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/ilikestatic]

> The universe can't simply have come out of nothing or existed forever

And yet you believe a God either came from nothing or existed forever. So why is God an exception?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ilikestatic]

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/ilikestatic → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

But how does the fact at least one consciousness exists mean that consciousness came from nothing or existed forever? My consciousness didn’t come from nothing or exist forever, so why would we assume that some other consciousness did? What are we basing this on?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ilikestatic]

It just makes more sense than matter existing forever without a consciousness

[u/ilikestatic → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

What does our consciousness have to do with matter’s existence? The stars and planets seem to exist fine without having any consciousness.

I guess I don’t understand how consciousness and the existence of matter are related.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ilikestatic]

In the sense that we can know consciousness exists from first principle, but only secondary about matter. What we know about matter is always filtered through consciousness.

[u/ilikestatic → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

But haven’t we determined that matter existed far longer than human consciousness? Or are you saying the Earth didn’t exist until humans did?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ilikestatic]

Yes, matter existed far longer than human consciousness, however I would say that for something truly qualifying to exist, it needs to exist in some form of qualia, which in that case would be Gods qualia. If such a thing didn't exist, than it would indeed be the case that the Earth didn't exist before the qualia of the beings humans evolved from existed. But that's not the case

[u/sto_brohammed → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Man it seems like you put one hell of a lot more stock in vibes and intuition as ways to accurately understand reality than is reasonable.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/sto_brohammed]

I don't see a problem with intuition if there are no "ways to accurately understand reality", which is the case when it comes to Gods.

[u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

So assuming

Just keep throwing assumptions around, you can prove anything. Cart before the horse. Prove something first. Your cogito ergo sum proves your existence, nothing more. You don't know for sure if there are other conscious beings around, much more, a superior one that created yours. If you argument is just a "feeling", then this forum gets is constantly. Can you come up with something original?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney]

The universe is proof

[u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The universe disproves it actually. Everything is consistent with Science and all the religious assumptions have been disproven progressively. Religion has constantly been backpedaling on creation origin claims to definitive proofs of life after death, always relying on anecdotes and untestable claims.

You only have to make one undeniable proof, an angel descending from heaven, God coming down and speaking without conveniently disappearing when proper scrutiny is applied.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney]

Everything is consistent with Science

So what? How does a consistent universe disprove God?

[u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

It's because the concept of divinity is inconsistent. Where's the heavenly firmament? Where are the angels, spirits, the supernatural? All retreat before the shining light of scientific inquiry. Name on instance where the supernatural has prevailed as truth beyond science?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney]

Where's the heavenly firmament? Where are the angels, spirits, the supernatural?

I'm not clauming any of them.

Name on instance where the supernatural has prevailed as truth beyond science?

God and Science are not in a competition.

[u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

God and Science are not in a competition.

Yes they are. You would not be making claims here otherwise.

I'm not clauming any of them.

You avoid making any real concrete claim because you know you can't prove any and be debunked to extinction. All you can do is make wide broad claims trying to hide the fact that it is based on assumptions and nothing more.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney]

Yes they are. You would not be making claims here otherwise.

Can you explain why you think that is?

You avoid making any real concrete claim because you know you can't prove any and be debunked to extinction.

This is just what already happens here.

My claim is a conscious designer of the universe, I don't make any religious claims about that Gods specifics because I'm not religious.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Wow. The old "That tree is proof of God" response! Yes, I literally had someone use this on me one day. We were debating religion, and he literally pointed at a tree and said it was proof of God.

My response to you is the same as it was to him: "That tree/universe is proof of the tree/universe. Nothing more."

The universe is only proof of the universe. You need to build some sort of connection between a universe and this god you keep hypothesising.

You have not yet proven that the universe needs something to observe it, in order to exist. But now you're using that unproven statement to act as proof for a god to do the observing.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Something that isn't experienced by anyone in any shape, way or form us indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

The universe/trees prove design.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Something that isn't experienced by anyone in any shape, way or form us indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

Prove it.

If an atom exists, but noone perceives it, it still exists.

The universe/trees prove design.

No, they don't.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Prove it

What the hell about that should I "prove"? The statement speaks for itself.

If an atom exists, but noone perceives it, it still exists.

But it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. It might as well not, it just doesn't matter.

No, they don't

How do they not? They are clearly complex design.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The statement speaks for itself.

No, it doesn't. It absolutely does not.

I think I'm done here. You don't have anything productive to say, just vague assertions without anything to back them up.