Wednesday, 1 May 2013


the logic of subservience. the presence of god(liness). it is hard to imagine how it all fits. the arguments and counterarguments are plain, and i do not think i shall delve into those things unless they are pertinent to a point i am trying to make. instead, let's consider how such things influence us, nay benefit us.

again, let us revisit the effort-reward correlation. if there is any, and that effort begets reward, then it is easy to argue both ways - God exists because he has rewarded me for my actions, or God doesn't exist, and the reward for my actions are my own. similarly, if the converse of both clauses is true, God exists because he has punished my lack of effort with non-rewardal (or punishment), or that God does not exist, and that the results are consequence of my own (lack of) action.

it is when effort does not beget reward (and this is by and large the case, i imagine. at least empirically i see it everywhere), that we can question presence. how justifiable is either, that null should reward something, or vice versa?

can one really prove anything even if a correlation is established? maybe it is enough that one convinces oneself (oh lord, the choice of third person).

in any case, it is hard to fathom a paternal God that does not look out for his creations, but similarly, a malevolent God - what purpose do we fulfil? is sadism the 'greater good'? is that why people are moulded with this nature? inherent to? cultivated with? the diversity of human ethics and laws does not cover enough ground to mirror an imagery of God, even if we are built in his shape.

it couldn't be further from the truth, that this has any effect on ones choice of belief, only that how soothed is a soul if there is something to tether a belief upon, even if that belief is (inherently) flawed?

No comments: