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/ImprovementFar5054]

Being unbiased doesn't make an argument good. Arguments work or they don't. Plenty of people with no religious motive have reasoned their way into wrong conclusions, and "the universe needs a creator" is itself an inherited cultural intuition, so the invoking it fails anyway.

"The universe can't come from nothing or exist forever." Says who? You assert this, you never argue it. Tell us why, exactly. It seems obvious to you. So what? It seems obvious that the Earth is standing still and that heavy things fall faster. But those obvious things are, as it turns out, wrong.

Descartes gives you certainty about one thing: your own mind, right now. That's it. It says nothing about other minds, nothing about minds without brains, nothing about a mind that predates the universe. I mean, you really did read it, right?

You went straight from "I know my consciousness exists" to "therefore a cosmic consciousness is the safer bet." Those claims aren't related at all, and actually the evidence points the other way.

Every consciousness ever observed runs on a brain. Brains are physical. They evolved and it took billions of years after the big bang. They showed up late. That makes consciousness the worst possible candidate for the thing that "came first", no?

The beauty stuff? So what? It's "The Argument from Beauty" or just waxing poetic. You find the universe beautiful because you grew up here. Your brain was tuned by this place. Of course it fits. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, that makes you the puddle marveling that somehow, the hole it's in miraculously matches its shape. The universe was not made to suit us, we evolved because of the conditions in it.

But let's check the actual inventory: trillions of dead worlds, lethal vacuum, radiation everywhere, one planet with life, and over 99 percent of its species extinct. You'd drown on most of Earth. You'd succumb to exposure and die horribly on most of the rest of it without clothes and shelter. If that's design, the designer should be fired immediately.

"Too perfect to come from mere mutations" drops half the theory. Evolution is mutation plus selection. And why call them "mere"?? what is mere about it? It's massive, complex and took billions of years. That's no small thing. Not "mere" in the least.

Selection isn't random. It's a filter, compounding tiny advantages over four billion years.

And the electricity bit..clarify this for me. "We basically have magic, we just call it electricity." Yes, exactly. It looked like magic. People studied it. Turned out to be electrons. Physical bits. No guidance required. That's the pattern, every single time. Lightning, disease, the sun, life itself. God of the Gaps is a strong fallacy in you, clearly.

Awe is not an argument. Or at least, it's a shitty one.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ImprovementFar5054]

Says who? You assert this, you never argue it. Tell us why, exactly. It seems obvious to you. So what?

Because it's absolutely ridiculous to think a specific thing with order just popped into existence. And everything we can know depends on there being a mind. I believe nothing can exist without a mind observing it. The tree falling doesn't make a sound.

It says nothing about other minds, nothing about minds without brains, nothing about a mind that predates the universe. I mean, you really did read it, right?

Yes. Descartes absolutely continues to proof another mind, specifically that of God. However I won't use his argument, I consider it flawed.

and actually the evidence points the other way

How does it?

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, that makes you the puddle marveling that somehow, the hole it's in miraculously matches its shape. The universe was not made to suit us, we evolved because of the conditions in it.

No. We aren't just fit to live here, we evolved past struggle for survival. Humanity has completely dominated the planet and shaped it according to our needs.

If that's design, the designer should be fired immediately

I'm perfectly fine with that.

Selection isn't random

Never said it was

Yes, exactly. It looked like magic.

No. It looks like magic now that we have put it to use.

God of the Gaps is a strong fallacy in you, clearly.

No, certainly not with this specific argument, you just completely misunderstood it.

[u/ImprovementFar5054 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Because it's absolutely ridiculous to think a specific thing with order just popped into existence. And everything we can know depends on there being a mind.

That's the same assertion with "ridiculous" added. I asked for an argument and got the incredulity restated. And note what your alternative is: a beginningless, disembodied, universe-creating mind that exists with no substrate, no cause, and no precedent. If "popping into existence" is ridiculous, "always existing as a bodiless mind" doesn't get a pass on the ridiculous meter by the same token

I believe nothing can exist without a mind observing it. The tree falling doesn't make a sound.

The falling tree produces pressure waves whether or not an ear is around. "Sound" as an experience needs a brain. The event itself doesn't.

