Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?

[noblegas]

Nobel,

From reading your past posts your scenario where we encountered another species who tells us about god isn't consistent. First of all, how can you say that the "God" they might no of isn't just a more advanced race? Secondly, just because they tell us something or give us their version of religion doesn't make it true, any claim they make would have to be backed up with pretty strong evidence.

Thats true. As I said in other posts, if they have superior senses than our five senses, we would have no way of knowing if they were lying or not because they would be more intelligent than our species. This scenario would be compared to a owner lying to his dog, but the dog would have no way of knowing that his owner was lying to him because the owner is more intelligent than the dog just like the advanced hypothetical race we encountered is more intelligent than us.

 

[lubuntu]

If we can't tell if they are lying their information is useless to us.

 

[FayeKane]

So, because it can't describe the origin of the big bang, it was god who caused it? What reason do you have to assume that a divine being caused it?

HAHA! And it's even worse than that! Positing a guy doing things with magic like Harry Potter does NOT explain the origin of the universe any more than when asked where the elephants in India came from, saying "their mothers".

And another thing. This is Kanes' modification of Clarke's law:

Any magic is identical to a sufficiently advanced technology.

That is, even if these superstitions were true (gods, angels, etc), all it would mean is that there are space aliens who can do things we can't. Where does the "worship" of these aliens come from?

I happen to know where!

First impressions are the deepest, most important ones, and we will never give them up.

"God" is the vestigial memory of the baby's parents, primarily the mother, before the brain became organized enough to experience anything but emotion.

Mother came from above, out of nowhere, to magically fulfill your needs (food and a clean diaper).

Isn't it odd that when people posit "gods" as a cosmology, they also invariably believe that these aliens, of all things, LOVE us? Where did THAT come from? It's WAY incongruous!

Love us? We might be someone's science fair exhibit. Or mold on their food. We might even BE their food! When does the "love us" slip in there?

And check this out:
They even refer to the all-powerful being who controls everything as "father" and in some religions, "mother".

The baby was not able to understand that these were two individuals. All it knows is that an omnipotent and unknowable presence sometimes appears.

Who loves us.

I mean, how much clearer do the stupid people have to make it, man?

"God" is a vestigial memory of the infant's parents.

And "praying" is the vestigial memory of the baby crying.

--faye

 

[FayeKane]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

 

[noblegas]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no.

Georges Lemaître, Father of the big bang theory, was a catholic priest. Sorry , being religious does not make you any less scientific minded. I don't why know this discussion is still being continued; it is obvious that you can simultaneously be religious and scientific minded. Just because most scientific minded people don't believe in a god doesn't that mean a lack of a belief in god will make you a more scientific minded person; just like a being an american does not mean you will automatically be a fat person, even though most americans are fat. Thats not the result of being an american, it is thtie result of fostering a culture that values overeating.

(and don't even say lematre isn't a modern scientist ; modern physics has existed for over 100 years)

 

[FayeKane]

being religious does not make you any less scientific minded. I don't why know this discussion is still being continued; it is obvious that you can simultaneously be religious and scientific minded.

Ever since the loud arguments in the high school hallway, I've noticed that the superstitious become disingenuous when backed against a rhetorical wall.

The honest interpretation of the question "Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?" is: "Is modern science consistent with religious beliefs?", which it is not.

However, you have chosen to reinterpret the question as "is it physically possible for person A to do B?", or "do there exist individuals who do A by day and B by night?"

Science and superstition are polar opposites; if you're doing one, you're not doing the other. That's the only salient issue.

That some people choose to live their lives in an inconsistent, internally contradictory way is neither surprising nor interesting. Cowardly Republican senators do it all the time.

--faye

 

[noblegas]

Ever since the loud arguments in the high school hallway, I've noticed that the superstitious become disingenuous when backed against a rhetorical wall.

The honest interpretation of the question "Can a Modern Scientist Be Religious?" is: "Is modern science consistent with religious beliefs?", which it is not.

However, you have chosen to reinterpret the question as "is it physically possible for person A to do B?", or "do there exist individuals who do A by day and B by night?"

Science and superstition are polar opposites; if you're doing one, you're not doing the other. That's the only salient issue.

