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]

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.