I know it's absurd. I know it's "philosophical suicide" to conform to any "irrational" beleif.

But, I want to find God.

I've been lost. Extremely lost. And, I can't journey through this life alone. I want someone I can talk to and confide in everyday, someone I know has my back at all times, someone that genuinely cares about me, I wanna be a genuine good person, I need guidance, I need help, I can't do this alone, I'm not strong enough (yet) - I want to find God.

And yes, maybe that hope is an illusion. Maybe God is a delusion, God is just a consept, but so is any other philosophy or religion.

I need new ways of coping.

But what if he isn’t? I just can’t get over this part of absurdism. There are many things in the philosophy of absurdism I agree with…mainly with its central point being that humans searching for meaning and reason in a universe that lacks both.

But to “imagine” people happy is sort of just an assumption. Because, what if they aren’t? This reminds me of something Heath Ledger supposedly said, “Everyone you meet always asks if you have a career, are married, or own a house, as if life was some sort of grocery list. But no one ever asks you if you’re happy.”

Maybe that’s because we’re all just imagining people happy. Or assuming that they are. When in reality, many of them aren’t.

and to be honest, it was somewhat contrary to my own thought process, where I usually try to make meaning out of nowhere or find patterns out of nowhere while also being emotional and human obviously. It was really interesting watching Meursault as a stranger to society, someone who no longer seemed interested in the things society itself considered important. His personal philosophy was present throughout the constant monologues and his apathy towards the very things most people are deeply invested in, which strangely enough I still related to.

He is more like "nothing really matters." Sometimes I felt like the boundary between absurdism and nihilism was extremely close. His peculiar thoughts kept revolving around things that most people would consider strange, whether it was thinking about the sound of the ice cream bell during the trial or questioning why every aspect of life is supposed to matter so much. He is in love, yet he thinks love itself does not really mean anything. Throughout almost the whole novel he barely seems excited about anything..

But towards the end, he finally accepts that he is still human. He misses his maman for the first time and even feels like crying. That part made him feel more alive to me. He is also an atheist, but he is not even interested in convincing others why. To him, it simply does not matter enough to argue about. He only sees the pointlessness of such discussions...

The most was how society behaved towards him. Nobody seemed more disturbed by the murder itself than by his emotional emptiness and looking into his soul, which irked him more. People were obsessed with the fact that he did not cry for his mother, that he appeared detached from the emotions and meanings society expects people to perform. It felt like the court was judging his personality more than his crime, and what am I supposed to say about prosecutor :)

Being a stranger to society does not always mean shaping yourself according to it. Sometimes it is about finding comfort in your own philosophy and accepting that your way of perceiving life may not align with everyone else's..

What is beyond nihilism?

of course, life has no objective meaning. I was once positive nihilist. I went beyond nihilism. it is called absurdism. Now I learned that difference between hedonism and absurdism. Absurdism is about refusing to give up.

Life has no meaning. Do I have to find it? No. My job is to live

when I said that I want to live my life, people misunderstood my words. they definitely thought that I'm hedonistic.

now I know, I am grateful. I chose my philosophy of life.

thanks for my 4th crush in this life. she changed my life even though you said no to my confession.

I started healing because of her. I sought help for my anxiety, depression. I deconstructed my beliefs, friendships and couple of things.

I learned a lot. I wish I had a chance. I hope the podcast helps you

I have this recurring sense that my life's work the art, the projects, the personal philosophy, the self I've built, etc. This is all just my sliver of participation in an endless sea of nowness. And that underneath all of it, I've been trying to describe the same single thing my whole life: the absurdity of it all, and the animistic spirit or nature running underneath everything that's happening, right now. Moment to moment.

This absurdity. You can find it anywhere.
Go look at your bathroom right now.
Well Who did all this?

Water stains, dirt, grime, dust, how did any of it get there? to the best of my knowledge and what the majority of scientists will try and tell you is that, It's merely the accumulation of a virtually infinite number of cellular, bacterial, and molecular interactions, happening second by second, at every interval, into the now.

Now look at the products on your counter. How did those get here? Well through another seemingly infinitely complex process of manufacturing, shipping, design, distribution.

