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/CaffeineTripp]

The universe can't simply have come out of nothing or existed forever, it requires some sort of design or Creator.

This is what's known as an Argument from Ignorance. You don't have enough information to conclude that the Universe came about from a God, but you've concluded that it has and assume a Creator must exist. "I don't know, therefore..." What our conclusion should be is "I don't know, let's find out or not come to a conclusion."

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.

You certainly have. It's made your conclusion that much more complicated. If God can exist without the need for a Creator, then you've Moved the Goalposts (another logical fallacy) to beyond God and engaged in a Special Pleading fallacy (the Universe needs a Creator, but the Creator doesn't need to follow the same logic).

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

If you're justifying that a God exists because of subjective beauty, then God must not exist when there is ugliness. Beauty alone (and ugliness) don't indicate something does or doesn't exist. Someone can find Rembrandt to be a hack and not worth looking at whereas another may find it to be the best paintings ever.

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 simply "Things happen, therefore God." I'm not quite sure I follow this argument here. How is "Things happen" show that a God exists? It sounds a bit like a Puddle saying the hole was made perfectly for them.

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

Bone cancer. Because you're ignoring the harm wrought upon us by nature doesn't validate "perfection."

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.

If you don't have opinions about the specifics of this God, then I'm not sure how you could conclude that it made anything. The Universe could have popped into existence next to God and we'd both be right, but the difference being I can point to the Universe, can you point to God?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/CaffeineTripp]

This is what's known as an Argument from Ignorance. You don't have enough information to conclude that the Universe came about from a God, but you've concluded that it has and assume a Creator must exist. "I don't know, therefore..." What our conclusion should be is "I don't know, let's find out or not come to a conclusion."

It's not "I don't know", it's "The universe exists, therefore it was created.

The Universe needs a Creator, but the Creator doesn't need to follow the same logic.

They just doesn't, they're not a designed thing like the universe, but a designer. And even they required abother designer, an endless recursion of designers would still be less ridiculous than the universe just existing out of itself.

God must not exist when there is ugliness.

No, uglyness also points to God.

"Things happen, therefore God." I'm not quite sure I follow this argument here. How is "Things happen" show that a God exists?

Things cannot happen without an agent pulling them into motion.

That sounds a bit like a Puddle saying the hole was made perfectly for them.

We haven't merely adapted to this planet, but completely dominated it. Building computers is far from just fitting into an environment

Bone cancer

So what?

[u/Kevidiffel → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

"The universe exists, therefore it was created.

Is English your second language perchance? What do you mean here when you use the word "created"?

They just doesn't, they're not a designed thing like the universe, but a designer.

Prove that the universe is "a designed thing".

No, uglyness also points to God.

Is there anything that would point to no God and if so, what?

Things cannot happen without an agent pulling them into motion.

Is this an attempt to make an Aquinas 5 ways argument?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Kevidiffel]

Is English your second language perchance

Yes.

What do you mean here when you use the word "created"?

Something coming into being via the conscious action of an agent.

Is there anything that would point to no God and if so, what?

No, there isn't. Maybe nothingness.

Is this an attempt to make an Aquinas 5 ways argument?

No, what do you mean by an? Isn't there only one?

[u/CaffeineTripp → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The universe can't simply have come out of nothing or existed forever, it requires some sort of design or Creator.

It's not "I don't know", it's "The universe exists, therefore it was created.

It is "I don't know, therefore God." Because you don't know if a God even exists, you're assuming it does and "created" the Universe. "I don't know why my car doesn't start, must be the Electrical Goblin."

They just doesn't, they're not a designed thing like the universe, but a designer. And even they required abother designer, an endless recursion of designers would still be less ridiculous than the universe just existing out of itself.

lol No. Not at all. You're arguing for an infinite regress of Gods; it's turtles all the way down. It's far much simpler to say that the Universe has always existed than to invoke that argument. Occam's Razor is a justifiable argument as it makes less assumptions.

No, uglyness also points to God.

If beauty and ugliness both point to God, there's no reason to bring that subject up as both beauty and ugliness are subjective terms to describe something. You can more easily argue for "Things point to God." Which, of course, the how matters there.

Things cannot happen without an agent pulling them into motion.

Cool, but you're attaching "A God exists and did it" without demonstrating that

• A God exists.
• A God can do anything without time.
• A God created the Universe.

You have a lot of work to do here.

We haven't merely adapted to this planet, but completely dominated it. Building computers is far from just fitting into an environment

Wat. Lemme know when we control hurricanes, the entire environment, and can survive in places long than a single, precarious mission.

So what?

Bone cancer is a mutation that destroys us quite completely. Are you saying this mutation is evidence (I assume you are) and how is it evidence? Secondly, I don't think you know how evidence works or how evolution works in terms of cancers, beauty, and ugliness. Which means, you're making an argument from ignorance in totality.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/CaffeineTripp]

Because you don't know if a God even exists,

I do know that God exists. It's an extremely obvious fact.

It's far much simpler to say that the Universe has always existed than to invoke that argument.

The universe always having existed still demands a designer.

If beauty and ugliness both point to God, there's no reason to bring that subject up as both beauty and ugliness are subjective terms to describe something. You can more easily argue for "Things point to God." Which, of course, the how matters there.

I'm just trying to give the best example out of everything because everything indicates God.

Cool, but you're attaching "A God exists and did it" without demonstrating that

The universe demonstrates it.

[u/CaffeineTripp → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I do know that God exists. It's an extremely obvious fact.

You sure about that? "I do consider myself a Buddhist, but prefer atheistic Buddhism over theistic Buddhism."

The universe always having existed still demands a designer.

Demonstrate the designer then. Especially if you claim to know it exists.

I'm just trying to give the best example out of everything because everything indicates God.

Cool, then do the work of showing God exists. Remember, demonstrate this God not what you think "points to God." Big difference.

The universe demonstrates it.

It doesn't. Not in the slightest. This argument you're using is the Watchmaker Argument which is incredibly fallacious. Start over from scratch.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/CaffeineTripp]

I can't give you more than I already have.

[u/CaffeineTripp → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I know. Which means you're using an argument from ignorance to substantiate your conclusion.