28 replies to this topic

[kman]

To insects and creatures far smaller than we are, humans appear large and extremely powerful. Thus, are we seen as a "God" to a creature like a mosquito. If this is the case, might it imply that our "God" if he exists, is not aware of his role as our protector? I don't know if I am making any sense, but I was thinking about this for a while the other day and decided to pose this question to you guys.

[eblake]

kman, on Dec 7 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

To insects and creatures far smaller than we are, humans appear large and extremely powerful. Thus, are we seen as a "God" to a creature like a mosquito. If this is the case, might it imply that our "God" if he exists, is not aware of his role as our protector? I don't know if I am making any sense, but I was thinking about this for a while the other day and decided to pose this question to you guys.

How can we be considered a "god" to those creatures? Because we "appear large and extremely powerful"? Sixteen-wheelers appear large and extremely powerful to me, and I worry about being run over by them. But I hesitate to call them godly. Same with non-human creations. I'm not terribly in awe of elephants nor dinosaurs.

Also, don't mosquitoes suck our blood? To say nothing of the deadly infections some of them pass on, how "godly" are we to them?

Edited by eblake, Dec 08, 2008 - 01:23.

[Irene]

Elephants seem pretty large and powerful to me. But alas, I do not regard them as gods. I also highly doubt insects have the brain capacity to actually contemplate the existence of gods.

Edit: Assuming God's role as Protector is true, and insects regard humans as Gods, then wtf. I don't protect insects, I set out to squish them... ew vile pests~

Edit edit: Also, how do you classify "lesser creatures" exactly? Strength, intelligence, size, speed, weight, height, ability to survive in the wild? Does this only apply to animal species or also within species classifications?

Edited by moneyfaery, Dec 08, 2008 - 01:32.

[eblake]

moneyfaery, on Dec 7 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

I also highly doubt insects have the brain capacity to actually contemplate the existence of gods.

So the existence of god is dependent on the brain capacity of the contemplating? does that mean god would not exist if you were a tree?..

[Mr. Shiver]

eblake, on Dec 7 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

So the existence of god is dependent on the brain capacity of the contemplating? does that mean god would not exist if you were a tree?..

Actually, yes. To be is to be perceived.

[eblake]

Mr. Shiver, on Dec 7 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

Actually, yes. To be is to be perceived.

.. Be more political Mr. Shiver, I dare you.

[Irene]

eblake, on Dec 7 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

So the existence of god is dependent on the brain capacity of the contemplating? does that mean god would not exist if you were a tree?..

Meaning humans are not the gods of trees, or however you want to put it. OP asked if insects perceived humans as Gods. As such, I gave a reason they would not. Now, if you would like to discuss 'God' as humans see it and God's existence, that's another matter for believers.

Although, you are right in some aspects - I should have phrased that better. I should have said "the existence of the human notion of God". Is there an insect notion? Perhaps, but I doubt it.

[robertomx]

Interesting question; personally, sticking to our conception of God, I'd say we're not perceived as Gods by insects since the whole notion of divinity is based on faith. Since they can see/touch us, eventhough they may think of us (that is, if they even do so) as 'powerful' creatures, we're just that: creatures.

[eblake]

i think we scared the OP away.

[kman]

lol, i don't think you guys fully understand what I am trying to convey. Humans are of a higher life form than animals and insects, and can generally think and act in a more superior way. Similarly, we see our "God" as a higher life form, who can think and act in a more superior way. Thus, even if might not be worshipped by these animals and insects, is it our role to act like a "God" to them, or are we justified to "squish them". Similarly, is there a God to our God? Is it a neverending cycle. Also, please understand that I am not suggesting anything, I am merely philosophically contemplating with your help. Looking forward to your next responses.

[eblake]

kman, on Dec 9 2008, 09:42 PM, said:

Humans are of a higher life form than animals and insects, and can generally think and act in a more superior way.

we think and act in a more complicated way. complicated = superior? isn't complexity part of our problem? our evil evil sins are all against the basis of civilization, no?
also, while we can think this way, how we live/act is still different. ie monks live pretty simply. what's thinking matter if it's the action that determines how/who/what we are?


I don't really know how to answer the rest of your post. but.. if there is a god, and if there is a god to that god, and more gods after that.. well.. that never-ending cycle sounds like Alan Moore's comic the Watchmen, as in who's watching the watchmen? best American comic ever.

Anyway, in that case, I believe that if we can think up a system of 'checks and balances' then these gods can probably figure something out.. proportional representation maybe? Besides, ..what's it matter to us if they're superior? We'd be powerless anyway.

Edited by eblake, Dec 10, 2008 - 04:18.