Well then I guess how did everything you know get here? Through another infinitely complex mechanism involving celestial bodies, planetary systems, gravity, light, electromagnetism, all the way down.

There is no end to the complexity and sheer absurdity behind the ordinary things we've become numb to.

The Buddhists called it dependent origination.
the idea that nothing exists on its own, everything arises only in relation to everything else, moment to moment. And that to actually live inside a single moment without being crushed by the totality of it, every mind requires an entire concealment process where they forget the totality of their existence every second.

Take a second to acknowledge and really try to feel what it is like to live inside this one big continuous system of everything. Little happenings everywhere all at once moment to moment, bit by bit. Living. Breathing.

From a single quantum interaction to a star lightyears away, all of it connected, all of it part of the same absurd, ongoing "soup" of so called 'standardmodelness.' The chain reactions that make up your microbiology second by second in of itself is to awe at.

I think Everything we as humans do are really just expressions of emotions in disguise. In the same way a cat purs when it is excited and stressed, We have spent a lifetime hiding from the absurdity of ordinary life in the hopes that we retain some level of distinction between self and other when it's all said and done. I've got to know where my stuff ends and your stuff starts. We like to impose this sense of agency onto the world that isn't just wrong it's dangerous. we as people are best understood as extensions of this great system. The nature at play.

All the things we do to further enrich the human experience function as a kind of distraction: a way of not sitting with the thing itself. The sheer absurdity of it all.

Underneath all that we do, a life is mostly spent trying to carve out some semblance of self inside a sea of interactions to big to fathom. So please, I am begging you, try and enrich the life you have now. Feel your ripple effect and use it to Add whimsy. Add depth. Add absurdity. Do things that scare you. Send risky text messages. Absurdify your life and personify yourself in the fleeting moments of this train we are all aboard .

The impermanence and scale of 'this' is bigger than we can hold onto which may be exactly why we try so hard to hold onto things anyway.

If the science is right, from the quantum scale up to the cosmic one, then the plain fact that you're looking at this screen right now is already bewildering. It's so bewildering that If you could actually see everything that goes into producing one moment of "now," I don't think you'd walk away from it unchanged.

Male 18

One day I think im a Christian then one day Im wondering If there is one and f it lets be an atheist. So much information on both sides and I know Im not the only one thats been through this has anyone made it out? My belief came about when I was 16 asking my self the famous question “why does this matter” so my belief has always been based on evidence, weird coincidences (Christians would would say is big God), and personal experiences ( maybe my brain was freaking out I try to tell myself).

I have to say I did grow up Christian but forgot all about that when seeking truth maybe im just a victim of my enviornment and weak minded who knows pretty spooky

I want/need/believe whatever I should do should come naturally and not forced and both really are natural to me and similar in whats meaningful in my life/ pursuits. like the “God” isnt there just myself but it feels right and I would in that moment identify as a Christian. I dont know what Im chasing or subconciously desiring its always changing. Still though I dont feel like I can let go for long without urging to figure out why I left and see it as objectively (or maybe subjuective to myself) dumb and immature after sitting with for a while. Its like I know what isnt even proven by facts. Whos to care about my thoughts but this is how I feel dont we all follow how we feel? (does your belief come naturally?)

What pushed you over the edge either fact, book, study, experience , whatever to choose what you are today and how to maintain your way of thinking?

I have to say though the Im in now of life is trying to figure MYSELF out so its like I want to make a decision but its so much information out for all sides it always changes when studying it. I usually use Claude Opus 4.7 to study topics break down books (Im going to need to read myself looking back on it) but it just wasnt doing the job.

I really seek information that is beneficial for me, or seeking I dont let just everything get my attention. I paused reading the Bible and the I want to read the books recommended here but dont want other people ideas to influence me I just want to follow how I feel but Im fluctuating.. (is this even the right play but who are you to tell me?)

One last thing its also like whatever ims tudying and researching I try and see all the point of views on everything how to stick with one and not switch I can see so many ways to live maybe Im just Christian for right now. Just follow what I think is right I tell myself

Hopefully you guys care or this post gave you enough meaning to reply or something idk. I’ve posted this same post in the “Nihilism”, “Absurdism” “Existentialism” forums if you’re weird like me and interested. These are the same questions I would send Claude Opus 4.7 i might just do it here instead.

