this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
60 points (83.3% liked)

Asklemmy

48120 readers
630 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

By using our logic and from the experience of things around us we can say that it's impossible for something to come from nothingness. There is a consensus that the universe has a beginning which scientists call the Big Bang. But that cannot come out of itself, logic dictates that there is something which brought it about (energy/matter does not just compress itself into a singularity). Whatever that thing is or things if there is a chain of initiators/causes, must end with an initiator which is self-sufficient and which has not been caused by something else. Otherwise we go in an infinite regression of asking what caused that cause, and an infinite chain going backwards would mean the present never gets to happen, but we exist, and that is proof that the chain ends somewhere.

That's what is called the necessary being or the uncaused cause.

Now, by observing the universe we can surmise some characteristics that that cause must possess to bring it about, since it must possess them in at least an equal ammount. The enormous ammount of energy held in the universe shows that the initiator has immense power. The laws of the universe and its intricacies suggest that it must possess knowledge and wisdom etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 4 points 22 hours ago

Simple answer: I find I carry on believing in God in much the same way I believe in Science. A mixture of experience, logical coherence, testimony, teaching from people I trust, and connection with other things I know/believe, that makes - to my mind - God's reality overwhelmingly more likely than not.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I think I believe in something more like… biology and physics working together in some way to create our existence. I had a near death experience once when I was in ICU for several months. I met, a… thing, it was like a large glowing spark but its light didn’t travel away from its self, its glowing was contained to its “body”. I asked “is that me?” and the “room” we were in was filled with a sense of “no” it’s taken me ten years to process that experience and be able to talk about it, idk what that spark was but I’ve come to accept I believe that is the All Thing, it’s the eternal spark all sentient life stems from, I do believe access to long term memory is critical for being a part of the All Thing not simply being animated biology, like a mosquito for example.

I think the All Thing animates biology as a way to experience the physical world because it must “live” somewhere and we are all avatars, our thoughts are only important in the sense that they lead us to experiences and forming memories. I believe in nonduality and that physics is actually the closest humans will ever get to describing a god, an All Thing

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Truth is proof - I can neither prove the number of gods is >0, nor prove it is =0.

Thus cautious agnosticism (since the evidence suggests, if there is at least one god, then they really hate us).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Upvoting the actual answers here, as some who were not the target audience and haven't read the question have answered.

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Agree.

OP wants to hear opinions from people agreeing with statement X, not those who disagree.

I disagree with the notion of the universe being a probability game, but that's not asked.

[–] detun3d@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thumbs up from me too. I'm always eager to hear/read from people who aren't shy but rather open and reasonable about their beliefs, whatever those may be.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sort of, but it's more a comforting theory rather then a true belief. I came up with it when I was younger, doing a lot of psychedelics, and meditating often on the nature of existence and reality.

My theory is that God is everything. The earth, the stars, our fellow beings. All of reality makes up a complex web that I loosely refer to as a "consciousness" for lack of a better word. The nature of this "consciousness" is incomprehensible to us. It does not activly intervene in our daily lives, and operates on a scale beyond our comprehension. Mostly, it simply is. It is the oblivion from which our consciousness was once plucked, and it is where we will one day return.

In essence, each of us is a tiny fragment of reality experiencing itself. The meaning of life is to experience it. All of it. Joy, pleasure, and suffering. It is all a part of the whole of existence. When we die and return to the infinite our individuality is lost, but maybe God learns something about itself.

[–] RedCarCastle@aussie.zone 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In some sort of greater being yes, in any kind of church or following no.

I find I have my own belief in some unknown cosmic entitys, something along the lines of energy is always in a state of flow, life and death, rocks to dust, consciousness to the sprawling reaches of the universe a bit of new age spirituality stuff,

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

That’s kind of where I am with it. Anything human led is suspect and I think any resemblance to “Jesus church” is long gone. I want to believe but I struggle with God being “just” but also allowing so much injustice.

If I had to put myself somewhere I believe in God but my faith for the rest of it is dwindling.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iasmina2007@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It provides hope and comfort. Christianity and Romanian culture are deeply intertwined, and I’m a fan of our traditions.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

I went to a Romanian Holy Unction service and it was beautiful.

[–] waterbird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Makes me feel more assured and will reduce my suffering until I die. After my death, regardless of if I am right or wrong, the net positive of having had the soothing idea of a larger meaning can’t and won’t be retroactively undone. So why the hell not?

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] rainrain@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I saw something fitting a common description for God (in meditation). Yes, a total mystic vision.

(The creator of reality. A star (that also looks like a jewel) that emits poetry energy. And then I react to that energy by dreaming this dream that I call reality. Like contriving lyrics for an instrumental song.)

No intelligence or personhood as far as I can tell. Just a vast brainless mystico-cosmological gusher of energy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

Consciousness exists. This implies that either consciousness is some emergent property of sufficiently complex interconnected systems, or it's some universal force that complex interconnected systems "channel".

If it's emergent, it seems less presumptuous to assume that the most complex interconnected system of all, the universe itself, would develop consciousness. That universal consciousness might as well be called "God". If it's a universal force, it might as well be called "God". Anyway you slice it, a universal consciousness seems inevitable from a sober metaphysical analysis.

