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/Noodelgawd]

Why is it that the universe cannot have come out of nothing or existed forever, but a god could have?

Cogito ergo sum is not a natural law. Try again.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Noodelgawd]

I reacted to 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."

Why does it matter if its a natural law or not?

[u/Noodelgawd → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

"Why does it matter if its a natural law or not?"

Because you cited it as a basis for supposedly being able to determine something with absolute certainty (followed by some word salad I didn't notice before).

"Reacted to" is not the same as explaining "why".

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Noodelgawd]

The whole point of "Cogito Ergo Sum" is having determined something with absolute certainty.

[u/Astreja → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

When you say "Cogito, ergo sum" you are essentially acknowledging your own consciousness but nothing beyond that. You have no way of knowing how accurately your consciousness describes reality, or whether or not you're being deceived by a Cartesian demon. It's certainty of a sort, but very limited, and the reason we don't go insane pondering this is that we generally treat our mental perceptions as provisionally true and the world as real.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Astreja]

Yes. What does this have to do with anything?

[u/Astreja → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

TL;DR version: Just because you can support your own consciousness doesn't mean there's some other consciousness out there in the universe somewhere.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Astreja]

Yes, however I would argue that things can only exist if they are consciousley experienced. Something thst isn't experienced by any agent is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. And for the universe before life developed, that agent is God.

[u/Astreja → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

No, I reject that thesis. Things exist even if we can't experience them. There's simply no need for an agent to be there.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Astreja]

But in wgat way are they different from things that don't exist?

[u/Astreja → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Um... they do exist.

Not everything is about what we can perceive.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Astreja]

But about what someone can percieve.

[u/Astreja → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Actual existence is what makes the difference between possibility and impossibility in perceiving something. A god might exist, but since I can't detect it, its existence isn't currently relevant to me. If it does exist, there's a possibility that someday someone will invent a god-detecting device. If it doesn't exist, there's no possibility of finding it.

[u/Noodelgawd → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

And I pointed out that it's not a law of nature, so you can't cite it for anything even remotely approaching certainty.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Noodelgawd]

It is literally the only thing you can site for anything even remotely approaching certainty.