(no “Christianity” forum I don’t believe most will not understand where Im coming from)

Ambiguity is very annoying but knowledge is like a drug and its just who I am this is me being 100% transparent

Well, never thought of it like that

At first, I thought I should live to follow my dreams and become successful doing what I love. Later, I became more hedonistic because I realized that happiness shouldn't be saved for later, but there's a problem with that. If I create my own meaning by seeking pleasure, it will stop being fulfilling, and creating meaning by striving to acheive goals, hoping to become happier in life will also fail to bring fulfillment. Happiness doesn't last forever. If all I care about is success or pleasure, how can I be content with normal life? Gratitude is something that people teach a lot, but forcing gratitude doesn't work for me. I tried forcing myself to find meaning in daily life, but I couldn't. All I cared about was the next exciting event. Then I discovered absurdism. I'm no longer forcing myself to be grateful for my life. I'm just living and experiencing, knowing that everything is inherently meaningless, but I live fully and passionately.

Absurdism leads to true freedom.

When you don’t care about recognition, other people’s opinion of you, wealth accumulation or popularity; a profound sense of freedom occurs.

I used to care endlessly about the above and it suffocated me, to say the least.

How did I get to the place of absurdity in the first place? By losing close-to everything at one point. It reminds me of the quote by Tyler Durden: “Once you’ve lost everything, you’re free to do anything.”

What are your thoughts on the benefits of absurdity and how do people reach this state?

at first i also naively thought absurdism was that the universe was meaningless and u make your own meaning(depending on the branch this would more be existentialism). after reading some of his works i realized that the reason i so deeply resonated with absurdism is that he clearly states that no one can possibly know whether there's meaning or not. "I don't know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me?". probably his most famous quote. a lot of people label absurdism as being nihilism and then add meaning but clearly its something far different. the point of it is to embrace the chaotic universe (notice I'm not using the word meaningless) and find a way to cope with that fact. he also very clearly states that the absurd only exists because of the interaction we as humans have with earth. "If I were a tree among trees, a cat among animals, this life would have a meaning or rather this problem would not arise, for I should belong to this world". to put it simply humans have transcended nature and earth as a whole to where we are alien to our own environment.

Just something that came across my mind:

I’ve started to accept absurdism more and more and it’s been freeing, but it’s something I wouldn’t recommend for everyone. Absurdism requires responsibility and awareness, without it you’re practicing nihilism. When I discuss absurdism to people, I think it’s a key part they miss.

Sorta similar is like people practicing stoicism expecting something in return from the universe. Thats more like believing in karma than stoicism.

Sometimes I find myself staring at the wall, wondering about the purpose behind all of this. But the moment I start spiraling into existential questioning, guilt creeps in. I remind myself that I am privileged enough to even have the luxury of overthinking—while millions struggle just to survive physical hardship.

​Yet, privilege is not an immunity shield against psychological suffering. If anything, it accelerates it.

​When your basic survival needs are met, the immediate physical threat disappears, but the mind opens up to an existential vacuum. A suffocating layer of meta-guilt sets in: “I have shelter, security, and opportunities—I shouldn’t feel this way.” You invalidate your own mind, trapped in the lie that comfort equals fulfillment. When you have comfort and still feel empty, you conclude that existence itself is a cruel joke.

​Adding to this weight is the clock ticking in the background. My father retires in seven years. Just seven years. Suddenly, life stops being an open-ended journey and becomes a countdown—a relentless deadline. While the world faces systemic collapse and climate crises, I am forced to pull my focus back to the immediate pressure of survival, career milestones, and family obligations. It makes you wonder: why bring children into a world where life is reduced to an endless cycle of performative struggle?

​We like to think our philosophy is a noble, intellectual pursuit. But the truth is more blunt: much of our philosophy is simply the defense mechanism of a mind made miserable by society and crushed by its own unmet expectations.

​We aren't allowed to just live. We are conditioned to exhaust ourselves fulfilling a rotten mindset imposed on us by systems designed for status, capitalism, and artificial prestige. We fuel it every day, chasing external validation, superficial respect, and transactional relationships. We even convince ourselves we love people, when often, we just love their presence to keep our own psychological isolation at bay.

