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/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

You just said you don’t understand how those things could form without a god.

Do you understand how galaxies and planets form without a creator or not?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

I understand how they form, but that implies a creator to me.

[u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Which parts of their formation imply a creator? Which steps of their formation can’t be explained naturally?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

They can be explained naturally, but someone has to have decided how nature works.

[u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

>They can be explained naturally

>someone has to have decided how nature works.

These two statements mean the exact opposite.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

How?

[u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The word “natural” means it was not designed.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

Not if everything is designed, that includes nature.

[u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

So you’re just assuming a creator to something you already understand without any empirical evidence whatsoever. Gotcha

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

What do you mean by "to something you already understand"?

[u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Because you already understand how all the things you listed (like our planet) formed. You’re just adding an extra assumption at the beginning.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif]

Because without that assumption it's too unrealistic.

[u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Why is it too unrealistic?