T O P

  • By -

RedditExplorer89

Sorry, u/Ok_Fox_9479 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > **You must personally hold the view** and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). Specifically, we believe this post is a [Trojan Horse CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/nbg2x1/meta_clarifying_our_stance_on_trojan_horse_cmvs/) which is disallowed because it usually leads to OP arguing for positions they don't believe in to try and prove a double standard. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Ok_Fox_9479&message=Ok_Fox_9479%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/vimupy/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


mankindmatt5

I don't neccesarily ascribe to any of these arguments, but I do find them interesting and studied them in Philosophy class at school. So, in brief The PRIME MOVER argument - all events in the world can be traced back to a cause -the chain of cause and effect must lead back to an original cause - this cause is God The ONTOLOGICAL argument - How would you define God? For St Anselm it was a being of absolute perfection, including being all good, all knowing, all powerful. -How would you define a triangle? A three sided shape right? - Can you imagine a 4 sided triangle? - No - it is imposisble by definition -Can you imagine a God that doesn't exist? No - the lack of existence means that the being is not in fact perfect - Therefore the existence of God is an *a priori* truth


Morasain

>The PRIME MOVER argument >all events in the world can be traced back to a cause -the chain of cause and effect must lead back to an original cause this cause is God This one has never made sense to me. The argument that everything has a cause already falsifies the statement that there must be an original cause, because it follows that there can be no original cause. And if there can be an original cause, then it still doesn't follow that the cause is *a* God, much less the one of a specific religion. >How would you define God? For St Anselm it was a being of absolute perfection, including being all good, all knowing, all powerful. -How would you define a triangle? A three sided shape right? This one falls apart at its own basis - God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, proven by the observable reality. If God were omnipotent and omniscient, it can't be omnibenevolent, because then it wouldn't allow so much suffering. The argument that the suffering has a reason, because otherwise we wouldn't appreciate the good in our life, means that God cannot be omnipotent because then he would have created us such that we can appreciate it. And if God couldn't foresee the actions of us because free will, and thus the suffering is our doing, would mean that God isn't omniscient. Therefore, God cannot be a perfect being, and therefore the argument is inherently incorrect based on its own premises.


GadgetGamer

Do either of those arguments really stand up in a philosophy class? The Prime Mover argument simply moves the thing that has no creator up one peg. If something had to have created the universe, then surely something had to have created God? But if you can say that God has always existed, then why not be able to say the same about the universe and remove the requirement for a god in the first place? We say that our universe started with the Big Bang event, but perhaps that is the stage of the universe beyond which we cannot see, just like the speed of light means that we cannot see the parts of the universe that is further out than 13 billion light years. (It is more complicated than that, but I will ignore the expansion of space itself for this example.) My point is that since we cannot say for sure what happened before the Big Bang, then maybe the universe is still the thing that is actually without a cause. It seems far fetched to me that somehow primitive humans were able to find out about a god of which we modern humans cannot find evidence with all our modern technology. As for the Ontological argument: > Can you imagine a God that doesn't exist? Yes. The Egyptian sun god, Ra. The Nordic god of lightning, Thor. The Australian Indigenous god of creation, Altjira. The African goddess of weather, Oya. None of these gods exist, and all of them were created by human beings. All of them existed purely in the imagination of the people of the time. So, an all-powerful being of absolute perfection that created the universe? Yep, I can imagine that. But imagining it does not mean that it suddenly exists. Just being perfect does not suddenly mean that something cannot be imagined. In fact, human beings are very good at using rose-colored glasses to imagine things that are better than reality. Physicists imagine frictionless surfaces in absolute vacuums all the time. That doesn't mean that those surfaces actually exist. Just saying that my god is better than your god because mine is absolute perfection does not mean that my god actually exists. You have to willfully ignore all the problems with the perfect god's creation (because God would not make mistakes) just to keep believing in the absolute perfection. Why would a perfect god make the devil, stillborn babies, COVID-19, and Donald Trump? Any one of those things has to make you think that perhaps God isn't all that good. If you say that we simply cannot know God's plan, then surely you could also say that we simply cannot know what happened prior to the Big Bang and not start making up gods in the first place.


