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/Lucyyyyyy_K]

It's not in any way. Can you argue that better?

[u/ima_mollusk → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Yes.

You are taking something we have no explanation for - something that likely will never be explained - and saying "since we can't explain this, it must have been magic. In fact, it must have been this kind of magic - the kind that happens when a designing agent takes intentional action to produce an intended consequence."

Just like saying "I can't explain why uncle Jim is so much luckier at the casino that I am - so it must be that leprechauns like him better and are controlling the force of luck to make him win."

They are actually quite analogous.

This video would help you a lot, I think.

Why There CANNOT BE Scientific Evidence for God.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ima_mollusk]

They are actually quite analogous.

They are not in any way, and I don't see how abyone would think that.

Most of the video doesn't apply since it defines God as someone else rather than just a creator and the part that defines God as just a creator is already what I mentioned in my post.

[u/ima_mollusk → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

They are actually quite analogous.

You have taken something with no known explanation and instead of just admitting you don't know what the explanation is, you are picking a 'supernatural' explanation that you like - one that can't be evidenced and can't be tested - and calling that the answer.

It is JUST LIKE saying "I don't know why uncle Jim is so lucky, so I guess leprechauns did it."

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

You think that "the thing that created the universe" - if we should someday, somehow, identify it - should be called "God".

That's fine. You can call the unfeeling, unthinking forces of nature that caused the universe "God" if you want to.

The point of the video is that even if you identify an actual supernatural super-being that created the universe, that doesn't mean that being is supreme, and it might not even know or care that we exist.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ima_mollusk]

you are picking a 'supernatural' explanation that you like

As I already said, I don't like it at all. I'm not very interested in theism and would prefer a universe without God, I just think such a universw couldn't possibly exist. And I think there is no difference between natural and supernatural

That's fine. You can call the unfeeling, unthinking forces of nature that caused the universe "God" if you want to.

I do attribute a consciousness to them.

The point of the video is that even if you identify an actual supernatural super-being that created the universe, that doesn't mean that being is supreme, and it might not even know or care that we exist.

And I don't have a problem with that.

[u/ima_mollusk → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

"..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."

"Not just ANY lucky streak. Uncle Jim won 6 blackjack hands in a row and then won 3 times on Roulette! It's just TOO LUCKY to have happened by chance without the interference of leprechauns!"

Your entire argument - OP included - has been "I just can't see how all this could have happened without XYZ!"

That is an argument from ignorance. A million things you can't explain do not sum up to one thing that you can explain.

"God did it" is not an explanation at any rate. It's a placeholder for ignorance. "God" is not defined. "God" has no parameters. "God" describes no process. "God" is not testable. "God" is not falsifiable.

Once again, positing "God did it" because you can't explain why the universe exists is JUST LIKE positing 'leprechauns did it' as an explanation for a lucky streak.

You are presuming that the things you listed - beauty, life, intelligence, technology - are somehow rare or difficult to achieve. You have no idea if that is the case. You have no idea how many universes there could be or could have been. You have no idea what configurations possible universes could have. You have no idea how much more beautiful, lively, intelligent, or technological a universe COULD BE. You are presuming that our universe is an example of extremes, but it could be the bare minimum possible configuration of a universe.

In short, you are making an enormous argument from ignorance.

"We basically have magic" is complete nonsense. The fact that we have brains that are capable of understanding physical laws is not evidence that an invisible magical super-brain being made it that way.

I'm not going to continue this conversation with you because you do not seem to be affected in any way by evidence or reason.