Talk:Worldview
Could do with a side-by-side comparing (say) RW, aSK, CP? 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 
Neither rationalism nor naturalism imply atheism[edit]
Relying on evidence and logic does not imply atheism. While particular religious beliefs might not conform to a rationalist pov, this in no way provides evidence for the non-existence of a creator. Most mainstream science supports the notion that the "Laws" of physics are actually a variable, not a constant. The big bang theory itself postulates that in the early stages of the universe the laws of physics were actually different; the universe used to be a superheated cloud of highly energized plasma, too energized for atoms or molecules to even form, the theory says. On the event horizon of a blackhole, the laws of physics themselves may be presumed to actually change. To presume God has to fit into "our" laws of physics (the theoretical singularity doesn't) in order to have an existence carries a huge set of assumptions. The postulation of the non-existence of a creator is itself as much an arbitrary presumption as the postulated existence of a specific "personal" deity. If the universe itself didn't conform to modern day laws of physics at its start, why would we presume God had to in order to be there?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This needs more citations[edit]
Most of the quotes on the page are completely unsourced. I just added a couple, but I'm not sure where to find the others.Mcc1789 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)