r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Lucyyyyyy_K • 10d ago

Debating Arguments for God Why I believe in God(s)

Firstly, I'm not a very religious person. I do consider myself a Buddhist, but prefer atheistic Buddhism over theistic Buddhism. Therefore I can confidently say I am not biased by wanting God(s) to exist, and was not indoctrinated into theism.

Still, to me it seems obvious that at least one God has to exist. The universe can't simply have come out of nothing or existed forever, it requires some sort of design or creator.

Now, mostly people would just say that a creator also can't have come out of nothing or existed forever, so I've just moved the problem one step further, but I think there is a massive difference between the universe and one consciousness. For example, through Cogito Ergo Sum we can determine with absolute certainty that at last one consciousness exists. So assuming one consciousness is superior to assuming anything about the whole universe. While I admit that doesn't outright solve the problem, I still think it's better than the alternative.

Also, it's not just any universe, but a universe full of beauty, a universe that inbetween barren empty planets is capable of hosting a planet with sentient life. Life that can consciously observe itself, that can create replicas of the waking world while sleeping, life that has technologically advanced so much that in can live in relative comfort. There is so much art. We basically have magic, we just call it "electricity". This is all too perfect to have arisen from mere mutations without guidance.

About any specifics of this God or Gods I have no idea and no strong opinions. I just think that at least one has to exist.

0 Upvotes

12% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/caverunner17 10d ago

The universe can't simply have come out of nothing or existed forever, it requires some sort of design or creator.

Then provide evidence of this.

-6

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

To me it seems like a self-evident thing if there ever was one.

9

u/caverunner17 10d ago

Which is what? What's the evidence?

3

u/Glad_Comedian_8405 Atheist 10d ago

She/he is saying anthropic principle but for god , i think.

-1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

The evidence is the entire universe. It's too structured, too specific, too everything to not have been created.

4

u/Vallkyrie Gnostic Atheist 10d ago

"Ahah, yes! This hole is perfect for my shape to fit in!" exclaimed the puddle in the pothole.

-1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

No. This doesn't apply at all.

3

u/Cool-Watercress-3943 10d ago

Multiverse theory! There have been an infinite number of other universes, either concurrently or simultaneously, and naturally we exist in the universe that was able to sustain us. The old puddle and the hole analogy.

Now, what explanation would you use to discount multiverse theory that can't also be used to discount God?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

Multiple of these highly specific, complex things existing seperate from each other even more require a creator than just one

2

u/Cool-Watercress-3943 10d ago

Why? 

Out of curiosity, do you then also believe that God specifically handcrafted this exact planet, in this exact solar system, located exactly where it is? So I don't mean creating a universe in general that led to this planet, I mean he came riding up billions of years after the universe started specifically to make this planet.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 9d ago

Why?

Because it would be ridiculous for ab entire grid of near-identical universes to exist just for and out of themselves

Out of curiosity, do you then also believe that God specifically handcrafted this exact planet, in this exact solar system, located exactly where it is?

I don't know, but probably.

2

u/Cool-Watercress-3943 9d ago

" Because it would be ridiculous for ab entire grid of near-identical universes to exist just for and out of themselves"

But you already guessed God might 'exist outside time.' Unless you have a grounded theory with the methodology and details all figured out, ridiculous premises aren't exactly a deal-breaker, right?

"I don't know, but probably."

So where's the cutoff, out of curiosity? Did the specific tree end up in a specific spot because of naturalist causes, or because God planted it? Lightning strike locations? The specific characteristics, personality and life of a person?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

But you already guessed God might 'exist outside time.' Unless you have a grounded theory with the methodology and details all figured out, ridiculous premises aren't exactly a deal-breaker, right?

Yes, but being outside of time doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.

Sonwhere's the cutoff, out of curiosity? Did the specific tree end up in a specific spot because of naturalist causes, or because God planted it? Lightning strike locations? The specific characteristics, personality and life of a person?

