If you actually read the post you linked to, you'll notice that I said that theists take the profoundly incredible characteristics that I believe are inherent qualities of the universe, and assign them elsewhere. Thus, there's nothing inherently superior in the totality of my view as compared to that of the theists, since said qualities haven't actually disappeared. What you're missing here is the fact that my comments were simply designed to highlight why it is that theists tend to see the universe without God as such an inadequate place, and it's because they are failing to consider the best possible conception of it. And saying something like that is not an essentially different exercise than a theist telling an atheist that if they don't believe in God, they are necessarily working with an inferior definition of God (the superior one being inextricable from his actual existence).
In that sense, I certainly believe that I hold a superior view of the true scope of physicality. If I didn't believe that, I would have discarded it. Such things are just plainly obvious. But that doesn't translate into a declaration that my philosophy is objectively superior, because I can't be certain that I'm right about any of it. And it certainly doesn't mean that I consider myself to be a superior person, which seems to be the charge you are actually trying to make.
Not that you would agree with it, merely that you would realize that it is not inherently nihilistic, because there is indeed intrinsic value in an eternally existent fabric that possesses all the qualities necessary for the emergence of anything and everything that can emerge, including us.
Well, it's a core principle of mine that I genuinely try to live by. In fact the more I learn about nature, the more respect I gain for what it has given birth to. In that sense, there's nothing less miraculous about you than there is about me.
Last edited:
