4 ms·
> If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want
by robenkleene 15y ago
> If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.)
This is the mistake of prescribing human-like wants and needs to something that's by-definition inhuman. Godlike power and intelligence would be akin to the difference between us and other animals. Do you think other animals go around theorizing what motivates humans? No, our wants and needs are unfathomable to an animal, just as a gods wants and needs would be unfathomable to us.
- ars 15y agoYah, that's quite true - and I would say the difference is even greater. But implied in the knowledge of the existence of the creator is that the creator was the one that gave us this knowledge. And since the creator did that, some other things can be assumed. If the creator never communicated with humans then we would not know about his existence, and then any sort of worship would make no sense. So if a religion claims to know anything at all about a creator it must also be that the creator has at least the desire to be known to his creations. i.e. this is just another way of stating the core axiom that all religions must have.