Which is the worse world view?

I look at it like this way
If god were real, he's like a kid with an ant farm.
At first, he took care of it. He fed them, took care of them, made sure the conditions were right for us to grow on our own.
Eventually, he got bored of caring for us. We're doing fine.
He now has other projects, and barely even gives us a glance. He see's we're still alive and growing, but doesn't notice the discord.
God does not care. We are insignificant in the face of the universe.

random, beyond being a word, is not a 'thing'

If your notion of God is a personal God that cares about human beings, it would make "him" much worse if everything that happens is according to his will.

If everything is random, then it would mean things just happen. It would be silly to ascribe a value to the randomness.

God exists but doesn't care.. Thank you for contributing an even worse third option.

Attached: if you had cared.gif (245x200, 979.31K)

If there's a good and he let negroes and Indians happen he's an ass.

Your actions define you as a person not your world view.

A pedophile is still a pedophile even if she hasn't raped any kids...

Some people are born incapable of forming the concept of a world view or being able to take much of anything resembling action.

Is this a random event or the will of a god?

Attached: meat bag.jpg (1200x800, 144.62K)

Yeah thats interesting because nothing really happends "randomly" in a sense that if we theoretically had all the knowledge we needed then everything would be predictable. So what this really boils down to is if it would be better if there was no god or if there was a god that was doing this on purpose.
If you could justify that purpose (for example under the preface that the good can't exist without the bad or some argument like that) then I would argue that it would be just as good as if there were no god.
So what im seeing right now is that in the best case scenario, there being a god would be just as good as having no god at all because it doesn't change the reality that we experience right now; things would still unfold as we perceive it.
I couldn't be bothered to care either way so you be the judge. If I really had to pick a side, then I would go with the argument that there is no god because I believe that it's more parsimonious to argue that there is no god, and that god is only a concept, and that god as a concept is a horrible idea because god would just be some fucking sicko for all we know and we just defend it under good faith and (((mysterious ways))).

However, Some of the most mentally ill stay alive through religion and a belief

Religion is only good as a crutch for people who couldn't think critically about existence.

Number 1 because it's the only one we can prove is basically false.

Fair enough

Aw, he looks just like his daddy.

Attached: NoGod.jpg (600x304, 38.69K)

I want to (bave to try to) blieve 2. because If there were nothing like a good/World soul or smth. the like there will be (or already has been) a life that is solely filled with meaningless suffering.
But I believe (not just hope) that I will be able to find satisfactory proof that smth. the likes exists

If we didnt have free will, then there would be no shit, and no difference between God and Man, for that matter.
Our existence depends on a lack of interference from God, for better or for worse.
This is evident in Gods regret for causing the Great Flood and forming a covenant to never interfere from that point forward.
God was still learning.

We simply exist to pass time. Or else existence would be pointless without observation.
I've seen the sun and moon cycles rotate. On a very precise plain. Like clockwork, it changes every minute, and every hour, but it is precise in the movements, to the point where the same movements will be repeated over time. Everything is mathematically precise and the energy that it takes to hold us together is infinite. What binds us, pulls us apart, destroys us, builds us up again, and brings us back together is what we call life. This has been occurring for a very long time now. It's an older than ancient force that drives us to do what we do, and we have no control over it. It is the very essence of life itself. When we pass it will all be repeated. Time is immeasurable in death. Death = time = deconstruction = creation = life. It's a very simple path to follow. All energy has opposites to keep it in check. It's why the universe hasn't collapsed, it's the reason we wake up every morning, and it's the reason why when we touch something we don't explode into a million little particles when energy is transferred. There has to be a balance in life.

Attached: 1424108576234.jpg (1920x1080, 727.05K)

#2 is, which is why Gnosticism is its own antidote, rather as wit raises the alarm to look at what is, as opposed to listening for what's meant.

Randomness is acceptable.

But seriously what plan would justify not giving Hitler or Lenin a fucking hear attack? What plan not only needed roaches but had to give the wings?

If god exists it have a lot to explain.

Free will is an illusion brought by conscious thought. Think about how animals act out their lives with no concept of free will, only acting according to photoreception, chemoreception, etc. Conscious thought originates from subconscious thought. What we feel is a decision we make for ourselves is really a decision that was already made for us.

But ants are smart enough to not build temples in honor of the fucking kid.
Just saying.

Prove it.

Or 3. There is a god and things just happen pretty much randomly.

What difference that would have than the no God one? How would you tell?

funny how every argument thats based off of a belief in god could be destroyed just by asking them to try to prove the existence of god. i could just imagine the look on their face as they try to rationalize their NON-EXISTENT GOD

God created our universe as an experiment; as a trial, as you will. He's just interested in what we, sentient-intelligent lifeforms do under adversity.

Your question wont have the effect you anticipate, because they can't question the existence of what was beat into their heads as they were raised. They will just say "the book" and move on, you can't rustle their jimmies.

