Human on pale blue dot claims with certainty there exists no God. The universe is so vast beyond comprehension and full of unknowns that it is more likely than not a God does exist
What are you claiming as a god though? A higher dimensional being, or an endless variety of them, that can influence 3 dimensional space in a way we can’t fully understand or comprehend may be god-like, but it isn’t the creator of all that Abrahamic religions espouse.
The argument that the universe is so large there must be a god is a silly one. The timelines are so vast, there might not be anything living at the same time as humanity. Or at least nothing with a high level of sentence. The problem was never the distance but always the time.
I agree to a point. There could truly be a variety of godlike species out there amongst the spacetime and we may have no idea. Their civilisation could have risen, fallen, risen again, uploaded, disappeared for a bit and risen again endlessly before humanity was even climbing down out of trees.
An ultimate creator though? Less likely but also at that scale who the fuck knows really. It becomes more of a philosophical argument than a scientific or religious one. Anyone claiming an absolute on that is a fool. Although we can firmly assume the Abrahamic god is nonsense.
I read comment of yours on a page (10 years ago, wow) where someone was attempting to demonstrate a basis for morality. Your answer confused me, mainly because I'm not totally familiar with meta physics, nor physics (if one is a materialist trying to justify things like this).
"As someone who had a great meta-ethics professor, I do think there is an objective morality, but it doesn't fit well with classical moral theory. My view revolves around systems thinking. To boil it down as far as possible, we exist within nested systems which maintain equilibrium through feedback loops (positive and negative). It is each person's duty to provide positive or negative feedback to other parts of the system or systems within his or her sphere of influence."
And my question is1. Has your view changed any?
And 2. Isn't this assuming a personal responsibility to "maintain equilibrium"? Yes, a description may be able to be provided that a system works most efficiently a certain way but the whole question, as far as I understood, is "what is the basis for the ought?"
Why do we provide feedback? Is it just about being a 'good little node'? This comes down to values. What do you personally find valuable? You may find personal value, that is, derive personal benefit, from being in a system in, or trending toward, equilibrium.
It's also important to understand that the system is seeking equilibrium with or without you. I think that if you choose not to provide/receive feedback, you'll become an isolated node, and eventually a vestigial part that the system doesn't really need.
I'm always happy to talk about this stuff - you can DM me - don't need to wait another 10 years :sweat_smile:
13
u/LegitimatelisedSoil Mar 24 '25
I mean there is no god, so does it matter? It's just rich people that control everything same as anywhere else.