Is atheism a religion?

[tayla]

idea that God is necessary for meaning and ethics, that is truly just speculation

Yes, I agree. But if there is a God and if he/she were the one who is the source for these, then,... no reason to reject the idea out of hand.

 

[tayla]

Is that what you are arguing about here?

I find that those who insist on "converting" everyone to their view of new atheism are the ones who complain about everything that non-atheists say.

 

[columbus]

It is not possible however to believe in the existence of gods and believe in the non existence of gods (without contradiction).

This isn't really true.

I am certain that there is far more to reality than we are capable of understanding. So, I don't completely discount much. I am not a strong atheist.

But human beings are quite capable of inventing imaginary things. We can invent whole categories of them, such as "wizards", human(ish) beings with superpowers. Literature is full of such abstractions. Deities are just another one. So, in one sense God(s) exist, but only between people's ears. That's the only belief that non-theists really have in common.

Religion is fiction and god is a category of recurring character in the fiction.

Tom

 

[ecco]

You guys are soooo good at evading. Why is that?

Do you deny that your Bible approves of owning slaves or are you just ignorant of the facts?

I believe in Jesus, not the ot.

So, you pick and choose what scripture to believe and what scripture to dismiss. If I may ask, what specific branch of Christianity dismisses the OT?

Since you dismiss the OT, what is your understanding of the presence of humans? Is it evolution?

 

[ecco]

Atheism belongs with the rest of nihilism; no morals, and no religion.

Since you dismiss the OT, what do you see as the origins of morality?

 

[`mud]

I get so confused...
Who comes first Jesus or `God`,
NT or OT ?

 

[viole]

I find that those who insist on "converting" everyone to their view of new atheism are the ones who complain about everything that non-atheists say.

There is not such a thing as new atheism.

There is only old atheism. What is new is that we can challenge 2000 years of claims without evidence without risking to be the main ingredient of a barbecue.

We understand that this might feel new to a theist, and probably got them unprepared, and that is probably the source of the confusion.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I get so confused...
Who comes first Jesus or `God`,
NT or OT ?

I suspect they come together as a package.

Which, by the way, entails that Jesus was around when the other 2/3 of God were wiping out women and children and approving slavery.

Meek Jesus, right.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Atheism belongs with the rest of nihilism; no morals, and no religion.

I assume with “no morals” you mean “no objective morals”. Which some atheists do not indeed believe in, like me.

Question: do you think people believe in God as an escape to nihilism, no morals and no religion?

You seem, like many, to stress the importance in believing in something (with purpose, morals, whatever), rather than focusing on the plausibility of the object of the belief. In this case the particular brand of god or gods.

I ask because the reliability of the object of the belief being true is very low, a priori, considering the thousands of mutually contradicting gods people believe and believed in.


Ciao

- viole

 

[`mud]

hey Viole
Ahhh....`God` first...and came Jesus...and came Saul and the prophets.
Without plagiarism we wouldn't have a bible, or any supreme creators.
Out of the context does come the `packages`, add the holiest of ghosts.
And...don't forget the angels and thrones, and the trumpets in the clouds.

 

[Curious George]

The entire quote by Nonaka and Takeuchi was, "Justified true belief that increases an entity's capacity for effective action".

The justified true belief thing is attributed to Plato. We just haven't moved much from that point.

John Locke describes knowledge as, "The perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas". In the organizational context, I like, "knowledge is the sum of what is known(facts and evidence) and resides in the intelligence(mind) and the competence of rational people". In other words, knowledge is an abstract concept that exists in the mind. It is not(emphasis) a thing.

Abstract concepts are things too.

It is like the concept of Energy. It doesn't exist unless it is used. So a more accurate definition of knowledge is not justified true belief, simply justified belief.

Not sure how you removed the truth attribute there. I think there is a glaring error in your logic.

We can have a false belief that we only think is true. A tribesman finding a bottle of coke, may interpret this as a gift from the Gods. The truth must be demonstrated with sufficient evidence. I would strongly suggest that at a job interview for an auto-mechanic, that you don't say that you believe you can repair the engine. You will soon realize that there is a big difference in making a belief claim, and making a knowledge claim.

And I wpuld suggest that you do mot merely proclaim that you know you can fix a engine. As you will soon discover there is a difference between stating you know something and actually knowing something.

