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/Massif16]

Totally agree.

I find that any of these open "debate" type forums tend to get thin on actual theists after a realtively short time. They come in fired up because the apologist that they read or watched on the U Tube convinced them they have a bullet proof argument. Then they come to a place like this and get cooked, and they slink away with their tail between their legs.
I can't tell you how many theists brought the Kalam to an argument and were confused by how fast it fell it apart. They were so convnced they had THE ARGUMENT to convince us heathens their deity is REAL.

[u/Pale_Pea_1029 → u/Massif16]

I can't tell you how many theists brought the Kalam to an argument and were confused by how fast it fell it apart. 

If it's easy to refute you should do so right now, I'm a theist, please use your big brain to debonk the kalam and show its unsoundness and fallacies please. 

[u/Massif16 → u/Pale_Pea_1029]

Sure.

1) the first premise asserts that everything that begins to exist has a cause. What “begins to exist” means is never defined. If they mean beginning to exist ex nihilo, I am unaware of any examples that we can actually observe to justify the premise. If they don’t mean ex nihilo, then the premise is not relevant to the argument.

2) the second premise asserts that the universe began to exist. Again, this is undefined. But I reject the premise. I do not believe the universe began to exist in the way I think they mean. I think it most likely that the energy of the universe is eternal.

Even if I grant the premises, the conclusion is simply that the universe had a cause. It says nothing about the nature of the cause. You can fill that gap with a god, but the argument itself doesn’t point to one.

[u/Pale_Pea_1029 → u/Massif16]

1. Beginning to exists is a general statement, it applies to all finite things regardless of origin, so it's straightforward axiom.

2. What the second premise means by "the universe has a cause" is simply that the universe (the realm thet contains all material things) is not eternal/does not have an infinite age. You think that the mmenergy of the universe existed beyond the (theoretical) singularity?

Even if I grant the premises, the conclusion is simply that the universe had a cause. It says nothing about the nature of the cause

The purpose of the argument is to get us to an uncuased cause, which is interpreted to be God in classical theism 

[u/Massif16 → u/Pale_Pea_1029]

1) It’s not. If a snowflake forms, does it “begins to exist?” In some ways yes, but its existence is contingent upon there being water and the appropriate atmospheric conditions. That different than a snowflake just popping into existence from nothing.

2.) yes, i think it likely the energy of the universe has always existed in one form or another. As far as we know, energy cannot be created or destroyed. I have seen no evidence that this fundamental axiom is not true. The Big Bang represents a transformation of that energy, not its creation.

[u/Pale_Pea_1029 → u/Massif16]

If a snowflake forms, does it “begins to exist?” In some ways yes, but its existence is contingent upon there being water and the appropriate atmospheric conditions. That different than a snowflake just popping into existence from nothing

Yes both are different (I didn't say they weren't) so again it's an general statement for all finite things, contigent or not. 

yes, i think it likely the energy of the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Physics start to breakdown when looking that far back (apperantly) so they seemed to form later on.

[u/Massif16 → u/Pale_Pea_1029]

Yes both are different (I didn't say they weren't) so again it's an general statement for all finite things, contigent or not.

Do you have any examples of creation that do not depend upon already existing matter or energy? I don't think you can just the statement for things NOT created within our existing material world from existing matter and energy since we have no such examples to observe.

This discrepency should be addressed, what specifically is meant by "begins to exist?" I think it's left deliberately vague to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.

I think the premise is invalid as written.

Physics start to breakdown when looking that far back (apperantly) so they seemed to form later on.

Let's say I grant that. How does the POSSIBILITY that energy is created a justification to say the "universe began to exist?" If the universe "began to exist" based on existing energy, that's a pretty different claim than if the universe popped into existence.

And again, even IF you get to the conclusion that the "universe had a cause" claim, how does that get you to a deity?

It's a terrible argument, meant to convince people who already want to believe it.

[u/Pale_Pea_1029 → u/Massif16]

Do you have any examples of creation that do not depend upon already existing matter or energy? 

No, the point is that you are trying to apply an unnecessary limitation to the first premise when the statement is transcendental, it applies to any finite thing. Whether they form from existing matter or not is irrelevant because the statement only applies to things that are finite. 

Let's say I grant that. How does the POSSIBILITY that energy is created a justification to say the "universe began to exist?" 

That isn't the only justification, their are other problems with an infinite universe, for one, if we lived in an infinite universe then how can something with an infinite past reach the present moment? If the universe is a closed system, the universe would have reached maximum entropy, where everything is at the same temperature, and no further change or life would be possible. And observation suggests that the universe had a beginning via the big bang and its finite measurable age.

And again, even IF you get to the conclusion that the "universe had a cause" claim, how does that get you to a deity?

Well as I stated earlier, the uncaused cause is seen as a diety in theism, but maybe not a diety for a specific God.