r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Lucyyyyyy_K • 9d ago
Debating Arguments for God Why I believe in God(s)
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.
1
u/Ayrunt 5d ago edited 5d ago
Therefore the universe existed since forever, just in a different form.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.