4 ms·

In my opinion, there is no god or any other supernatural agents in the universe. There is no grand plan. If there is a god then humanity is probably something

In my opinion, there is no god or any other supernatural agents in the universe. There is no grand plan. If there is a god then humanity is probably something akin to an ant farm to it. To expect god to care about any particular person is like trying to care about one particular ant in a colony.

lurquer 3y ago
> If there is a god then humanity is probably something akin to an ant farm to it. To expect god to care about any particular person is like trying to care about one particular ant in a colony That analogy doesn’t hold. I have an ant farm. But, I didn’t make the ants. I notice people rarely think about both sides of the question. That is, as an exercise, assume that there is a God. And, then based on what you know of the world, yourself, humanity, etc, what conclusions can you draw about the nature of God. Messing around with Euclid’s postulates is similar. Start out by assuming, for instance, parallel lines always meet, or the angles of a triangle always exceed 180. Take those as givens and explore the ramifications. You seem to be starting out with an assumption of God, but then immediately finding an apparent contradiction. “We’d just be like ants…” or, you might have said, “he couldn’t be both benevolent and Omnimpotent due to burned up babies, etc” That’s no different being asked to omit one of Euclids postulates and then complaining that the whole system gaps apart. Well, it doesn’t. In fact, such seemingly absurd exercises can lead to profound insights about the universe (spherical remotely, relativity, imaginary numbers). Pascal did this. He assumes there is a god, and then explored what that must mean. He didn’t assume there was a god and then Look for ways to disprove him… that’s backwards. If you truly wish to explore, you assume God exists and try to figure out how this world could possibly make sense given that assumed fact.

lurquer 3y ago

> If there is a god then humanity is probably something akin to an ant farm to it. To expect god to care about any particular person is like trying to care about one particular ant in a colony That analogy doesn’t hold. I have an ant farm. But, I didn’t make the ants. I notice people rarely think about both sides of the question. That is, as an exercise, assume that there is a God. And, then based on what you know of the world, yourself, humanity, etc, what conclusions can you draw about the nature of God. Messing around with Euclid’s postulates is similar. Start out by assuming, for instance, parallel lines always meet, or the angles of a triangle always exceed 180. Take those as givens and explore the ramifications. You seem to be starting out with an assumption of God, but then immediately finding an apparent contradiction. “We’d just be like ants…” or, you might have said, “he couldn’t be both benevolent and Omnimpotent due to burned up babies, etc” That’s no different being asked to omit one of Euclids postulates and then complaining that the whole system gaps apart. Well, it doesn’t. In fact, such seemingly absurd exercises can lead to profound insights about the universe (spherical remotely, relativity, imaginary numbers). Pascal did this. He assumes there is a god, and then explored what that must mean. He didn’t assume there was a god and then Look for ways to disprove him… that’s backwards. If you truly wish to explore, you assume God exists and try to figure out how this world could possibly make sense given that assumed fact.