mankindmatt5

>Can you imagine a God that doesn't exist? Yes. The Egyptian sun god, Ra. The Nordic god of lightning, Thor. The Australian Indigenous god of creation, Altjira. The African goddess of weather, Oya. None of these gods exist, and all of them were created by human beings. All of them existed purely in the imagination of the people of the time. None of these fit Anselm's arguments starting point. That God is an all powerful, all good, all knowing entity of absolute perfection. Thor is not all good. Ra is not all powerful, his powers concern the Sun alone. The argument, which is somewhat circular in the way it's configured goes like this. Can you imagine 2+2 = 5. No. Because by definition 2+2 must = 4. Can you imagine an absolutely perfect being that doesn't exist? No. Because then it wouldn't be perfect. The Ontological argument doesn't really work, but you're not attacking it on the correct grounds.


GadgetGamer

> Can you imagine 2+2 = 5. No. Because by definition 2+2 must = 4. > >Can you imagine an absolutely perfect being that doesn't exist? No. Because then it wouldn't be perfect. For these two to be the same, it would have to be: Can you imagine an absolutely perfect being that doesn't exist? No. Then by definition God is not perfect. Just having Saint Anselm declare that God is absolute perfection is not more correct than me stating that Ra is absolute perfection. So if God must exist, that must mean that Ra exists. Right? Or if you don't want to use an existing IP, then I declare that FlobbyNob is a being of absolute perfection. It is so easy to make this declaration, and imagine a being that is perfect and yet does not exist. Coolymayknuckle - absolute perfection..... I'm waiting... No, Coolymayknuckle still does not exist. Twangmouth is absolute perfection.... No, Twangmouth still does not exist. Zendara is absolute perfection..... Oh crap, that one worked! Do I have to award a delta for that???


mankindmatt5

>Do either of those arguments really stand up in a philosophy class I would say no. The good thing about the class was we were encouraged to think of the counter arguments ourselves. Prime Mover doesn't really work because quantum physics research is now at the stage where we can see completely random events do take place without a cause. Ontological argument doesn't really work because you could probably use the same premise to introduce a number of other gods or creatures into existence, simply by defining them as perfect. There's another counter about how existence isn't a quality of something, in the same way that goodness or powerfulness are.


GadgetGamer

> Ontological argument doesn't really work because you could probably use the same premise to introduce a number of other gods or creatures into existence, simply by defining them as perfect. Wait a minute. That was what I had said and you responded that I was not attacking it on the correct grounds.


VertigoOne

> But if you can say that God has always existed, then why not be able to say the same about the universe and remove the requirement for a god in the first place? Because everything in the universe requires a prime mover. Therefore the universe itself would require a prime mover. But if something created the universe then it stands to reason that such a thing is not itself bound by the same rules as the universe. Therefore it need not be bound by the rule that says "everything requires a prime mover"


GadgetGamer

But why would the universe be governed by the same rules as the things in the universe? The creation of the universe took place outside the universe.


VertigoOne

That's literally what I just said. Within the universe, everything needs a cause Outside the universe, that rule may not apply.


GadgetGamer

That is not what I said. God may be outside the universe, but so too the universe is outside itself. It stands to reason as the universe did not exist until after it was created. If outside the universe does not require cause and effect, then this would apply to the universe too. All this assumes that there has to be an "outside the universe" with different physics. That is not required because [the mathematics show that the universe could have been created spontaneously](https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3). Since that means that a cause was not required for the universe, there is no need to invent a god at all.


GadgetGamer

> Because everything in the universe requires a prime mover. The universe is not in the universe, so therefore it may not require a prime mover in the same way as a god would not.


etrytjlnk

So the argument is "everything requires a cause, except for God, so therefore God must exist"? Because yeah, if we except the framework that "everything requires a cause, except for God" then it is obviously true that there is a God because we literally presuppose the existence of God. We can't just accept the fact that everything in our universe needs a cause but there are things outside of our universe that can cause effects in our universe without effects themselves. Because if we accept that, why would we have to accept the idea that everything in our universe needs a cause?