Here again you are equivocating. Saying I believe I can fix an engine or I think I can fix an emgine is merely a passive way of saying I can fix an engine. In either case your failure leads you to the same conclusion I believed i could have fixed that engine or I thought I could have fixed that engine. Using either phrase communicates the same message-that one believes it true that they can fix the engine. Using passive language merely engenders disbelief in the audience because it highlights uncertainty.

The more knowledge you have, the less belief you need to depend on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence saying that you know that No Gods exist anywhere requires one to ask, "how do you know this?".

No one has said that they know no gods exist. They have merely stated the proposition no gods exist. That communicates a belief that such a statement is true.

I have no problem with the logic here. However the issue is not belief, it is asserting certainty without evidence. Another, way to simplify knowledge is,

it is not asserting certainty. It is merely assertimg belief.

1. The person believes the something that is stated to be true
2. The statement is in fact true
3. The person is justified in believing the statement to be true

It is the no. 2 premise that deserves the attention. In the general sense, knowledge is all things that are perceived through our senses, our experiences, and the mental representation about a state of affairs that accurately corresponds to the actual state of affairs we perceive.

In other words, knowledge needs to be legitimized by logical and empirical factors.

You have moved out on a tangent and are talking about the third claim of justification. This knowledge needs to actually correspond to the state of affairs by your own concession. Therefore, the belief must be true in order for the belief to be knowledge.

All knowledge is apples, but not all apples is knowledge. You have not demonstrated the link between knowledge and belief. You've simply asserted it.

Are you now questioning premise 1? That knowledge is a type of belief?

The fact that many physics formulae need a constant for the formulae to work, suggests that there is something more than just the four fundamental forces. NASA's discovery of the key signature(from the Planck Data) of comic inflation(Plateau Inflation), is more that reasonable evidence for the Multiverse. Cosmic "Cold Spots" and Black Holes, are reasonable evidence for the Multiverse. Physics and Math also have theories and models to justify the existence of Multi-dimensions. The fact that we exist prove at least four(4) of these dimensions.The discovery of the Higgs field and Boson, and the Gravity Field(hopefully the discovery of the Graviton), also strongly suggest a Multiverse. Even the strength of Gravity, reasonably suggest the existence of the Multiverse. If you have the time, take a look at this video. Maybe you can see that the life-long research by our immanent scientists, are not simply devoted towards make-believe.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Maybe you just misread my comments. Where in my quote do I mention, subjective levels of existence? Looking for the objective existence of a God(s), is a given. The point is how do we achieve that certainty?

So reality may consist of more than just our universe? Ok but that doesn't mean that there is anything outside of reality.

 

[Curious George]

This isn't really true.

I am certain that there is far more to reality than we are capable of understanding. So, I don't completely discount much. I am not a strong atheist.

A lingering hope for a god that is so strong you assess the evidence as equal, even when it is not, based on an appeal to ignorance.

But human beings are quite capable of inventing imaginary things. We can invent whole categories of them, such as "wizards", human(ish) beings with superpowers. Literature is full of such abstractions. Deities are just another one. So, in one sense God(s) exist, but only between people's ears. That's the only belief that non-theists really have in common.

This is where the equivocation rests.

Religion is fiction and god is a category of recurring character in the fiction.

Tom

 

[columbus]

A lingering hope for a god that is so strong you assess the evidence as equal, even when it is not, based on an appeal to ignorance.

Where did I say, or even suggest, that I see "the evidence as equal "?

Seriously.
You are completely misrepresenting my opinions as I expressed them in my post.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

Where did I say, or even suggest, that I see "the evidence as equal "?

Seriously.
You are completely misrepresenting my opinions as I expressed them in my post.
Tom

It is the consequence of not believing god exists and of not believing god does not exist once ability to believe is possible. Granted, i extrapolated your reasons for such a claim.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

In a few words: The very concept of gods is nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings. You, somewhere, deep down, seem to believe that gods can be real. Why?


Didja miss this part...

If you haven't been made aware that excessive use of caps and bolds is considered shouting, then you haven't been paying attention.​

My point is that even if no one specifically told you, over the past two years, you must have come across posters SHOUTING and others pointing out to them what constitutes SHOUTING.



You go to extremes to try to have a god somehow, somewhere, somewhen. That indicates more than a want or a desire, that indicates a need.



