Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

I often find when presenting a Problem of Evil (henceforth PoE) style argument that a common response is some kind of "greater good" theodicy, e.g., that perhaps God allows suffering because it's necessary to enable some sort of greater good. Analogies are usually drawn to enduring the brief pain of an inoculation for the greater good of boosting the immune system, for instance.

The PoE-giver might respond with something like, "well, what possible greater good could there be for something like child leukemia, or any other form of egregious suffering?" This is usually when the theodicy I'm interested in comes out: the theist might say, "well, as we are mere humans and can't presume to know the mind of God, all that we can know is that God has a good reason to allow child leukemia such that it isn't incongruent with God's benevolence to allow it."

I think that this line of theodicy is problematic in that it's invincible, and feels very similar to special pleading. It's a kind of trap that -- once accepted -- might never be un-accepted because God could literally do anything at that point, even kicking puppies in the street and laughing maniacally while they fly, and the excuse could still be made: "Maybe He has an unknowable reason for this such that it's good, even though it appears evil."

We can construct an analogy if we get all of the same pieces that make up this theodicy: all we need is something smarter than us to cause suffering in some way and then the same excuse can be made. But I'll get to that in a moment. First I need to discuss toy worlds (as hinted in the title) because first we must answer the question of what suffering God is even accused of being culpable for.

I submit that it's possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to have created a universe where the physics simply doesn't allow for the existence of physical suffering while preserving free will (to pre-empt another common theodicy). An omnipotent and omniscient being should be able to make physics such that everything from natural disasters to debilitating genetic disorders to gunshot wounds to stubbed toes is physically impossible. It's easy to imagine, too; particularly if you've ever used a cheat code in a video game: if physics incapable of harming people can be simulated, it's certainly the case that an omnipotent being could actualize it and an omniscient being could conceptualize it. I will borrow Swinburne's term "toy world" for such a category of world (where physical suffering isn't possible because the physics don't allow it).

It follows that if an omnipotent and omniscient being created a universe wherein physical suffering is plentiful -- if we look out and we see a world ravaged by heinous amounts of suffering, grotesque possibilities that are able to be actualized, privation, starvation, disease, violence, and so on, all of it preventable if there were simply different physics -- it follows that if the world is that way instead of otherwise, then it has to be because the omnipotent/omniscient being deliberately chose it to be that way. God is culpable for *all* physical suffering, in other words: every last bit of it; even in instances where He didn't pull the proverbial trigger, He had to have set the laws of the universe in such a way that it was possible to happen (and deliberately so: there is no such thing as unforeseen consequences to an omniscient and omnipotent being; it is always "a feature, not a bug" with such beings).

The question the PoE-giver is asking in this instance is, "if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then He is culpable for the existence of physical suffering in the world." The theist may give the greater good theodicy by responding, "well, maybe God had a good reason for building the universe with physical suffering." The PoE-giver may ask, "ok, what reason?" The theodicy-giver responds, "well, since we are mere humans, we can't know. It's beyond us to know."

And there it is: the problem. It smells so much like special pleading, and as I've mentioned above, it's an invincible line of argument. God could do anything at all and the excuse would still work: God could torture babies and laugh maniacally and there still may be some reason so inscrutable for why it's actually good and not evil that maybe we can't know it.

Is it reasonable to reject a line of argument that's invincible in order to avoid such a trap? Can we reasonably use the evidence of observation -- "this appears incongruent with benevolence" -- and rationally affirm that maybe the being perpetrating whatever act is actually not benevolent? I think that it is. It is true that we're epistemically limited, and technically true that any apparent perception might be false for unknowable reasons beyond our limitation: but it's epistemological chaos to embrace this excuse as a crutch, isn't it? At that point wouldn't we have to throw up our arms and say that anything we think is true might actually be false because we're epistemically limited and there might just be some unknowable reason why we're wrong about it? Isn't this exactly what we see in special pleading fallacy?

This brings us back to the analogy I wanted to build.

Suppose that you have a pocket dimension that is a toy world: in this universe, people have free will, but the physics of the universe do not allow for suffering. There is no disease, no privation of resources. If someone tries to stab someone else, the knife loses all inertia (or something, there are any number of ways to build physics without suffering). People still have free will, however: they are able to decide what to do on a given day, whom to spend it with, whether to write a book or watch a film or engage in sports or whatever.