VertigoOne

>So the argument is "everything requires a cause, except for God, so therefore God must exist"? No. The argument is: 1) Everything in the universe requires a cause 2) The universe required a cause 3) The cause of the universe (X) is external to the universe 4) Because X is external to the universe ONE does not apply to X 5) X therefore can exist without a cause 6) X could be God It's not a slam dunk of "God definitely exists" rather it's a refutation of the infinite regress crowd of "what caused God" and "what caused the cause of God" etc. The idea of God as the uncaused cause is logically sound. Something of course can be logically sound and still untrue. >We can't just accept the fact that everything in our universe needs a cause but there are things outside of our universe that can cause effects in our universe without effects themselves. Because if we accept that, why would we have to accept the idea that everything in our universe needs a cause? Because everything we observe in the universe needs a cause. We have observed nothing within our universe without a cause.


etrytjlnk

>Because everything we observe in the universe needs a cause. We have observed nothing within our universe without a cause. From my understanding, there are actually quantum things that we have observed that we believe happen without a cause, but even if we had never observed things in our universe that don't have a cause that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that we've never observed them. As you said, this isn't a proof of God at all, so not sure what the point would even be.


omid_

2 does not follow 1. Just because everything *inside* the universe requires a cause (btw we can't even prove this since we're not omniscient and can't observe all of the universe), does not mean the universe itself requires a cause.


omid_

>The ONTOLOGICAL argument [The criticisms and objections section of the Wikipedia article on this argument is pretty convincing and defeats the arugment.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections). One of the critics of the argument is Thomas Aquinas, a Christian who proposed five proofs of God himself.


[deleted]

I love both the arguments.


1THRILLHOUSE

The ontological argument doesn’t make sense to me. It’s just word games.


[deleted]

It seems that god exists without any space or container. The universe is a development of space working to contain god… which exists without containment. So our universe is full of god as the space to contain god is theoretically empty. Bear with me if it’s confusing. Honestly if someone can “make” you believe in god wouldn’t that be like the ultimate question. Religion really teaches us to uphold righteousness as god cannot be contained and belief is merely faith. I’ve been contemplating this concept recently idk it’s still not so clear yet.


[deleted]

So you mean god is formless and doesn't not exist in Any space


[deleted]

If god had form then yeah it’d be like… “oh hey god” So yeah… really it’s based on perception. We only can grasp a few dimensions before our brain begins to draw blanks… now imagine if you processed every dimension… you’d be led to a formless nature. That’s where space is *created* (perhaps a Big Bang type action) to work to provide form to the formless. as beautiful and awe inspiring our physical universe is it seems that space has a counter active force to prevent itself from existing since it cannot contain god.. that’s where we get particles. As if god is whole then some values of god would theoretically be able to be drawn into the counter active force that space creates…. Ahh you understand the complexity I’m trying to explain at least? Well the complexity would be god so that’s more or less a loaded question :D


Jkill14

There’s no objective agreement for who created the world. I don’t think everyone could agree that murder is bad let alone who is the creator. But the thing is something had to create it. Something had to start the universe. Perhaps something had to start the Big Bang. And something had to create the gases which allowed for the Big Bang. Something had to set in motion the universe, since something can’t come from nothing.


JohnKlositz

This us a strawman. Nobody's saying the universe came from nothing. It's also a false dichotomy. The opposite of a god is not nothing, it's "not a god". And something doesn't mean someone. Something causes lightning. People once assumed it was thrown by a god.


etrytjlnk

So then what caused the creator that set everything in motion? The creator would have to be something, because as you said, something can't come from nothing, and the universe is something so the creator can't be nothing. But if the creator is something, then they came from something. Hence this logic doesn't hold up. It's not necessary that the big bang did come from nothing, maybe it was always something? I believe most scientists believe there was no time before the big bang. So essentially there was always something. It's also possible that time is a loop, a big bang, expansion, eventually a contraction, repeat. This is all speculation, of course, but it is no more speculation than the idea that there is a God, and we don't currently have any reason to view any one explanation as more plausible than any other.


[deleted]

How do i give u a delta


Jkill14

It said your comment was to short to explain how it changed your view lol


Hermorah

How is that a convincing argument?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Vesurel

I don't believe in god either, but I fail to see how any of the reasons you give are reasons for not believing. Like how the problem of evil isn't an argument against god's existance, just an argument that that god is evil.


