How is it underrated? You should realize that this channel is just a RU-vid repository for (mostly very old) Closer To Truth episodes. Closer To Truth is a television show that airs on PBS on the US, and had been on the air for most of the last 21 years. It's not first and foremost a RU-vid channel.
You’re not fooling yourself God created this world for His amusement… what that mean is a Godly sense it’s not for us to understand until we die and enter the spiritual world. In the mean time we have to live in this world and follow its rules. Fact that you are watching these video and searching for truth and God is exactly what He intended. Gods intent is not to prove that he is real but to make you think and come to this conclusion your self, free and willing to enter His kingdom! He doesn’t want to force anyone there who doesn’t want to be there. He has done enough of that since Adam… Through Jesus Gid have is a second chance to show that we are ready for his second coming!
@@KatyWellsKingsland all you have to do is exactly what you it’s did. What reason do we have to believe that a god just exists, For no reason? Ordered? Are you blind? Childhood leukemia, billions of extinct species, billions of stars and planets with no life.14 billion years with no life until 4 billion years ago? Earthquakes, tornado? Where is this order? It is a delusion to think that because in a fraction of time when things became slightly ordered due to entropy and allowed some life to start after billions of failed lives which suffered and went extinct and died from many ways, that for a few thousand years there was enough balance to bring about conscious intelligence which allows us to think about these things now, that the universe is in order?! You have to be extremely unaware of all of the disorder in the universe to even say that. Your desire to make up an operational definition of god to fill the gap in your knowledge is exactly what the God Of The Gaps is about. Every time humans hit a place where they can’t understand something, they stick god there. It is a place holder for our ignorance. He has been dismissed from, doer of all things, from causing the wind and making babies, to creator of the universe who sits back an just watches. It’s a failed idea. If he created the universe, but is uninvolved, he is irrelevant, if he is involved but don’t care, he is a monster. If he cares, then he can’t be all powerful, and therefore not god. Perhaps if you considered that the cosmos, could be eternal, which means things do not come from nothing. Nothing isn’t even a coherent concept. Have you ever seen some nothing? The cosmos is eternal, then everything from, evolution, to the lack of moral accountability makes sense. Clearly there is no Karma or objective morality. That’s why they all make up stuff like heaven and reincarnation, because we know good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. If god is real (like the all powerful, all caring type) nothing makes sense. We are highly motivated to believe in immortality despite our knowledge of the mortality of everything. Ernest Beckers Denial of Death, explains it better than I could.
I don't believe in God, but I do believe in being a good person and living by good morals. That's the way we should be. Not because a god is waiting to judge us.
If there is no God then there is no “how it should be”. Strongest get to decide how it should be until they get knocked off the top by a stronger one who then decides a different “how it should be”
I personally believe in God, but I think l killing someone is wrong, whether God says so or some People agree with that or not. It's instinctively wrong
@Jenniferab32 throughout history religion has taken control by force, even today talisman in Afghanistan, Christianity did forced conversion in past too,so the strongest ruled ,correct
Ironic that those theistic refutations essentially amount to "don't assume you know how God works or what his motivations are", when that's EXACTLY what religion makes its money doing on a regular basis. The only reason theism exists as an ideology is because ignorant and credulous humans started making those wild assumptions about reality, instead of looking for evidence to test any of their hypotheses. Some of those assumptions got passed through the generational "telephone game", were eventually written down with a bit of poetic flourish, unreliably translated, mashed together through an arbitrary selection of "canon", and then those words were used as an excuse to torture, enslave, and murder people by the hundreds of thousands.
My top 3 reasons for rejecting the existence of God : 1.) The problem of evil. 2.) The problem of divine hiddenness. 3.) The total lack of explanatory power of the God-hypothesis. God is consistent with arguably any empirical claim.
