Venting A Depressing Universe

[Darkover]

A universe that isn't aware of anything it does yet manages to create life that is aware of the universe
A universe that does not care for the things it creates or doesn't offer any form of protection from the universe
A universe that creates life without any reason no meaning or purpose to existences
A universe that creates life on a hostile planet were the thing it create must kill one another to survive isn't a neutral universe it's a hell hole
A universe that does not just remain neutral; it seems actively hostile, a place where survival demands violence and competition
A universe that creates consciousness only for that consciousness to realize the coldness of existence adds another layer of torment
A universe that does not care about beauty, compassion, justice, peace, happiness or suffering
A universe that creates life without any consideration for what that life will endure.
A universe that does not offer protection from the harsh realities of existence, leaving its creations vulnerable to the cruelty of their environment.
A universe that offers no reason for life to exist, no purpose behind the suffering it births, only the randomness of its creation.
A universe that forces life to endure constant conflict, where survival demands violence, and the cost of existence is steep.
A universe that does not care if the creatures it creates suffer, struggle, or perish in the process of surviving.
A universe that grants consciousness only to torture its creations with the awareness of their inevitable end.
A universe that has no interest in beauty, peace, or love—only in the cold mechanics of life and death.
A universe that places its creations in an endless cycle of striving for meaning in a place that provides none.
A universe that leaves life to fight against its own nature, constantly struggling, but never receiving any comfort from the chaos that surrounds it.
A universe that creates life only to watch it destroy itself in a futile attempt to stay alive, never offering mercy or reprieve.

 

[dust-in-the-wind]

All true. Well written post.

 

[gglutton13]

This is why I would never have kids. I wouldn't want to drag anyone else into this hell.

 

[Darkover]

In the grand expanse of the cosmos, life arises not from intention, but from chance. It is not crafted with care, nor born into a world of warmth or protection. Instead, it is thrust into existence within a universe that neither notices nor nurtures. From the moment consciousness awakens, it finds itself in a reality that offers no assurances—only struggle, decay, and eventual death. The universe, in its silence, does not answer the cries of the living. It remains unmoved. Uncaring. Cold.

Unlike a neutral bystander, the universe seems actively hostile in its indifference. It places life on a planet where survival is inseparable from violence. Organisms must kill to feed, dominate to thrive, and compete just to endure another day. Predation, disease, natural disasters—all serve as constant reminders that existence is not a gift, but a challenge, a relentless ordeal. Even the most advanced minds are not spared; they are instead cursed with the burden of awareness. To be conscious is to recognize the futility of one's efforts, the certainty of one's end, and the absence of inherent meaning.

There is no justice etched into the laws of physics. No mercy woven into the fabric of space and time. The universe does not reward kindness, nor does it punish cruelty. Beauty is fleeting. Love is vulnerable. Peace is temporary. And in the face of this, life continues—not because it chooses to, but because it must. It is driven by blind biological impulses, coded by a chemistry that does not know it exists.

This cruel irony—the emergence of life capable of introspection in a cosmos devoid of compassion—marks perhaps the greatest tragedy of all. Consciousness, far from being a gift, becomes a curse. It reveals the absurdity of a world that creates life without purpose and then subjects it to suffering without reason. Life struggles to find meaning, to impose order on chaos, to create warmth in a world that offers none. But these attempts are not recognized by the universe. They are whispers into the void.

The universe offers no grand design, no ultimate justice, no promise of transcendence. It simply is. And in this "isness" lies a chilling truth: life is alone. It was not asked for. It is not watched over. It is not protected. The creatures born into this existence must fight to survive, only to die without certainty that their lives ever truly mattered.

Yet perhaps the most profound cruelty lies in this: the universe created beings capable of asking why, but incapable of ever receiving an answer.

 

[Darkover]

A universe that gives rise to life but provides no shelter from its own chaos and brutality.
A universe that births sentient beings with no intention, no goal, and no explanation for their pain.
A universe that forces life to emerge in a place where survival means destroying others just to breathe another day.
A universe that doesn't simply ignore suffering—it builds its very systems on it.
A universe that hands out consciousness like a curse, letting minds awaken to the weight of futility.
A universe that has no place for kindness, no room for justice, no memory of love.
A universe that invents endurance without offering relief.
A universe that watches its creations suffer and die without even the decency of silence—only indifference.
A universe that spreads pain randomly, like a careless machine grinding through time.
A universe that wraps its creatures in hunger, fear, and decay, calling it "natural law."
A universe that makes awareness a trap—forcing minds to confront the pointlessness of their own agony.
A universe that celebrates nothing and mourns nothing, no matter how much beauty or suffering is lost.
A universe that makes life struggle endlessly, not for meaning, but for survival in a void.
A universe that lets love exist just long enough to be shattered by time.
A universe that compels living things to war with themselves, their instincts, their fears.
A universe that spins endlessly forward, blind to the wreckage it leaves behind.
A universe that lets life bloom only to wither without reason or mercy.