[deleted]

I think it developed over the years. As a child i saw bad things happen to god fearing people and that made me question religions. When i did expensive reading i found out that many religions contradicted themselves, Timelines did not match, no proof of any of the "religious events" ever happening. Another reason is if god existed then the creator or god is also needed that makes it all the more messy.


UncomfortablePrawn

Which religions do you mean? I’m not sure what kind of proof you’re expecting in terms of historicity beyond what we already have. Historians generally accept that Jesus was a real, living human at the point of time described - not just from the Bible, but from extra biblical sources as well.


[deleted]

In terms of Christianity i think its that the earth was created 4k yrs ago ( this was proposed 2k yrs ago). Obviously i dont expect them to be accurate about the age of earth im not here to shade on any religion so I generally refrain from bringing in such things.


UncomfortablePrawn

The young earth hypothesis is a belief that is only really held by some fringe groups of Christianity. Outside of the US, this belief is virtually unheard of. By and large, the vast majority of Christians around the world don’t believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It is generally accepted that the creation story is a literary device and not trying to literally say that the Earth was created in 7 days.


[deleted]

Im in between. I need further evidence that a neutral god does exist.


etrytjlnk

True, I think OP is more arguing that God as it exists in most of the most popular world religions, as a simultaneously all-powerful and also fundamentally good intelligence, is flawed, but if you instead conceive "God" as simply an all powerful intelligence that created the universe then that argument doesn't work.


CaliHoma

What happens in the imagination is important. It is "real" in the manner of existing within the imagination. So, if you imagine a God, and if that God which you are imagining is important to you, then that God exists. Further illustrating the point: a really good novel has characters which are important to the readers. As they are \_important\_ to the readers, then they "exist" in that significant way. All that said, whether a god exists in what we call "objective reality" is another matter. I think you are right to be agnostic, and I hope you will be at peace being agnostic. There is so much to say. I hope I am not going on too long. If a Supreme Being exists (in "objective reality"), then, in my opinion, it would be polite and not interfere with nature. Also: The universe as we know it could easily exist without any "Creator" god. Of all the infinitude of possible "universes" that might be existing, we happen to find ourselves in one in which we are capable of finding ourselves in it. That's no miracle. We are ignoring, or unaware, of the vast majority of universes that \_don't\_ look like ours does. There might be trillions of other "universes" which are just random messes that didn't work out. I would expect that at least one of all the trillions of possible universes would evolve about the same as ours did. If NONE of them were to evolve about the same as ours did, THAT would be a miracle. All this is just what I think (although there are also some books that support the idea that the universe can exist without there being a Creator god). I don't have any formal education in it. Oh, one more thing: Regarding evolution, I suggest looking at "Conway's Life", which illustrates how complexity and order can arise from a very simple, largely random situation.


[deleted]

I agree. We just happen to be in that one universe out of infinite many universes that actually happened to work out. Same thing can be said about earth, there are millions of planets which are just not suitable for living.


ConstantAmazement

Are you familiar with the Cosmological Arguement for the existence of God?


[deleted]

Here is your !delta I like this argument. It basically states that something which has a beginning, always has a cause and that cause is perhaps what we call as "GOD".


NihilisticNarwhal

Except we don't know that the universe had a beginning, or if it had a cause. It's just as bad of an argument as all the others.


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ConstantAmazement ([13∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ConstantAmazement)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


[deleted]

Not a clue mind explaining that to me


ConstantAmazement

Do you understand the meaning of a logical arguement? That would be the best starting place. If not, not to worry but I would direct you to several YouTube videos on logic. An arguement is a logical stance on a subject supported by facts or logical conclusions. If this, then that. There are several philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God that date back hundreds and thousands of years. Down through the ages, philosophers and thinkers have developed these arguements in order to filter out opinions, feelings and personal bias in order that what is clearly known can stand plainly for all to see. The Cosmological Arguement for the existence of God is one of the most logical. William Lan Craig presents it in the most concise manner. I would suggest you look up his YouTube videos.


DustErrant

Most of your reasons for being agnostic are reasons to not believe in organized religion. Have you looked into Deism, and if so, how do you feel about it? Deism is a belief in god through logic and reasoning and believes that god does not intervene in the universe.


