• @Girru00@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16 months ago

    Wut?

    You keep repeating that the “scale of ethics” is incomparable but flip flop between “theyre not omnicient or omnipotent”… “but maybe they are”

    And what does “balance” have to do with ethical behaviour without you begging the question.

    “If we assume the existence of god, we have to assume a lot of other things too” and…???

    Ultimately you spent a lot of time stating the cop-out argument of “its beyond us mere mortals”. To which I can fairly respond… no.

    • @skulblaka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 months ago

      To which I can fairly respond… no.

      You can’t, though. Or, well, you can say it all you want but that doesn’t make it true. I’m pretty certain that cats and dogs and bugs also think they’ve got humans figured out and I guarantee you they definitely, definitely don’t, because it’s physiologically impossible for them to understand. They’re just not equipped for it. Just like mortals wouldn’t be equipped to understand the perspective of an immortal, all-encompassing being, it’s impossible for you to accurately place yourself in that perspective.

      The ant farm thing was a little hamfisted but I think the analogy still stands for the purpose I introduced it for.

      And what does “balance” have to do with ethical behaviour without you begging the question.

      It is a possible explanation for the existence of evil. As in, the post we’re arguing in the comments of right now. Nowhere in there did I ever say “this is the way things are”, only “this is a possible explanation for a question we cannot definitively answer”.

      If we assume the existence of god, we have to assume a lot of other things too" and…???

      Please explain what part of that doesn’t make sense.


      This is all theoretical anyway, if a god existed your understanding of them would be limited to whatever they decide you’re able to understand of them anyway, so the argument is largely academic regardless of feelings or underlying truth. The point I was trying to make here is that the difference in the sheer scale of existence between a mortal and a god is such that we may be as ants to them. We possibly could not understand them no matter how hard we try - we’re just not biologically equipped for it - and some things that we consider important may be so unimportant as to never even get noticed by a god. But none of this is provable or even falsifiable so it’s all a thought experiment anyway.