@@GoddessTier No one says the existence of biological life is the process of 'luck'. That is a strawman. What is stated is that humans are a long line of progression from the molecules that formed in the exploding structures of stars. Humans are one part of a continuous chain of change. So apparently in making the universe this way, the god of the universe has the same level of concern if the universe ended with dust, or amoebas, or worms, or dinosaurs, or humans, or what may come afterwards. What part of this continuous chain is "its image"? It is only a story made up by people who are insisting that it was all done for our sake. What did the dinosaurs do to get wiped out of existence? Did they sin?
i dunno, it seems to me that a much simpler explanation for the so called god shaped hole in our hearts is, perhaps, arguably the most primal emotion we possess which is Fear. something like : strong people provide food, they provide shelter, they keep the predators away, they make us feel safe when we sleep, etc. now add "Super" to it . super strong people always DO and WILL provide food & shelter & safety. sounds like god to me, i dont know. good video thanx
I already know a great deal about these arguments, but had to watch regardless because this channel posts great content. One of my favorite RU-vid channels.
I agreed there is no even any thing there in comparison with them, if I have to say about I would say like this as the mighty stars floating on the fabric of universe so are these all wise men emerging in my sight because of Mr. Robert Lawrence one by one time to time and taking me more closer to the truth.
This woman at the beginning of the video is absolutely brilliant. I’ve listened to many hours of people, smart people, rambling about these same questions. The way she quickly and intuitively skates through them is impressive.
@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll I'll try again. If you've ever had a wet fart then this is proof that there is no intelligent designer and that we are a product of evolution.
This species needs people like you. Thank you for existing, please continue to for as long as physically possible, so that I may learn more, and aspire to your level of critical analysis. We are here for one thing, and that is truth. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Indeed. They never explain how they have access to their "inside" information about this amazeballs being no one can understand, except them of course. it becomes even more silly when they start giving detailed descriptions of eventual limitations of this amazeballs being. It awakens an urge to pimp slap the bullshit out of them.
"And you're doing pretty well" that response sums up Weinberg's argument neatly. One cannot overstate the significance of these videos. Thank you for this great service.
So basically, the theist argument as espoused by Mr. Platinga, amounts to little more than this: We don't know what God's will is. Then the question becomes, why even believe in such an entity? It seems to me ridiculous to even posit an omnipotent, omniscient being if we're not meant to understand any of it. We may as well imagine a super advanced alien civilization that can create universes but remains neutral to their outcome.
📣If I have to say about I would say like this as the mighty stars floating on the fabric of universe so are these all wise men emerging in my sight through these episodes because of Mr. Robert Lawrence, one by one, time to time and taking me more closer to truth 🌌
As an atheist I watch and love your videos about God, but I really, really respect you for being brave enough to look into all options and offer us a great variety of knowledge from every angle. Thank you RLK!
I’m not sure what I am, but like you, I enjoy the videos and how he looks at every angle to get a better perspective of the subject matter. To me, knowledge is the key to understanding, but god is not one to understand. I hope to learn more and define myself one way or the other. Totally in agreement with your assessment of RLK.
Primitive man: lightning is from god Then science explain with good detail how the difference in electric charge cause them, the air becomes conducive and so on... Theists: no, the only explanation is God. So it’s not about God of the gaps it’s about a god that “explains” everything even though there is a natural explanation
Modern insane man:soo god exists but not in biological (material shape) as we tend to go towards the future we can see that the tehnology is getting better and better(it comes to realization) that god indeed was able to go through realms material or spiritual soo the foundation of the idea is that god himself came from other realm made the human as his material avatar in this realm this physical reality lets assume we already do have non physical realm and that the computer the internet in the future ppl might be able to stimulate this reality so in order to get inside the virtual world u must be able to transport your mind into it and what if we can make ppl to be born in that reality so in order for them to get back to the real world they must have body outside the virtual reality an avatar that will contain the mind of the outsider what if god himself did use such type of technology ages ago what if we are in stimulation made by god so in order for us to get back to the real world we must transfer our soul to the other realm but only by permission from god!
Atheists and skeptics generally don't argue that god doesn't exist; they typically just point out the errors in arguments for the existence of god. But if one defines god as the creator of everything, that can certainly be demonstrated not to exist because it's incoherent. In order to be the creator of everything it would have to exist before it created, in which case there was already _something_ so there couldn't possibly be a creator of everything.