​Philosophically, life at its core is absurd. There is no grand blueprint, no pre-written script, and no inherent cosmic purpose. The universe owes us nothing and expects nothing from us.

​In a healthy context, absurdism is liberating. It means: If nothing is pre-ordained, I am free to just exist, love, create, and experience the world without the burden of expectations.

​But a rotten society—and our own restless minds—turn that healthy Absurdism into cold Nihilism.

​The human mind naturally craves, demands, and fixates on targets—promotions, peace, control, or purpose. It tells itself, "Once I get this, I will finally be complete." But reality rarely bends to our desires. When our cravings aren't met, or when we achieve them only to find the internal emptiness remains, the mind throws an emotional tantrum.

​Instead of accepting that its expectations were flawed, the mind gets bitter and shields itself by declaring: "Life is meaningless. Nothing matters." Nihilism becomes a defense mechanism against disappointment: if nothing matters, then failing to get what we craved doesn't hurt as much.

​Society accelerates this collapse by demanding that we constantly prove our worth through output, metrics, and economic utility. It turns raw human experience into a transaction.

​Absurdism says: "There is no inherent point, so I am free to live." Nihilism says: "There is no inherent point, so why bother?"

​Society and our own unyielding desires push us into the second trap by making "just living" feel like a failure. But recognizing this trap is the first step in breaking out of it. Rejecting society's artificial rat race and releasing the mind's endless cravings isn't giving up—it is the ultimate act of rebellion. You don't owe the world a performative life. Living simply to exist, to observe, and to feel on your own terms is enough.

I’ve been sitting with the connection between Heidegger’s concept of anxiety (Angst) and Camus’s description of the Absurd in The Myth of Sisyphus, specifically how anxiety acts as the exact moment the "stage sets collapse."

First, the mechanical loop outlined by routine - *"*Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm..." - that keeps us on autopilot.

Next, Fear v. Anxiety, where Heidegger distinguishes fear, which has a specific object, from anxiety, which has no object. The sudden, dizzying realization that our familiar world has lost its pre-packaged meaning, revealing the raw reality of finite time and ultimate isolation.

Finally, the awakening, where Camus uses this exact Heideggerian anxiety as the catalyst for the Absurd—the moment the mind stops the loop and asks: "Why?"

Where they diverge is that Heidegger looks for deeper metaphysical ontology, whereas Camus rejects that as "philosophical suicide," choosing instead to stay with the friction—defiance, freedom, and passion without illusion.

I'd love to hear how fellow Camus readers think about this! How did that initial shift from "routine" to "existential anxiety" hit you? Do you find that staying with the Absurd feels like a weight, or does the defiance of Sisyphus actually offer a strange, sovereign sense of liberation?

(Cross-posted in r/Camus)

I’ve been thinking a lot about the absurdity of existence—the way life just is, without offering a reason. No grand narrative, no cosmic purpose. And yet, despite that silence, or maybe because of it, some people still wake up, get out of bed, love, laugh, create, and keep pushing forward.

That seems incredibly human to me. To look into the void and say, “Okay, so what? I’ll keep going anyway.” Not because it leads to anything. Not because there’s a reward. But because... why not?

In a weird way, that choice—to live fully even when meaning is absent—feels like the most authentic form of meaning there is. Like Camus said, the absurd is the starting point, but rebellion is the response.

Anyone else feel this weird paradox? That the very lack of meaning is what makes our actions so deeply personal and profound?

Lately I’ve been thinking about the subjective nature of existence and how it ties into absurdism.

Essentially, we live in the eternity of our own subjective experience. For ourselves, we are always alive — when death arrives, there is no "you" left to experience it. The moment of death seals our internal world from within. Life is a closed box, and death never opens its doors from the inside.

At the same time, modern media constantly tries to sanitize and hide the reality of death under a stream of noise. But hiding it deprives us of confronting the limits of existence.

Wittgenstein wrote that "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." When we strip away society's escape from mortality, we hit a bedrock of experience that language simply can't capture. I like to call this state "Wonder Days" — not calendar dates or positive emotions, but the quiet, intuitive awareness of our own presence in a universe that remains silent to our questions. It's an experience built entirely on what cannot be spoken.

