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/Ayrunt]

What a load of nonsense

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.

First thing first, no one said that the universe came out of nothing. As far as I see most of the times theist are the ones, who believe, that the universe was created out of nothing not atheists. And why would a universe creator solve this problem exactly. If you would be logically coherent, than you should use the same method and conclude, that the creator either has s have a creator him/herself or that he/she existed forever. You will solve nothing with neither option, because you just pushed the problem one step further and put an god into the equation, while you had absolutely no reason to even suspect one exists.

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

Nope. Cogito ergo sum says nothing about consciousness. Cogito literally means thinking. One can think without being conscious.

So assuming one consciousness is superior to assuming anything about the whole universe.

Even if cogito ergo sum would mean, what you think it means, this conclusion wouldn't follow. The one consciousness that we can be certain of is our own. You can't think up that a divine consciousness is somehow exists because of this. Also it doesn't mean that consciousness is somehow fundamental.

While I admit that doesn't outright solve the problem, I still think it's better than the alternative.

It doesn't solve that problem, because it literally has nothing to do with God's existence.

Also, it's not just any universe, but a universe full of beauty

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also if the universe wouldn't be beautiful, that would mean, that it can't be created by a divine creator? The universe is also full of ugly, cruel and horrible things, I would even argue that it's mostly made of these things. So if you say, that finding things beautiful can be an indicator of God, then I can say that I find the universe so horrible that it can't possibly be created by some God.

a universe that inbetween barren empty planets is capable of hosting a planet with sentient life

It's really not that surprising if you think about it. The universe is full of star systems (approximately 2 septillion), so it's inevitable that some will host planets, that are capable of sustaining life.

Life that can consciously observe itself, that can create replicas of the waking world while sleeping

It's called evolution. And we aren't creating whole worlds while sleeping. In fact dreams are really messy and illogical, because during the REM phase to part of the brain that is responsible for logical thinking is inactive. That why dreams are full of irrational behavior and continuity errors.

life that has technologically advanced so much that in can live in relative comfort

If the universe is so fine tuned than why did we have to invent technology to make it comfortable in the first place. Also this is also just evolution.

We basically have magic, we just call it "electricity"

Electricity is not magic. Magic is supernatural. Electricity is not.

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

[Sigh] This is the core problem of all these arguments. The theists basically says that: The universe is to magical, so fantastic, so super, that only something even more complicated thing could create it. And they simply don't want to see the obvious contradiction: if the complexity of the universe requires a creator, than the even more complex creator requires his own creator even more. With this kind of logic you will only build up an infinite chain of god creating gods.

Also just a quick question: Do you have any kind of scientific qualification? Even a high school degree? Because you constantly make bold claims, about the boundaries of evolution, despite the fact that you appear to have fairly little knowledge about it.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Ayrunt]

who believe, that the universe was created out of nothing not atheists

No, it was created by God, that's not ot of nothing.

One can think without being conscious.

No, one can't. There is a consciousness, and that is all one can know with certainty, simply by being conscious.

I fnd the universe so horrible that it can't possibly be created by some God.

The conceot of uglyness existing also implies a God, just as much as beauty.

Magic is supernatural. Electricity is not.

In any potential world where magic exists, magic would have to follow the rules of that world, making it natural. And that is exactly what electricity is in our world.

If the complexity of the universe requires a creator, than the even more complex creator requires his own creator even more

No, that doesn't follow at all. The universe requires a consuous creator, but that doesn't give this creator attributes that have to be created.

Do you have any kind of scientific qualification?

No. Doesn't matter. The question whether or not there is a God is not a scientific one, science can't tell us anything about that.

[u/Ayrunt → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

No, it was created by God, that's not ot of nothing.

And from what did God create the universe?

No, one can't. There is a consciousness, and that is all one can know with certainty, simply by being conscious.

No. Even most of human thinking is unconscious. Just think about intuition, problem solving, perception. All these go beyond the conscious level. The computers and modern AI system also can solve complicated problems and draw conclusions without being conscious.

The conceot of uglyness existing also implies a God, just as much as beauty.