@@truerealrationalist The god of the most popular ones are however based on a god said to be the creator of everything, which is incoherent. There really aren't any dieties associated with a particular organized religion whose existence cannot be reasonably dismissed as utterly implausible. The only god conceptions that can't necessarily be dismissed as impossible are the more general and philosophical conceptions of what sort of things might reasonably be considered "god". This aspect of the god conversation is given surprisingly short shrift. People generally leap immediately into debating whether or not a god could exist without first coming to some agreement on what attributes something must possess in order to reasonably and necessarily considered "god". There are some conceptualizations of god that can't be dismissed as impossible but most can be. I think we can be reasonably certain that none of the gods said to have written books for humans exist.
@@b.g.5869 I don't disagree with any of that; however, my point is that these are still arguments against _religion._ *A* god, *some* god, *any* god could very well exist, and this is all that _theism_ suggests.
Seemingly, aruments either for or against the existence of God are always predicated on the Old Testament understanding. But in my opinion this leaves so many closed doors. If I may, - God is the summation of all things. This means that he/she is more than the Holy Scriptures. I don't believe an argument exists which would usurp my faith. Because my trust in 'meaning ' can never be 'disproved'.
God is a reflection of the highest form of morality we can think of, connectedness. God is an explanation of this FEELING. The Abrahamic God is a personal God, which is hard to believe because we haven't seen him. So I believe that God is a feeling of deep connectedness with the universe and the FEELING I get when this realization dwans upon me.
"God is a reflection of the highest form of morality we can think of, connectedness." Why do you need a loaded word like god to describe that? Is Yahweh, drowner of worlds, killer of children, the highest form of morality? How about Thor?
The Abrahamic god is a monster who supports slavery, bigotry, sexism and demands the murder of innocent children. How can he be an example of morality. It is patently ridiculous. Your feelings and morality are instinctual and far superior to Yahweh.
Feynman said: "Science begins with a guess. That guess is computed to form an hypothesis. The guess/hypothesis is tested against nature. If it fails to conform to nature, IT'S WRONG....PERIOD!!" THERMODYNAMICS REFUSES CATEGORICALLY to provide THIS UNIVERSE with A BEGINNING...1st LAW! AN ETERNITY...2nd LAW!! (heat goes ONLY to cold, ultimately complete cold---it hasn't/isn't) THAT'S "NATURE" repudiating any hypothesis we are able to provide: begin/not begin. WHY Hawkings/Krauss er al shamelessly contrive self-licking ice cream cone universes: THEY KNOW they're FD OTHERWISE.. "ORIGINS" is the sine qua non of "Scientific Atheism"...it can't exist without it. TOOFNBAD!! YOU LOSE!....HAHAHAHAHA....HOWL!!!
@@WayneLynch69 Thermodynamics, as you misuse it, only applies within closed systems. It does not apply to the universe. A little science is a dangerous thing in the hands of lazy thinkers.
@@WayneLynch69 Showing that you don't understand particularly the first law of thermodynamics which is a closed system. We have no idea at all if the universe is a closed system or not, as we are limited to observation to the border of the cosmic background radiation. Before you attempt to badly defame scientists like Feynman, Hawking and Kraus, you should at least attempt to get at least ONE scientific law right! lol
This show is always short on definitions. That's why the gullible love it so much. They think it speaks to them when in reality it says the same nothing over and over.
I am impressed with your professionalism, analytical thinking, courage, and honesty with which you explore all the arguments for and against God and all the important philosophical and scientific issues. That is why I have subscribed to your channel Closer To Truth. Exploring all the arguments for and against God, at the end of the day, we may feel ourselves undecided. What can we do? Let me share my experience. I think this would also be interesting to our colleagues on social media who wish or do not wish God to exist. In the above situation, I think we should explore the very argumentation as such, proof, which we rely on when exploring truth. Interestingly, proof is not completely rational; it also has an irrational component, and this became clear in Godel's incompleteness theorem: in a math system, there are true statements that cannot be proved by the axioms of the system. Godel's theorem has an important counterpart in physics - non-determinism, the existence of physical events that cannot in principle be predicted by physics. The unprovable true statements and unpredictable indeterministic events are the irrational components of scientific theories. In addition, proof is based on laws of logic, but are these laws provable? If they were provable, their proof would also be based on the very laws of logic, and this is a logical circle. So, laws of logic are unprovable. Therefore, they are the irrational components of our theories, as well. Axioms are also unprovable, and they are also irrational despite being obvious. Although science and philosophy should contain as little irrational as possible, the irrational is unevadable. Thus, when exploring truth, we cannot only rely on rational thinking; we also have to use irrational thinking, intuition, visceral conviction. This is what we can do when we feel ourselves undecided in the issue of God's existence and in any other issues at the end of the day. Of course, the question arises: Does truth depend on our intuitive choice? Or, is there objective truth? Objective truth does exist, but at the end of the day, some people's intuition fails to access it, and other people's intuition succeeds in accessing it.