If the entity could travel between universes without violating the laws of physics, thrn he would not be a god. What does "So the term God(s) is relative," mean? Relative to what? Gods are supernatural entities that have supernatural powers.


Where have I demanded anything? I have provided evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Have provided anything to the contrary? No. You just keep on insisting that somehow maybe a god really does exist. You don't think that somehow maybe Superman exists.



That god is "only a conception or perception" is the point. If something is "only a conception or perception" then it doesn't really exist, does it?


See above.

First you imply that I'm lying. Now you're implying that I am stupid as well. Are you the forum's bully, or just another silly troll? You are the poster child to how dangerous a little knowledge can be. What makes you think that I carry some deep-seated emotional need, to believe that something supernatural must exist? Click on my icon and see when I joined the forum, then do the math. Either you are dyslexic or just blind. I personally am not interested in the grammar or the syntax of how others responds to my posts. If you need to find faults in others writings, then you must have nothing else to fault or contribute. What others have to say is far more important to me, than how they say it. This is not a forum on English Comp. I don't need to intimidate, belittle, and humiliate others, to make a point. Again, I had no idea that using caps represented shouting and anger. No one has ever pointed this out in the past. Not because of my lack of attention, but because of the absence of bringing it to my attention. Whether or not I should have known, is just more of your self-serving excuses to save face for questioning my integrity, without backing it up. So MOVE ON. I'm surprised that after almost two years on this forum, that no one has pointed out your level of arrogance and insensitivity. But at your age I suspect it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Now lets look at the rest of this.....

That god is "only a conception or perception" is the point. If something is "only a conception or perception" then it doesn't really exist, does it?

No one in their right mind would claim that what we perceive does not really exist. When you look at an apple on the table, does that apple really exist? Do the receptors for visual perception(allows you to see the apple) really exist? Only the representation of the apple in the mind is conceptual(zero dimensional). So at least the apple and our eyes really do exist. What our sensory organs convey to our brain is called perception. It can only be stimulated by something that is real and exist outside of the mind. Try eating a steak that doesn't exist, or seeing an apple that isn't there. But we all can conceive of things that aren't real. Conceptions are the things(logic, abstract idea, emotions) that originate from the mind, not from our senses. We do not perceive a God, we can only conceive of a God. Therefore, a God does not exist physically, but a God does exist mentally for many.

If the entity could travel between universes without violating the laws of physics, thrn he would not be a god. What does "So the term God(s) is relative," mean? Relative to what? Gods are supernatural entities that have supernatural powers.

The two examples I gave were only hypotheticals. They were to illustrate how a less advanced civilization might view a more highly advanced or evolved civilization. Maybe the traveller had learned to manipulate gravity or even matter itself. Many might view someone who could do this as a God, or at least having some God-like qualities. That is what I meant by relative. Obviously you can't see beyond your own cognitive bias. So, those two examples were completely wasted on you.

That god is "only a conception or perception" is the point. If something is "only a conception or perception" then it doesn't really exist, does it?

Where the conception or belief in a God(s) comes from, is certainly not relevant. The only thing relevant is whether or not you can demonstrate how you know that No Gods exists, or can't exist anywhere? I used outside of our of our reality only to illustrate the absolute knowledge you would need to make such a claim. You could have stated that because Einstein's theories and the Quantum theories don't fit together, that even if a God could fill the gap, his role would only be limited as a constant. You could have said that even if a God existed in another dimension, He would at best be subatomic, and bounded by a subatomic time dimension. You could have mentioned that as part of the Multiverse our physics is only unique to us. In another Universe the God concept could be unrecognizable to us. But in either case, no one could possibly know for certain. Therefore, all you can honestly say is that you don't believe that a God exists, because there is no evidence to support that belief.This means that your disbelief is totally contingent on the evidence. So again how do you know that your claim is valid? Or is you argument just from incredulity? Humans have conceived of many things(arts, ideas, traditions, religions, technology, etc.), and many of these conceptions have become real. So what is your point?

So again please explain why your unfalsifiable claim is now falsifiable? What other distractions are you going to come up with? I don't live my life with any deep-seated guilt due my lack of belief. I don't believe that a God exists in my reality, but I have no idea if one exists anywhere outside of my reality. Maybe deep down somewhere in my psyche, I wish there was a God, a Santa Clause, or a Superman. But of course my deep-seated wishes are totally irrelevant to your claims.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The justified true belief thing is attributed to Plato. We just haven't moved much from that point.