That some people choose to live their lives in an inconsistent, internally contradictory way is neither surprising nor interesting. Cowardly Republican senators do it all the time.

--faye

you are trying to redefine the OP'S question. He simply asked if modern scientists could be religious and the answer is yes, for there are many prominent scientists who are religious.I supposed if religious people interpreted a religious text literally , then yes religious dogma can erode the rational part of their mind. Most religious people(in the free world anyway) don't take the bible literally; They only follow the central tenets of their religion.

 

[WaveJumper]

Well we didn't know what atoms were at one point. People came up with all kinds of crazy things until the model we have today was developed.

The same holds true for lightning, spontaneous life generation, and many other things throughout history.

Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it's some super-natural phenomenon. Everything can be explained and described. It's just a matter of actually doing it properly.

Why are we able to explain it? What is 'explaining' and what is 'understanding'? How would we understand what understanding is? What is information? What do you mean by 'natural'?

Suppose it was actually possible to explain everything(which of course it isn't). What would that mean to you?

 

[Lancelot59]

If it was possible to explain everything using science, then I would take it to mean that there is nothing beyond the physical world, if that's what the conclusion turned out to be.

 

[Mattara]

I suppose the answer depends on how religious and whether or not the question really is "can you be a rational and logically consistent religious scientist?".

You can obviously be a successful scientist and believe in various religious ideas as long as you make sure that you keep your religious ideas vague enough to avoid intersecting with science or any other form of rational examination of reality. Look at the catholic cell biologist Ken Miller, for instance, who was instrumental for the defeat of the intelligent design creationists at Dover or Francis Collins. When pressed on the issues of immaculate conceptions and virgin births, they usually retreats into symbolism: "of course we did not mean to suggest that humans can be haploid in reality, it should be thought of as symbolizing innocence" or something like that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

When pressed on the issues of immaculate conceptions and virgin births, they usually retreats into symbolism: "of course we did not mean to suggest that humans can be haploid in reality, it should be thought of as symbolizing innocence" or something like that.

Most religions are filled primarily with symbolism. Those that purport to be literally true are mostly modern (or modern interpretations).

 

[Mattara]

Most religions are filled primarily with symbolism. Those that purport to be literally true are mostly modern (or modern interpretations).

I suppose that depends on your take on modern. There where certainly people who interpreted the claims as fact claims rather than mere symbolism during the past 400 or so years.

 

[T.O.E Dream]

Here's my view. I think science is good at answering the how's and what's but only religion can answer the why's as far as we know it.

I'll never understand even with science why everything came into existence, and why the laws of science are the way there are. It just seems like we can only explain how everything works but the why's are the more deeper questions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I suppose that depends on your take on modern. There where certainly people who interpreted the claims as fact claims rather than mere symbolism during the past 400 or so years.

Yes, that's fairly modern as far as religion goes.

 

[Evo]

Here's my view. I think science is good at answering the how's and what's but only religion can answer the why's as far as we know it.

I'll never understand even with science why everything came into existence, and why the laws of science are the way there are. It just seems like we can only explain how everything works but the why's are the more deeper questions.

As in what? If we can explain how everything works, as you have said, then anything else is just make believe stories to explain "why". Fairy stories to explain why are meaningless, IMO.

 

[NeoDevin]

Here's my view. I think science is good at answering the how's and what's but only religion can answer the why's as far as we know it.

And how precisely do you decide if you have the "why" right? What differentiates one person's religious explanation of "why" from another's? If you have no way of determining what is right, you're all just making it up.

I'll never understand even with science why everything came into existence, and why the laws of science are the way there are. It just seems like we can only explain how everything works but the why's are the more deeper questions.

Just because you can't understand something (or no one understands/knows it) doesn't suddenly mean any particular religion has it right (and most of them are demonstrably self-contradictory, which to me is pretty conclusive evidence that they have it wrong).

 

[WiFO215]

If it was possible to explain everything using science, then I would take it to mean that there is nothing beyond the physical world

And you have reason to believe otherwise because...?

 

[lubuntu]

And how precisely do you decide if you have the "why" right? What differentiates one person's religious explanation of "why" from another's? If you have no way of determining what is right, you're all just making it up.