@@rl7012 I refer to natural disasters such as earthquakes, mosquitoes, plagues, hurricanes, tsunamis, and many other nasty things. Human free will, if it exists, has nothing to do with these.
@@bernardliu8526 Are they evil though? All of those things are nature doing her thing. They are not acts of evil. Bad weather is not evil. Earthquakes are not evil. Tsunami's are not evil. They are all products of the natural living world. Can human beings suffer because of them? Yes of course, but that does not make the natural world evil. We are on a living planet. So what may be bad for some humans, could be good for nature. Same like if a wild animal kills a human. Is the wild animal evil?
'There is no script' - but isn't the script the cause and effect of the universe from its origins until now? i.e. determinism. All is then purpose and teleology in the broadest sense of the context of the universe, and this in turn is reducible and mirrored in the cause and effect of smaller systems on earth, such as ecology, the weather etc etc
All the traditional gods, have nothing to do with the real creator, he’s not human he is energy, same energy everywhere in the universe. In this life and the next one stay in the light.
Arguments against a god. 1. God is just a man made concept. 2. There is no proof or evidence of a god. 3.There is no proof that a god is needed for the universe to exist or to be created.
What proof have "you' got for proving the existence of universe and what will prove it to be true? Actually what is truth? If you can, please define truth.
This is one case where I think your conclusion is totally right. It's the experience of a certain conception of God that proves its existence to believers, it could never be a argument as they are all based on premises that can never be secure.
' it could never be a argument as they are all based on premises that can never be secure.' Pot kettle. The entirety of science rests on fundamental assumptions.
If you really break it all down, everything about a God is rooted in imagination. That's why there have been thousands of gods from past to present. None have been demonstrated to exist outside of the imagination. Arguements for a God are just that. Arguements. You can't argue something into existence. Lol
Yes, no one knows what they were before they were Born. And no knows what happens after Death. No one has Come Back... It's all Wishful thinking and Tradition.
The real question that people want to be answered: Is there God who loves and cares about humans and has something better for humans in this life or in the alleged after-life? But the existence of loving God clashes with the tremendous amount of suffering that humans experience in their lives. To explain this contradiction - "loving God and suffering humans" - that is the important question to be answered. And it is the equivalent of "the presence of evil" pointed out by that theist in the video. That is, the presence of evil and suffering of humans really equals lack of God's love and care for humans. Because omnipotent God surely can prevent suffering and defeat evil. So, what excuses do religions offer for the combo of "loving God and suffering humans?" A traditional excuse in Christianity is that God will reward people, who suffered in their lives, after their deaths. The huge flaw of such an argument/excuse is that we, humans, are made of our memories of our experiences. Horrible experiences in a human being's life profoundly and permanently change the state of mind and soul of that human. They remain ever-present in the human mind, thus making the human unhappy. And how God would make such human happy? By erasing its memories of suffering. But those memories are linked to other memories of a person, and erasing the person's memory would have inevitably led to erasing that human as a person. Whatever left would be a happy idiot with erased memories. The person, who lived and suffered, would have been erased permanently along with his or her memories. So, that's clearly not how someone can be made happy. Hence, the contradiction of "suffering humans and loving omnipotent God who loves but does not care to help humans when they suffer" - the contradiction remains and it is a strong argument against the existence of caring and loving God. That is, God might exist, but the way of how God does not wish to prevent human suffering tells us that God does not care. And one more note for those crazy pseudo-humans, who will rush to respond to my comment with insults and threats - as it is customarily done on this Channel's forums, don't do that. Because whatever bad you will wish toward me, it will return back to you.
