skulblaka

joined 2 years ago
[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

More like, on the scale of mortal vs god, the things that are important to us either aren't important to god(s) or may be so insignificant to be actually imperceptible.

As a thought experiment, say you get an ant farm. You care for these ants, provide them food and light, and generally want to see them succeed and scurry around and do their little ant things. One of the ants gets ant-cancer and dies. You have no idea that it happened. Some of the eggs don't hatch. You notice this, but can't really do anything about it. So on, and so forth. Now - think about every single other ant you've passed by or even stepped on without even noticing during your last day outside the house. And think about what those ants might think of you, if they could.

Now an argument that a god is omniscient and all powerful would slip through the cracks of this because an omniscient god WOULD know that one of their ants had ant-cancer and an all-powerful one would be able to fix it. But the sheer difference in breadth of existence between mortal and god may mean that such small things are beneath their attention. Or maybe he really does see all things at all times simultaneously down to minute detail. We don't know. It is fundamentally unknowable to mortals. Our scales of ethics are incomparable.

We also don't know if the ethical alignment of a god leans toward balance rather than good. It would make sense, in a way, if it did. Things that seem evil to us are in fact evil, but necessary in pursuit of greater harmony. Or in fact even necessary to the very function of the universe from a metaphysical perspective. If we assume the existence of a god for this argument it leads to having to assume an awful lot more things that we can't really prove or test one way or the other. But one thing that seems pretty self evident is that the specific workings of a god are fundamentally unknowable to mortals specifically because we are not gods. We don't have a perspective in which we can observe it so any argument made in any direction about it is pretty much purely conjecture by necessity.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago

This statement by itself restores a ton of my faith in you. I have no weight to throw around here and ultimately my opinion is more or less meaningless, but in my meaningless opinion, if an actual effort is made to improve on this then I'm happy to have you stay. A simple apology, explanation and promise is more than I've gotten out of 99% of all other moderators I've ever interacted with.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Much more likely that no company wants to use it no matter how much it costs because it degrades. We use plastic as a packing material specifically because it doesn't degrade and lasts forever.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Bombadil was one of the most important pieces of world building in LOTR, and that's not a joke. He's clearly a being of great power. He holds absolute sovereignty over his domain, such that even the trees and the undead bend to his will. And there is absolutely no cogent information or backstory on him, whatsoever. At all. Bombadil is printed proof that Middle Earth has a lot more going on than is touched on in the story. If Bombadil is an unexplained Great Being then it stands to reason that there would be more, beyond Sauron and Sauruman and the characters we meet directly. Bombadil is a signpost pointing off-screen and saying "Hey, there's more stuff over this way".

He may be crazy, and silly, and poorly explained, but that's all for a reason. Tom represents the "etc." at the end of the list of beings in Middle Earth. He is an open end implying the existence of more like him.

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago

Bongcloud opening

[–] skulblaka@startrek.website 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"Dubya" is one syllable, maybe two depending on your particular accent

Edit: Unfortunately I was extremely stoned at the time of this message and that should have been "[...] two syllables, maybe one depending [...]" but I'm leaving it up as evidence of my dumbshittery since it spawned discussion. Don't do drugs kids