like evolution, or the fact that the earth is over 6,000 years old or the big bang when there is abundant scientific evidence to support these theories, while their own theistic approaches to these phenomenon fail scientific tests. In that sense I am "opposed to theism" and an atheist.

Originally Posted by GRH

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?

As I said above, we've seen one universe. It's not a big stretch to hypothesize that the process that created ours created other. As for a god, we haven't seen even one.

[mrtrebus]

Atheist, there is no great reason for existence, life is just a bunch of stuff that happens. Having said that if people have a faith & it gives them comfort, good luck to them unless they are hate filled fundamentalists, be they Muslim, Christian or any other denomination.

Religion & science though do have something in common, they are both attempts by mankind to explain life, the universe & everything.

[nmlss]

Believers, just look at this video.

Atheist Experience - Best Caller Ever

[bobbsie]

I'm another of those pesky atheists.. Although if I had to worship something, I think it would have to be the sun! ;o) I mean it gives us heat, life and energy. What have any of the deities done for us lately?! I know, I know, God (or whatever) created everything including the sun.. *sigh* It is a circler argument really, as are most things based on faith I guess. Hmm, anyway each to their own! I'm off to find something to sacrifice to my sun God!

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by nmlss

Believers, just look at this video.

Atheist Experience - Best Caller Ever

Try searching for the creationist quote mine failure from hte same show.

Those guys get all the best callers.

[rastarzan]

i dont think religion matthers here

[Alien]

I believe in technology. I respect all religions. Even the Jedi way

Btw, the moron who hates all Muslims, you are pathetic. This is because of propaganda on TV and clearly it seems to have worked on you. Seek immediate help! You sound just like the product you are watching - the extremists causing all this terror.

Apart from that, we seem to have a lot of Atheists here

[tapestry]

Mathematics is my religion.

I just hate think something so wondrous and perfectly random as this universe could have been designed.

It would make the whole thing seem so fake.

[lolbats]

atheist, don't need fairy tales to make me happy.

[Cyborg]

I am atheist. I´m pretty much interested in science, especially biology, physics, social and cultural anthropology, psychology and philosophy although it can´t be considered as science at all. It´s more the language of reason. If you guys study ancient religions, you´ll see where today´s monotheist cults came from.

[abstratorama]

i am a atheist

[hinky32]

No matter on what religion one believes in, It's truly within our hearts to know right from wrong, love or to hate.

Living in the south, I see a church practically on every other block. That's an awful lot of support groups for sinners..lol.

The earth is my religion. We started here and we'll certainly end here.
(No offense to the Scientology believers)

[Reslemock]

I don't have any religion and I can't belive there is a good ether because is there is a good is not doing his,her, it's job.

[ARIES666]

As a child, I was christened/baptized...whatever they called it...in The United Church of Canada. Now....50 some-odd years later....let's just say "I am keeping my options open". All these different religions around the world and throughout time....they all can't be right!

[liesjeversteven]

I'm a very convinced atheist.

[aa2239]

Originally Posted by ARIES666

As a child, I was christened/baptized...whatever they called it...in The United Church of Canada. Now....50 some-odd years later....let's just say "I am keeping my options open". All these different religions around the world and throughout time....they all can't be right!

Similar story with me... raised a Christian, practiced when I was younger, still consider myself a"cultural Christian" of sorts... not practicing now, haven't for a few years, but not discounting a return to greater faith later in life. My problem is that as I've got older, I've seen/experienced more and more things which either can't be answered by religion, or actually contradict what religion says... some of my personal views and opinions have diverged from those of "mainstream" Christianity. Overall, I think that ANY religion is only good in moderation.

[cheersm8]

I follow no religion, but I do believe that there is a 'god' for want of a better word, and that 'god' is inside ourselves, and that our duty to ourselves is to live a life, as best we can, on a 'giving' basis, ie put our priorities on to contribution rather than receiving, whether that be as simple as listening to a friend when they are down or ( if you are a zillioneer ) building a new hospital to give to your community. Every person on this planet has equal rights to be here.

[ARIES666]

I know this is the oldest excuse in the book for "doubting the existence of" or

"not believing in" god (or "A GOD")....but how, and why, does (let's say a Christian's version of GOD) allow "The Holocaust", "Riwanda", "9/11", "The Black Plague"...you get my point! I am sure an "expert" on theolgy will somehow expalin, justify or defend their "God". I am just a "regular" guy (who loves T-Girls, btw), so what do I know!

[dannlov]

Not religious. Atheist.
Anyone made statistics of the answers?

[fuzzy]

No, I fall into the Athiest group, but I do Identify most with Buddhist, if I must have some system

[randolph]

I have no conventional religion. My philosophy is based on the Tantric shiva/shatki metaphor. The concept is that a female goddess resides within (kundalini). By transcending the ego, we are able to experience her and her loving energy. She is very sexy by the way.

[zumaa]

i'm atheist