Now, say there is an alien creature with immense technological power that is truly far more intelligent than humans: it's not just that their civilization has existed longer to research technology longer, it's that they are truly simply mentally superior to humans in that they're able to conceive of things that humans can't even begin to comprehend, even if the creature attempts to teach humans from the ground up.

Let's say this alien creature uses technology to slide into our toy world pocket dimension and sees that there is no suffering, everyone is bustling about their days just enjoying themselves. "Oh, this won't do at all," the alien says.

The alien gathers people in the town square and announces that she is much smarter than they are (and is able to prove it, too), and that she is benevolent and wants to give everyone a very important gift. She builds a particle accelerator that changes the vacuum state of the pocket universe (or whatever, just go with it), changing the physics of the pocket universe. Suddenly, earthquakes rock the land! Children start to be born with debilitating physical defects. Disease starts to emerge. People find that they're suddenly able to physically assault and hurt one another (the term "innocent victim" has to be created, as they didn't have it before!)

"You see?!" The alien asks. "Isn't this so much better, can't you see how benevolent I am?"

Now, obviously, and it seems to me quite reasonably, a lot of people may suppose that even though the alien is smarter than they are and that it might technically be true they could have some unknowable reason for doing what they did, that maybe the alien simply isn't benevolent regardless of their claim that they are.

Another group of people, though, develops the greater good theodicy: they accept that the alien is benevolent and they reason "the alien is smarter than us: she says she has a good reason to do this so I guess she must have a good reason." But how does this group ever disabuse themselves of this notion? If the alien starts running through the streets with a ray gun blasting people with a ray that turns them inside out for a horrible death, Mars Attacks style, shouting "do not run, I am your friend," is there ever a point that it's reasonable for people to think, "ok, maybe she isn't actually our friend?"

If there is such a point where it's more rational to reject the greater good theodicy than it is to accept it, can the theodicist be convinced by the heinous amounts of suffering in the world that the threshold is met?
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Impenitent »

does anything exist without it's opposite?

-Imp
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by seeds »

Astro Cat wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:54 am ...I submit that it's possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to have created a universe where the physics simply doesn't allow for the existence of physical suffering while preserving free will (to pre-empt another common theodicy). An omnipotent and omniscient being should be able to make physics such that everything from natural disasters to debilitating genetic disorders to gunshot wounds to stubbed toes is physically impossible. It's easy to imagine, too; particularly if you've ever used a cheat code in a video game: if physics incapable of harming people can be simulated, it's certainly the case that an omnipotent being could actualize it and an omniscient being could conceptualize it. I will borrow Swinburne's term "toy world" for such a category of world (where physical suffering isn't possible because the physics don't allow it)....
Come on now, Astro Cat, Jehovah's Witnesses have been offering visions of your utopian world for a long time now...

Image

And it will no doubt have John Lennon's song - "Imagine" - softly playing (on an endless loop) on loudspeakers throughout the land.

Ah yes, your painless (and deathless?) Stepford world would be a wonderful place for one to chew one's cud.
_______
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

Impenitent wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:30 pm does anything exist without it's opposite?

-Imp
If an opposite isn't possible then there wouldn't be an opposition to exist. It's trivially true to show that it's possible to have a universe where all coin flips land heads up with an omnipotent being in charge for instance. Or to imagine there is a universe where there are no green objects, or to imagine a universe uniformly bathed in light so there is no darkness, etc. The supposition "for anything, in order for it to exist, its opposite must also exist" is easily false.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

seeds wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:11 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:54 am ...I submit that it's possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to have created a universe where the physics simply doesn't allow for the existence of physical suffering while preserving free will (to pre-empt another common theodicy). An omnipotent and omniscient being should be able to make physics such that everything from natural disasters to debilitating genetic disorders to gunshot wounds to stubbed toes is physically impossible. It's easy to imagine, too; particularly if you've ever used a cheat code in a video game: if physics incapable of harming people can be simulated, it's certainly the case that an omnipotent being could actualize it and an omniscient being could conceptualize it. I will borrow Swinburne's term "toy world" for such a category of world (where physical suffering isn't possible because the physics don't allow it)....
Come on now, Astro Cat, Jehovah's Witnesses have been offering visions of your utopian world for a long time now...

Image

And it will no doubt have John Lennon's song - "Imagine" - softly playing (on an endless loop) on loudspeakers throughout the land.