[Aboo]

Lets put it this way. (Assume you're religious) What is God? God is pretty much all knowing and all powerful, and he can do anything and everything he desires (For a comedic twist, think Sylar from Heroes ).
And for the lesser life forms like the OP is suggesting, consider ants. All we can do is kill them, there is nothing more to do. They're pesky, so we squish/mutilate/kill and for some, eat them.
Now, God doesn't squish/mutilate us, neither eats us. So logically, your theory is incorrect.
Emotionally, any religious person would call your idea preposterous and refuse to hear another word of your theory.
Perceptively, yes we may seem to be Gods to smaller creatures, but we're not really. Besides the small tiny creatures probably aren't privy to the more complex issues of life.

And that was a TOKish argument to your theory.

[Irene]

kman, on Dec 9 2008, 09:42 PM, said:

Thus, even if might not be worshipped by these animals and insects, is it our role to act like a "God" to them, or are we justified to "squish them". Similarly, is there a God to our God? Is it a neverending cycle.

I don't really need to be "justified" to squish insects. I am repulsed by them and frankly, find them filthy and horrifying, so my natural instinct is to kill and dispose of them.

In addition, some of the more popular religions only have one God. Comparatively, there are many humans so we cannot all be like Gods.

I see the point you're trying to make, but there are a few issues in your argument that just don't make it a good comparison.

[Mr. Shiver]

moneyfaery, on Dec 10 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

I don't really need to be "justified" to squish insects. I am repulsed by them and frankly, find them filthy and horrifying, so my natural instinct is to kill and dispose of them.

"Tutsi cockroaches"

Edited by Mr. Shiver, Dec 10, 2008 - 23:38.

[deissi]

Mr. Shiver, on Dec 11 2008, 01:35 AM, said:

"Tutsi cockroaches"

I seriously hope you're not referring to the Rwandan genocide because that would just be completely tasteless.

[Mr. Shiver]

That's what turning justification into natural instinct leads to. Obviously there's much more to the conflict than that, but I was just drawing a very crude parallel. Maybe a bit too crude. Sorry.

Edited by Mr. Shiver, Dec 13, 2008 - 15:35.

[SharkSpider]

As far as I see it, that was a perfectly justified argument against the idea that might makes right. If we are god to lesser creatures, and if that gives us the right to do as we see fit, then the only morality is that of whoever has the ability to impose it on others, and thus, something like Rwanda would have to be justified, simply on the basis that it happened. Not a good path to take.

[Mr. Shiver]

Interesting way of putting it. Although I think my logic was something more like "if killing insects is okay because you simply don't like the sight of them, then where do you draw the line?" I'm not sure exactly how that relates to godliness, but hey, the Abrahamic God was pretty genocidal himself.

Edited by Mr. Shiver, Dec 13, 2008 - 23:10.

[eblake]

SharkSpider, on Dec 13 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

If we are god to lesser creatures, and if that gives us the right to do as we see fit, then the only morality is that of whoever has the ability to impose it on others, and thus, something like Rwanda would have to be justified, simply on the basis that it happened.

Some would disagree.
I don't know if we are god to lesser creatures, but if we have the right to do as we see fit - which is pretty much the stance of Rand and the Libertarian Party - it wouldn't follow that the only morality is that of whoever has the ability to impose it on others. I think we can agree that we're not god and that we don't live in an isolated dimension of godliness. The right we have to do as we see fit is then distributed to other members of this 'we'. Rights are only one side of the moral coin, the other is obligation, which we have to other members. So then "our ability to impose it on others" would mean others have an ability to impose it on us. Just as it's moral to use this right, it's moral that we respect this right of others. It's an oxymoron to speak of a 'morality' that is the 'only' one if the right that brings about this morality is plural.


in light of that, if god is alone, then he's just someone who gets only one side of the coin all the time. which means if we are the god to lesser creatures, we would be justified in squishing them.
on the other hand, if we are not - as we are not to other humans, Tutsi or otherwise - we're morally disgusting pieces of trash to violate someone else's right to life.

Edit: okay so I ended up not disagreeing afterall. my baaadd...

Edited by eblake, Dec 14, 2008 - 01:52.

[sweetnsimple786]

Dang. I remember what I was doing on Dec 13 last year. o.0

I wanted to add that we recognize other humans as equals. However, we don't always appreciate mutualism or symbiosis between us and other organisms. Yeah, I don't want insects and mice raiding my home and I don't want to get ringworm, but I understand the value of the life of the bug that bit me two days ago. I value the paper I use and the meat I consume. I can just imagine Aboo calling me a hypocrite on many different levels, but Bio last year really made me think of the frenzy that is consumerism. My thoughts are kinda scattered, and I'm not going to go around telling people not to step on ants, but I have learned to respect the life and role of other creatures.

Why did I post this? Just to quote Faulkner, ‘I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.’