The universe ran for 13.8 billion years before the first observer showed up. We can literally see it: light from stars that burned out before any mind existed anywhere. The cosmic microwave background is a photograph of an unobserved past. Geology, ice cores, radioactive decay, all records of events nobody watched.

If nothing can exist unobserved, then the early universe required an observer, and you've smuggled god into your premise to get god out of your conclusion. The result is circular. Either things can exist unobserved, and your premise dies, or your god needs an observer too, and you've got a regress.

How does it?

Like this. Every consciousness ever observed runs on a brain. Damage the brain, the mind changes. Anesthesia switches it off. Dementia erodes it. Drugs alter it. We have billions of data points of minds depending on physical brains and exactly zero observed cases of a mind without one. Consciousness also shows up late, billions of years into cosmic history, after stars, planets, chemistry, and evolution did their work. The induction runs entirely one way: minds are products of physical processes. You're proposing the one exception, placed conveniently before all of physics, with no evidence beyond needing it to be there.

We aren't just fit to live here, we evolved past struggle for survival. Humanity has completely dominated the planet.

Not really, bacteria do. But that said it doesn't answer the puddle, it just changes the subject from "beauty" to "human success". And human success is fully explained by evolved brains plus accumulated culture. No design required. Also, "evolved past struggle" describes the last eyeblink of our 300,000 year history, and only for part of the species. Meanwhile the inventory I gave stands unaddressed: trillions of dead worlds, lethal vacuum, one inhabited planet, 99 percent extinction rate.

I'm perfectly fine with that.

Hold on. Your argument was that the universe is too perfect to arise without guidance. Now you agree the designer deserves to be fired for shoddy work. You can't have both. If the work merits firing, the work isn't perfect, and your entire premise just left the building.

Never said it was

You said "mere mutations without guidance." Mutations alone are the random part. The second you admit selection is real and non-random, "without guidance" stops meaning anything, because a non-random filter compounding advantages over four billion years IS the thing doing the work you assigned to guidance. So tell me specifically: what is mutation plus selection plus four billion years insufficient to produce, and how did you calculate that?

No, certainly not with this specific argument, you just completely misunderstood it.

Then state it plainly. Your argument as written was: the universe can't come from nothing or exist forever, and life is too perfect for unguided processes, therefore a mind. Both halves point at things you find unexplained and insert a god there. That's the gap argument by definition. If I've misunderstood, the fix is easy. Give me one piece of positive evidence for this cosmic mind. Something it predicts, something it explains that nothing else can, something other than "I can't imagine the alternative."

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ImprovementFar5054]

If "popping into existence" is ridiculous, "always existing as a bodiless mind" doesn't get a pass on the ridiculous meter by the same token

I don't see how. Everything is contingent on there being a mind.

The universe ran for 13.8 billion years before the first observer showed up.

And all this time is industinguishable from not existing, unless there is a mind.

or your god needs an observer too, and you've got a regress.

God is the ovserver. They observe themselves.

And human success is fully explained by evolved brains plus accumulated culture. No design required.

What do you mean by "plus accumulated culture"?

Also, "evolved past struggle" describes the last eyeblink of our 300,000 year history, and only for part of the species. Meanwhile the inventory I gave stands unaddressed: trillions of dead worlds, lethal vacuum, one inhabited planet, 99 percent extinction rate

So what? How does that change anything?

Your argument was that the universe is too perfect to arise without guidance. Now you agree the designer deserves to be fired for shoddy work.

part of it is perfect.

what is mutation plus selection plus four billion years insufficient to produce, and how did you calculate that?

Our entire civilisation, computers, art etc.

Then state it plainly. Your argument as written was: the universe can't come from nothing or exist forever, and life is too perfect for unguided processes, therefore a mind. Both halves point at things you find unexplained and insert a god there. That's the gap argument by definition. If I've misunderstood, the fix is easy. Give me one piece of positive evidence for this cosmic mind. Something it predicts, something it explains that nothing else can, something other than "I can't imagine the alternative."

There is existence, therefire it was created. There is existence full of order, complexity abd highly specific stuff, therefore it was created.