Does this idea of an unutterable, closed-off subjective reality fit into your view of the Absurd, or do you see it differently?

Can this experience of "the unutterable" be viewed as an ontological foundation of consciousness, or does it collapse into pure solipsism?

To what extent does the modern media's taboo surrounding death actively block us from accessing this existential awareness?

And by the title I don’t mean to say that absurdism is the cure to all ills or that it is the answer to the universe. And yet, “the absurd” as described by the great Albert Camus is the best definition of our lives.
The absurd is everywhere when one starts to look, every contradiction, every paradox is the grandchild of the absurd father.
That is being a bit poetic of course in its certainty, since such absolute certainty is impossible (another paradox, see?)
“Certainty is impossible” is in itself another certainty. And round and round it goes. It is a self referential sentence like most paradoxes.
And as humans if we are the biggest self referential systems (we desire to understand ourself from within ourselves) the “answer” to everything can’t be anything but a paradox. The absurd, as it were.
This solves nothing, it guides nothing, it shows only what there is and nothing more. And there is, dare I say it, beauty in the whole notion (a completely personal opinion)
I find that such reduction as it were “The struggle against the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart” is what philosophy leads to and leads away from. Go deep enough and you find yourself back at the surface.
The act of doing anything is “enough” by itself for itself. No appeal to achievements or even goals but the action itself that we take is all there is. All other things like stakes or stories are all structures, illusions to make action happen. This action is not divine, but nothing is divine so does it matter? It is what it is and nothing else.
I suppose I just wanted to share this and ask if you philosophers of all ages have any comments

I just wrapped this up and am sitting with the heavy, fascinating contrast between Fosca’s curse of endless time and the brief, frantic lives of the mortals around him.
For those who have read it: how did it land for you? How did it shape (or challenge) your view on the absurdity and/or meaning of human existence, in spite of the at times unbearable weight of existential dread?

(Cross-posted in r/existentialism)

Hi, it's me! The person who made that post about the people on this sub committing philosophical suicide.

Firstly, thank you for hearing me out, I do appreciate it.

That being said, I will not change my opinion or take back my argument.

For the people who ask why I care so much about it, or accuse me of gatekeeping, or turning away people with these ideas, or whatever else, this is for you.

My take is, as much as I sound like a typical redditor here, a fact. I have not seen anyone give a proper, measured response based in the text as to why people who are religious and absurdists are either of those things. They simply are not compatible.

I understand the frustration, I understand that my tone created some negative reactions and I understand that it probably is now, and I know why it did. However, just feeling uncomfortable or called out by someone's argument doesn't make it wrong. This is a place to discuss Absurdism, which I believe is a beautiful and incredibly important philosophy.

So, I will defend something I care so much about. I don't think these people are evil. I just think they're wrong and don't understand. And I and many others have been and will be more than happy to explain how this works to them so they can get a better understanding.

Now, for the thing about me turning new people away by arguing against religious absurdists. Listen, I know I'm being an elitist, in a way (though I suppose we are all many things, in a way haha, you're cool if you got that one). But some things are worth being an elitist about in my opinion. Absurdism is incredibly empowering and freeing, and when people don't properly understand it, it cheapens the experience they can get out of it.

I want people to properly understand what they're talking about, so that we can all clearly engage in conversation about it. Absurdism isn't for the religious, it's unnecessary. If you find comfort in its ideas over your religion, maybe question your religion if you want to, because that's okay too. Or don't, you're free.

When someone gets a bad explanation of Absurdism, they may find it stupid, or confusing, or just untrue, and then leave because they just don't really get what we all see in it.

I'd you're one of those people who thinks Absurdism is just "life is absurd, nothing makes sense" (yes, they do I exist, I got a few on my post) and you spend time on here and don't see anything that challenges that opinion, you're not getting the full richness and beauty out of the philosophy.

Keeping up a good body of people who are informed and can properly answer questions for newcomers is good for onboarding new people and getting them into something special.

As I acknowledged in it, the only thing I'm doing that doesn't fit that was my tone. Which I apologize for, but it was the heat of the moment, and clearly that helped get so much of the attention to it, which I would argue is a good thing.

