>>108023
i've always held back from writing way too long posts explaining why God exists when ppl say this but well. yeah. here we go. honestly i've been meaning to finally write this idea down anyways, so its not a complete waste.
isn't it a bit unlikely to exist in a universe where chemistry, planets, and life exists? If we think of the laws of nature like the code of a videogame, what are the odds that a bunch of gibberish code id write would form a world of chemistry, physics, with interactive lifeforms in it? bascally 0 no? If gravity were a little stronger, there would be no chemistry of which to form life, if it were a tiny bit weaker, there would be no chemistry of which to form life. If you think about it for 2 seconds, don't the constants of physics have to be very finely tuned parameters to get any kind of interactive lifeform? Its hard to produce worlds with interactive life-forms in them!
theres also no easy selection mechanism to produce a world like ours. if you say, oh, it is an infinite multiverse, that explores every kind of set of universe rules; such a multiverse would produce our world, and because we can only find ourselves in universes in which life-forms can exist in, we must find ourselves in interactive universes like this one.
okay, well, what about a universe in that multiverse that is totally perfect for life, where every cube inch of all space of a vast universe is 100% chocked full of innumeral conscious brains? Wouldn't we be infinitely more likely a conscious being in that universe than this one? It is actually far simpler to produce that world than our world and therefore would be far, far more common, as you just need to get a simple intelligence repeating. or what about a universe where a brain happens to form by chance for just a second, in an otherwise unsuitable world; because lower patches of order are far more common that higher ones, it would be far more likely as a conscious observer to be one of these "boltzmann brains" than a life-form in a universe like ours. If we really were in a multiverse, we are seeing the exact opposite of what we would expect to see, a well ordered universe, with the majority of that order being completely irrelivant to our selection mechanism of mere conscious existence. Any multiverse existing purely to select for conscious life would be really janky and broken, like those TAS runs of super mario, nothing would make sense. Remember, the multiverse just needs to make consciousness, it doesn't need to do so elegantly like in our world - and if it doesn't need to, it absolutely certainly wouldn't. The only way to get an elegant world is with God.
Its especially bad once you consider mental experiences to be a kind of substance - which is a far more realistic view than considering them to be some non-existent illusion. I mean we have been doing this based on pure assumption that brains produce consciousness, but what if consciousness exists out of substances that are seperate from the brain, even if those substances are produced by one? If you're "having" an experience (which self evidently you are), then the experience must either be a substance or an aspect of a substance, there is no other alternative. and if it is a kind of substence, then won't it be possible by adjusting universe rules to have it to exist all over the place regardless of if there are any brains, and therefore be completely unusable as a selection mechanism? this thought completely breaks your system.
Honestly I never understood the whole "mind is an illusion" thing of atheism, and I say this as a person that really could have ended up an atheist. I mean the philosopher zeno said that motion was impossible, which is obviously stupid, because we can clearly see with our eyes that motion is possible. But at least xeno had a philosophical reason to believe to believe motion is impossible and deny his eyes, because of the archer's paradox that supposedly proves motion is impossible. Of course, to anyone reasonable, they would just think there must be some solution to the archers paradox, but atheists don't even have an argument to think mental experiences don't exist... Like at least zeno had an reasons behind why motion didn't exist, you don't even have one, you just assert it for no reason, like as if philosophers are baboons for thinking their mental experiences exist, when they clearly must, if its true we're having experiences. look if we're self-evidently experiencing mental experiences, those mental experiences have to exist substantially in some way, or you're just not reasonable, i mean how can you "have" an experience of something but the experience you're having doesn't exist, that makes no sense, literal nonsense. Like saying it is an illusion doesn't mean anything, you're just saying words. anyways....
This whole multiverse nonsense is a lot like playing poker, and one guy gets 100 royal flushes in a row. you pull out your pistol to shoot the guy for cheating, but then he says, "wait im innocent im swear, i just got very lucky. I mean, we're probably just in a multiverse, and we just happen to be in the universe where i got 100 royal flushes in a row." the proper respose would be, "even if we were in a multiverse, there are far, far more universes where you cheated those 100 royal flushes, than worlds where you won them legitimately. A reasonable man bets on what is more probable." and then you shoot him for cheating.
A reasonable man in our situation would bet that someone cheated our physics, theres no way we just happen to live in an elegant, interactive universe, when getting anything remotely like this world is far rarer than getting 100 royal flushes in a row. Im sure you believe the universe is based upon rules, and these rules just happen to be what they are and thats all. but these rules could have been any other way. The problem is they had to be very, absurdly precisely this way for any kind of interactive life to exist, even the slightest deviation in physics, and there are no stars, no planets, no galaxies, even chemistry couldn't exist. Theres no way thats just like that. The only way you can get this, is if someone wrote the game to be this way, because they wanted life to exist. I mean, why don't you tell me, how can nature just happen to be this way, when it is so infintesimally unlikely?
Instead, what if you could get God using only a few simple rules of nature? Wouldn't you be forced then to admit by your own system of thinking that this is the most likely option, simply by the laws of nature?
