|
Alternate God(s).
What if God is already doing his best.
The universe created itself.
Maybe God exists and there is nothing that can prove otherwise. Maybe proving that the universe created itself, is just a way of saying “God created the laws of physics that allowed the universe to be created and sustain itself”. See that is one of the beauty about creating God in our mind, the concept of God is so powerful that maybe we will never be able to prove his existence or non-existence. We could go further and even state that because we think of God, he exists, maybe only in our minds. Of course those are not even remotely close to what we say by “God exists” or “God does not exist”.
But what if? What if God exists and science is just a way of understanding the different laws made by Him to regulate the universe?
Where was God during the holocaust?
I almost hate this joke, why would he be responsible for anything?
Maybe he was here, but couldn’t do anything to save anyone. After all, the holocaust was purely based on human decisions and actions, nothing supernatural, not even a natural cataclysm or anything. Maybe he has even be helping us and that is why we have survivors and why the war ended, who knows. Or maybe he just watched us, on purpose or not. He might not be able to do anything beside watching us, or maybe he is watching us because we have to prove our good nature or else we are going to hell.
The same goes with the diseases.
The diseases.
The diseases could be the work of the devil and God is trying to help us overcome everything as much as possible and that is showing in the antidotes we find to cure the diseases. Or maybe the diseases are a test, like God create them to have us work together to overcome them. Maybe it is even a way of purging earth, what if the world needs some kind of regulator, like cancer, diabetes, aids and so forth? Of course it seems awful that a God would kill innocents kids and even adults just to “regulate” earth or to put us to a test.
Natural disaster.
Maybe the natural cataclysms are not made by God, either they are the work of the devil or they are created by the universe, that God allowed to be created. If they are the results of earth activities maybe it is the our duties to adapt, to not live so close from the coasts lines, to adapt our technologies and to take greater care of the oceans and atmosphere.
What if the devil exists, or God isn’t that powerful?
Maybe for every good there is bad, made by the Devil, or by God himself, or even just without God’s intervention because he has no control over his creation (the universe).
It’s not God that does not exist, it is religions that are wrong.
We got examples in History of different kind of religions, different way of believing in greater forces, then a little bit later we got the main religions of today.
What if those religions are wrong?
Maybe God isn’t that merciful, powerful, kind and loving.
Maybe hunger in the world is not being helped by God because this is a test, he gave us lands, plants and animals, and then it is up to us to find a way of growing everything and sharing to avoid suffering. Maybe the way we share our resources is wrong and God is not doing anything because this is part of a test to enter heaven.
Is greed part of the human nature, God’s test, the Devil’s creation?
Porno and others sins.
Maybe God’s vision and judgement has changed as well. Maybe he understands that the world is going through changes with technology and ethics and now he is more forgiving of our sins. I am not saying he is encouraging masturbations and such, but maybe he forgives more easily, if he did not wouldn’t that the edge to the devil? Also maybe he is now accepting new forms of “love”, or maybe he did all along. Maybe homosexuality is not a sin any-more thanks to years and years of evolution and reflection upon our sexuality. Maybe also the world is so populated that now this kind of love is not an issue any-more.
Of course there is still the possibility that most of us are sinners and we are going to pay upon our death.
The punishment.
Maybe greed, deviance, and whatever you are thinking of are punishing us? Maybe global warming is the result not only of human activities but also of God’s plan, maybe the energy we are using are polluting because God made it this way. Maybe we were never supposed to use coal and oil or at least not that much.
Polytheists religions.
What if they were rights? What if there are multiples Gods and deities and nowadays the main religions are wrong? Would those Gods be understanding and forgive us? Or would they be revengeful and punish us even harder for believing in a foolish religion?
Prophets.
If you have been reading until this point you might have guessed what I am going to say… Yes, again, what if? What if they are rights? How do you make the distinction between a mental illness and a guy being talked to by God? This is kinda tricky. What if God is expressing himself through geniuses and scientists? What if Mr. Hawking is God latest and most powerful prophet? That would kinda ironic given his quest into finding the origin of the universe, but let’s think about it, wasn’t he supposed to be dead a long time ago? And isn’t he also trying to warn us about artificial intelligence and automation? Maybe some billionaires or political figures are some kind of modern prophets.
Time for a new religion.
