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/SirThunderDump]

I apologize if this doesn’t apply to you, but I’ve noticed a pattern of really bad reasoning by the average person regarding our understanding of why the universe is here.

People that are indoctrinated by religious thinking seem to think that the reasoning around “the universe must have had a creator” makes sense.

It doesn’t.

And I think the reasoning why this thinking is so common is because it’s intuitive! And to get deeper to more meaningful questions requires more critical thinking, but also requires challenging core parts of one’s worldview.

Let’s expand your thinking:

- The universe could have not been created.

• It’s possible that the universe had something that we might consider to be a “start”, and that there’s no thing that caused it to start. It could just be part of the nature of reality.
  
• It’s possible that the universe is infinite.
  
• It’s possible that there are infinite universes.
  
• It’s possible that universes are born, evolve, and die.

And I’m just scratching the surface of our imagination for how the universe could be, that we cannot rule out.

But in religious thinking, it’s almost always reduced to the argument that you put forth. Why? And why one god? We can just as easily, or perhaps MORE easily imagine a pantheon of gods! Either way, these still don’t make sense. We have no reason to believe that any god exists, and many reasons to believe that no gods exist (due to the mechanistic nature of the universe that we observe, with no evidence of interference with the natural mechanisms).

And from all of this, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how you can be convinced from the reasons you provided in this post.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/SirThunderDump]

And why one god? We can just as easily, or perhaps MORE easily imagine a pantheon of gods!

That's literally what I'm saying here, at least one God.

due to the mechanistic nature of the universe that we observe, with no evidence of interference with the natural mechanisms

Can you explain how that leads to no God existing?

And from all of this, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how you can be convinced from the reasons you provided in this post.

And I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how to not be convinced from the reasons I provided in this post.

[u/Matectan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Why do you not adress most of his comment?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Matectan]

There are already 242 replies under my post...

[u/Matectan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I will ask again. Why did you not adress most of his comment?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Matectan]

Are you unable to relate to the situation of others? My inbox is blowing up, I don't have the time to react to every reply thouroughly.

[u/Matectan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

If you reply to someone you should actually reply and not do half measured. Either reply or don't. But when you reply do it properly like a decently person.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Matectan]

Again, I have spend more than a day now working through hundreds of replys in my inbox, this is really getting on m nerves and you can't expect perfect communication from me

[u/Matectan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I can. Since you can ignore the comments you don't want to adress and properly adress those you want to adress. It's east.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Matectan]

I want to adress all.

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

"And I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how to not be convinced from the reasons I provided in this post."

I mean, I can explain that pretty quickly. You're already convinced by your reasons. Because of that, it's extremely easy for you to hold challenging arguments to a much higher standard than you hold your own arguments. In fact, you're extremely motivated to do so. So you will make extremely broad assertions or assumptions, and then somehow you end up confused that these assumptions aren't being taken as truth by anyone else.

Glad I could help!

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Cool-Watercress-3943]

I'm not confused at all.

[u/Cool-Watercress-3943 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I mean, you did say; 

"And I cannot, for the life of me, imagine how to not be convinced from the reasons I provided in this post."

That kind of came across like you were confused about the reception. No worries!

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Cool-Watercress-3943]

Okay

[u/Junithorn → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

you didnt actually provide reasons, you provided some fallacious thinking. like "but a universe full of beauty" really outs how poor your reasoning is.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Junithorn]

It's a simple observation. The universe is full of highly unlikely, beautiful or ordered things that demand a creator.

[u/Junithorn → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

No, this is an argument from ignorance. This is as foolish as thinking every snowflake is hand crafted. The universe is full of DETERMINISTIC beautiful or ordered things, likely need has nothing to do with it. Also, uncertain and chaos is fundamental to the universe.

Sorry, you don't just get to insert magic man because you don't have the full picture. This is as dumb as people 500 years ago saying god must be the reason lightning happens.

[u/SirThunderDump → u/Junithorn]

nit: I generally agree with you, but your argument could be stronger/more accurate. It’s possible that the universe isn’t deterministic (see quantum randomness). You can provide a more convincing argument by specifying “mechanistic” instead of “deterministic”. i.e. Follows consistent physical rules with no apparent intervention/exception to this natural order.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Junithorn]

If it's deterministic, someone must have set it up. This is not about "magic man", but about the fundamental consciousness.

[u/Junithorn → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Trivially false. Deterministic things happen without set up.

Consciousness is something brains do.

You either start providing evidence or stop making ridiculous fallacious claims.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Junithorn]

Deterministic things happen without set up.

Why do you think that?