Lots of people have ascribed lots of culturally specific attributes to the universal consciousness which are obviously quite silly. The core statement that "I am that 'I am'" is really the only meaningful attribute we can identify.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] nagaram@startrek.website 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Personally I'm a huge fan of the Alcoholics Anonymous understanding of "god" and I think it applies more widely.

In AA it is supposed to be A-religious so as to accommodate as many people as possible. To them, god is whatever higher power you need to put your faith into to do better. An entity who you are striving to make proud or you are asking for guidance or help, etc.

This genericized god idea kinda gives up the game to me as an atheist, but it doesn't mean it's bad. In fact it's made me believe in god as an idea.

There are plenty of studies on "manifesting" goals and how saying out loud to yourself or to someone at all substantially increases your chance of succeeding in your goal. This is just prayer or a magic spell or whatever else you wanna call it. I call it a ritual.

The fact that god is a made up idea has been uncontested in my mind for eons, however the psychological power of a belief in god is new to me and makes me appreciate the systems of religion more (doesn't excuse a lot of their bullshit).

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

AA is a great program and is basically secularized Christianity. Two great religious books that talk about the program from a more explicitly religious perspective are "Breathing Underwater" (Catholic) and "Steps of a Transformation" (Orthodox). Even with your agnostic perspective I think you would find them enlightening.

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

No reason. I just do.

[–] KeepFlying@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (6 children)

If you look at it very very loosely, many major religions are reaching toward the same general concepts and have enough similarities to suggest a consensus that there's a "something" up there.

We probably all have an imperfect idea of what that "something" is, but there are enough similarities (or echos of the same ideas) across many religions to suggest they're looking at the same indivisible thing and interpreting it differently.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NKBTN@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Cos I've done drugs, and experienced heightened states of love, being, appreciation for nature and humanity, states that feel magical yet real, even if only temporarily.

The very fact those states of mind are achievable at all gives me a certain emotional grounding and inner certainty that reality has purpose, or at least meaning. As opposed to just being a happy accident of atoms and energy arranging themselves in this miraculous way to create life. That's just a logical explanation of how, not why.

We're almost all driven to look for meaning in life. Even if it's just to "find your own purpose", that journey presupposes you have one to begin with.

I guess I feel a belief in god without having much idea of what god is, or even what they want. But I don't believe at all that logic, science, reason etc. are things you have to choose instead of religious belief. They're things you have as well. You can't square the two - the Rubik's cube of logic doesn't twist that way.

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK, our reality might have a purpose or meaning given by a god - but then what about that god's purpose/meaning? Was it given by yet another one higher up? You can keep going up layers like this and finding meaning on each one, but eventually there has to be a final one, a reality that was not designed by anyone. But why does it exist?

Some people may say that there's no proof that we actually exist. And maybe we don't, but the fact that we can think and experience things means that even if our reality is somehow fake, there has to be one that isn't. Because if nothing existed, there would be nothing at all. Not a void, just nothing, not even the possibility of existence. So something, at some level, must exist. But why?

"Because God created us" is not good enough for me, because it doesn't answer anything. If we exist because a god created us, that still means that a god existed before us. Why does this god exists then?

We'll never find out. Any answer we find will only open things up for new questions. And just like a child that is just starting to experience things, we'll never run out of questions.

[–] NKBTN@feddit.uk 1 points 18 hours ago

I think it's the book of Job, God says something like "you could not possibly fathom the purpose or meaning to the world, even if someone tells you". I think in much the same way a Turing Machine simply cannot process certain tasks or achieve particular ends, our brains are limited to a certain subset of understanding. Still mightily impressive what we can imagine/devise/understand IMO. In Islam, this is more readily accepted dogma: you can't even imagine or picture God, so even attempting it is doomed to failure (or delusion)

[–] Libra@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago (12 children)

I don't believe in the Christian god because there are too many contradictions and I don't think the divine truth is corruptable. Anything so corrupt it doesn't even agree with itself cannot be divine truth.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I believe in God because I don't believe knowledge is possible without a transcendent being. (e.g. the impossibility of the contrary) Otherwise you are dealing with infinite regress or axiomatic circularity. Materialism breaks down with origin theories. Metaphysics aren't substantial yet exist. Math and logic aren't descriptors of the world but integral to how the world is structured. The Orthodox view is that these principles are a reflection of the divine mind.

(I am an Orthodox Christian)

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If so, your definition of 'God' is so far removed from what most people take God to mean as to just invite linguistic debates over debates over the thing itself.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IttihadChe@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I believe in God because I think its the best explanation for the existence of our universe with it's laws. A being outside of our current space/time setting our universe into motion just makes sense to me.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If our universe requires a being outside it as an origin, why shouldn't that being itself require another being of even further outside as an origin, and so on?

[–] Jdreben@mastodon.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Scientists believed this for the longest time, but I've recently seen a documentary explaining that, at the very bottom, there's a giant koala bear. Apparently they're still trying to determine why it's smiling.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago

TAG addresses infinite regress. A transcendent being functions outside of our physical and metaphysical constraints.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›