Maybe this is the next step. The creation of a new religion, based on love and help between each others. What if we decided to create a new way of thinking and living, the union of our resources, knowledge and love all mixed together to create a new ideal. Maybe we should add some new subjects in this religion, such as the environment, the use of technology, the limits of medicine and science etc.
Debatable issues.
I am thinking of the like of death penalty, suicide, age of consent, drugs, alcohol, abortion etc. What is God(s)’ position about them? And how could we know? The alteration of our minds and the ending of one-life are pretty touchy subjects. Once again, did God’s view changed? What was his original view on such matters? Maybe he was okay all along with abortion, or maybe now that we have the technology and knowledge he is more okay with it, or maybe he thinks this is wrong whatever we decide. The same thinking applies to the rest, what if and maybe again and again.
God is not at the centre of religions.
Maybe this is the true lessons here, maybe God is not even at the centre of religions, maybe religions are just a guideline on how to act. But then, who are we acting well for? If there is no God to judge us. Religions has some interesting practices which regulate our schedules and attitudes towards others.
God without religion.
Maybe all those things do not matter at all, and God will judge us all based on our actions and not on our religions. Maybe if our thinking is pure and our actions rights he will grant us all access to heaven (this is considering there is even such thing as heaven). Hell, maybe the scientists that state he does not exist are even going to be granted access more easily than those who believe in him, depending on the actions of everyone.
Do people believe in God(s), or religion or both?
When you are perpetuating polytheists rituals, do you believe in the rituals, in the Gods, or are you just doing them out of habits? Do people who take part in everyday prayers and such believe in God or in the spiritual aspect of such prayers? Does praying every morning make you a believe of God or a believer of the religion and the good that alone time in meditation grants you? Maybe both, I don’t know.
Lots and lots of maybe.
 
|
So much discussion about Flash.
Don't worry Lee Young Ho always gets all the young hos
|
pretty much no one today believes in God. it's basically accepted God is an anachronism for local forces of economics in the human mind.
that said, there's enough unexplained stuff that belief in an omnibenevolent God is a good policy. unfortunately God is supposed to be omniscient, and humans are a part of "omniscience". this leads to the sad paradox that most things are unexplained and most unexplained things are evidence for "the devil".
yes it would be nice if society globally acknowledged social constructivism but the "not" aspect of things tends to get in the way. we would like to say "yes society is God" in some sense. which means society should collectively acknowledge certain facts without strings. but society doesn't do this which is more a testament to the evolution of the scenario than anything else.
the fact that human history is relatively short and that things happen fast is basically the key note. so for instance recorded human history is only a few thousand years and most of it is unconscious evolution. but we're trying to control forces that are several billion years in the making.
unfortunately most reasoning is ad hoc and so "X learns Y" according to principle Z. which is a lot like saying that until age 20 you can't see this. and then at age 20 the method of recursive learning is this. and so by the method of recursive learning you learn fact Y with a lot of strings attached.
|
One of the oddest arguments against God - one that even Christopher Hitchens proposed - is that the notion of God's goodness is a flawed concept because of the dictatorial nature of his existence. This argument will likely never dissuade someone from a belief in God, because it would only make sense for God to be a great dictator, should he exist. After all, if a human declares themselves to be above other humans, we can see it as an injustice against equality because a human is just another human. However, in the case of a universe-creating deity, it would only make sense that we are subject to his rule, and that he would be above us in every way. We could shake our fist at such a God, but the futility of doing so would be preposterous.
When people see the downfalls of the world around them - including events like The Holocaust, natural disasters, and ravaging pathogens - such utter random cruelty is unnerving to the average human mind. It is more comforting to believe that such events are part of a larger, divine plan. Many people feel discomfort in feeling a lack of control of their environment and circumstances, and if they cannot at least have the illusion of control, the next-best choice would be to grant control to someone with a lot of power, who has their best interests in mind. Or, in this case, the 'God'. If God is not 'good', then it makes no sense to trust him with any privilege of control over anything. And whatever God wants is "good", according to the staunch believer. God does everything for a reason that we cannot understand, they may say. This is why it is a useless mental exercise to convince a believer that God is anything but good; they've already decided that God must be good in order to feel some sense of control in their life, and have programmed themselves to reject any refutation of such.
Here's another thought:
If there is a God, a real God (not a limited-power being whose rule can be subverted), then he would likely be truly all-powerful. What does that mean? Does it mean he could create a rock that he himself could not lift? The real question there is more along the lines of: "Can God create something more powerful than himself?" and if the answer is "no", then aha! We've busted God! Great work, gentlemen!