Abstract concepts are things too.

Not sure how you removed the truth attribute there. I think there is a glaring error in your logic.

And I wpuld suggest that you do mot merely proclaim that you know you can fix a engine. As you will soon discover there is a difference between stating you know something and actually knowing something.

Here again you are equivocating. Saying I believe I can fix an engine or I think I can fix an emgine is merely a passive way of saying I can fix an engine. In either case your failure leads you to the same conclusion I believed i could have fixed that engine or I thought I could have fixed that engine. Using either phrase communicates the same message-that one believes it true that they can fix the engine. Using passive language merely engenders disbelief in the audience because it highlights uncertainty.

No one has said that they know no gods exist. They have merely stated the proposition no gods exist. That communicates a belief that such a statement is true.

it is not asserting certainty. It is merely assertimg belief.

You have moved out on a tangent and are talking about the third claim of justification. This knowledge needs to actually correspond to the state of affairs by your own concession. Therefore, the belief must be true in order for the belief to be knowledge.


Are you now questioning premise 1? That knowledge is a type of belief?


So reality may consist of more than just our universe? Ok but that doesn't mean that there is anything outside of reality.

I agree that in order for knowledge to be practical and valid, it must be true, accurate, and reliable. I also agree that knowledge can't simply be justified knowledge, since our senses can be fooled. Falsifiable knowledge should be the bases for any justifiable belief. Belief, on the other hand, does not need to be justified. It can be based only on faith, without any need for evidence. I tried to use the job interview, only to illustrate the difference between a belief claim, and a knowledge claim, which you characterized as having, "no meaningful difference". Since your response totally ignored and diminished the importance of a job interview, I obviously failed. I would strongly suggest that if you are interviewed for a job, that you lead a lot with what you know, and not what you believe you know. Employers are funny that way.

​

Abstract concepts are things too.

I really meant that abstract concepts are not physical things. I didn't mean that abstract concepts was not a conceptual things, like a noun, or parts of speech. In that sense it is a thing, like logic, love, memory, or learning.

What is a god? Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Nothing more or less. You know that as well as I do. Superman defies the laws of nature. I can definitively state that Superman does not exist. There is no need for me to prove that. You know that as well as I do.

That doesn't mean there is any truth to gods. That doesn't mean I have to be a god in order to know that there are no gods.

YES! It is my claim that No God(s) Exist, or can exist anywhere. Clear enough?
It is also my claim that Superman does not and cannot exist anywhere.

Does this sound like someone making only a belief claim?
​

o reality may consist of more than just our universe? Ok but that doesn't mean that there is anything outside of reality.

The evidence I've listed suggest that there is. Unanswered questions in physics suggest that there is. My point was never about Multiverses, or extra-dimensions. It was about making knowledge claims, that require absolute knowledge. We can justify our belief claims within this reality, but haven't a clue outside of this reality. Therefore the claim can't be all-inclusive.

 

[Curious George]

I agree that in order for knowledge to be practical and valid, it must be true, accurate, and reliable. I also agree that knowledge can't simply be justified knowledge, since our senses can be fooled. Falsifiable knowledge should be the bases for any justifiable belief. Belief, on the other hand, does not need to be justified. It can be based only on faith, without any need for evidence.

Then we are in agreement concerning knowledge and belief.

I tried to use the job interview, only to illustrate the difference between a belief claim, and a knowledge claim, which you characterized as having, "no meaningful difference".

I said there was no meaningful difference between saying "I can fix the engine" and "I believe I can fix the engine"

In both statements the declarant believes the proposition "god exists" is true. There is no claim of knowledge. If the declarant stated I know god exists, then they also would believe the proposition is true but they would be claiming that they have knowledge. So we have 3 statements:

I believe god exists
God exists
I know god exists

The first two are silent with claims of knowledge.

Since your response totally ignored and diminished the importance of a job interview, I obviously failed. I would strongly suggest that if you are interviewed for a job, that you lead a lot with what you know, and not what you believe you know. Employers are funny that way.

​

Lol​

I really meant that abstract concepts are not physical things. I didn't mean that abstract concepts was not a conceptual things, like a noun, or parts of speech. In that sense it is a thing, like logic, love, memory, or learning.

I am not sure how your statement was relevant then.