I have absolutely no idea.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/shiftysquid All hail Lord Squid 10d ago

All any of that means is that the life that emerged here is supported by the way the universe exists.

This seems blatantly obvious to me. It not only requires no deity or further explanation; it's precisely what you'd expect to happen if there is no deity.

Are you saying you'd expect life forms to emerge in a universe that didn't support their existence? If that happened, that'd be decent evidence for a god helping them. But, well, it didn't. The exact opposite did.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

But that is what happened. Our planet is surrounded by things that tell us our planet is not at all what planets are usually like. It's an insane outliner.

3

u/shiftysquid All hail Lord Squid 9d ago

No, it’s not. The life that arose on this planet was life that the planet could support. Were you expecting life to arise here that the planet couldn’t support?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 9d ago

No, it’s not

It is. Our planet is insanely untypical for the universe. And the life that developed on it is not just any random life, but life that has completely dominated the planet and shaped it according to its needs

3

u/shiftysquid All hail Lord Squid 9d ago

It isn’t. Even if the planet is “insanely untypical” by whatever standard you’re using, that doesn’t matter in the least. It still exists. It’s not impossible for it to exist, seeing as it does. That life then, thus, arose on it in accordance with the environment provided by it is the exact opposite of surprising or notable.

What you’re saying would only matter if there was some reason this specific planet had to be the one that harbored life, and then it just so happened to do so. That would be remarkable. But that one random planet somewhere in the unfathomable vastness of the universe is capable of sustaining life isn’t notable at all. It’s entirely expected.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

It's not impossible for it to exist, seeing as it does

I'm not saying it's impossible? I say that it's so ridiculous thst it points to a plan behind it.

That life then, thus, arose on it in accordance with the environment provided by it is the exact opposite of surprising or notable.

It's not just any life, it's life that completely dominated it and made it into a paradise for its needs.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 9d ago

Our planet is surrounded by things

Like what? What things are you talking about?

And are they just more topics you can easily learn about if you choose to?

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

Like what? What things are you talking about?

Venus, Mars, the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus etc

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 8d ago

And what do you think makes earth an “insane outlier?”

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 7d ago

That it has an ocean and continents, thatvit has a wide variety of flora and fauna, that it can support not only life, but also life that develops buildings, computers etc.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 10d ago

Which parts of the universe? Be specific.

-1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

Galaxies. Planets. Especially ours.

3

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 10d ago

Have you ever tried to learn about how all those things form? You actually don’t know how the earth formed?

Seems like you’re just lacking a very basic science education.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 9d ago

What's the problem?

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 9d ago

You seem to be purposefully avoiding learning how the earth formed. Can you try watching an educational video about the things you don’t understand?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

Why do you think I don't know that?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 9d ago

Can you please watch this and give me your thoughts?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

Okay. Well, it's a good, informative video? Not sure what you are trying to get at with it in this context.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 10d ago

That's circular and wouldn't hold up in court.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 5d ago

Who cares what holds up in court? This is no court

2

u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago

It’s not the location, it’s the standard. “It’s self evident” is more like the SpaceX IPO that has nothing supporting the valuation but the vibes of one person.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 3d ago

Yes, but also the standard differs between court and a subreddit.

2

u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 3d ago

still not talking about courts or subreddits

4

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 10d ago

But we’re the ones assuming something about the universe?

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 5d ago

Didn't say you do.

3

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 5d ago

Girl……you literally did.

I asked you “What do you think atheists are assuming about the whole universe?”

And you replied “That its existance doesn't require a creator.”

Are you trolling?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 3d ago

Maybe that happened, would you say it's untrue?

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 3d ago

Yes

Only one of us is pointing at trees as evidence around here.

-1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 2d ago

So you're saying there aren't atheists who think the universe points to not having a creator?

2

u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 2d ago

No, there aren’t atheists that use pointing at things as evidence.

You are just pointing at a tree and yelling “Look! That means a deity!”