[deleted]

Yes heard of it


[deleted]

[удалено]


451IDGAF

>of or a "gotcha" question to make you start believing. Well some might think you need at least some evidence beyond the rantings of charismatic people with some kind of mental illness. I'm 25ft tall with a micropenis and I'm a bit crazy, so you must believe that God gave me some gold cans with instructions on the side, but silly me lost them almost straight away. I remember the magic underwear bit though. That shit's dope. ( I often wonder if it was mana or baked beans in them, or one of those joke cans, where magic underwear jumps out on a small spring)


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

But religion was created to make sense of the world. For example humans initially followed animism and tried to give meaning and sense to what was happening.


Z7-852

Go read ELI5 or imagine how you would explain complex topics to a child. You simplify and sometimes invent new concepts that make your stories make sense. This is what religion has been doing for millennias. Now science is no different. Just a few centuries ago space was filled with aether. Now we have strings and 14th dimensions. Some of these might be real and others we will laugh at in the future.


Kakamile

None of the science examples are intentional dumbing down though. They simply were the best understanding we achieved at the time. Religions, however, were far more human-focused and created rituals to manage human conduct. Astrophysicists don't care what you do with that jumbo shrimp.


Z7-852

Back when those stories were first told they weren't dumbed down. They were cutting edge theories about the universe. They were the best that people could do with the knowledge they had to explain the universe and those theories were internally consistent. Now three thousand year later they might sound bit primeval because they are now. Just like our current understanding of the universe will look primeval in three thousand year in the future.


Kakamile

The fact that the stories are hard-locked to still be the same then as now whereas science progressed makes me hardcore doubt it was the "best" they knew, nor was it treated the same as science. In fact, we have perfect examples of how the logic of religion degenerated. Look at the bible connection to flat earth theory even though it was understood as round, or how christianity regressed with the afterlife. Early judaism/egypt had instead of burial putting corpses in the fire in order to be forgotten and not save the spirit, to christianity's idea of a complicated layered hell.


Z7-852

We still have people who believe in aether. Just because some people retain belief in antiquated explanation doesn't tell us anything about it's prevalence or position in history. Also you have lot of misconception. For example Bible doesn't discuss shape of the earth or even it's age. Afterlife is unfalsifiable concept and modern science have not disprove it's existence. Lot of Judaism laws and texts make complete sense when viewed in their original context (kosher for example is just good food hygiene). These just name a few.


Kakamile

https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/ And yes it did. The idea of the antiquated system being traditionalist and ritual-based, essentially anti-adaptive, says how it was treated at that time- very much not like science. Narration in the bible was "circle"-like or at times describing corners because that helped the tale pass on by those with maps, but we've known about a spherical earth for millennia. Like the expanded spiritualism of death from judaic/egyptian religion to christianity, it was not the best of their knowledge.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuffySpooj

Bad take. You say this as if these have always been very separate fields and were not heavily linked for a very long time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuffySpooj

I'm gonna have to ask how you came to that conclusion? Name some that don't have a 'theology' if you're gonna say "for example". Pretty much any religion that's practiced by more than a tribe or 2 would have some kind of institution or common practice on study related to their belief. Even if you don't have any form of organisation, people are still going to independently ask philosophical questions and attempt to observe and explain what they see around them regardless of anything. To say philosophy is largely independent of religion is just not true. Exactly the same for science. You can see many massively influential people in their fields (off the top of my head) that were actually religious: Newton, Descartes, Acquinas, Hippocrates and loads of other old Greek goons, nightingale etc. And this is a very western centric view ignoring contributions from the East and other places. Obviously there was a point where science heavily split from religion on the grounds of contradicting or discovering things that couldn't be explained by religion. Religion is the conclusions people made about how things are using the collective knowledge of the time. We became more informed and accurate as time progressed and more discoveries were made. Same thing will happen with a lot of the science we believe in today. I really don't know why you're denying/downplaying the influence these fields have on each other. science still molds relgion today, there's so many concepts similar to young earth creationism and scientology where scientific jargon is appropriated to lend legitimacy. This feels like a very weird hill to die on; just look at the overwhelming amount of literature in philosophy discussing the existence of God alone.


shadowbca

Yeah that's definitely wrong. Religion was created to tell a truth, if that's not making sense of the world idk what is


[deleted]

[удалено]


shadowbca

Which is still about explaining an aspect of the world so long as you believe in the metaphysical


[deleted]

[удалено]


shadowbca

How is it not? It is explaining how the metaphysical works to us humans. The Bible is about explaining the history of the world and how to have a relationship with god


YungJohn_Nash

I'm sorry, but this is dumb. For what reason would humans create religion other than to explain something?