The problem is that you're anthropomorphosizing logos

One is reality, the other fiction. /discussion

3. There is a God, but humans have free will.

And how do you know the difference between that and a universe with no God?

randomness is comfy , if itll keep going like that everyone will keep reincarnating and universe will reborn over and over

if you define free will as "ability to act without anything influencing your decision" then you're basically retarded. We're in a universe which is built by rigid laws, non negotiable. Any action within that universe has to follow those laws. To argue that we don't have free will because nothing in the universe can operate outside of those laws means you've created a definition which no one recognises and which cannot be used in the contexts where the concept of free will usually applies.

It means you redefined the concept, then jerked yourself off over your new concept. The only place your definition would work would be outside of reality, a place you cannot visit and cannot argue you know anything about - therefore placing you in a situation where your claim is unfalsifiable and therefore invalid.

We don't underatand the concept of free will as "ability to operate without influence." The concept is not the sum of the words it contains, but has additional meaning. If I present to you two men, one which is forced to sign a contract or have his brains blown out by a gun, and one who signs it without being forced - and I then ask any random person which of the two men signed the contract out of their own free will, then 100% of the people asked will be able to tell which one had free will.

Therefore, the definition of free will is not in any working sense "the ability to make decisions without any influence." Free will is rather defined as a relative term along the lines of "ability to make a decision without being coerced by another will."

But that's not the OP, really. The OP asks which is the worse world view, and we know that the world is not governed by randomness, so the first choice is obviously false. The second might also be false, but we can't know it is. Yet.

Well what created the spark that created the whole universe we see today? It can't come from nothing, energy cannot be created from pure nothingness.

A random system cannot be predicted. Events in our universe can be predicted. Ergo it's not random. Can't say anything about God or Gods though. Not enough data.

1. Obviously there is a god.

youre clearly wrong because ive already been able to corner people that badly. i feel bad honestly it makes them feel helpless.
go believe in your god im okay with it but the moment you try to force your skydaddy's morals and values in to me im fucking calling satan.

So why would it be worse?

Ha ha! I'm the Canadian Devil, friend.

Attached: Beelzaboot.png (984x786, 368.46K)

neither, its not a matter of better or worse and we as a species despite our current technological advancement cannot seem to understand this which why we persist at odd over our own existence. fundamentally things do not exist to suit our species, we are like anything else a factor in larger equation that is constantly shifting to carry out the various functions to which it continues on.

I guess they're not as inbred and retarded where you are, around here they can't have an independent thought of their own, only what they're told to think.

Attached: 7d56d999cf15e8cede281b110e18bd78.png (350x350, 21.51K)

Still not explaining the difference.

So you're saying that a god created everything because you don't know how everything started?

The universe doesn't own you an explanation.

If it's a world view, then it's the view by which you inform yourself when making decisions. You will have less outcomes according to your preferences if your world view doesn't correlate with reality.

Oh no i get it now. But isn't there a distinction between chaotic and random where random is something that could plausibly be predicted while chaotic absolutely couldn't be predicted/absolutely "random"?

In some contexts, yes. If OP meant specific definitions, then specifying so would be helpful. In common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events. Universe as we know it is predictable in 99.999... percent of all cases. Only some particles in quantum states are not readily predictable, but particles don't exist in quantum states in nature, and when they do their influence on other systems is almost certainly entirely swallowed by the law of large numbers. The universe seems to be entirely predictable, giving rise to concepts such as LaPlace's demon. And even if it's not entirely predictable, it'd be a stretch to say it's goverened by randomness. Again, can't comment on the God claims. Have no info about that. But randomness/chaos - nah, really doesn't seem so.

I’m willing to accept this one. If God is real, do you think he wants constant worship and groveling from people wailing and moaning about how unworthy they are of his grace?

In that case it makes no difference if you believe in it or not.

I find that there's only weak evidence supporting either the argument that there is a God, and the argument that there isn't. In practice, it means I don't do much worship. I end up in the category of ignosticism.

Inb4 motte-and-bailey fallacies.

It doesn’t to me. I was raised hardcore fundie evangelical 24/7 end times fever, and despite trying my hardest to believe never “experienced” the presence of God like my classmates and teachers said. That feeling is just you confirming what you already choose to believe.

I went through my edgy atheist phase, I’m willing to accept that something might exist but it has no reason to care about its creation. One planet in the edge of the galaxy of millions of stars, in a universe with who knows how many galaxies. I wouldn’t care for either if I were god.

Only Trumptard Republicans have retard babies. Dems abort tard fetuses. Republitards are dumbing the human gene pool!

Attached: 20191112_154902.jpg (491x654, 148.37K)

Your mistake is thinking there is only one. There are good and evil ones. As above, so below.

Both of your views seem flawed or limited and I honestly can't shake the feeling that we lack the biological/mental structure to truly, in a meaningful way, ask questions about the nature of God. I feel like an ant pondering a human would be similar.

And what difference does it make?
What practical difference your believe have?

Well, for one I don't sit around whining about how god doesn't care. They care, but it is not a simple matter of caring. We have to help ourselves too.

If believers really believed this "we are too stupid to understand a higher level being" they would stop trying to understand instead of pretending to know for sure of God thinks. In a strange coincidence God's opinion and the preacher's opinion are always the same.