Can anyone articulate why a god exists?

Originally posted by whereu ↑

Well, darkroom, you may be right or you may be wrong.

From my perspective I believe that there are examples of simple principles that lead to complex structures. Evolution is an example of such a principle as is the formation of stalactites and stalagmites and of the "humble" snowflake.
This leads me to favour explanations in which simple explanations lead to complexity rather than starting with even more complex entities (God or Gods) to produce by definition (of God) less complex structures.

History is full of examples of being astounded by phenomenon that we don't understand. Understanding, perhaps unfortunately, other than getting rid of superstition also may diminish wonder. Not necessary though. For example I have a reasonable understanding of tides but am still intrigued by them without the superstitious baggage that can come with it.

I too am astonished by my existence, and of the existence of the entire universe for that matter. I am only bewildered (not sure that's the right word) only because I can't grasp how it could be but feel that the reasons for existence could range from a very unlikely set of circumstances to being as inevitable as a brick that you are carrying dropping if you let it go. I tend to lean more towards the less spectacular end of this spectrum - we, together with the universe are here because it's inevitable that we are.

A major reason that I like science is not mainly because of what we do know - and that is intriguing enough - but more from what we still do not understand. I am convinced that the easy way out offered by religion - God did it - has and still does inhibit our inquiring mind and is therefore anti-science.

Expand

It seems to me that the kind of nebulous 'we can't put our finger on it' vague 'God' that the 'Godists' are now talking about....this is moving closer to being 'The Universe'; much, much closer than the 'classic' version of the anthropomorphic 'God'.
But no matter how much the goalposts shift, a 'God' with a consciousness, able to 'create' according to a perfect plan - this 'God' therefore still possesses the core properties of the anthropomorphic God.

I try to understand where the 'Godists' are coming from, and therefore I get the accusation 'oh, you are thinking of an anthropomorphic God' placed on me.....whereas, as I say, I am just trying to understand them, and only have their increasingly vague statements to go off.

The central core of the 'Godists' arguments always remain in common with those of the classic religionists -

1/ The balance of probability says that The Universe was 'created'.
2/ Any issues around what form 'the creator' takes, what their composition is, how they tiptoe deep into the vast Universe they 'created' and 'create' life in it....these questions are too much for human minds to comprehend.
3/ The 'creator' does not require a creation story or explanatory back-story of their own.
4/ No proof for 'the creators' existence is required, since the Universe is the proof.

Maybe the way that the Universe self-generates and inculcates life inside itself is the thing that is too much for human minds to comprehend. But this is never a point if view that religionists, or even 'Godists' put forward.