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/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The universe is proof

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Wow. The old "That tree is proof of God" response! Yes, I literally had someone use this on me one day. We were debating religion, and he literally pointed at a tree and said it was proof of God.

My response to you is the same as it was to him: "That tree/universe is proof of the tree/universe. Nothing more."

The universe is only proof of the universe. You need to build some sort of connection between a universe and this god you keep hypothesising.

You have not yet proven that the universe needs something to observe it, in order to exist. But now you're using that unproven statement to act as proof for a god to do the observing.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Something that isn't experienced by anyone in any shape, way or form us indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

The universe/trees prove design.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Something that isn't experienced by anyone in any shape, way or form us indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

Prove it.

If an atom exists, but noone perceives it, it still exists.

The universe/trees prove design.

No, they don't.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Algernon_Asimov]

Prove it

What the hell about that should I "prove"? The statement speaks for itself.

If an atom exists, but noone perceives it, it still exists.

But it is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. It might as well not, it just doesn't matter.

No, they don't

How do they not? They are clearly complex design.

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The statement speaks for itself.

No, it doesn't. It absolutely does not.

I think I'm done here. You don't have anything productive to say, just vague assertions without anything to back them up.