@Fatal Freedoms,
Quote:And people wonder why we're in the middle of a bloody war. "Our" standards are always the only ones that are relevant.
Is Arcturus offended by our egotism? Where's the other standards that we should take into consideration? Exactly what should be more important or be taken into consideration than humans to humans? Relevance is not measured by comparison to the universe, it is measured by what is important to whatever is deciding on the relevancy of things. ntares is totally irrelevant to to the lives of most humans. Does that mean that Antares is practically non-existant in a way, compared to, say, mortgages? No. Just like humans are not irrelevant or practically not existant compared to Antares.
Quote:I said "practically non-existant" but of course you'd overlook that tiny detail that changes the meaning of the whole sentance.
and yes a drop of water in the pacific ocean is "practically non-existant" when compared to the vastness of the ocean.
Still, something either exists or it doesn't. It's an absolute concept. You can't "sort of exist, but relative to this you don't." Would you say that a human being becomes less existant when put up against an elephant? Just becuase there's bigger stuff than us out there does not mean that we barely exist in comparison.
Quote:I'm sure if fleas could think, they'd probably consider themselves 'significant', but does that make it so?
By the standards of fleas, yes it does. And what other standards should matter to fleas?
Quote:It is also an argument against the notion that an omnipotent and omnipresent being is watching our every move.
If they were omnipotent & omnipresent, the significance of humans in comparison to the universe as a whole wouldn't be an obstacle. Omnipotent and omnipresent could apply to the entire universe.