Ah yes, your painless (and deathless?) Stepford world would be a wonderful place for one to chew one's cud.
_______
I mean I catch your tone and I'm inclined to agree that heaven is boring, but that's not the point of the post. You're preaching to the choir, I'm already a nontheist and already find the concept of heaven ludicrous. But the post is about responding to people that give the greater good theodicy and is about analyzing whether the greater good theodicy is weak or strong.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Impenitent »

Astro Cat wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:18 pm
Impenitent wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:30 pm does anything exist without it's opposite?

-Imp
If an opposite isn't possible then there wouldn't be an opposition to exist. It's trivially true to show that it's possible to have a universe where all coin flips land heads up with an omnipotent being in charge for instance. Or to imagine there is a universe where there are no green objects, or to imagine a universe uniformly bathed in light so there is no darkness, etc. The supposition "for anything, in order for it to exist, its opposite must also exist" is easily false.
suffering is relative

-Imp
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by bahman »

Impenitent wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 4:30 pm does anything exist without it's opposite?

-Imp
Very good question.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by seeds »

Astro Cat wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:19 pm I mean I catch your tone and I'm inclined to agree that heaven is boring, but that's not the point of the post. You're preaching to the choir, I'm already a nontheist and already find the concept of heaven ludicrous. But the post is about responding to people that give the greater good theodicy and is about analyzing whether the greater good theodicy is weak or strong.
Well, just for the record, I'm an uber-theist whose vision of heaven is definitely not boring, at least not like the nonsense handed down to us from any of the world's religions.

That being said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather from your tone that you don't believe in the possibility of our lives continuing on after death, right?

If so, then you have no reason for lending any credence to the "greater good" theodicy, for you simply do not believe that there is any greater purpose for us that might require some special consideration.

However, what if it was indeed for the "greater good" that it was imperative that God (and our ultimate [post-death] purpose) remain hidden from us?

In which case, other than the unthinkable size and complexity of the universe, is it not the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world that makes you doubt God's existence, thus helping to ensure the integrity of the secret?
_______
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by bobmax »

Evil is not the problem.
Evil is what keeps us going home.

Indeed without evil we would be lost.
Because everything is played on our rejection of evil.

That the absolute Good is depends on me.
God needs me.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

seeds wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:22 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:19 pm I mean I catch your tone and I'm inclined to agree that heaven is boring, but that's not the point of the post. You're preaching to the choir, I'm already a nontheist and already find the concept of heaven ludicrous. But the post is about responding to people that give the greater good theodicy and is about analyzing whether the greater good theodicy is weak or strong.
Well, just for the record, I'm an uber-theist whose vision of heaven is definitely not boring, at least not like the nonsense handed down to us from any of the world's religions.

That being said, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather from your tone that you don't believe in the possibility of our lives continuing on after death, right?

If so, then you have no reason for lending any credence to the "greater good" theodicy, for you simply do not believe that there is any greater purpose for us that might require some special consideration.

However, what if it was indeed for the "greater good" that it was imperative that God (and our ultimate [post-death] purpose) remain hidden from us?

In which case, other than the unthinkable size and complexity of the universe, is it not the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world that makes you doubt God's existence, thus helping to ensure the integrity of the secret?
_______
Well, to nitpick a little, it's not that I don't believe in the possibility of life continuing after death (I cede that it's possible), I just don't actively believe that's the case and find it unlikely.

As for giving credence to theodicy, I feel like the point of honest discussion is to seriously consider your opponent's arguments, not just to dismiss them for being outside one's own worldview. So if I am to be an earnest person, I must consider my opponents' arguments fairly and make sure I understand them correctly rather than straw-manning them, etc.

As for Divine Hiddenness being so good as to warrant the entirety of physical suffering, I don't intuitively see how that gets us any closer to understanding why suffering exists (it's just a microcosm): it's proposed that it's worth it for suffering to exist so God can stay hidden, but then the microcosm question is "how does God being hidden make it worth it for physical suffering to be so rampant?"
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by seeds »

Astro Cat wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:24 am Well, to nitpick a little, it's not that I don't believe in the possibility of life continuing after death (I cede that it's possible), I just don't actively believe that's the case and find it unlikely.
Understood.

However, the fact that you (and many others) find it unlikely is what I suggest is the desired effect of the allowing for the existence of evil and suffering.

And that's because the doubt it creates in the notion that there might be a greater purpose awaiting us is what helps to keep humans focused more on what's taking place on the interior of this bubble of reality that we call a universe (such as astrophysics, for example).

In other words, if we had the slightest bit of certainty (as in some sort of irrefutable proof) that our lives will continue on in a higher and more wondrous context of reality following death,...