Just because you can't understand something (or no one understands/knows it) doesn't suddenly mean any particular religion has it right (and most of them are demonstrably self-contradictory, which to me is pretty conclusive evidence that they have it wrong).

This hits the core thing I think in the science versus religion debate, to us, I think to most of us the "whys" aren't even really valid questions. There is no intrinsic why for anything, what ever is is because it is ;) Religious people often don't accept that and that leaves a gap to fill a why with whatever makes the feel better.

 

[Pattonias]

I don't think anyone would argue that, for the most part, any discussion of a Deity is not a philosophical question.

I think from the point of view that the universe itself may possesses an intelligence or a "omnipotent" being might one day be proved scientifically. It has to be admitted though that, so far, no evidence to support this conclusively has been found.

Any idea of the intent or feelings of such a being would still have to be speculated on from a philosophical viewpoint.

 

[WaveJumper]

As in what? If we can explain how everything works, as you have said, then anything else is just make believe stories to explain "why". Fairy stories to explain why are meaningless, IMO.

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours(which is just about everything and anything that exists and means that at least 99% of the mystery of existence will never be explained).

If you don't like "Why's" you can always substitute it with "how" and "what caused?".

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all. I'd say that science is powerful survival tool, not a guide to fundamental truths(if they exist). From what i have read, the biggest names in physics all understand the limits of science.

 

[Kronos5253]

Can a modern scientist be religious or even have a religion?

Yes.

 

[NeoDevin]

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours

...

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all.

How do you know this to be true? You are making unfounded assertions as far as I can tell, can you provide some support for your claims?

 

[lubuntu]

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours(which is just about everything and anything that exists and means that at least 99% of the mystery of existence will never be explained).

If you don't like "Why's" you can always substitute it with "how" and "what caused?".

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all. I'd say that science is powerful survival tool, not a guide to fundamental truths(if they exist). From what i have read, the biggest names in physics all understand the limits of science.

Wavejumper what you say is mostly true but it seems almost that you imply that since we don't know everything it is ok then to come up with unfalsifiable hypothesizes and declare the true by fiat, which is essentially which all religious and spiritual claims are. There is no "other way of knowing" that as far as we know produces anything like viable results. I remember you mentioning Einstein above, so I'll use his own quote here.

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

 

[WaveJumper]

Wavejumper what you say is mostly true but it seems almost that you imply that since we don't know everything it is ok then to come up with unfalsifiable hypothesizes and declare the true by fiat, which is essentially which all religious and spiritual claims are.

What do you mean by 'true'? Where did i present a model of our universe as 'truth'? Those who make science a religion by insisting that a particular model(of the dozen suggested) is true, are usually the least knowledgeable.

There is no "other way of knowing" that as far as we know produces anything like viable results.

That's seems to be true. It's worth to know that this method has limitations too. Science operates within the laws of physics, which were imposed on us, not chosen by us through our own scientific research.

I remember you mentioning Einstein above, so I'll use his own quote here.

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

Yes, that seems to be right. Moreover, Einstein was aware that science was no substitute for religion, more than anyone else at his time.

 

[WaveJumper]

Science will never explain how everything works because there will always be a very Big question about the initial conditions and how(what caused) the emergence of a law-ruled universe like ours

...

Even if science were able to explain most everything, it would not be able to explain how it was possible that most everything has an explanation at all.

How do you know this to be true? You are making unfounded assertions as far as I can tell, can you provide some support for your claims?

How do you know this to be true? You are making unfounded assertions as far as I can tell, can you provide some support for your claims?

Well, i don't support the view that we are Gods. I do not believe that we can ever have absolute knowledge of anything. As far as i am concerned, this science-based religion is the weirdest of all.

Knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics and GR exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in large deviations from predicted behaviour.


As for my second comment, i have never seen anyone claiming to know why anything has an explanation. Following a cause-effect chain of events brings you back and stops 14 billion years ago before a mathematical atrifact. This deterministic scientific approach treats the universe as a machine, and it works. Though it says nothing about how the mathematical artifact came to be as it was.

The hypothesis of a multiverse does not explain existence at all, either. It just raises more questions about the validity of causality-based logic in an infinite environment. Infinity isn't something that a human can comprehend either.