 

[Forever Sleep]

That's true and very weird in itself. That likely an unconscious set of systems and forces created consciousness. How bizarre. Unless of course there was a conscious creator behind it all, which oddly feels worse! That every detail was sadistically designed that way.

 

[ididnotconsent]

I totally understand your feelings my guy. It's fucking bleak out there.

BTW what about us. We generally try to help and comfort each other. Lot's of human do advocacy, donate to charities, and try to help humanity.

We are part of the universe and so it seems that universe is not entirely evil/sadistic. It kind of goes back to the war between good/evil thing. Anyway, just food for thought.

 

[Darkover]

That's true and very weird in itself. That likely an unconscious set of systems and forces created consciousness. How bizarre. Unless of course there was a conscious creator behind it all, which oddly feels worse! That every detail was sadistically designed that way.

God would not enslave me in awful shit in a shithole and hellhole

 

[Forever Sleep]

God would not enslave me in awful shit in a shithole and hellhole

How do you know? Because 'God is good?' What if they're not though? Or, we don't understand their overall plan- which is somehow still good despite all the bad bits? Can't see it myself but, who knows?

I feel it more likely there isn't a God or a grand plan but, if there is, I very much fear the type of being who created all this.

 

[Darkover]

How do you know? Because 'God is good?' What if they're not though?

because there is no evidence to subjects that anything can exist outside of space and time
and if one argues that the universe must have had a creator, it leads to the question of who created the creator.
the universe was not intentionally designed modern cosmology, particularly the big bang theory, provides a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. the universe began from a singularity (or an initial state of high density and temperature) around 13.8 billion years ago. there's no necessity for a creator to explain this only that something can and will come into existence from complete nothingness

 

[Forever Sleep]

because there is no evidence to subjects that anything can exist outside of space and time
and if one argues that the universe must have had a creator, it leads to the question of who created the creator.
the universe was not intentionally designed modern cosmology, particularly the big bang theory, provides a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. the universe began from a singularity (or an initial state of high density and temperature) around 13.8 billion years ago. there's no necessity for a creator to explain this only that something can and will come into existence from complete nothingness

I do actually tend to agree with you. I lean towards a more scientific reason- chance and natural forces as being behind the creation of the universe.

However, as a hypothesis- we for instance know that there are many more insect species out there that haven't yet been identified. Some estimate at least 4 million. Do they not exist because we haven't discovered them and given them a posh Latin name? Of course they do. We don't need evidence of something for it to be real. It's simply that we haven't come across it yet. Like that whole- does a tree falling in a forest make a noise with no one around to hear it? Of course it does. We may not see the need for another ant species but, it may still be out there somewhere.

Having no evidence means we don't know. Not necessarily that it doesn't exist. Of course, we can make predictions. Dragons, unicorns, the Lochness monster and pegasus ponies are likely fictional. Gods could well be too but- the trouble with Gods is that they're said to be all powerful.

What if they deliberately didn't leave evidence that they exist? Maybe they don't want to be found. They seem very keen on faith. There is no need for faith if there's concrete evidence. There's a horrible reasoning to it if this is in fact a test of faith. That's not to say I believe that but, I find it hard to rule out entirely. It gives debatably tenuous reasoning to why there isn't concrete evidence.

Plus, if you believe the universe could appear from nothing (do you? Or, do you suppose there was always something?) Why not a God? Again, not saying I believe that. Maybe God's don't need parents. Maybe they just explode into existence like The Big Bang.

It's simply the fact that a God that is capable of creating all this has a superior (even if it's a more devious) mind to ours. If God doesn't want to be found. If they just like leaving a bunch of breadcrumbs and f*cking with us- presumably, they can! Whether it makes sense or not.

