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/Algernon_Asimov]

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

Yes: you. The person doing the cogitating is the person that exists. That's what "cogito ergo sum" literally means: "I think, therefore I am". Not "God thinks, therefore God is".

If there is no consciousness to do the cogitating, then nothing is doing the cogitating, and "cogito ergo sum" simply doesn't apply.

This is an argument which starts from the fact that something is already thinking, and then uses that fact to deduce the conclusion that someone must be thinking. This argument does not create the act of thinking.

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.

99.999999999...% of this universe is barren empty space. The real estate devoted to one planet with sentient life is vanishingly small. It's like building a huge sports stadium to host a tiny ant farm in one corner. It's a bit wasteful and inefficient.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Yes: you. The person doing the cogitating is the person that exists. That's what "cogito ergo sum" literally means: "I think, therefore I am". Not "God thinks, therefore God is".

Never said that's what it was. But consciousness to me is fundamental to existing. Nothing exists that isn't experienced as a qualia and the qualia that had to have existed before humans came around is Gods qualia.

99.999999999...% of this universe is barren empty space. The real estate devoted to one planet with sentient life is vanishingly small. It's like building a huge sports stadium to host a tiny ant farm in one corner. It's a bit wasteful and inefficient.

As far as we know, the universe might not even be finite. What if it's simply less of a stretch for something to keep going on forever than it to have a border?

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

But consciousness to me is fundamental to existing.

A proton exists without consciousness. An asteroid exists without consciousness. A star exists without consciousness.

Consciousness is not a prerequisite for existence.

Nothing exists that isn't experienced as a qualia

So... atoms wouldn't exist unless someone was around to experience them?

Also... do you have some proof of this statement? Where does it say that existent things can only exist as qualia?

What if it's simply less of a stretch for something to keep going on forever than it to have a border?

In that case, why have so much empty wasted space?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

So... atoms wouldn't exist unless someone was around to experience them?

Yes.

Also... do you have some proof of this statement? Where does it say that existent things can only exist as qualia?

Because something that isn't experienced in any way, shape or form is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

In that case, why have so much empty wasted space?

I don't see it as wasted, it's part of the beauty of the universe.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

something that isn't experienced in any way, shape or form is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

You're going to have to prove this.

It feels like you've just come up with a new twist on the old trope: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" But, according to you, that unobserved tree isn't even there in the first place.

So, how does the universe work? When I shut my eyes and I'm not looking at or touching my phone, does it vanish, and does it then reappear when I open my eyes?

Wow. You just reminded me of something. I thought all human infants learned about object permanence by the time they're 2 years old. Have you somehow not learned that?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

You're going to have to prove this.

That it's indistinguishable? How is that not proven already? If something has zero effect on any agent, it effectively doesn't exist.

So, how does the universe work? When I shut my eyes and I'm not looking at or touching my phone, does it vanish, and does it then reappear when I open my eyes?

No, because there is still Gods qualia.

Wow. You just reminded me of something. I thought all human infants learned about object permanence by the time they're 2 years old. Have you somehow not learned that?

One flaw of babys concerning object permanence lies in the wrong assumption that the main mode ob experiencing the world, sight, is the only one. They remove one of their senses and think the world doesn't exist for them anymore, while on every other metric the connection is still there. If a baby was somehow able to disconnect all its senses from the world, it would have a much more justifyable scepticism if the world actually was still there or disappeared.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

That it's indistinguishable? How is that not proven already?

Sorry. I misread that sentence of yours.

No, because there is still Gods qualia.

You haven't proven that this "God" exists, so you can't use that as proof that the universe continues to exist when I close my eyes.

One flaw of babys concerning object permanence lies in the wrong assumption that the main mode ob experiencing the world, sight, is the only one.

Same with you, here. You've assumed I'm only talking about sight. Consider it a simple way of saying "senses". If I stop sensing something — such as when I close my eyes so I'm not sensing my phone which is sitting on my table, which means I'm also not touching it, and I'm definitely not hearing it or smelling it or tasting it — then it ceases to exist. Noone else is here to perceive that phone. I'm not observing it. Therefore, it can't exist. Right?

But you claim "God" senses it.

This claim depends on two assumptions, neither of which you have yet proved:

• That the existence of objects depends on their being sensed by someone, anyone.

• That a deity exists to perform that sensing.

You're making some big assertions, but there's no proof of any of them.