...then it is likely that most of our attention would be shifted away from exploring and conquering this material dimension and, instead, we'd be more interested in seeking out the ontological nature of the transcendent dimension of reality that awaits us.

And that, in turn, might just compel us to seek out the afterlife prematurely, thus emptying the earth of the means by which new souls are awakened into existence (which, in my opinion, is the main purpose of the earth - to awaken new souls into existence).
Astro Cat wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:24 am As for giving credence to theodicy, I feel like the point of honest discussion is to seriously consider your opponent's arguments, not just to dismiss them for being outside one's own worldview. So if I am to be an earnest person, I must consider my opponents' arguments fairly and make sure I understand them correctly rather than straw-manning them, etc.
I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out what you are getting at in that paragraph.

However, if you are accusing me of creating strawmen, then please point them out for me.
Astro Cat wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:24 am As for Divine Hiddenness being so good as to warrant the entirety of physical suffering, I don't intuitively see how that gets us any closer to understanding why suffering exists (it's just a microcosm): it's proposed that it's worth it for suffering to exist so God can stay hidden, but then the microcosm question is "how does God being hidden make it worth it for physical suffering to be so rampant?"
In your OP, you have suggested that the universe can be likened to a video game whose underlying programming can be manipulated in such a way as to eliminate pain and suffering and the PoE.

However, if you expect the participants of the game to actually evolve above and beyond that of some sort of bovine level of consciousness, then there would reach a point where they will become aware of the illusory nature of the game and thus start questioning the integrity of the illusion, which, in turn, could trigger the abovementioned shift in focus.

Indeed, that is exactly what has happened recently as humans have discovered - via quantum mechanics - that so-called "reality" isn't quite as "real" as once thought, for it seems to be composed of an infinitely malleable, informationally-based substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (similar to the substance from which our dreams are created).

So, the question is, how does the Creator and programmer of this grand illusion (in this case - God) keep the game's ever-rising in consciousness participants (us) from shifting our focus too far into the transcendent direction?

Well, I am proposing that he (she/it) uses stringent measures (such as the allowing of suffering and evil) to establish doubt. And that's because, surely, if a higher and loving Creator truly existed, then he (she/it) would do something about the PoE, right?

Clearly, the gambit works, for doubt (even for devout believers) is unavoidable.
_______
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

seeds wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:33 am
Astro Cat wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:24 am Well, to nitpick a little, it's not that I don't believe in the possibility of life continuing after death (I cede that it's possible), I just don't actively believe that's the case and find it unlikely.
Understood.

However, the fact that you (and many others) find it unlikely is what I suggest is the desired effect of the allowing for the existence of evil and suffering.

And that's because the doubt it creates in the notion that there might be a greater purpose awaiting us is what helps to keep humans focused more on what's taking place on the interior of this bubble of reality that we call a universe (such as astrophysics, for example).

In other words, if we had the slightest bit of certainty (as in some sort of irrefutable proof) that our lives will continue on in a higher and more wondrous context of reality following death,...

...then it is likely that most of our attention would be shifted away from exploring and conquering this material dimension and, instead, we'd be more interested in seeking out the ontological nature of the transcendent dimension of reality that awaits us.

And that, in turn, might just compel us to seek out the afterlife prematurely, thus emptying the earth of the means by which new souls are awakened into existence (which, in my opinion, is the main purpose of the earth - to awaken new souls into existence).
If the purpose of Earthly life is to “awaken new souls into existence,” then why do some people die very young after short, brutal, suffering-saturated lives (from disease, from violence, from starvation, from natural disaster, and so on)?

If I grant the premise that people need to suffer to become prepared for an afterlife (and I do not grant this premise, but if I did), then aren’t there ways to do this that give everyone a fair chance to develop themselves in preparation for the afterlife?

Aren’t there ways to do it where there aren’t innocent victims (e.g., where any suffering we incur is our own fault due to our choices as we learn)?
“seeds” wrote:
Astro Cat wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:24 am As for giving credence to theodicy, I feel like the point of honest discussion is to seriously consider your opponent's arguments, not just to dismiss them for being outside one's own worldview. So if I am to be an earnest person, I must consider my opponents' arguments fairly and make sure I understand them correctly rather than straw-manning them, etc.
I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out what you are getting at in that paragraph.