Does this sound like someone making only a belief claim?

Well I am not going to defend another poster claiming to know something. I will recant my statement that no one is saying they know no gods exist when they say no god exists. I will instead say that I am not saying such a thing.​

The evidence I've listed suggest that there is. Unanswered questions in physics suggest that there is. My point was never about Multiverses, or extra-dimensions. It was about making knowledge claims, that require absolute knowledge. We can justify our belief claims within this reality, but haven't a clue outside of this reality. Therefore the claim can't be all-inclusive.

No, all of that may suggest that there is more to reality than we previously thought, but none of that suggests there is any "outside reality."

 

[ecco]

First you imply that I'm lying. Now you're implying that I am stupid as well. Are you the forum's bully, or just another silly troll? You are the poster child to how dangerous a little knowledge can be. What makes you think that I carry some deep-seated emotional need, to believe that something supernatural must exist? Click on my icon and see when I joined the forum, then do the math. Either you are dyslexic or just blind. I personally am not interested in the grammar or the syntax of how others responds to my posts. If you need to find faults in others writings, then you must have nothing else to fault or contribute. What others have to say is far more important to me, than how they say it. This is not a forum on English Comp. I don't need to intimidate, belittle, and humiliate others, to make a point. Again, I had no idea that using caps represented shouting and anger. No one has ever pointed this out in the past. Not because of my lack of attention, but because of the absence of bringing it to my attention. Whether or not I should have known, is just more of your self-serving excuses to save face for questioning my integrity, without backing it up. So MOVE ON. I'm surprised that after almost two years on this forum, that no one has pointed out your level of arrogance and insensitivity. But at your age I suspect it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Now lets look at the rest of this.....



No one in their right mind would claim that what we perceive does not really exist. When you look at an apple on the table, does that apple really exist? Do the receptors for visual perception(allows you to see the apple) really exist? Only the representation of the apple in the mind is conceptual(zero dimensional). So at least the apple and our eyes really do exist. What our sensory organs convey to our brain is called perception. It can only be stimulated by something that is real and exist outside of the mind. Try eating a steak that doesn't exist, or seeing an apple that isn't there. But we all can conceive of things that aren't real. Conceptions are the things(logic, abstract idea, emotions) that originate from the mind, not from our senses. We do not perceive a God, we can only conceive of a God. Therefore, a God does not exist physically, but a God does exist mentally for many.



The two examples I gave were only hypotheticals. They were to illustrate how a less advanced civilization might view a more highly advanced or evolved civilization. Maybe the traveller had learned to manipulate gravity or even matter itself. Many might view someone who could do this as a God, or at least having some God-like qualities. That is what I meant by relative. Obviously you can't see beyond your own cognitive bias. So, those two examples were completely wasted on you.



Where the conception or belief in a God(s) comes from, is certainly not relevant. The only thing relevant is whether or not you can demonstrate how you know that No Gods exists, or can't exist anywhere? I used outside of our of our reality only to illustrate the absolute knowledge you would need to make such a claim. You could have stated that because Einstein's theories and the Quantum theories don't fit together, that even if a God could fill the gap, his role would only be limited as a constant. You could have said that even if a God existed in another dimension, He would at best be subatomic, and bounded by a subatomic time dimension. You could have mentioned that as part of the Multiverse our physics is only unique to us. In another Universe the God concept could be unrecognizable to us. But in either case, no one could possibly know for certain. Therefore, all you can honestly say is that you don't believe that a God exists, because there is no evidence to support that belief.This means that your disbelief is totally contingent on the evidence. So again how do you know that your claim is valid? Or is you argument just from incredulity? Humans have conceived of many things(arts, ideas, traditions, religions, technology, etc.), and many of these conceptions have become real. So what is your point?

So again please explain why your unfalsifiable claim is now falsifiable? What other distractions are you going to come up with? I don't live my life with any deep-seated guilt due my lack of belief. I don't believe that a God exists in my reality, but I have no idea if one exists anywhere outside of my reality. Maybe deep down somewhere in my psyche, I wish there was a God, a Santa Clause, or a Superman. But of course my deep-seated wishes are totally irrelevant to your claims.