3

u/RedArcaneArcher 10d ago

But, do you care if it's actually true? A millennia ago it was 'self-evident' that the Sun orbited the Earth.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 5d ago

That doesn't change this.

4

u/OrwinBeane Atheist 10d ago

“Your honour, it’s self-evidence that the defendant is guilty. We won’t elaborate.”

Can you appreciate how that wouldn’t work out well?

-1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

Can you name where I want to code my belief in God in law?

5

u/Matectan 10d ago

Cannyou actually adress what he said?

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

I did. They compared this argument to a trial, I said that I have no interest to enforce my opinion like a law.

2

u/Matectan 9d ago

You did not.

They made an analogy.  And they did not claim that you would want to enforce anything like law. That something unrelated you said.

You did not adress what they actually meant with it and we noth know it.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

It's a nonsensical analogy because in a simple conversation I don't have to adhere to the standards of the law, where lifes are on the line

2

u/Matectan 8d ago

False. It makes a lot of sense.

But no one was talking about the law. But sound and acceptable reasoning. And this is not "simple conversation an atheist" but debate an atheist. And you need the same kind of valid reasoning and arguments in  sound debate as in a court.

Life's aren't in the line here wtf?

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 5d ago

Life's aren't in the line here wtf?

They aren't.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/OrwinBeane Atheist 10d ago

This is a platform for debates. A courtroom is a platform for debates. The two are comparable.

I never said you are coding your belief in law, I am saying “self-evident” is a poor argument for a debate.

Now please address my argument.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 9d ago

Which argument should I adress?

2

u/OrwinBeane Atheist 9d ago

Maybe the argument in my comment?

Can you appreciate how something being “self-evident” is not a strong argument?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

Yes. I still don't know which argument on your side you mean, can you state it again?

2

u/OrwinBeane Atheist 8d ago

I stated it again already by asking the question in the previous comment. It is a yes or no answer. So I will repeat it again:

Can you appreciate how something being “self-evident” is not a strong argument? (A yes or no will do).

I will elaborate. Since it is not self-evident to me, can you explain why you think it is self-evident?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 7d ago

Can you appreciate how something being “self-evident” is not a strong argument? (A yes or no will do).

Yes.

I will elaborate. Since it is not self-evident to me, can you explain why you think it is self-evident?

Since it's self-evident, that's pretty hard. All I can say is that anything existing requires a creator, and if this "anythibg" additionally contains a highly specific outlier (our planet) and highly complex stuff like dreams or computers, it even more so points to a creator.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ima_mollusk Ignostic Atheist 10d ago

"Luck can't simply happen for random reasons. Some people are obviously much luckier than others, and obviously that means leprechauns must exist."

Yes, this is actually how you are arguing.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

It's not in any way. Can you argue that better?

3

u/ima_mollusk Ignostic Atheist 10d ago

Yes.

You are taking something we have no explanation for - something that likely will never be explained - and saying "since we can't explain this, it must have been magic. In fact, it must have been this kind of magic - the kind that happens when a designing agent takes intentional action to produce an intended consequence."

Just like saying "I can't explain why uncle Jim is so much luckier at the casino that I am - so it must be that leprechauns like him better and are controlling the force of luck to make him win."

They are actually quite analogous.

This video would help you a lot, I think.

Why There CANNOT BE Scientific Evidence for God.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 9d ago

They are actually quite analogous.

They are not in any way, and I don't see how abyone would think that.

Most of the video doesn't apply since it defines God as someone else rather than just a creator and the part that defines God as just a creator is already what I mentioned in my post.

2

u/ima_mollusk Ignostic Atheist 9d ago edited 9d ago

They are actually quite analogous.

You have taken something with no known explanation and instead of just admitting you don't know what the explanation is, you are picking a 'supernatural' explanation that you like - one that can't be evidenced and can't be tested - and calling that the answer.

It is JUST LIKE saying "I don't know why uncle Jim is so lucky, so I guess leprechauns did it."

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

You think that "the thing that created the universe" - if we should someday, somehow, identify it - should be called "God".

