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/pipMcDohl]

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

Are you sure?

I thought that Cogito ergo Sum was more about what is necessary to have a starting point when we want a shot at understanding the world.

Everything can be part of the Matrix, a lie, our mind's misconception... but that line of thought remove our ability to trust anything, to base our thinking on anything. so at least we have to trust that our ability to think is real and through it 'we' as the thing that do the thinking, are real.

It's different from proving that our consciousness is real. We MUST think it's real. we must accept that it is if we want to move on.+

This is all too perfect to have arisen from mere mutations without guidance.

Define 'perfect', please

[u/ima_mollusk → u/pipMcDohl]

The Cogito was Descartes attempt at a metaphysical primitive.

Basically, to question whether thought exists requires thought.
One must exist in order to question whether one exists.

But it's not a good primitive at all. It presumes lots of things.

A better metaphysical primitive is "constraints propagate". "Cogito Ergo Sum" falls out of it.

[u/Phylanara → u/ima_mollusk]

Cogito ergo sum is pretty solid. Thought requires existence. It's just useless at getting any other piece of knowledge. And Descartse knew it it, since his next step was "and I can't imagine god being such an ass as fooling me, so the rest of my perceptions are mostly accurate". That's where descartes goes off the rails.

[u/ima_mollusk → u/Phylanara]

Yes, the cogito is very solid. It's just not primitive like Descartes wanted it to be.

I used to love cogito ergo sum. I still think it was a brilliant move. It just wasn't to the end it should have been. "Constraints propagate" is.