3 ms·

This is how I see it. I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. Existence c

This is how I see it. I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. Existence coming out of nothing is ridiculous. We really have no clue how we even got here. Maybe our existence could be proven scientifically down the line, but right now creation is actually the most feasible to my mind, strange enough. So with that the problem of evil comes up and I gotta give it up to the late great Epicurus. And I quote: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” The other stance you can have are God’s plan is unknowable to us. His mystical plan is not for us to know and grasp. Which is a huge leap of faith and so wishy washy I can’t bring myself to adopt it.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
> I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. This was my position as I was leaving Christianity. Now though I think it's more likely that matter and the laws of physics have just always existed, possibly an infinite amount or to an infinitely small scale. While that may seem difficult to comprehend I think it's much simpler than omnipotent turtles all the way down.
- smeej 5y ago
  It is omnipotent turtles all the way down, though. "Matter and the laws of physics" is "turtles" just as much as "God" is "turtles." Choosing to believe the turtles are impersonal doesn't alleviate the problem of the turtles.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Except the turtle of matter and physics aren't creators and don't need themselves to be created if they always existed. Mass and physics aren't sentient or acting with purpose.
    - smeej 5y ago
      Everything that exists comes [X]. [X] causes all that happens. Nothing happens apart from [X]. It doesn't matter whether [X] stands for "matter and the laws of physics" or "God." All you've done is make the turtles impersonal. The stack is still there, and it's every bit as inexplicable as it was before.
pmoriarty 5y ago
"Existence coming out of nothing is ridiculous. We really have no clue how we even got here. Maybe our existence could be proven scientifically down the line, but right now creation is actually the most feasible to my mind, strange enough." But if God created the world then what created God? If you're ok with the answer that God always existed, why wouldn't you be ok with the universe always existing (thereby having no need for a creator God)?
- heythereguy 5y ago
  To me a "being" with power able to create reality is different than physical matter just always existing. I'm not saying it's right, it's just more convincing than saying that matter has always been here that doesn't make any sense at all. Example: Something coming from nothing. Everything has a primary mover. The only way to reconcile it to me is there is some supreme thing that can transcend our time and physics and everything else.
  - breuleux 5y ago
    In Greek cosmogony (well, one version of it) there is one supreme being called Chaos from which everything else proceeded. If you think of it simply as a being of pure creative energy that created the laws of physics at random (and possibly infinitely many other random universes we have no access to), would that fit the bill? It's little more than a reification of "just because" as an actual being, but I mean, why not.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "To me a "being" with power able to create reality is different than physical matter just always existing. I'm not saying it's right, it's just more convincing than saying that matter has always been here.." Why is it more convincing to you? They seem equally preposterous to me. What difference does it make if one is physical and the other not? Saying that one or the other of them always existed seems equivalent to me.
    - heythereguy 5y ago

paulryanrogers 5y ago

> I’m actually open to a creator of our simulation or our reality simply because it’s the best explanation we have right now. This was my position as I was leaving Christianity. Now though I think it's more likely that matter and the laws of physics have just always existed, possibly an infinite amount or to an infinitely small scale. While that may seem difficult to comprehend I think it's much simpler than omnipotent turtles all the way down.

smeej 5y ago
It is omnipotent turtles all the way down, though. "Matter and the laws of physics" is "turtles" just as much as "God" is "turtles." Choosing to believe the turtles are impersonal doesn't alleviate the problem of the turtles.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Except the turtle of matter and physics aren't creators and don't need themselves to be created if they always existed. Mass and physics aren't sentient or acting with purpose.
  - smeej 5y ago
    Everything that exists comes [X]. [X] causes all that happens. Nothing happens apart from [X]. It doesn't matter whether [X] stands for "matter and the laws of physics" or "God." All you've done is make the turtles impersonal. The stack is still there, and it's every bit as inexplicable as it was before.

pmoriarty 5y ago

"Existence coming out of nothing is ridiculous. We really have no clue how we even got here. Maybe our existence could be proven scientifically down the line, but right now creation is actually the most feasible to my mind, strange enough." But if God created the world then what created God? If you're ok with the answer that God always existed, why wouldn't you be ok with the universe always existing (thereby having no need for a creator God)?

heythereguy 5y ago
To me a "being" with power able to create reality is different than physical matter just always existing. I'm not saying it's right, it's just more convincing than saying that matter has always been here that doesn't make any sense at all. Example: Something coming from nothing. Everything has a primary mover. The only way to reconcile it to me is there is some supreme thing that can transcend our time and physics and everything else.
- breuleux 5y ago
  In Greek cosmogony (well, one version of it) there is one supreme being called Chaos from which everything else proceeded. If you think of it simply as a being of pure creative energy that created the laws of physics at random (and possibly infinitely many other random universes we have no access to), would that fit the bill? It's little more than a reification of "just because" as an actual being, but I mean, why not.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "To me a "being" with power able to create reality is different than physical matter just always existing. I'm not saying it's right, it's just more convincing than saying that matter has always been here.." Why is it more convincing to you? They seem equally preposterous to me. What difference does it make if one is physical and the other not? Saying that one or the other of them always existed seems equivalent to me.
  - heythereguy 5y ago