I don't have arguments against existence of God(s)/deities/demiurge(s). I have arguments against existence of a good, omni-benevolent God: Epicureus’ Trillema (best combined with modified Benatar's asymmetry of benefits and harms). No good God would have created any sentient beings, nor allowed any suffering. And we know that morality is either objective _or_ merely arbitrary (and thereby imposed/authoritarian/tyrannical), and that we can judge God's actions from Euthyphro’s Dilemma (morality can’t be arbitrary via any alleged/purported/claimed/claimable authority or divine-command and that it is objective and universally applies to all moral agents, including any deities/demiurges). I think theism is very dangerous, it teaches cultivating the ultimate Stockholm Syndrome. It teaches arbitrary, hijacked morality (do as I say regardless if it's right; you've been created with a purpose: to show gratitude for being created, needlessly tested for faith which is your vice-turned-virtue ticket (and the only ticket) to Heaven, you can 'sin' and harm others all you want as long as you eventually (but no later than on your deathbed, though preferably on a rinse-and-repeat fashion basis) ask your creator to forgive you your wrongdoings on behalf of those you've wronged. For God is all-mighty, can do the impossible: turn vice into virtue, forgive on behalf of others, divide by zero, square a circle... Also see: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tyAx5RUDIKk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xLnsY5io964.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t52idellX8k.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GKhbGholFOE.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tS1gK86vjyg.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qxR9HwKNUt8.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n3Wb-c5DAtQ.html "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children, or you have a God who simply watches and says: _"When you're done, I'm going to punish you."._ If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God." -- Tracie Harris, _The Atheist Experience_ =====
Exactly, If there was an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-altruistic god Then, there would have been no misery, pain or evil whatsoever in the world ever. Which isn't the case, so either there is no "god" or god is not "omnipotent, omniscient and omni-altruistic". There could have been "deities" though, maybe aliens or ancient advanced civilizations of earth. etc But no "all powerful all good god" at all.
If God was good i would never conclude that he isn't good because he would't allow such gratuitous torture of my innocent soul! I came to the conclusion that he isn't good, so either he isn't good or he doesn't exist. Since he exists then the only possibility which remains is trueness of his wickedness. If i am wrong (and i want to be wrong with all my heart), i am eager to see how and why i'am wrong...do i ask too much?
@@odiupickusclone-1526, I think I largely agree with what you wrote. I don't know why you would want to be wrong on the God question--unless you mean something like you only imagined all this collective suffering (kinda like the Matrix thing), however since there is no false sensation, even your tiniest discomfort, worry, anxiety, indecision is something a benevolent God wouldn't have allowed/accepted, even if you were the only entity to have ever suffered anything, be it merely a second of mild discomfort.
Consciousness has got to be the most important aspect of the universe, because without it nothing exists... even if it actually does. But, if the purpose of the universe is to foster biological life, leading to consciousness, why have dinosaurs 🦕 doing nothing for one hundred million years?
And most likely, had they not gone extinct by the asteroid, homo sapiens, simply by statistics of chance, would never have evolved. If you accept this different outcome further, neither would have, our degree of intelligence or level of CONSCIOUSNESS to observe, understand the Universe
Why is it that we have zero evidence of consciousness until recently in a universe of 14 billion years, is it the foundation of the universe? That view is solipsistic. Consciousness evolved, there is no purpose.
As the ancient Roman philosopher Polybius once said...to paraphrase...there would be no human societies without "God," as societies are sustained by the risk of punishment after death.
As I grow older, I feel that emotions rather than reason prédominate in most important and even less important decisions. And what are emotions? Aren't they born in the soul? 🤔
......the reasoning mind of mankind pursues errors, we want "God' to prove his existence by oppressive tyrannical means which would go contrary to the nature of an "all powerful, all knowing, loving" God.
The burden of proof for a God is on the one who believes, not on the one who does not. The one who does not believe in God cannot "prove God does not exist." That's at least a logical fallacy. Non-believers can only question whether or not any supposed God operates according to their cherished principles. What is interesting is that a non-believer will ultimately find his foundation of disbelief in the fact that evil exists, so it stops being a question of "does God exist," but, "What is the character of God?" The fact that there is a Creator God is almost incontrovertible. The question we should all be asking is, Who is God?
