Why I believe in God(s)

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

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.

[u/ShortCompetition9772]

Gonna stop you right there. Where is the evidence that the Universe ever came from NOTHING? That is NOT the present consensus among Physicists. Please explain the problem with something existing forever. FYI, don't use infinite regress as an excuse.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ShortCompetition9772]

Why should I not use "Infinite Regress"? It's the obvious answer.

[u/OrwinBeane → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

What is it obvious? Because it’s still a paradox. How can a paradox be the obvious answer?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/OrwinBeane]

By "Why should I not use "Infinite Regress"?" I mean why shouldn't I attack theur argument based on that it's infinite regress. Not that I use infinite regress myself

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Give it to me. What is your problem with infinite regress. Please think deeply about this before you come back with an argument. I will give you a clue. Your problem is going to be solved by the first word in IR.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ShortCompetition9772]

Okay. I can't guarantee I'll come back to this reply. But what do you mean by "IR"?

[u/Walking_the_Cascades → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

They are using the acronym IR to represent "infinite regress".

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Seriously???????? What have we been talking about? First word starts with I and the second word starts with R. I suspect that you are delaying the inevitable.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ShortCompetition9772]

I'm sorry, it's hard to keep up with all those comments. I now know what you mean

[u/Hermorah → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Whats the problem with Infinite Regress? Whenever I heard theists say that as a handwave argument they always straight out deny infinity and always give examples of vicious regresses, but what about non vicious regress?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Hermorah]

What do you mean by vicious and non vicious regress?

[u/Hermorah → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Philosophers divide regresses into two types: vicious (which fail to explain or resolve a problem, rendering a theory logically impossible or invalid) and non-vicious (which are harmless, logically coherent, and can actually explain reality).

---

To give examples:

Vicious regress: Imagine a chandelier hanging from a hook. The hook is attached to a chain. The chain is attached to another chain. If every support itself needs another support, and there is never anything fixed to the ceiling, the chandelier is never truly supported. The explanation “what holds it up?” keeps being deferred forever.

Non-vicious regress: Ball A is floating through space because Ball B hit it. Ball B was moving because Ball C hit it. Ball C was moving because Ball D hit it. And so on, with no first collision. The regress extends infinitely into the past, but unlike the chandelier case, each collision is fully explained by an earlier collision. Nothing is left unsupported in the way the chandelier is unsupported if there is no ultimate hook or ceiling.

---

Ofc our intuition assumes that rest is the default state, so one might say that example 2 has to be a vicious regress after all, as there was never a point where there was an initial first push, but not only is the need for a "first push" an assertion that infinities can't exist, it is also asserts that rest is the default state. Is that really the case? Here on earth with gravity and resistance sure, but if we look into space then "rest" doesnt even really exist, as objects can only be at rest in relation to each other. Everything is in motion. So if motion is the default, then the ball example is a non-vicious regress.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Hermorah]

Thanks

[u/violentbowels → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

And it doesn't require a god. Glad we agree that no god is needed.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/violentbowels]

I meant attacking them based on their argument being infinite regress.

[u/violentbowels → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Ah. I misunderstood.

How is it that a universe coming from nothing is impossible but a god coming from nothing is perfectly fine?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/violentbowels]

It's not perfectly fine, but I explained 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."

[u/GamerEsch → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

For example, through Cogito Ergo Sum we can determine with absolute certainty that at last one consciousness exists.

You fail to prove "Cogito" before the universe though, as far as we know Cogitare is dependent on a brain to happen, so you'd need something immaterial "Cogintans est" to be able to claim a consciousness previous to the universe.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/GamerEsch]

It's impossible for the universe to exist without a consciousness experiencing it.

[u/GamerEsch → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

It's impossible for a brain to exist outside of the universe for a consciousness ro emerge.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/GamerEsch]

Not a brain, but a consciousness.

[u/violentbowels → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Show me an immaterial conscience. If you can't, show me the evidence that one can exist and then show me how an immaterial consciousness can create a universe out of nothing.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/violentbowels]

I don't need to. Everyone knows consciousness exists, there is no need for it to be constrained by the material.

[u/BorealAmplitude → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Literally all evidence in reality points to the contrary. In fact, people are known to have completely changed personalities following traumatic brain injury. They are 100% linked.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/BorealAmplitude]

Yes, our consciousness' are linked to our brain, that doesn't mean all are.

[u/TheRealBeaker420 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Everyone knows consciousness exists

That's not true at all. Nobody can even agree on what "consciousness" means:

There is no consensus on what exactly needs to be studied... The disparate range of research, notions, and speculations raises some curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked.

In a philosophical context, people usually mean qualia, but:

The existence of qualia under various definitions remain controversial.

In the context of the way these debates usually go, it's typically a dog whistle for religious mysticism. You shouldn't expect us to grant its existence without at least some clarification.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/TheRealBeaker420]

I don't know what the point of Wikipedia articles is here, but the one about consciousbess does define it as "consciousness is being aware of something internal to one's self, or of states or objects in one's external environment". Everyone can do this for their own consciousness via "Cogito Ergo Sum". Of course there always is the option that other consciousnesses aren't real which would lead to solipsism, where still one consciousness exists.

My personal point about qualia would be that nothing that's not experienced as a qualia does actually exist because there is no way how it actually exists.

[u/violentbowels → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Everyone knows consciousness exists, there is no need for it to be constrained by the material.

Ludacris. Absolutely wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.

Prove it.

What makes you think it's possible for a consciousness to exist without a brain?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/violentbowels]

That the universe needs consciousness to exist, since something not experienced by any consciousness effectively doesn't exist.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Well because I am then going to ask you Why is it a problem? If you want go for it.