Look at it from a different point of view. It's seems that you are an atheist and believe that god/s/ and purposeful first causes do not exist. All animals have a limit on understanding the environment around them. My dog is pretty smart(he comprehends and uses some causality based logic), but it can't comprehend air travel. Most animals have even more limited understanding of theor immediate environment, so what makes you think a descendent of Ardi would somehow have unlimited understanding?

 

[lubuntu]

Well, i don't support the view that we are Gods. I do not believe that we can ever have absolute knowledge of anything. As far as i am concerned, this science-based religion is the weirdest of all.

Knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics and GR exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in large deviations from predicted behaviour. As for my second comment, i have never seen anyone claiming to know why anything has an explanation. Following a cause-effect chain of events brings you back and stops 14 billion years ago before a mathematical atrifact. This deterministic scientific approach treats the universe as a machine, and it works. Though it says nothing about how the mathematical artifact came to be as it was.

The hypothesis of a multiverse does not explain existence at all, either. It just raises more questions about the validity of causality-based logic in an infinite environment. Infinity isn't something that a human can comprehend either.

Look at it from a different point of view. It's seems that you are an atheist and believe that god/s/ and purposeful first causes do not exist. All animals have a limit on understanding the environment around them. My dog is pretty smart(he comprehends and uses some causality based logic), but it can't comprehend air travel. Most animals have even more limited understanding of theor immediate environment, so what makes you think a descendent of Ardi would somehow have unlimited understanding?

It doesn't take unlimited understanding to figure that since we have no evidence for a universe creator, it is safe for now to assume there probably isn't one. You imply that the universe came into existence at a discrete time that isn't necessary the case. Simply there is a time beyound which we are unable to say much if anything. Again, just because we can't and don't know everything doesn't mean we get to make stuff up.

 

[WaveJumper]

It doesn't take unlimited understanding to figure that since we have no evidence for a universe creator, it is safe for now to assume there probably isn't one. You imply that the universe came into existence at a discrete time that isn't necessary the case. Simply there is a time beyound which we are unable to say much if anything. Again, just because we can't and don't know everything doesn't mean we get to make stuff up.

Asserting that science proves or points to the universe not being created is making stuff up. Assuming/believing the existence of the universe is a fluke is totally different story.

 

[NeoDevin]

Well, i don't support the view that we are Gods. I do not believe that we can ever have absolute knowledge of anything.

And so you prefer made up answers instead?

As for my second comment, i have never seen anyone claiming to know why anything has an explanation. Following a cause-effect chain of events brings you back and stops 14 billion years ago before a mathematical atrifact. This deterministic scientific approach treats the universe as a machine, and it works. Though it says nothing about how the mathematical artifact came to be as it was.

The "mathematical artifact" may just be a result of our current mathematical framework, it's possible in the future we will discover something new that allows us to extrapolate backwards in time farther than that, or it may turn out that we remain ignorant, or there may actually be nothing before that. Your argument amounts to "We don't know, therefore goddidit". The first half is correct, the second half is nonsense.

Look at it from a different point of view. It's seems that you are an atheist and believe that god/s/ and purposeful first causes do not exist. All animals have a limit on understanding the environment around them. My dog is pretty smart(he comprehends and uses some causality based logic), but it can't comprehend air travel. Most animals have even more limited understanding of theor immediate environment, so what makes you think a descendent of Ardi would somehow have unlimited understanding?

When did I claim to have unlimited understanding? There are lots of things I don't understand, and will probably never understand. There are lots of things the human race is ignorant about, and may or may not always remain ignorant about (Godel's incompleteness applied to the universe comes to mind). The thing is, I'm willing to accept that there are things that I/we don't know (such as the origin of the universe as we know it, or the laws of physics) rather than make up answers. We may someday have the means to study those questions, or we may not. Either way doesn't affect the current answer, which is "We don't know", NOT "God did it".

 

[WaveJumper]

And so you prefer made up answers instead?

What made up answers? People mean different things by 'God'. You assume you know what i mean by 'God' the way you assume that the universe is a fluke. The fact is not all concepts behind the vague term "God" are nonsensical. What is nonsensical is putting all ideas about intelligence mocking with the laws of physics and matter/energy to create a universe like ours together with the Dinosaur-denying religion. I don't mix atheism with cretinism, so i'd appreciate it if you treated different concepts of gods according to the merrits of their basic tenets.