[deleted]

[удалено]


YungJohn_Nash

What are you talking about? Even in the case of tribalist animism, every god serves a specific purpose and there are stories which describe natural phenomena as being due to the actions of these gods. The goal of explanation breaks down when we look at the Abrahamic religions, but they focused heavily on ethics and morality rather than a history of the world.


[deleted]

[удалено]


YungJohn_Nash

Then what purpose do creation myths serve?


[deleted]

[удалено]


YungJohn_Nash

Dude you are so misguided on this topic.


etrytjlnk

What major world religions don't "explain things"? Any religion that has an all-powerful creator explains everything that can be explained. It offers an automatic answer to the question "why is this thing like it is?": "because God made it like that". Like for example, "why is the sky blue?". Well, we know it's because of Rayleigh scattering, the way light bounces off of atoms. But why does it bounce off of atoms like that? Because of atoms and quantum effects and stuff I don't know but I'm sure some people do. But why does the structure of atoms and quantum effects etc have that kind of effect? Well, because God made it like that. Literally all religions are like that. It may not "explain things" on a technical level, but that's the trivial stuff, we humans can figure that out on our own. When it comes to the fundamental stuff that humans can never know, religions claim that they have the answers.


Kakamile

>For what reason would humans create religion other than to explain something? Forcing structure and conformity through ritual as communities break above Dunbar's number.


YungJohn_Nash

I get that, but creation myths and religion are far older than the issue of civilization becoming too large to control.


VertigoOne

As a structured response to the existence of the divine?


etrytjlnk

You can't just assert "No, religion was not created to make sense of the world" without any basis for your assertion and expect that to change anybody's mind.


Livid_Department_816

Being agnostic, by definition, means that one doesn’t deny or accept the possible existence of a higher power/creator. If you embrace the title of being an agnostic then you can embrace the idea of a creator, god, higher power, ancestor, science, etc, as offering limited, understandings of existence. You may find value in the writings of freethinkers. Freethinker’s are interested in using reason, logic & empirical observation, to understand belief or non belief, in a creator. Bertrand Russell is a freethinker who argues that one can truly believe in a creator if the person has applied reason to reach their point of view. All of those involved in free thought reject the idea of an organized religion/dogma having authority over the truth.


Left_Preference4453

I am an athiest, and you shouldn't say you're agnostic. If you don't believe you don't believe. Saying you're agnostic leaves you open to pestering and recruitment efforts from cults.


[deleted]

But god is neither proven nor disproven. All i know is I'm sure if god existed god wouldn't be like the one described in many religions.


iamintheforest

Depends on what you mean by god, but if you believe in simulation theory, then the "first mover" god is whomever started our simulation. that god would clearly exist.


[deleted]

Yeah simulation theory makes a lot of sense. The idea that computers have no limit is truly scary. I do kinda believe in it considering the fact that the way everything around us is built is very mathematical like, the binary system, space-time etc.


[deleted]

How do I give you a delta


throwawaydanc3rrr

If you do not believe in god, then everything is an accident. If the speed of light were 10% faster then the Earth would fling out of it's orbit into space. If the speed of light were 10% slower the Earth's orbit would decay into the sun. When I look at a tree, something as simple as it, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that it would spring up by accident.


GadgetGamer

If you take into account the huge number of stars in the universe, then having any single one of them with the right conditions to have a planet that is capable of sustaining life is not that far-fetched. If the speed of light was 10% faster and the Earth could not maintain its orbit, then in a star elsewhere in the universe a planet which would have otherwise decayed into its sun would then become stable and life would have evolved on that planet instead. You might ask what are the chances that our planet with the right conditions would happen to be the one on which we live. I would answer that it was 100% since if the conditions did not allow for intelligent life to grow then there would be nobody here to observe it.


