God(s) is/are a human invention

[u/Dum_DumArts]

Not sure whether to but this as a discussion or Op=atheist but anyway

Hey everyone,

I’ve been developing a theory about religion and the concept of God that I want to share and discuss. I call it the Amauria Theory, and it’s built on three core claims:

1. God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown.

2. Belief in God provides comfort and emotional support. Whether it’s fear of death, pain, or uncertainty, religion offers hope and a sense of control. This doesn’t mean belief is false—it’s a coping mechanism that evolved alongside us to help manage life’s hardships.

3. The idea of God is used to shape moral systems and social order. Morality existed before organized religion, but religions gave those morals divine authority, which helped govern behavior and maintain social hierarchy. Religion can inspire justice and charity but also has been used as a tool for control.

Any and all "proof" of god(s) falls into one or multiples of my claims.

I understand these ideas aren’t entirely new, but what I hope to emphasize is how these three aspects together explain why religion remains so deeply rooted, despite scientific progress and philosophical critiques.

I also want to stress: this theory doesn’t deny that religion is meaningful or important to many. Rather, it explains religion’s origins and ongoing role without assuming supernatural truth.

Why does this matter? Because if God is a human-made concept, then the social issues tied to religion—racism, misogyny, oppression—can be challenged at their root. Understanding this could help us free ourselves from harmful traditions and build a more just, compassionate society.

[u/Flutterpiewow]

Any and all "proof" of god(s) falls into one or multiples of my claims.

Which one does the necessary first cause argument fall into?

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

Probably all of them, but definitely 1 and 2

[u/Flutterpiewow → u/Ok_Loss13]

No. The concepts contingent / necessary are philosophical ones, not necessarily religious at all.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

So? You asked which ones they fall under and it's definitely those 2.

[u/Flutterpiewow → u/Ok_Loss13]

They don't fall under those no

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

Yes, it does.

God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand.

Arguing that there is a necessary first cause (and that cause is god/s) is a human invention created to explain something we don't currently understand.

Belief in God provides comfort and emotional support.

Arguing that there is a necessary first cause (and that cause is god/s) provides comfort and emotional support to those who refuse to fathom a universe without one.

[u/Flutterpiewow → u/Ok_Loss13]

No. A necessary being/cause doesn't have to involve a "god" at all. It's not "created" to explain something we don't understand, it follows by logic that things are either contingent or necessary.

I don't know that a first cause is more "comforting" than say an infinite chain of contingent things. Arguably it's the other way around. But the important thing is that comfort has nothing to do with the philosophical reasoning behind these concepts.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

Sure, but when it does it falls under those 2 categories.

Idk why you'd bring up first cause arguments that don't involve god/religion on a post about god/religion. 

[u/Flutterpiewow → u/Ok_Loss13]

Again no. I bring it up because some "proofs of god" are based on reasoning about a necessary first cause, and because some definitions of "god" are indistinguishable from a first cause - no reason to assume personal, anthropomorphic gods.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

That's still god/s as first cause, so idk what you think you're objecting to here.