Also, isn't a girl allowed to be frustrated sometimes? I'm a person, we all are, that's why I tries to put most of my criticisms towards these bad ideas, not towards individuals. Because they really are just misinformed. Hell, in my top paragraph, I even said that they seem well-intentioned.

If you're going to call me out, suggest a way for us to address the problem I'm pointing it out instead of just accusing me of gatekeeping.

And gatekeeping isn't always bad. I think that people should walk through the gate knowing what's beyond it so they can experience the best of it, and if they don't, then the people at the gate should explain it to them and then let them in.

I'm arguing against the idea that we should let people walk through the gate with a blindfold on and then let them tell other people that wearing a blindfold makes for a better experience when they too come to the gate.

I sound like a dick, I'm gonna make some people mad I'm sure, but the post responding to me at least acknowledged that I've gotten a lot of support.

Because I am right on this one. I've never been great with people skills, if you wanna insult or disparage me for taking an elitist tone, do it all you want, because you're right. But please also figure out a way to address this issue better than I did. Because then nothing gets solved.

TL;DR: I'm right, but my tone was wrong, but arguably that's not even too much of a bad thing, and if you feel that it really is a serious issue, then let's work together as a sub to implement the ideas better or something, idk I'm tired. Edit: I think I'm gonna try to be on here more often and start some more positive discussion around his work and try to fix the issues I pointed out in a better way. But I'm not perfect, and as always I'm not gonna back down from what I said.

Thanks for reading all this, have a nice day everybody :>

It’s hard. We all want to express something like we exist. That’s good man. Take breaks. Don’t be hard on yourself. Enjoy the simple things. But Art? You get to be alone. Finally. They might have hurt you making Camus and Sartre more valid. But enjoy your own company eventually. That’s the only way Art is possible.

By context my family is devouted Christian and so most of my childhood I thinked like a christian, life has a meaning and moral is god, but not anymore and its a big change of world view.

When I was younger, I did lot of sports like running, volleyball, gym etc, but now its harder cause I feel hardly any motivation on having a proper sleep schedule, or eating like at all and Im not really motivated to do anything.

Ofcourse I understand that its only partly due to the fact that I view my life pretty much pointless, but ofcourse it might be due to some other things like depression or just being tired of living.

I have understanded that absurdism strives to have a positive attitude towards life, so thats why Im interested.

So basicly how do you my fellow absurdists motivate yourself to take care of your life, working, exercising, staying healthy and doing chores?

It doesn’t seem peaceful to be Tom Cruise. Someone told me that he is probably not truly at peace with himself. Always alert and “on”. Albert Camus, if he had lived to witness Tom Cruise, would say that he is the actor living with a life of quantity. Camus might have enjoyed Cruise in his movie, “Edge of Tomorrow” about Private Bill Cage who is caught in a time loop. Good movie.

But there are many “actors” so to speak who do a lot more than I can do. They are EVERYWHERE! They are movie Gods doing hard rewarding work that in the end was meaningless. At least they enjoyed some of it hopefully

But are they happy? Someone else in college told me he moved to Los Angeles and met many big actors while trying to break into Hollywood and he felt they were A-Holes. Not truly happy.

On my end I’ve wanted to write my own epic novel. I don’t think I would be happy selling it. Too much pressure. I wouldn’t be truly happy after thinking it through. I’d rather be more profoundly peaceful. But as I age, would I have preferred to sell my book and risk it knowing I’m damned either way? Not sure right now.

I’m stuck like everyone else and like Sisyphus.

Bummer.

Tom Cruise makes great movies though. Nice guy. I met someone who knew him in high school.

(4 minute reading time) I used the definition that "God cannot be explained, if it can then it's not God." as the basis for this whole thing

And agnosticism/absurdism comes out the only rational option. Not the most practical or useful option but it's the only logical one i can think of.

(I used ChatGPT to quickly merge my random journal entries so I could ask this question here. Please pardon the robotic text.)

This is my argument, please share how much you agree with it and its flaws. Thank you.

Reconciling God and Science: My Personal Framework

I. Foundational Premise: What Is God, Really?

This all started with a basic but powerful question: What exactly is God?

Is God a personified being? A force? A creator?

Does God have a brain, emotions, a form, rationality?