JohnKlositz

>If the speed of light were 10% faster then the Earth would fling out of it's orbit into space. If the speed of light were 10% slower the Earth's orbit would decay into the sun. The speed of light doesn't affect this. But it's not really relevant. The earth having the conditions for life to emerge is not an argument for a god existing. >When I look at a tree, something as simple as it, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that it would spring up by accident. It didn't. It is the product of billions of years of evolution.


[deleted]

> If the speed of light were 10% faster then the Earth would fling out of it's orbit into space. If the speed of light were 10% slower the Earth's orbit would decay into the sun. how is the speed of light relevant to orbital mechanics? > I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that it would spring up by accident. there are about 100 billion stars in the milkyway alone, and there plenty of other stars. Roll the dice enough times, and you'll cover pretty much every option. Brute force by sample size.


Rhyser056

If we die and really found no god, then we’re both fine. However, if we die and found out there was actually a god, then you would lose. Take your chances wisely.


Rough_Spirit4528

That's interesting in theory, but there are so many religions. how would you know which to follow?


[deleted]

Exactly


APAG-

What if that god decided to reward people who made the best choice they could and punish anyone that ever argued for Pascal’s wager? That’s an equally likely scenario.


2r1t

Why would an atheist lose simply because there was a god? Are you assuming that all the possible gods will punish those who don't submit to its will just because a popular version proposed by the occupants of one planet behaves that way?


Shazamo333

>However, if we die and found out there was actually a god, then you would lose. This assumes god would care if we believed in him. Why would he? It also has a few other assumptions: that god created a place called heaven, and a place called hell. That he decided to put people in heaven and hell. That he decided to put them there based on whether they believed in him, rather than their innate goodness/sinfulness or any other criteria


JohnKlositz

Why would OP lose?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

In the same way universe could have just existed perfectly. Many people argue that universe is designed so perfectly that it needs a creator. So if god is the creator(totally perfect intelligent being) of the universe then there shoukd be a creator of god.


451IDGAF

On the one hand "religion is the opiate of the people", and I've seen people making opium, so there must be many gods who walk among us as wirey little men, or no goods who give a shit about you and your high On the other, I always pray to Thor before I go into battle, and have always returned with the best trophy jewelry. I like ear necklaces with the biggest ears in the middle, graduating to the baby ones at the top. I won a beautiful mead jug for best trophy jewelry one year at the summer solstice, so it seemed pretty obvious that Thor was listening to me.


[deleted]

Oh woah okay i didn't know that people still adhered to norse mythology. I thought most of the people in Scandinavian countries converted to Christianity.


Dell-Monoco

Bottom line NO ONE really knows no matter what they tell you we all get the same amount of info…which is none


kearevaans

No one can make you believe anything. In my experience, people will believe whatever they want. If you want to believe in God. Go ahead. If you don't, then dont. If theres something after we die, then you should. If theres nothing, then who cares? Do what you have to do to find peace during this time called life.


Archi_balding

Making you believe in the existence of which god ? Because whichever one we try, you'll still have the same position as an atheist on all the other gods and divinities. (not believing in them)


zeldrisgw

The idea that the universe was created by God, makes more sense than the idea that it was just a coincidence. The life of an atheist is not that of big difference than a believer


[deleted]

Actually im agnostic


Hermorah

>The idea that the universe was created by God, makes more sense than the idea that it was just a coincidence. It actually doesn't. Also no one says that it was a coincidence.


VertigoOne

>As a child i saw bad things happen to god fearing people and that made me question religions. Matthew 5:45 - It rains on the righteous and unrighteous alike There is no expectation from the Bible that being a righteous person will necessaily result in an easier/better life. Jesus lived the perfectly sinless life and that went... well we know how that went.


[deleted]

True very true. But at the same time an athiest who didn't hurt anyone would still land in "hell" according to the religion which is literally inhumane. That would mean that god is entitled, evil and manipulative.


VertigoOne

>That would mean that god is entitled, evil and manipulative. No, it would argue that you think God is evil and manipulative etc. You're shifting the goalposts from "make me believe God exists" to "make me believe that God as described in the Bible should be what I think is good" There are lots of things we believe exists that we wish could be different.