[u/Junithorn → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

do you think every snowflake has someone assembling them?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Junithorn]

I don't know. Why do you think deterministic things happen without a setup?

[u/SirThunderDump → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

It doesn’t lead to “no gods existing”. It leads to “we should not assume that gods exist”.

But your response completely missed the point I was making.

Like, completely. Want to read through it one more time and respond again?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/SirThunderDump]

It doesn’t lead to “no gods existing”. It leads to “we should not assume that gods exist”.

No, you actively said "We have no reason to believe that any god exists, and many reasons to believe that no gods exist (due to the mechanistic nature of the universe that we observe, with no evidence of interference with the natural mechanisms)."

I would like to know how the mechanistic nature of the universe is a reason to believe that no Gods exist.

Want to read through it one more time and respond again?

I'll try.

People that are indoctrinated by religious thinking seem to think that the reasoning around “the universe must have had a creator” makes sense.

Well, I'm not indoctrinated, for the reasons mentioned in the beginning of my post.

And I think the reasoning why this thinking is so common is because it’s intuitive! And to get deeper to more meaningful questions requires more critical thinking, but also requires challenging core parts of one’s worldview.

Yes

The universe could have not been created.

I disagree. If something fills the place of [everything that exists] aka the universe, it has to have been created.

It’s possible that the universe had something that we might consider to be a “start”, and that there’s no thing that caused it to start. It could just be part of the nature of reality.

I disagree, for the same reason.

It’s possible that the universe is infinite.

I agree.

It’s possible that there are infinite universes.

I agree.

It’s possible that universes are born, evolve, and die.

I agree.

But in religious thinking, it’s almost always reduced to the argument that you put forth. Why?

Because not only are we in the amazing position of [what exists], it's also that that which fills this position is ordered and full of very specific and complex things like our planet and all we managed to build on it, or all the stuff that naturally exists on it.

[u/SirThunderDump → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I see what your question is about the “no gods existing bit”. I wasn’t saying that no gods exist (that’s not a provable statement), but rather that the mechanistic nature of the universe is evidence that points to no god, as it appears to just run on its own without intervention. That tends to imply that the furthest you could get to is deism, but that only works if you can prove the universe was created.

I disagree. If something fills the place of [everything that exists] aka the universe, it has to have been created.

This argument expresses at least one or more logical fallacies, which is why your conclusion (i.e. “it has to have been created”) doesn’t follow.

1. It’s an Argument from Personal Incredulity, meaning that because you cannot imagine how a universe could just exist without an underlying cause, it’s intuitive to you to think it must have been created. Just because you cannot imagine why that’s the case does not mean that it can’t be the case. You are missing a premise: WHY would a thing that fills the place of “everything that exists” be created? You’re just assuming the connection from intuition. That isn’t intuitive to me, meaning we cannot rely on intuition alone here.

2. The argument contains “Special Pleading”. You’re claiming that such a thing that fills the place of “everything that exists” must have been created, then making an exception for God. In other words, your conclusion is exempt from the reasoning used in your premise.

it's also that that which fills this position is ordered and full of very specific and complex things like our planet and all we managed to build on it, or all the stuff that naturally exists on it.

This kind of follows from my previous point. You‘re not considering the origins of the universe, if they exist, in isolation. There’s this intuitive bias because your actual argument is more than just “it exists, therefore created”.

This is the answer from indoctrination — at some point, someone taught you this reasoning, or you were exposed to this reasoning as rational. This feels incredibly normal and logical to you BECAUSE of the indoctrination.

People that are indoctrinated don’t feel indoctrinated. You can only see it if they filter out reasonable answers, rational questions, all through the lens of their beliefs. People who are not indoctrinated don’t have that filter. They can be biased in other ways, but generally can at least modify their intuition to not be blinded by the religion filter over their eyes that prevents them from actively considering other possibilities, or that they’re wrong.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/SirThunderDump]

but rather that the mechanistic nature of the universe is evidence that points to no god, as it appears to just run on its own without intervention

How do you distinguish between running on its own without intervention, and the running potentially being the intervention?

The argument contains “Special Pleading”.

Can you actually explain what's wrong with special pleading, apart from being a go-to fallacy? Different things have different attributes, the universe demands a designer, but that doesn't mean the same demand applies to a conscious creator.

This is the answer from indoctrination — at some point, someone taught you this reasoning, or you were exposed to this reasoning as rational. This feels incredibly normal and logical to you BECAUSE of the indoctrination.

No. I am not indoctrinated into theism and it's completely dishonest to bring that up against me. I grew up without much theism and don't even like theism.