Here are those rules: 1: We suppose that every kind of basic mental substance that can exist, does exist. There are a limited number of them, as each substance is unique, and fundamentally simple, so this is entirely rational to imagine, and because mental substances are not composed of smaller things, nor are they based upon some particular number or relation like physical laws are, the only possible way to get a mental substace is to just... start with the fact that they are able exist; basically, they are fundamental. Due to being simply fundamental, every world capible of explaining our world, must in some way have this rule that says every kind of mental substance that can exist, must exist, or some close equivilent - making this rule a freebie. (by mental substance, im saying the experience of red green blue, sound, smells and touches, every kind of basic qualia/experience that can exist, does exist.) Because these are mental substances, they exist according to a perspective space, and is experienced by a being, as there is no such thing as a mental experience that is not being experienced by a someone, according to some kind of perspective. but this being so far is just a bunch of static qualias that do nothing.
Lets now add 2 more rules: these qualias can be divided into smaller divisions, and the qualias/divisions can be moved around. Now it can make any concievable shape out of its qualia. A rule equivilant to these two are also nessisary to explain any universe, as we must have multiple things, and the things must be able to be rearranged, or nothing could move nor have varieties of shapes we experience. So all rules i have used so far are nessisary to explain any universe like ours, and are freebies.
Now lets add the last rule nessisary to form God; Bad feelings feel bad, and if you think about it, this is very unique property exclusive to conscious experience; physical substances don't feel anything, and are not any way about anything. The idea is, if bad feelings really do just feel bad, and that just is what they are, then maybe it just... is wrong to cause bad feelings, by that very nature? In other words, morality inherantly exists according to the way feelings inherantly feel. And if we can imagine morality inherantly exists, maybe it is possible for this morality to inherantly motivate this simple mental being into actions. That is the final rule.
And so; we already have a being that is all powerful, as it can create any shape of mental qualia without limit; there is no cost to divide the shape, and no cost to move, so if it wants to explore every shape from negative a googolplex to positive a googleplex, it can do it as trivially as 2+2 =4. So the being clearly has all powerful control over its substances, and anything made up of its substances (like if it made you out of qualias for example, it would have total control over you). But remember, these are qualias that are being experienced by the being, and a conscious being inherantly has awareness of whatever it is experiencing, and inherantly knows where it is experiencing it, because well, it is experiencing it; and because it can create every kind of shape of experience possible, it can therefore create knowledge of every kind of information possible, and so through the use of its power inherantly has omniscience. It can, through its power to move shapes, form these shapes into any calculation conceivable without limit perfectly, and because it has conscious awareness over the shape it is making, it is inherantly aware of the shape, and so aware of the information of the shape. I mean, our computers function based on their shapes, but we are limited by how small we can make these processors, and energy costs to produce; this being has no such limits, and so through its all powerful control over conscious experience, it is also instantly by that fact naturally perfect in intelligence.
Naturally, such a being prefers to multiply the pleasant feelings to the unpleasant ones, and produces world of perfect happiness for it to experience we call heaven. It also knows it can make a world like this one out of mental stuff through its exploration of all knowledge. (God can easily make an ideaist (purely mental) world that accounts for and corisponds to our lived experience in this universe perfectly, no physical objects required.
For example, if i could move around qualias, and increase their number, and saw all the qualias in your mind, i could replicate every qualia you are made of, and make a world experience for this copy of you to live in inside my head. this copy of you would be mentally identical to you in every way, I could copy your voice in your head that you think of as you speaking, and the copy would think it was it speeking it, and copy over all the qualias that make up the thoughts in your head, create a system that responds and colors the vision and sound experience as if its in a world exactly like the one you exist in now, as if it is interacting with people and the copy of you would have no idea i made him, and that he exists by me moving him, and that i see everything he does in my mind. What difference is there, between that copy in me, and you in God right now? If even I could do that with the power to move qualias,then yeah, i think God could and would do the same, and in fact, that is essentially what I think we are, just the thoughts in his mind, of which he cannot help but see all of us.
Now the being who is clearly God has no need of us, it does not need in any way to make us, rather, it is more that, if you are very happy, it is only natural to want to share that happiness with others, and basically, if life is something good, then naturally you will think there ought to be be more life. And so thats why we exist, not for his sake, but for our own sake, because he is good. and as for why we are not in heaven enjoying ourselves, but in this fallen world, well, christianity can best explain it from there. And so yeah, using a few utterly simple rules, that are actually nessisary to explain all universes like ours anyways, you get God. So uh, yeah I have absolutely 0 doubt in my mind God is actually real. Its more reasonable that whatever you believe in anyways.
in a nutshell, it is always far easier to form 1 perfect intelligence that makes our complicated world, than it is to try to form our complicated world directly. And so no atheistic explaination can ever be better than a theistic one.
That, and i can "get" a God out of fundamentally simple substances, which is absolutely insane that I can do that, that is the dream solution for any philosopher. Imagine if you had something like that over me, we'd never hear the end of it! but you don't, i have that over you. Atheists can never get our universe using simple substances, they have to use a billion complex values and physical relations, its inherant to the way they think, because they basically are no simple substances in physics, they are all based on numbers and relations that can be any infinite number of values, with an infinite number of potential laws and complexities. i can get our world with simple substances that needed to be assumed anyways, chanceless nessisary substances, and it just works. And even if atheists somehow magically could find a simple solution, which i don't think they can, you've only caught yourself on equal footing.