Thinking of God as a series of digits (Get out your mind-altering drugs for this, kiddos), you have one extreme of infinity in one direction, and negative infinity in the other direction. On top of this, each individual whole number can be broken down into an infinite number of decimal places. Since there are an infinite number of decimal places, it stands to reason that any digit in the decimal places can be given a different value, which means the number of combinations of digits in the infinite series of decimal places is also infinite. Theoretically.
So if we were to quantify the power of God somewhere on a numeric scale, where would it fall? The easy answer is "at positive infinity", but I would say it's more likely that it falls on every single possible point on the scale, from negative infinity to positive infinity, and every decimal place in between the whole numbers, because an "all-powerful" God would not be restricted to only having infinite power.
God could be self-replicating, and creating more Gods, who in turn create more Gods, but in an infinitely-dimensional series of arrays. To postulate about such a thing is fathomable from a human perspective, but to actually keep track of something of the sort would actually require an omniscient point of view.
I wish I had time to explain that better.
Here's the point: an all-powerful God would likely express himself by also creating an infinite number of universes. Some of the universes are exactly identical. Others are very slightly different, like there is one extra neutron in the whole universe. Some are vastly different than the one we would be observing now. The rules of reality would differ depending on which universe you find yourself in. One universe may be infinitely large and go forever. Another universe may have a size of absolutely zero and contain nothing because it has zero space. Another universe may have a negative amount of space. And why stop there? The number scale has only been two-dimensional in the scales I've been using, but what if there is a Y axis and an X axis and a Z axis, and so on, ad nauseam.
That being said, it would mean that anything that is possible would happen. So why is there evil in the world? Because in this particular incarnation of reality, good and evil exist. In another reality, there is only evil. In another reality, there is only good. In yet another reality, there is neither good nor evil. And so on. All of the possibilities would be playing themselves out, and unfolding in front of God's eyes, but from where we stand, we simply cannot perceive any of it.
|
There is no convincing metaphysical argument, or evidence-based inference, that proves or even suggests God's existence. Every argument that attempts to do so generally makes unverifiable suppositions.
Lets go over the big 5:
1. The cosmological argument assumes that God was a necessary first cause to avoid a logically impossible infinite regression of causes. This is not necessary, since we can easily suppose non-conscious causes.
2. The teleological argument assumes only God could create a universe with such fine-tuned parameters. This assumes that a wide range of parameters existed to begin with (and not just a single, unique set, or a dramatically reduced number via some external metaphysical law), and also assumes that only one universe exists.
3. The moral argument is simply a facile appeal to emotion. It states that if we believe something is wrong, then only objective morality gives us a firm grounding. In truth subjective morality is actually (a) Rationally defensible (unlike objective morality) and (b) Sufficient if shared by enough people, which would be expected if we naturally evolved a basic, intrinsic form of morality from our common DNA (i.e. wanting to survive, avoiding danger, wanting to cooperate).
4. The last metaphysical argument is a variation on Anselm's, i.e. the ontological argument. Basically if an all-powerful God possibly exists, by definition, he is so powerful that he necessarily exists. But you can then obviously question whether such a God is logically or metaphysically possible. Frankly I don't think it makes sense to admit to any object the quality that its sheer power is enough to cause itself to exist. Defining such a being simply admits to a logical error in the definition.
5. If defending monotheistic claims, particularly of the Christian tradition, the usual argument supporting God comes from Jesus' empty tomb. Supposedly, evidence for his resurrection proves God's existence, or at least provides strong evidence for it. But a priori to knowledge of God's supposed existence, there is no reason to suppose that resurrection from a state of death is even possible. Therefore, even if the circumstances point to resurrection as the simplest explanation, the fact that resurrection itself has no evidence for its possibility means you can't actually appeal to it. In other words this argument is essentially circular (while they imply each other, there is no reason to think the "circle" exists to begin with).
The only truly valid argument for the existence of some entity beyond what we currently know is the experiential one, but it has to be a rigorously conducted investigation. If you prove that your God is actually speaking to you (i.e. test whether it can tell you what the number is on some random number generator to a satisfactory degree that it is virtually impossible to guess it correctly), then that would be sufficient.
