• Nelots
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Why? There is no evidence that a sentient creator exists or created the universe. So I have no reason to believe in one. Zero faith is required to have that opinion. Not knowing something doesn’t mean I have to default to a god did it. A god is simply one of many possibilities, all with just as little evidence as the other.

    Besides. Why can’t there be multiple creators? Why does the creator have to be sentient? And who created the creator? Has the creator always existed? Seems to me that it takes more faith to believe a creator has always existed and then created the universe than it does to believe the universe itself has always existed. I’m not saying I believe any of that, but in this scenario either way something has always existed, yours just has one extra step.

    We may one day find out what caused the beginning of the universe, or maybe we never will. Regardless, immediately attributing that which you do not understand to a god is no better than the people of ancient civilizations. Before we knew what caused lightning, we blamed Zeus. This is no different.

    • BmeBenji
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There is no evidence that a sentient creator exists or created the universe.

      And there is no evidence that the universe appeared out of a void. I do not mean to say that it only makes sense to believe in a god/creator, I just meant to say that it makes as much sense to believe that there is a god as it does to believe that there is no god. I would argue it takes faith to do either, however it doesn’t take faith to say you would not believe either without evidence.

      Why can’t there be multiple creators? Why does the creator have to be sentient? And who created the creator? Has the creator always existed?

      I have no answers for this question that don’t involve what I personally believe on faith and not on evidence, and I cannot make any sensible effort to try to convince you of it so I won’t.

      either way something has always existed, yours just has one extra step.

      I agree something has likely always existed, and whatever it is I would call it “the creator.” I have my own personal beliefs about the creator being sentient but I have no proof of that.

      • Nelots
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Like I brought up in my last sentence or two, every other time we’ve blamed something on the supernatural, we have either found a natural explanation for it that precludes the supernatural (Zeus and lightning, for example) or have not found enough evidence for it to find it compelling (ghosts, for example). We’ve found no reliable evidence in favor of a supernatural being, be that ghost or god, despite our ability to do so being significantly better than that of ancient peoples. Imo, the more this happens, and the more the “god of the gaps” shrinks, the less likely a god is to be true simply on a statistical standpoint. Why should it be true this time, you know? If a horse loses a thousand races, are you still going to bet on it?

        With that in mind, I don’t believe it takes any faith to take a hard atheist stance and actively believe there is no god. Just like it doesn’t take any faith to believe a timeless unicorn didn’t fart the universe into existence, or that there isn’t a magical leprechaun in my closet right now that disappears when you open it. They all sound just as ridiculous to me. Now, I do agree that it takes faith to actively believe any positive claim without solid proof. If I said I believed the universe was timeless because I liked the sound of the theory, that would require at least some level of faith on my part. That’s why I’m happy to admit I have no idea what caused it. It doesn’t affect my life, so I can accept that it’s one of the many, many things I’ll likely never know.