The "mathematical artifact" may just be a result of our current mathematical framework, it's possible in the future we will discover something new that allows us to extrapolate backwards in time farther than that, or it may turn out that we remain ignorant, or there may actually be nothing before that. Your argument amounts to "We don't know, therefore goddidit". The first half is correct, the second half is nonsense.

Look, you can believe whatever you want. Whatever it is you believe is the First Cause will not be nonsense to you(though i have a feeling it will be total crap to me).

When did I claim to have unlimited understanding? There are lots of things I don't understand, and will probably never understand. There are lots of things the human race is ignorant about, and may or may not always remain ignorant about (Godel's incompleteness applied to the universe comes to mind). The thing is, I'm willing to accept that there are things that I/we don't know (such as the origin of the universe as we know it, or the laws of physics) rather than make up answers. We may someday have the means to study those questions, or we may not. Either way doesn't affect the current answer, which is "We don't know", NOT "God did it".

What do you mean by god? We may be talking about the same thing in different terms.

It's not that i think that certain unanswered question point to there being a God(what you'd carelessly call a god of the gaps argument). I think every single question that you could ever ask, answered or otherwise, points to a form of intelligence many orders of magnitude greater than us. Why do you think nearly all of modern day's famous physicists subscribe to a similar type of god(collectively termed - the god of physicists)?

 

[NeoDevin]

What made up answers?

In your particular case, the idea that there was necessarily a first cause, and that that first cause was somehow more "intelligent" than us in some way.

People mean different things by 'God'. You assume you know what i mean by 'God' the way you assume that tat the universe is a fluke. The fact is not all concepts behind the vague term "God" are nonsensical.

Your use of capital "G" God strongly suggests a Christian god, if you meant some other non-self-contradictory God, then please clarify because I obviously misinterpreted your meaning.

What is nonsensical is putting all ideas about intelligence mocking with the laws of physics and matter/energy to create a universe like ours together with the Dinosaur-denying religion. I don't mix atheism with cretinism, so i'd appreciate it if you treated different concepts of gods according to the merrits of their basic tenets.

Creationism is not the same as the God you are referring to, nor have I ever suggested it was. Creationists actively deny established scientific fact, while you seem content to fill in the gaps.

Look, you can believe whatever you want. Whatever it is you believe is the First Cause will not be nonsense to you(though i have a feeling it will be total crap to me).

When have I ever claimed to believe in a "First Cause" (Why is that capitalized?)? I have never even claimed the necessity of a first cause. I don't know if there was a first cause, and if there was, I don't know anything about it. Here's the kicker though: Neither do you! Your declaration that there must be a first cause, that that cause must be intelligent, and that "God" is a remotely accurate descriptor of that first cause are all completely unfounded.

What do you mean by god? We may be talking about the same thing in different terms.

I'm using the term fairly generally to refer to any hypothetical intelligent supernatural being who created the universe (the minimalist or deist god), as well as the more specific varieties. I'm pretty sure that discussion of particular gods is against the rule, so I'm trying to keep it fairly general.

It's not that i think that certain unanswered question point to there being a God(what you'd carelessly call a god of the gaps argument).

When you are claiming that there must have been a first cause, and that that first cause is God, you are making a "god of the gaps" argument.

I think every single question that you could ever ask, answered or otherwise, points to a form of intelligence many orders of magnitude greater than us.

I'm working on a post on my blog that will reply to this, but I don't have much time to write right now, so I'll post the link when I'm done.

Why do you think nearly all of modern day's famous physicist subscribe to a similar type of god(collectively termed - the god of physicsts)?

I don't know what you're talking about here, I've known many physicists, including some you might call famous. I know a couple who are among the top in their fields and are devout Catholics, I know others who are also among the top in their (different) fields, and are atheists. I know many who aren't the tops of their fields who subscribe to all sorts of different beliefs. Please elaborate on this "god of physicists", because I've never noticed such a phenomenon.

Further arguments from popularity or (false) authority are invalid. Even if every scientist in the world believed in the same sort of god, that doesn't suddenly change reality to fit their beliefs.