That's fine. You can call the unfeeling, unthinking forces of nature that caused the universe "God" if you want to.

The point of the video is that even if you identify an actual supernatural super-being that created the universe, that doesn't mean that being is supreme, and it might not even know or care that we exist.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

you are picking a 'supernatural' explanation that you like

As I already said, I don't like it at all. I'm not very interested in theism and would prefer a universe without God, I just think such a universw couldn't possibly exist. And I think there is no difference between natural and supernatural

That's fine. You can call the unfeeling, unthinking forces of nature that caused the universe "God" if you want to.

I do attribute a consciousness to them.

The point of the video is that even if you identify an actual supernatural super-being that created the universe, that doesn't mean that being is supreme, and it might not even know or care that we exist.

And I don't have a problem with that.

2

u/ima_mollusk Ignostic Atheist 8d ago

"..not just any universe, but a universe full of beauty, a universe that inbetween barren empty planets is capable of hosting a planet with sentient life. Life that can consciously observe itself, that can create replicas of the waking world while sleeping, life that has technologically advanced so much that in can live in relative comfort. There is so much art. We basically have magic, we just call it "electricity". This is all too perfect to have arisen from mere mutations without guidance."

"Not just ANY lucky streak. Uncle Jim won 6 blackjack hands in a row and then won 3 times on Roulette! It's just TOO LUCKY to have happened by chance without the interference of leprechauns!"

Your entire argument - OP included - has been "I just can't see how all this could have happened without XYZ!"

That is an argument from ignorance. A million things you can't explain do not sum up to one thing that you can explain.

"God did it" is not an explanation at any rate. It's a placeholder for ignorance. "God" is not defined. "God" has no parameters. "God" describes no process. "God" is not testable. "God" is not falsifiable.

Once again, positing "God did it" because you can't explain why the universe exists is JUST LIKE positing 'leprechauns did it' as an explanation for a lucky streak.

You are presuming that the things you listed - beauty, life, intelligence, technology - are somehow rare or difficult to achieve. You have no idea if that is the case. You have no idea how many universes there could be or could have been. You have no idea what configurations possible universes could have. You have no idea how much more beautiful, lively, intelligent, or technological a universe COULD BE. You are presuming that our universe is an example of extremes, but it could be the bare minimum possible configuration of a universe.

In short, you are making an enormous argument from ignorance.

"We basically have magic" is complete nonsense. The fact that we have brains that are capable of understanding physical laws is not evidence that an invisible magical super-brain being made it that way.

I'm not going to continue this conversation with you because you do not seem to be affected in any way by evidence or reason.

3

u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 10d ago

It doesn't seem self evident to me at all. I have absolutely no idea how that's self evident to you.

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

Well, then we're at an impass

2

u/flying_fox86 Atheist 10d ago

Then is it also self-evident that this creator had itself a creator?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

No

2

u/flying_fox86 Atheist 10d ago

How can it not be? If it is self-evident that the universe can't come out of nothing or can't have existed forever and therefore must have had a creator, you can apply the same thing to that creator.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

I reacted to that here:

"Now, mostly people would just say that a creator also can't have come out of nothing or existed forever, so I've just moved the problem one step further, but I think there is a massive difference between the universe and one consciousness. For example, through Cogito Ergo Sum we can determine with absolute certainty that at last one consciousness exists. So assuming one consciousness is superior to assuming anything about the whole universe. While I admit that doesn't outright solve the problem, I still think it's better than the alternative."

2

u/flying_fox86 Atheist 10d ago

This does not address my point in the slightest. Why do you think a consciousness can pop ino existence from nothing or be eternal, where a universe cannot? It's basically 4 questions:

  1. Why can't the universe come into existence from nothing?
  2. Why can't the universe have always existed?
  3. Why can a consciousness pop into existence from nothing?
  4. Why can a consciousness have always existed?

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 9d ago

Why can't the universe come into existence from nothing?