Thank you for positing these questions. I don’t understand anyone wanting a god or a heaven, but it’s important to shine light on the question. To me it seems primitive and remedial, but apparently it’s still has a pull on most of the planet despite the lack evidence and lack of need for a god. It’s frankly sad that the world is so caught in this mortality denial and the narcissistic desires to live forever.
"I see Sue target human religion more than God" Ok show me some one whos obsessed with God and everything they talk about comes mainly from one place , the religions and their books. 'God' doesnt appear unless you have contact with religion in some form. I agree with Sue. Mystical experience has nothing to do with God.
The arguments against gods are compelling in their own right but for me the arguments for god are reason enough to ignore such a concept. Take their reasoning and distill them to their essence and you end up with if you just believe then it’s true. Under that notion I can wish into existence literally anything I can imagine.
Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong, the moderns version of it are wrong too. Statements at 2:30 is wrong. Check with the intelligent design movement, James Tour, Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe etc..
no, darwin's theory is not wrong. intelligent design is covered in some of the other videos. how can you believe that nothing evolves? look around you, look at the flynn effect, look at how animals have adapted to their environment, look at DNA and how we as humans have remnants of DNA from earlier species.
@@cosmikrelic4815 The theory of evolution is wrong. DNA changes over time and accumulates mutations, those mutations destroy the DNA over time, they do not have a creative effect, take a look at genetic diseases. Speciation occur and populations can split, that's about all. Chimps remain chimps.
@@jeancuivre mutations are evolution. they do not destroy DNA, that's ridiculous, andwhat have genetic diseases got to do with anything. chimps may remain chimps but they evolve, they grow more hair in cold climates, they have gotten vastly more intelligent over the generations. some of them are smarter than trump. i think you may mis-understand evolution which is not surprising since mot people that deny evolution are ignorant of the actual theory.
@@jeancuivre no you don't, you don't seem to understand the first thing about it. and as for having studied more than me that is laughable, how on earth would you know? stephen meyer is an intelligent design lunatic. if you find a watch in the jungle then there must be a watchmake crap. you are easily led.
Why do atheists think about the problem of evil ? How would you know what is Beautiful if you don't know what is Ugly ? How would you know what is Day if Night never existed ? How would you know what is Good if Evil never existed ?
I just watched a documentary on children with dementia. You they thank God for their suffering ? Did God plan this ? Well, much more realistic to conclude there is no such thing as a Gog !
The Promised Messiah, on whom be peace, says: “Search for God is a difficult matter. Observation of the heavens and the earth and reflection of the perfect orderliness of the universe only leads to the conclusion that the universe should have a creator, yet it is not a proof that such a Creator exists. There is a difference between ought to be and is. The first duty of a person, therefore, is to acquire certainty with regard to the existence of God … How can this certainty be acquired? It cannot be acquired through mere stories. It cannot be acquired through mere arguments. The only way to acquiring certainty is to experience God by having conversation with Him or by witnessing His extraordinary signs.”
That sounds precisely like something to come out from someone who doesn't want you to doubt and think from yourself. Like "shame talking" you for even daring to use your brain. You don't win an argument with the either side by starting it with a "You're a fool if you think I'm wrong!". When has that ever worked?
Maybe your motivation for God to exist could be the motivation for a being to experience God and spread the experience with those who wish for his/their existence..
I just say the quickest overview of life is, reflection.... since we're tied to the whole material force of the universe anything can become your God within itself it just means that you shouldn't be so attached to it. And that's a hard one to focus on
The basic point is that Aristotle getting some science wrong doesn't invalidate scientific thinking - in the same way Abraham or someone else getting something wrong about the Almighty doesn't invalidate theism.
Another solution to Pascals wager, similar to Steven's is, what if there is a god that doesn't want you to think about, speak about and especially doesn't want you to pray to or worship it? It would follow from the lack of evidence and it would also match what we might like if we were creating and running some system of autonomic beings. Would you care if a colony of ants you needed for some reason, were to worship you or would you prefer them to just do their job being ants?