 

[Mattara]

Asserting that science proves or points to the universe not being created is making stuff up. Assuming/believing the existence of the universe is a fluke is totally different story.

No, it is not making stuff up. We simply make the following argument.

1. We should believe worldviews that makes predictions that is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality.
2. Worldview X is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality than worldview Y.
3. Thus, we should believe worldview X.

 

[WaveJumper]

In your particular case, the idea that there was necessarily a first cause, and that that first cause was somehow more "intelligent" than us in some way.

In what other way can you explain certain weird 'coincidences' like the existence of laws of physics, physical constants, Time, space, matter? Or you'd pass on, as if they didn't need an explanation?

Your use of capital "G" God strongly suggests a Christian god, if you meant some other non-self-contradictory God, then please clarify because I obviously misinterpreted your meaning.

Capital or not, I don't think i have met a religion that i didn't find contradictory.

When have I ever claimed to believe in a "First Cause" (Why is that capitalized?)? I have never even claimed the necessity of a first cause. I don't know if there was a first cause, and if there was, I don't know anything about it. Here's the kicker though: Neither do you! Your declaration that there must be a first cause, that that cause must be intelligent, and that "God" is a remotely accurate descriptor of that first cause are all completely unfounded.

Why? This is a bare assertion. Why do you use purely deterministic causal science only to where its supportive of your beliefs? How come all of this weird 'coincidence' that after the Big Bang that matter was formed and later the orderly universe we see today? Through the laws of physics? Where did they come from? You assume that's natural, right? If that's natural, then my 'unnatural' is the same your 'natural'.

When you are claiming that there must have been a first cause, and that that first cause is God, you are making a "god of the gaps" argument.

Your knowledge of the universe and existence is "knowledge of the gaps". There are three things that science doesn't say what they are - these things are Time, Space and Matter. You feel you know what these things are, but scientists do NOT. And neither do you. From the little we know about existence and the universe, it's absolutely impossible to rule out a creator. In fact, it makes sense, as opposed to saying - this 'coincidence' does not need explanation because it just happened like that, for no reason; reason is a human concept, etc.

I don't know what you're talking about here, I've known many physicists, including some you might call famous. I know a couple who are among the top in their fields and are devout Catholics, I know others who are also among the top in their (different) fields, and are atheists. I know many who aren't the tops of their fields who subscribe to all sorts of different beliefs. Please elaborate on this "god of physicists", because I've never noticed such a phenomenon.

Further arguments from popularity or (false) authority are invalid. Even if every scientist in the world believed in the same sort of god, that doesn't suddenly change reality to fit their beliefs.

The only famous atheist physicist i am aware of was Carl Sagan. What change of reality are you talking about? That the universe is a fluke? How about some evidence for this assertion? I am particlularly interested to know how energy can naturally create a classical-looking universe? Explain how a kind of condensed energy can manifest as a human being that falls in love, reasons, talks and cries in a very predictable environment.

It would be interesting if you could explain what you consider an argument that there is no god. Also, what would you consider evidence/clues that we don't live in a simulated informational universe?

 

[WaveJumper]

No, it is not making stuff up. We simply make the following argument.

1. We should believe worldviews that makes predictions that is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality.
2. Worldview X is more consistent with observation of our empirical reality than worldview Y.
3. Thus, we should believe worldview X.

How does worldview X hint that there is no god/the universe wasn't created? Does worldview X hint if we live in a deterministic universe or otherwise? What is worlview X? Non-existence -- extreme luck/coincidence -- Big Bang -- existence?

 

[Loren Booda]

What about one's experience of God alternating with one's non-experience of God? I believe most people undergo such an existence.

 

[Mattara]

How does worldview X hint that there is no god/the universe wasn't created? Does worldview X hint if we live in a deterministic universe or otherwise? What is worlview X? Non-existence -- extreme luck/coincidence -- Big Bang -- existence?

Big Bang is not about the origin of the universe, is not based on "luck" and no one is claiming that "non-existence" existed before the Big Bang; that would be a contradiction in terms.

Worldview X and Y are just examples; that's how you compare opposing worldview to find out which is more reasonable. You can yourself compare the predictions of, say, philosophical naturalism and a random brand of theism.