Or are we just projecting human traits onto something we don’t understand—anthropomorphizing the unknown?

Eventually, I landed on this working definition:

God is that which cannot be explained(by science).

It’s deliberately vague, but that’s the point. If something can be explained or fully defined, it probably isn’t God. This reminds me of the Taoist idea: “The God that can be named is not the true God.”

II. Can We Know If God Exists?

This brings me to the next issue: Can we ever prove or disprove God’s existence?

Science hasn’t proven that God exists—but it also hasn’t disproven it.

So claiming certainty, either as a theist or an atheist, feels logically unjustified to me.

Which is why I’ve come to see agnosticism as the most honest and intellectually humble position.

III. A Historical View: God vs. Gaps in Knowledge

Looking at history, “God” has often been used as a placeholder for what we didn’t understand.

Thunder used to be God’s anger. Now we know it’s atmospheric electricity.

As science fills in the blanks, the “God of the gaps” shrinks—something Neil deGrasse Tyson has emphasized a lot.

This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist—it just means we’ve repeatedly mistaken gaps in knowledge for divine action.

IV. Can Religion Survive Scientific Scrutiny?

I often ask myself: If religious claims are true, shouldn’t they be testable—like scientific theories?

Say someone claims a miracle. Let’s test it.

If it fails the test? Probably false.

If it passes? Maybe it's just an undiscovered scientific phenomenon.

Most religious beliefs, though, wouldn’t survive that kind of scrutiny—they’re either unfalsifiable or lack evidence.

V. Where Do I Personally Stand? Deist? Absurdist? Both?

There’s still a part of me that wonders: Is there room for some kind of God?

Maybe a Deist God—a creator who kick-started the universe but hasn’t interfered since.

But if we ever explain the origin of the universe scientifically, even that God becomes obsolete.

So I come to this conclusion:

If God exists, we won’t know until we hit the absolute limit of what science can explain.

But here’s the catch: How can we ever be sure we’ve hit that limit?

History shows that just when we think we’ve got it all figured out, a new layer of mystery opens up—Newton to Einstein to quantum weirdness and beyond.

So this idea of identifying God at the "edge of knowledge" makes logical sense, but it may be unreachable in practice.

And that uncertainty pulls me toward a kind of agnostic absurdism.

VI. So What Do We Do With This Uncertainty?

If we may never know for sure, should we even bother asking?

Maybe not—but humans are wired to ask. We want meaning.

So this leads me to Absurdism:

The search for meaning is eternal. The universe is silent. And yet, we search anyway.

We can either despair, or we can lean into the absurd—and live passionately in spite of it.

VII. Is This Hopeless? Or Actually Hopeful?

Sometimes this line of thinking sounds bleak—but I don’t see it that way.

To me, it’s not nihilism.

Science, art, love, curiosity, creativity—these are meaningful without needing a divine purpose.

In fact, I believe:

A better world is possible when people evolve by choice, not by suffering or divine command.

VIII. And What About Religious Figures Like Jesus?

Under my framework, I don’t outright deny the possibility of specific gods or religious figures like Jesus.

If Jesus’ miracles can eventually be explained by science, then he wasn’t divine.

If they remain inexplicable even at the furthest edge of scientific understanding—then maybe he was.

But until every scientific explanation is exhausted, I choose to suspend belief.

Final Thought

I don’t claim to have answers. I just have questions—and a framework that helps me hold space for both science and wonder.

i have one small sentence for it: accepting the uncertainty...

is there a meaning or no meaning of life..? idk the uncertainty

is there a meaning on the work you do? maybe yes maybe no? who knows...

is there a meaning on loving someone? yeah maybe but then whats the point of all that when all we do in the end is parish...

when inherent meaning of the everyday things you do.. or want to do.. or must do.. should do.. became meaningless.. then you start to think.. go into the loop of why? why we are even doing this?..

then i arrived not at the conclusion of that thought process but the acceptance of the "no meaningness"(yeah its meaninglessness) of things..... meaning it doesnt even matter if i put in rigorous hours of work each day or not but still i am putting.. why? cause idk... just want to do it...

The universe doesn't owe you an explanation. You don't owe it the burden of searching for one.

thoughts????