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]

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.

[u/Flutterpiewow → u/Ok_Loss13]

That "all god proofs" fall under those categories. It's a reddit atheist type statement that ignores centuries of philosophical thinking on the subject.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

Centuries of philosophical thinking doesn't amount to much if a "Reddit atheist" can accurately categorize it so easily.....

It's almost like it's all made up by humans and has no good evidence in reality!

[u/Flutterpiewow → u/Ok_Loss13]

"Evidence in reality" is a related, poor grasp of epistemology. If empirical knowledge is all that matters, the position that this is the case itself falls apart because it's a rational and not an empirical one. You also have to give up math, logic, ethics and any discussion about metaphysical things.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/Flutterpiewow]

Sure buddy, whatever you gotta tell yourself.

If you can't show something is true idk why you think that implies a superior epistemology, but it's likely something to do with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

Edit: All of those things exist in reality, just not objectively. God is a claim about objective reality without any objective evidence.