This is what a lot of people use to prove their God exists, but I'm not sure how rigorous it is. Surprisingly, I managed to prove the existence of *some* kind of being external to me, by using a randomly shuffled deck of cards as proof. I'm still investigating to this day, as it is difficult to contact this entity. But I have to say, when you do, you are flooded with a feeling of warmth and love like I have never experienced. It is quite incredible...sometimes the feeling is so strong it literally overwhelms your senses and you have to detach yourself.
So far my best theory is that if a God does exist, it is quite limited in power, but not so powerless that it is incapable of assisting us in small ways, which I think it tries to do. I'm looking forward to continuing my investigations in the coming years. By the way merry Christmas!
|
it is all about what kind of thought pattern is giving you peace, at a personal level, or the community level.
|
On December 26 2016 05:26 ninazerg wrote:
If there is a God, a real God (not a limited-power being whose rule can be subverted), then he would likely be truly all-powerful. What does that mean? Does it mean he could create a rock that he himself could not lift? The real question there is more along the lines of: "Can God create something more powerful than himself?" and if the answer is "no", then aha! We've busted God! Great work, gentlemen!
Thinking of God as a series of digits (Get out your mind-altering drugs for this, kiddos), you have one extreme of infinity in one direction, and negative infinity in the other direction. On top of this, each individual whole number can be broken down into an infinite number of decimal places. Since there are an infinite number of decimal places, it stands to reason that any digit in the decimal places can be given a different value, which means the number of combinations of digits in the infinite series of decimal places is also infinite. Theoretically.
So if we were to quantify the power of God somewhere on a numeric scale, where would it fall? The easy answer is "at positive infinity", but I would say it's more likely that it falls on every single possible point on the scale, from negative infinity to positive infinity, and every decimal place in between the whole numbers, because an "all-powerful" God would not be restricted to only having infinite power.
God could be self-replicating, and creating more Gods, who in turn create more Gods, but in an infinitely-dimensional series of arrays. To postulate about such a thing is fathomable from a human perspective, but to actually keep track of something of the sort would actually require an omniscient point of view.
Here's the point: an all-powerful God would likely express himself by also creating an infinite number of universes. Some of the universes are exactly identical. Others are very slightly different, like there is one extra neutron in the whole universe. Some are vastly different than the one we would be observing now. The rules of reality would differ depending on which universe you find yourself in. One universe may be infinitely large and go forever. Another universe may have a size of absolutely zero and contain nothing because it has zero space. Another universe may have a negative amount of space. And why stop there? The number scale has only been two-dimensional in the scales I've been using, but what if there is a Y axis and an X axis and a Z axis, and so on, ad nauseam.' Ahh but there's a long winding road from ^ to
On December 26 2016 05:26 ninazerg wrote:
That being said, it would mean that anything that is possible would happen. So why is there evil in the world? Because in this particular incarnation of reality, good and evil exist. In another reality, there is only evil. In another reality, there is only good. In yet another reality, there is neither good nor evil. And so on. All of the possibilities would be playing themselves out, and unfolding in front of God's eyes, but from where we stand, we simply cannot perceive any of it.
Enter the devil.
Before, God had no way of telling right from wrong, awesome from sucky, wonder from shit. But after this devil character strolls right into God's house of infinity cards, manifests in seemingly random places and just flips a sequence or replaces a variable, substracts or adds a dimension, because his subjective take on the change is that it's better that way, God becomes dynamic. It's like he's been this still-laying instrument all this time, until the devil started playing him.
The God-Devil symbiosis enables the horizon of possibility to lean forward even further, to a point where good and evil become potentially relevant sides of a concept worth coining, right at the time when God learns what randomization is. Because by evaluating the preference of humans and other creatures, when faced with the outcome of either randomization or seemingly random devil logic/aesthetic disturbance in virgin Goddimension, in terms of flipping sequences or replacing variables, substracting or adding dimension etc., God can learn to optimize.
God then creates various copies of itself based on this preference as well, and thus the disturbance feedbacks new spectrums, the dynamic echoes of which travel in refreshing cycles all the way around the entirety of existing variance, and then tunnels new depth into the psyche of creatures with varying degrees of consciousness, i.e. capacity to have preference.
