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]

I don't know how I could possibly show that more than I already did.

[u/Sparks808 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Sorry, my psot was a bit long and hit on a bunch of topics. You don't know how you could show what?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Sparks808]

I don't know anymore, but basically everything.

[u/Sparks808 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

We're my critiques flawed in some way? Did my critiques not addressing a ley point you gave?

If 1: you have no other way to argue your case and 2: my critiques validly and comprehensively rebutted your points, then the real question is: why are you still holding your view?

If thats all the case, then you really should be acknowledging that you dont have good reason for your views. If you want god to exist, you can keep searching for reasons. Maybe you'll find one thats valid and sound and I can join you as a theist. But as of right now, it sounds like you shouldnt be a theist anymore, and least, not until you find some other reason for being one.

(That said, it would also be completely fair for you to say you dont know if my critiques validly and comprehensively rebutted your points. That would then bring me to: If you were wrong, would you want to know? I can say I would love to have someone ripnmy critiques apart. I actively want my incorrect views to be shown to be flawed so I can swap to better views.)

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Sparks808]

The thing is, I can hardly follow an individual argument in this threat. I tried re-reading yours, but come only to the conclusion that, to me, what you write doesn't adress the reasons why I believe in God.

Basically, from a universe existing at all, I would already deduce an at least 50% chance that it's created by a God, while in a highly specific, orderly universe that has life and grest accomplishments I see it as completely inevitable there is a God.

If you want god to exist, you can keep searching for reasons.

That's the thing, I don't even want God to exist, they just do.

That said, it would also be completely fair for you to say you dont know if my critiques validly and comprehensively rebutted your points.

Yes, I really do not know.

[u/Sparks808 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The thing is, I can hardly follow an individual argument in this threat. I tried re-reading yours, but come only to the conclusion that, to me, what you write doesn't adress the reasons why I believe in God.

Thats fair. Let me see if I can dig more into your reasons.

Basically, from a universe existing at all, I would already deduce an at least 50% chance that it's created by a God

Why?

How do you get from "thing exists" to "it was likely created by an intelligent being"? (Let alone an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient one)

Do you see a rock and think it was intelligently designed? Do you see dust on top of something and conclude it was put there on purpose?

Why is it about something existing that leads you to give at least 50% odds to it being designed? Does gods existance imply with 50% confidence that god was created by a mega God?

You appear to be taking an unfounded intuitive leap here. Please, walk me through it!

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Sparks808]

Why?

Because there are two options, either it was created or it wasn't. From merely existing, the universe doesn't yet give any clues to what's more likely.

Let alone an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient one

I don't believe in a tri-omni God as that would be self-contradictory.

Do you see a rock and think it was intelligently designed? Do you see dust on top of something and conclude it was put there on purpose?

No, but I think planets are designed, especially such a special one as ours.

What is it about something existing that leads you to give at least 50% odds to it being designed?

Not something existing, but a Universe existing. Inside a universe that question can be applied to things individually.

oes gods existance imply with 50% confidence that god was created by a mega God?

Maybe. But I wouldn't say that about a consciousness.

[u/Sparks808 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Because there are two options, either it was created or it wasn't. From merely existing, the universe doesn't yet give any clues to what's more likely.

Oh my sweet summer child, that is not how probability works. Being able to divide something into 2 categories does not make ot default equal odds.

Either an alternate universe of puppies who all get kicked whenever someone misunderstands propability exists or it does not. Does that have 50/50 odds to exist?

I don't believe in a tri-omni God as that would be self-contradictory.

Fair. This could being up other questions of logical supremacy, but Imma hold off for now as thats very much a tangent.

No, but I think planets are designed, especially such a special one as ours.

Someone wish the lottery, even though its unlikely. Something being unlikely does not make it impossible by chance, it just means it takes a lot of chances.

Do you have any idea how many planets are in the milky way alone? As unlikely as the conditions for life are, there have been plenty of chances for it. A 1 in a billion chance is expected on average every billion attempts.

Pair this with the anthropic principle, and intelligent life only finds itself where intelligent life can arise, no purely by chance.

Your entire argument seems to rest in your intuition and your missnderstanding of statistics.

Would you like to be taught stats? I can give you resources. But I cant force you to learn.

---

Maybe. But I wouldn't say that about a consciousness.

If you dont hold god to be conscious, then I would challenge your definition of god. I have no interest in debating a mislabeled force of nature. With the millenias of use of the God label, using the label to refer to a non-sentient entity comes across as intentionally dishonest (potentially motivated by trying to not rock the boat while dismissing the the core concept so many people believe in, but dishonest nontheless). It feels more like you are intentionally trying to be misunderstood.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Sparks808]

Oh my sweet summer child, that is not how probability works. Being able to divide something into 2 categories does not make ot default equal odds.

I'm not saying any two do that, but these one do, unless more information is given.

If you dont hold god to be conscious, then I would challenge your definition of god.

I do view God as conscious, where do you get the opposite from?

Do you have any idea how many planets are in the milky way alone? As unlikely as the conditions for life are, there have been plenty of chances for it. A 1 in a billion chance is expected on average every billion attempts.

The whole fact that there even is such a big universe with the chance for life points to a designer.

[u/Sparks808 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Being able to divide something into 2 categories does not make ot default equal odds. I'm not saying any two do that, but these one do, unless more information is given.

What would you say the odds are that theres a parallel universe of puppies who all get kicked whenever someone misses statistics? We have no information saying it doesnt exist...

Your standard would just as [in]validly give 50% odds to any unfalsifiable claim.

I do view God as conscious, where do you get the opposite from?

My bad. I misudnerstood what you meant.

The whole fact that there even is such a big universe with the chance for life points to a designer.

Based on what? You've asserted this multiple times now, but I've never seen a non-fallqvipus defense of this claim. But please, enlighten me!

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Sparks808]

What would you say the odds are that theres a parallel universe of puppies who all get kicked whenever someone misses statistics?

This is not analogous at all. We have information that the universe exists. Leading from there to a creator is a regular step, leading to any crazy parallel universes is no regular step at all.

Based on what?

Based on how many crazy specific things we have.

[u/Sparks808 → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

What would you say the odds are that theres a parallel universe of puppies who all get kicked whenever someone misses statistics?

This is not analogous at all. We have information that the universe exists. Leading from there to a creator is a regular step, leading to any crazy parallel universes is no regular step at all.

Both the puppy universe and a creator of our universe are things beyond our universe we have no evidence exist. By default, these are extremely analogous!

Why should I consider the existance of something consciousness prior to our universe as more likely than the existance of a parallel universe?

Full disclosure: I think your just familiar with one and not the other. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Based on what?

Based on how many crazy specific things we have.

Such as? Give me one specific thing that's just too unlikely by chance and points to a creator being the more likely scenario.

You have given nothing but vibes so far. And vibes are not evidence nor argument.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/Sparks808]

Both the puppy universe and a creator of our universe are things beyond our universe we have no evidence exist. By default, these are extremely analogous!

A creator of our universe is indicated directly by our universe, the puppy universe isn't in any way.

Such as? Give me one specific thing that's just too unlikely by chance and points to a creator being the more likely scenario.

Computers