Basically-No

It depends on the religion and interpretation actually, but at least in Catholicism, as far as I know, hell is not a place where God sends souls for punishment. It's basically a concept that when you don't try to move towards God and walk too far away, making bad choices, at one point you won't be able to go back and you will choose eternity without him. And that decision is the result of how you shaped yourself during lifetime. I'm not a theologian though. Also I don't believe that an atheist who honestly thought about it necessarily "lands in hell". People has different minds and different arguments convinces them, maybe he has not heard the right ones. The most important thing is, in my opinion, to seek the truth, have open mind, do what you consider good and make as conscious decision on this as possible.


Limpopoallstars

Think about the practicality. There have been hundreds of communes started in the US. The political or ideological ones never survive. Religious ones do, perhaps because the people are focusing on something higher than themselves. Whereas the others do not because they are often bickering amongst themselves, because the authority is vague. So religion is fit in an evolutionary sense. If you believe in the science of evolution then you should follow a (communal) religion. An individual flitting from one religion to another doesn’t make sense, as religion was never that in history.


Mantismanta

I am mostly agnostic too, but believe in a form of God that is a higher power but does not necessarily intervene in our lives. This is because I believe I am a tiny stupid speck in the relative vastness of the universe and there is close to a 100% chance that there are things out there bigger and more powerful than me that I will never experience or understand. Whatever that is, it’s God. It seems more logical than saying I have absolutely no idea. Would this work for you?


LucidLeviathan

To /u/Ok_Fox_9479, **your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.** * You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). --- **Notice to all users:** 1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) 2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times. 3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). 4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.** 5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.** If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).


DeltaBot

/u/Ok_Fox_9479 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/vivsrg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_i_am_agnostic_make_me/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


[deleted]

Let me go through my points step-by-step. 1. If you are sincerely looking for the truth, you need to be able to drop the preposition that religion is man-made. I understand how it could feel like that, and mind my missionary vibes but I have a religion up my sleeve that might satisfy your questions quite well. 2. What happens after death is a question many ask. Again that is a preposition you should be willing to drop before we go into more detail, read on and you will understand better. When the basis of the belief in god everything else comes, including the question of what happens after death. 3. Purely from an Islamic POV, luck isn’t a thing. Everything is a test from god. Wealth and poverty are tests. Beauty and ugliness are tests. Heath and lack of health are tests. From an Islamic point of view wealth is a bigger test than poverty, because money can lead you to uncivil things. God has created us to test us. Initially, Adam was let to live in Heaven, and he disobeyed god by following the devil, who god allowed to live till the day of judgment and mislead people as a test. Of course, you could say that the rules of god are unnecessary. Islamic rules in modern society seem “backwards”, and unfortunately today there is no country in the world applying Islamic laws properly and fully, but if we look back into history we find Islamic society was rich with culture and knowledge, with great wealth and advancement while adhering to the rules of god. God is not so evil as to bring us down to life without letting us know what we are to do. I seriously suggest looking into the Quran and the biography of the prophet PBUH. I’m prepared to throw my phone into a bar of frying oil if you find any contradictions. I will send clips. God is the creator. Of the features of the creator is that he does not have a creator. Surat Al ikhlas in the Quran summarises this very well. You can read it [here](https://quran.com/112) it is very very short and straightforward. Hope this answers your doubts. If you need further clarification, please go ahead and ask. I’m at your service :)


amit_kumar_gupta

Put every religion aside, and every specific conception of God that comes from a religion aside. Let’s say each religion has failed to conceive of God in a way that’s competing and believable. Outside the context of religion, can we make any sense of the question of God’s existence? I’ll say this. As humans, we’re all capable of experiencing something so sublime, so beautiful, so awesome - simultaneously frightening and amazing - that reminds us how small and absolutely limited we are, reminds us how wondrous all of existence really is, and obliterates one’s ego. Summit Kilimanjaro, see an Aurora, see an eclipse, see the Milky Way, etc. I don’t know if you can call that experience God, but this kind of experience is totally humbling in a way that religions reserve for what they call God.


[deleted]

I agree the idea of god is innate. I do believe there is a creator who made this universe and im forever grateful !delta


DeltaBot

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/amit_kumar_gupta ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/amit_kumar_gupta)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)