Dead Horse.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Repeatedly signing onto religious discussion sites on the internet to promote one's anti-religious theology might be considered a ritual. And being that it is a ritual intended to help the practitioner maintain and live by his/her theological position, it could be considered a kind of 'religious' ritual, by definition. But not all religions insist on ritual practices, nor do all religious adherents practice all the rituals of their chosen religion. So an atheist need not engage in an actual atheistic ritual to be considered atheisticly religious. Religions include a whole plethora of ideas, practices, traditions, and admonishments from which their adherents may choose those that they deem useful, or disregard.

At best, that might mean that some atheists engage in religious practices. That appears true enough.
It doesn't make atheism a religion. Much the same as 'theism' is not a religion.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Then we are in agreement concerning knowledge and belief.

I said there was no meaningful difference between saying "I can fix the engine" and "I believe I can fix the engine"

In both statements the declarant believes the proposition "god exists" is true. There is no claim of knowledge. If the declarant stated I know god exists, then they also would believe the proposition is true but they would be claiming that they have knowledge. So we have 3 statements:

I believe god exists
God exists
I know god exists

The first two are silent with claims of knowledge.

Lol​

I am not sure how your statement was relevant then.

Well I am not going to defend another poster claiming to know something. I will recant my statement that no one is saying they know no gods exist when they say no god exists. I will instead say that I am not saying such a thing.​

No, all of that may suggest that there is more to reality than we previously thought, but none of that suggests there is any "outside reality."

Then we are in agreement concerning knowledge and belief.

We are.

I said there was no meaningful difference between saying "I can fix the engine" and "I believe I can fix the engine"

In both statements the declarant believes the proposition "god exists" is true. There is no claim of knowledge. If the declarant stated I know god exists, then they also would believe the proposition is true but they would be claiming that they have knowledge. So we have 3 statements:

I believe god exists
God exists
I know god exists

The first two are silent with claims of knowledge.

I don't really want to pontificate on this point. Most people know intuitively, and in practice, the difference between asserting claims based on belief, and asserting claims based on knowledge. All certainty and knowledge claims require evidence/proof. All asserted belief clams do not require evidence/proof. Your statement was "I said there was no meaningful difference between saying "I can fix the engine" and "I believe I can fix the engine". You have just created a straw man, to fit your "..no meaningful difference..", assertion. The real assertion was the difference between making a knowledge claim(I know I can fix...), and making a belief claim(..I believe I can...), at a job interview. Not simply making two belief claims(I can, and I believe I can). When someone claims that they can do anything, it doesn't mean that they literally can do anything. All of your premises can imply knowledge. But only the last one asserts knowledge. Therefore it is a knowledge claim. The first two premises are not claims of certainty. The first is stated, and the second is only implicit. Therefore they are belief claims. An easy way to look at this, is that all claims of certainty are knowledge claims. If you believe that God exists, is not the same as knowing that God exists. If you believe that a God(s) doesn't exist, is not the same as claiming that No God(s) exists.

I am not sure how your statement was relevant then.

To be honest, I have forgotten myself. But, I'm sure it had something to do with avoiding a reification fallacy. That is, conceptual things are not physical things. Sorry.

Well I am not going to defend another poster claiming to know something. I will recant my statement that no one is saying they know no gods exist when they say no god exists. I will instead say that I am not saying such a thing.​

Although, at the risk of sounding crass, I never said you did. I only responded to your truth assertion/claim. I respect and appreciate your honesty. There is far too little of it left in today's society. The allure of power, ego-gratification, strength, superiority, wealth, or happiness is far more seductive and profitable.

No, all of that may suggest that there is more to reality than we previously thought, but none of that suggests there is any "outside reality."

Again, my statements were never about whether or not a Multiverse, or extra-dimensions exist. They were used only to illustrate why Atheist don't make absurd knowledge and certainty claim like, "No God(s) exists", and "No Gods exists anywhere". Some of the evidence certainly does more than suggest that there is a multiverse. How do you explain the "cold spots" within the fabric of space time, that are thousands of light years across? How do you explain why gravity 10^40 orders of magnitude weaker than the other three forces? What about our understanding of inflation as also a Quantum Field? Inflation doesn't end everywhere at once, but rather in select, disconnected locations at any given time. While the space between those locations will still continue to inflate. This means, there should be multiple, enormous regions of space where inflation ends and the Big Bang begins. In other words, a multiverse. But we can certainly ignore the evidence, and simply claim that there is more to reality than we previously thought. Both are true statements. I simply choose the former.