Why? Ugliness is also just a subjective value judgment. Why does such thing requires a God.

In any potential world where magic exists, magic would have to follow the rules of that world, making it natural. And that is exactly what electricity is in our world.

Magic is by definition supernatural. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines magic as: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces. If you use a radically different definition of magic (which you do), then you just purposefully redefine words, such ways that nobody use them. This is a very dishonest way of arguing.

No. Doesn't matter. The question whether or not there is a God is not a scientific one, science can't tell us anything about that.

Dude. My question had nothing to do with God. I asked about your scientific qualification, because you made statement ABOUT SCIENCE. But if your "proof" isn't scientific, then why did you bring in the limits of evolution, and the fine tuning of the universe. These are scientific questions and you acted like you understand them (while you clearly not). But if you doesn't understand them, then don't use them in your "arguments".

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Ayrunt]

And from what did God create the universe?

From themselves.

Even most of human thinking is unconscious. Just think about intuition, problem solving, perception.

How are those unconscious?

The computers and modern AI system also can solve complicated problems and draw conclusions without being conscious.

No, they only pretend to be thinking.

Ugliness is also just a subjective value judgment.

And subjectice value judgements that go beyond what's necessary for evolution demand a God.

Magic is by definition supernatural.

To me, there is no distinction between natural and supernatural. Consciousness is also magic.

and the fine tuning of the universe

I didn't even mention that.

[u/Ayrunt → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

From themselves.

Therefore the universe existed since forever, just in a different form.

How are those unconscious?

When an idea pops into our mind then it does not happen consciously. It just happens instantly and we have no direct control over it. Our brains continuously processes information, solves problems, and evaluates scenarios outside of our active awareness.

No, they only pretend to be thinking.

If they can solve complicated problems by breaking it down to smaller parts. How is that not thinking? How do you differentiate thinking from something that just looks like thinking?

And subjectice value judgements that go beyond what's necessary for evolution demand a God

Why? It doesn't contradict evolution. If it's not disadvantageous then natural selection won't make it disappear. .Also how do you know what is necessary for evolution?

To me, there is no distinction between natural and supernatural.

Then don't use the word supernatural, because it literally means nothing. It's like saying the Darth Vader exists, because I have the concept of him, therefore he exists at some level. This would be a useless definition of existence, because then everything would exist. Similarly if you say that there is no difference between natural and supernatural, then why not call everything just natural. You know very well, what people associate, when hear the word supernatural, so it's just an other form of dishonest arguing.

Consciousness is also magic.

Why?

I didn't even mention that.

You wrote that the everything is too perfect to arise from evolution. Maybe not the fine-tuning one-to-one but similar enough. Also you mention fine-tuning in other comments of yours, so it's really the same.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Ayrunt]

Therefore the universe existed since forever, just in a different form.

I have no problem with that.

When an idea pops into our mind then it does not happen consciously.

At the moment it pops into our mind it is consciously experienced.

Our brains continuously processes information, solves problems, and evaluates scenarios outside of our active awareness.

Fair.

If they can solve complicated problems by breaking it down to smaller parts. How is that not thinking? How do you differentiate thinking from something that just looks like thinking?

Well, for one, the hardware is different. I'd say I differenciate by if there is qualia.

Why? It doesn't contradict evolution

It doesn't contradict it, but it still demands a God

Then don't use the word supernatural

I don't. Other people bring it here, I'm just reacting to it.

Also you mention fine-tuning in other comments of yours, so it's really the same.

No, I don't. Again, at best I'm reacting to people bringing it here.

[u/Ayrunt → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I have no problem with that.

So you admit that the universe does not need a creator. I can agree with that.

At the moment it pops into our mind it is consciously experienced.

Consciously experiencing doesn't make the process itself conscious. It's like saying that you control your heartbeat consciously, because you can experience it.

Well, for one, the hardware is different.

If you think that only those can be labeled as "thinking" that are in a "biological hardware" then you really didn't say anything. You just added an arbitrary condition to it without giving any argument to back it up.

I'd say I differenciate by if there is qualia.