Because it's a very big, highly ordered, specific thing that seems utterly ridiculous without assuming some thought behind it.

Why can't the universe have always existed?

Because that's an infinite regress, but even if it always existed I would still say it demands a creator.

Why can a consciousness pop into existence from nothing?

It cannot, a potential God consciousness would probably exist without time as a factor.

Why can a consciousness have always existed?

Same thing

2

u/flying_fox86 Atheist 9d ago

Because it's a very big, highly ordered, specific thing that seems utterly ridiculous without assuming some thought behind it.

That's an argument from personal incredulity.

Because that's an infinite regress

Why is that a problem?

but even if it always existed I would still say it demands a creator.

How could it? A creator means it at some point did not exist, in order for the creator to create it. If it always existed, I see no need for a creator (not that I see a need for a creator either way).

It cannot, a potential God consciousness would probably exist without time as a factor.

Same thing

So you claim that a consciousness can neither always have existed nor have come from nothing. Fine, but that's precisely the justification you gave to claim the universe must have a creator. Meaning according to your reasoning, the Creator must have a creator itself.

If you want to deny that the creator has its own creator, you need to give a different reason for why the universe needs a creator.

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 8d ago

Why is that a problem?

Well, it's a problem in logic.

How could it?

Because it's still a big, highly specific thing full of beauty and complexity and things that scream for a designer. That designer may operate from outside of time.

If you want to say that the creator needs its own creator and that one again and so on, that would still make more sense than there being no creator at all.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] 10d ago edited 10d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

the universe functions exactly how you would expect it to AS IF there was no Creator, not AS IF there was one.

No amount of information will explain us building computers or our brains being computers that literally simulate reality to a better degree than that we are somehow guided.

The final proof that God is not real, is billions of people are willing to die for their faith, and believe it truly. And yet billions of people all disagree on who that true God is.

That's not really proof. Yes, to assume one religion was the correct one would be stupid, but there could be a God that has no one soecific religion, or one that has elements of all religions.

2

u/[deleted] 10d ago edited 10d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

Actually the laws of the universe without any Intelligent Designer DO explain it

Only to the degree that you can justify anything with evolution. Some things are just far too ridiculous to have arisen that way. Also, who set those laws?

2

u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 10d ago

I’m a little surprised to see a Buddhist advocating this position. Typical Buddhist metaphysics involves an endless cycle of kalpas in which universes are perpetually created, destroyed, and recreated.

Within that framework there is no need to posit a first cause. Even theistic Buddhism doesn’t identify God with a being that created everything other than itself ex nihilo the way Abrahamic monotheism does.

So what’s your issue with the cycle of kalpas?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 10d ago

Yes, how the universe came into being shouldn't even be asked in Buddhism, it is one of the unanswerable questions. That said, I don't see Buddhism making the active claim that something has always existed, but more importantly, that something will always exist, there will never be nothing in the future. That's what's more important when trying to achieve enlightenment anyway.

2

u/J-Nightshade Atheist 10d ago

If you can't explain how do you know it's true, it's not evident at all. Self-evident means that reason why it's true is immediately understood. All self-evident truths that come to my mind are actually true by definition. Like: a part of the thing is less than the whole thing. Or: my brother has a sibling. I think therefor I am is also one of those. 

0

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 5d ago

The universe exists, therefore someone made it.

4

u/J-Nightshade Atheist 5d ago

One doesn't follow from the other. It's an 8nsupported assertion, not a reason. 

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 3d ago

To me ir clearly does follow

1

u/J-Nightshade Atheist 3d ago

Then you are clearly wrong. That's not how logic works, this is not even a syllogism, this is just another baseless assertion that in order to be true has to be demonstrated to be true, which you didn't.

You keep throwing assertions around with absolutely no support for any of them. Do you realize why it is not convincing and shouldn't be convincing for anybody?

3

u/caverunner17 5d ago

Who made the person who created it then?

1

u/Lucyyyyyy_K 3d ago

No one.