More often people make believe a force which is benevolent and aware of our perceived struggles, and imagine themselves lobbying for its prioritization to get copied and its relevance hightened, when instead they should be realistic and start contemplating whether we can help bring insight into what God himself is contemplating, and if not the entirety of our collective preferences is what the devil is an avatar for, in the first place.
|
On December 26 2016 05:45 radscorpion9 wrote:
Surprisingly, I managed to prove the existence of *some* kind of being external to me, by using a randomly shuffled deck of cards as proof. I'm still investigating to this day, as it is difficult to contact this entity. But I have to say, when you do, you are flooded with a feeling of warmth and love like I have never experienced. It is quite incredible...sometimes the feeling is so strong it literally overwhelms your senses and you have to detach yourself.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 26 2016 05:26 ninazerg wrote:
One of the oddest arguments against God - one that even Christopher Hitchens proposed - is that the notion of God's goodness is a flawed concept because of the dictatorial nature of his existence. This argument will likely never dissuade someone from a belief in God, because it would only make sense for God to be a great dictator, should he exist. After all, if a human declares themselves to be above other humans, we can see it as an injustice against equality because a human is just another human. However, in the case of a universe-creating deity, it would only make sense that we are subject to his rule, and that he would be above us in every way. We could shake our fist at such a God, but the futility of doing so would be preposterous.
When people see the downfalls of the world around them - including events like The Holocaust, natural disasters, and ravaging pathogens - such utter random cruelty is unnerving to the average human mind. It is more comforting to believe that such events are part of a larger, divine plan. Many people feel discomfort in feeling a lack of control of their environment and circumstances, and if they cannot at least have the illusion of control, the next-best choice would be to grant control to someone with a lot of power, who has their best interests in mind. Or, in this case, the 'God'. If God is not 'good', then it makes no sense to trust him with any privilege of control over anything. And whatever God wants is "good", according to the staunch believer. God does everything for a reason that we cannot understand, they may say. This is why it is a useless mental exercise to convince a believer that God is anything but good; they've already decided that God must be good in order to feel some sense of control in their life, and have programmed themselves to reject any refutation of such.
Here's another thought:
If there is a God, a real God (not a limited-power being whose rule can be subverted), then he would likely be truly all-powerful. What does that mean? Does it mean he could create a rock that he himself could not lift? The real question there is more along the lines of: "Can God create something more powerful than himself?" and if the answer is "no", then aha! We've busted God! Great work, gentlemen!
Thinking of God as a series of digits (Get out your mind-altering drugs for this, kiddos), you have one extreme of infinity in one direction, and negative infinity in the other direction. On top of this, each individual whole number can be broken down into an infinite number of decimal places. Since there are an infinite number of decimal places, it stands to reason that any digit in the decimal places can be given a different value, which means the number of combinations of digits in the infinite series of decimal places is also infinite. Theoretically.
So if we were to quantify the power of God somewhere on a numeric scale, where would it fall? The easy answer is "at positive infinity", but I would say it's more likely that it falls on every single possible point on the scale, from negative infinity to positive infinity, and every decimal place in between the whole numbers, because an "all-powerful" God would not be restricted to only having infinite power.
God could be self-replicating, and creating more Gods, who in turn create more Gods, but in an infinitely-dimensional series of arrays. To postulate about such a thing is fathomable from a human perspective, but to actually keep track of something of the sort would actually require an omniscient point of view.
I wish I had time to explain that better.
Here's the point: an all-powerful God would likely express himself by also creating an infinite number of universes. Some of the universes are exactly identical. Others are very slightly different, like there is one extra neutron in the whole universe. Some are vastly different than the one we would be observing now. The rules of reality would differ depending on which universe you find yourself in. One universe may be infinitely large and go forever. Another universe may have a size of absolutely zero and contain nothing because it has zero space. Another universe may have a negative amount of space. And why stop there? The number scale has only been two-dimensional in the scales I've been using, but what if there is a Y axis and an X axis and a Z axis, and so on, ad nauseam.
That being said, it would mean that anything that is possible would happen. So why is there evil in the world? Because in this particular incarnation of reality, good and evil exist. In another reality, there is only evil. In another reality, there is only good. In yet another reality, there is neither good nor evil. And so on. All of the possibilities would be playing themselves out, and unfolding in front of God's eyes, but from where we stand, we simply cannot perceive any of it.
i recommend you read more into the modal ontological argument, particularly relating to logical scripting.