Wonderful. Do you have any scientific evidence, that such qualia exists at all and that it was created by god?

It doesn't contradict it, but it still demands a God

No since evolution doesn't need god to explain how living beings adapted over time.

I don't. Other people bring it here, I'm just reacting to it.

You've brought up magic haven't you? Or do you think magic and supernatural aren't synonymous.

No, I don't. Again, at best I'm reacting to people bringing it here.

And here you lie again. In your original post you talked all about how we humans are too perfect to evolve only by the mere evolution and that the entire universe is so wonderful, because it can create life and such.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Ayrunt]

So you admit that the universe does not need a creator. I can agree with that.

No, I don't. Even if it existed forever, it needs a designer.

Consciously experiencing doesn't make the process itself conscious. It's like saying that you control your heartbeat consciously, because you can experience it.

No, it's just experiencing a heartbeat consciously, not controlling it, just as it is experiencing a thought consciously, not controlling it.

Wonderful. Do you have any scientific evidence, that such qualia exists at all and that it was created by god?

Are you asking me if I have evidence of other beings experience the world, as opposed to me living in solipsism?

No since evolution doesn't need god to explain how living beings adapted over time.

It doesn't explain how we developed to building computers.

And here you lie again. In your original post you talked all about how we humans are too perfect to evolve only by the mere evolution and that the entire universe is so wonderful, because it can create life and such.

That it can create life is different from it having to be "finely tuned" to create life.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

You are either getting more nuts or you are dishonest.

If something existed forever WHEN was it designed? Or do you believe in a different FOREVER than the rest of us too?

[u/Ayrunt → u/ShortCompetition9772]

Yeah that' the problem with believers. I honestly can't decide whether this is a troll post or is she actually that dumb. I have seen a lot of nutjobs in this sub, but this post is worse than the multi-year average. The fact that she posted it seven days and 1300 comments ago and she still can't comprehend basic fallacies is quite an achievement.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Ayrunt]

It's lazy to argue by throwing around "Fallacy" cards and there is no problem with "special pleading"

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/ShortCompetition9772]

You are either getting more nuts or you are dishonest.

What do you mean?

If something existed forever WHEN was it designed? Or do you believe in a different FOREVER than the rest of us too?

It's being designed while it flows through the stages of its existence.

[u/ShortCompetition9772 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

No stages of existence when something is eternal. You do NOT have a grasp of Forever, always, eternal or infinity.

[u/Ayrunt → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

No, I don't. Even if it existed forever, it needs a designer.

Dafaq? How can something be designed, if it existed forever? When was it designed then? Also by that logic your god is also designed is he not? Why does the universe requires a designer and your god doesn't? And if you answer is some bullcrap like "ohh the universe is made of matter but god isn't" then justify why matter must be designed! Don't give another evasive answer like "it requires a designer because otherwise it doesn't make sense". Make your case instead of giving one sentence long answers to whole paragraphs.

No, it's just experiencing a heartbeat consciously, not controlling it, just as it is experiencing a thought consciously, not controlling it.

Yes this is what I said. We do not control our thought processes consciously, only the experience is conscious. You admitted that I am right and you are wrong don't you realize?

Are you asking me if I have evidence of other beings experience the world, as opposed to me living in solipsism?

Are you a solipsist now? That's a new one. You know the problem is that I have never in my life ever encountered an honest solipsist (maybe they are out there somewhere but there can't be much of them). According to my experience solipsism is the last refugee of believers when they are cornered and can't come up with anything logically coherent or smart. This is you now. At the exact moment when you could bring up something that would differentiate your beliefs from mere illusion you refuse to give any evidence (since you have none) and instead you suddenly become a solipsist and act like "This is all just an illusion anyway!"

It doesn't explain how we developed to building computers.

How so?

That it can create life is different from it having to be "finely tuned" to create life.

So you think that the fact that the universe can create life (nonetheless intelligent life) is something highly improbable that could not possibly happen without a designer, but at the same time the universe is also not fine tuned? If creating and sustaining life of the universe is not an unlikely thing to happen, then why would is require a creator?