However, if you are accusing me of creating strawmen, then please point them out for me.
I wasn’t accusing you of making strawmen; I think I was answering your question as to why I was interested in theodicy as an atheist by saying it’s on me if I’m going to have discussions with theists to take their ideas seriously. I was saying I have to “put on a theist hat” and imagine the worldview the way theists imagine it (well, not saying all theists think alike, but rather for each individual’s theism) to avoid strawmanning them. I could have misinterpreted what you were even asking.
“seeds” wrote:
Astro Cat wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:24 am As for Divine Hiddenness being so good as to warrant the entirety of physical suffering, I don't intuitively see how that gets us any closer to understanding why suffering exists (it's just a microcosm): it's proposed that it's worth it for suffering to exist so God can stay hidden, but then the microcosm question is "how does God being hidden make it worth it for physical suffering to be so rampant?"
In your OP, you have suggested that the universe can be likened to a video game whose underlying programming can be manipulated in such a way as to eliminate pain and suffering and the PoE.

However, if you expect the participants of the game to actually evolve above and beyond that of some sort of bovine level of consciousness, then there would reach a point where they will become aware of the illusory nature of the game and thus start questioning the integrity of the illusion, which, in turn, could trigger the abovementioned shift in focus.
You yourself believe there is an afterlife of sorts: do people suffer there? My point is that it doesn’t seem necessary to suffer in the first place if that state of affairs is possible.
“seeds” wrote: Indeed, that is exactly what has happened recently as humans have discovered - via quantum mechanics - that so-called "reality" isn't quite as "real" as once thought, for it seems to be composed of an infinitely malleable, informationally-based substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" (similar to the substance from which our dreams are created).

So, the question is, how does the Creator and programmer of this grand illusion (in this case - God) keep the game's ever-rising in consciousness participants (us) from shifting our focus too far into the transcendent direction?

Well, I am proposing that he (she/it) uses stringent measures (such as the allowing of suffering and evil) to establish doubt. And that's because, surely, if a higher and loving Creator truly existed, then he (she/it) would do something about the PoE, right?

Clearly, the gambit works, for doubt (even for devout believers) is unavoidable.
_______
As a physics masters myself, soon PhD, I’m not sure what you mean by these things you’re talking about: reality is still real. There are a lot of mystical ideas about QM that are really a form of pseudoscience.

In summation though, I’m incredulous that God’s hiddenness is such a good thing that it’s “worth it” to have innocent victims and child leukemia and all the heinous, grotesque, awful stuff we see in the world.

If there is a soul-building theodicy I could MAYBE find it more intuitive to have a system where people only suffer as a result of their own choices (to learn from them), but not suffer due to random chance or because violence by others was rendered possible as a deliberate divine choice.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Impenitent »

eliminate freewill

-Imp
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by seeds »

Astro Cat wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:36 am If the purpose of Earthly life is to “awaken new souls into existence,” then why do some people die very young after short, brutal, suffering-saturated lives (from disease, from violence, from starvation, from natural disaster, and so on)?
To answer that, I need to make you aware of my particular theistic take on reality, not to convince you of its veracity, for I have often admitted that I could be completely wrong,...

...but to give you some idea of where I'm coming from.

To do so, I need to use my flagship illustration that I believe sums-up (in the proverbial nutshell) our relationship to God and the universe.

Here it is...

Image

Again, I am not suggesting that I can't be wrong,...

...however, if you understand the implications of that illustration, then you should realize that it doesn't matter in the slightest at what age (or for what reason) the "ultimate seeds" are jettisoned from the inner reality of the "Big Melon" :D (be it one hour after their initial birth, or after 90+ years of hanging around in the metaphorical "pulp").

No, the only thing that matters is the amazing "eternal destiny" that awaits those seedlings after they have "sprouted" (i.e., awakened into their true and eternal form via the process that we call death).

And if you don't think that the illustration implies something amazing regarding our potential destiny, then you just don't understand what the illustration is proposing, for it proposes that we have each been imbued with the same powers and abilities as the Creator of this universe.

Now, I will address the rest of your excellent questions tomorrow, but I first needed to make you aware of the degree of my lunacy 🤪 so that, again, you will at least know what kind of "theist" you are dealing with here.
_______
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: Greater good theodicy, toy worlds, invincible arguments

Post by Astro Cat »

seeds wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:54 am And if you don't think that the illustration implies something amazing regarding our potential destiny, then you just don't understand what the illustration is proposing, for it proposes that we have each been imbued with the same powers and abilities as the Creator of this universe.
Indeed, I'm going to need some kind of explanation to go along with the illustration to get anything out of it, please.
Post Reply