It's quite clear to modern philosophy that an omnibenevolent God is 100% compatible. For instance as philosophers from the UK have established, there is no bifurcation between various "omni" traits. And that moreover necessary existence is self-establishing. So if God necessarily exists in the mind => God necessarily exists => God exists => God
|
On December 26 2016 09:42 YokoKano wrote:
And that moreover necessary existence is self-establishing. So if God necessarily exists in the mind => God necessarily exists => God exists => God
Let's try this.
Pegasuses exist in my mind => ...
waw waw wawwww... no Pegasus 
|
On December 26 2016 10:14 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 09:42 YokoKano wrote:
And that moreover necessary existence is self-establishing. So if God necessarily exists in the mind => God necessarily exists => God exists => God
Let's try this. Pegasuses exist in my mind => ... waw waw wawwww... no Pegasus
sometimes i think u fk wit my nina. does peg rly exist in the mind alone?
let's try not to derail.
serious answer is that God necessarily exists in logic. The property of necessary existence can be shortened either to necessary existence or existence.
|
Cascadia1753 Posts
On December 25 2016 20:54 Gurderoy wrote:
See that is one of the beauty about creating God in our mind, the concept of God is so powerful that maybe we will never be able to prove his existence or non-existence.
This isn't a strength, it's a weakness. Lots of things are unprovable either way, and almost all of them are basically ignored completely because of it.
|
Cascadia1753 Posts
On December 26 2016 10:20 YokoKano wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 10:14 ninazerg wrote:On December 26 2016 09:42 YokoKano wrote:
And that moreover necessary existence is self-establishing. So if God necessarily exists in the mind => God necessarily exists => God exists => God
Let's try this. Pegasuses exist in my mind => ... waw waw wawwww... no Pegasus sometimes i think u fk wit my nina. does peg rly exist in the mind alone? let's try not to derail. serious answer is that God necessarily exists in logic. The property of necessary existence can be shortened either to necessary existence or existence.
God doesn't exist in your mind, a concept of God exists in your mind.
Concepts aren't reality.
|
On December 26 2016 11:16 Tephus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2016 10:20 YokoKano wrote:On December 26 2016 10:14 ninazerg wrote:On December 26 2016 09:42 YokoKano wrote:
And that moreover necessary existence is self-establishing. So if God necessarily exists in the mind => God necessarily exists => God exists => God
Let's try this. Pegasuses exist in my mind => ... waw waw wawwww... no Pegasus sometimes i think u fk wit my nina. does peg rly exist in the mind alone? let's try not to derail. serious answer is that God necessarily exists in logic. The property of necessary existence can be shortened either to necessary existence or existence. God doesn't exist in your mind, a concept of God exists in your mind. Concepts aren't reality.
yeah, i wouldn't disagree with that unless i was blazed as hell. whether or not you believe in the concept of God as having logical necessity is a point that any philosopher is free to agree/disagree. adherents to the modal ontological argument will probably be steadfast regarding ideas like the everett multiworld hypothesis and whether the necessity of God applies to distinct subjects. the logical necessity idea is crucial here in defending whether one or another microcosm agrees with God's omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence etc.
|
scooped thru the thread bu didn't find a satisfactory explanation to the punishment issue
humans punish criminals to either rehabilitate the offender, or to put him away from the community to keep him from doing further damage.
In God's case punishment comes after everything is done and gone and doesn't have any benefit apart from maybe giving the offended a little retribution (which is just an emotion with no practical benefit to any party)
sure the fear of punishment may keep some people from doing bad things but sins aren't restricted to them. Not praying certain times is a sin, which doesn't do harm to anyone. Drinking a beer and going to sleep without becoming drunk and disturbing anyone is a sin too. Plus just as brave people do good things without fear, bad people do bad things without fear too.
the reward mechanism has problems too. why create me as a being who desires certain things (food, sex, appreciation of beauty etc.) in the first place? we could all have been masochists that would enjoy Hell too. we could have been highly sophisticated beings who just appreciate the order of existence, laws of physics etc. What was the point of creating beings who like melons and later giving them melons to make them feel 'good' ?
|
In my own blog post on this topic I approached it from the opposite angle and the assumption that God is a logical construct of every human society (at least at some point). Given this I asked (and attempted to answer) why it occurs. Almost needless to say I think my approach is much better as it doesn't result in assuming that God exists -- which is a logical impossibility first proven in ancient times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535)