Obviously, it seems more probable that more insect species exist because, we've already found a whole lot of them and, we keep discovering more. So, it makes sense that there are even more out there to be discovered. With a God, we don't have a reference point. Personally, I hope it is all myth and cult. I'd hate for it to be true but, I just can't rule it out entirely. (I wish I could.)

I find often though, we loop back onto moral arguments/ judgements. God can't exist because they wouldn't be so mean. That's not really scientific though. It's more wishful thinking. The fear that some horrible, sadistic God might actually exist and be behind it all, so it's nicer to hope it was all chance. That's my experience of atheism anyway. It's more out of hope rather than total belief/ non belief.

 

[Darkover]

However, as a hypothesis- we for instance know that there are many more insect species out there that haven't yet been identified. Some estimate at least 4 million. Do they not exist because we haven't discovered them and given them a posh Latin name? Of course they do. We don't need evidence of something for it to be real. It's simply that we haven't come across it yet. Like that whole- does a tree falling in a forest make a noise with no one around to hear it? Of course it does. We may not see the need for another ant species but, it may still be out there somewhere.

insects are physical, observable, and part of the natural world. Their existence is inferred based on consistent patterns of biological discovery.

A god, as typically defined, is a metaphysical or supernatural being. There are no observable patterns, physical traces, or predictive models that support the necessary inference.

So, saying "insects exist even if we haven't found them yet, therefore god could too" is like saying "because there are uncontacted tribes, unicorns might also be hiding somewhere." It's a false

Having no evidence means we don't know. Not necessarily that it doesn't exist.

While technically true in a tautological sense (something might exist regardless of our knowledge of it), this cannot be used as positive support for any particular claim. Just because something could exist does not make it reasonable to believe it does, especially without supporting evidence. If this were valid reasoning, we'd have to give equal credibility to fairies, aliens, or invisible teapots orbiting Saturn.

does a tree falling in a forest make a noise with no one around to hear it? Of course it does. We may not see the need for another ant species but, it may still be out there somewhere.

This is an argument about physical phenomena governed by known laws (sound waves still occur without an observer).
It doesn't follow that the same logic can be used to validate supernatural claims, which lack any detectable causal mechanism.
The analogy is poetic, but it doesn't bridge the gap between natural ignorance and supernatural reality.

Saying "god may still be out there somewhere" is a statement of belief or possibility, not evidence. Scientific claims, like the estimated number of insect species, are based on patterns, models, and extrapolations. Claims about a god, on the other hand, lack that empirical grounding and cannot be meaningfully tested or falsified.

This argument is a philosophical sleight of hand: it replaces justified inference (unknown insects based on biodiversity data) with unjustified speculation (god exists because we haven't disproven it). Just because we haven't discovered something yet doesn't mean anything imaginable could exist.
.

 

[Forever Sleep]

insects are physical, observable, and part of the natural world. Their existence is inferred based on consistent patterns of biological discovery.

A god, as typically defined, is a metaphysical or supernatural being. There are no observable patterns, physical traces, or predictive models that support the necessary inference.

So, saying "insects exist even if we haven't found them yet, therefore god could too" is like saying "because there are uncontacted tribes, unicorns might also be hiding somewhere." It's a false

While technically true in a tautological sense (something might exist regardless of our knowledge of it), this cannot be used as positive support for any particular claim. Just because something could exist does not make it reasonable to believe it does, especially without supporting evidence. If this were valid reasoning, we'd have to give equal credibility to fairies, aliens, or invisible teapots orbiting Saturn.

This is an argument about physical phenomena governed by known laws (sound waves still occur without an observer).
It doesn't follow that the same logic can be used to validate supernatural claims, which lack any detectable causal mechanism.
The analogy is poetic, but it doesn't bridge the gap between natural ignorance and supernatural reality.

Saying "god may still be out there somewhere" is a statement of belief or possibility, not evidence. Scientific claims, like the estimated number of insect species, are based on patterns, models, and extrapolations. Claims about a god, on the other hand, lack that empirical grounding and cannot be meaningfully tested or falsified.

This argument is a philosophical sleight of hand: it replaces justified inference (unknown insects based on biodiversity data) with unjustified speculation (god exists because we haven't disproven it). Just because we haven't discovered something yet doesn't mean anything imaginable could exist.
.

I REALLY want there to be teapots orbiting Saturn. It's my favourite planet as it is. To have teapots floating around it would be next level amazing!

Yeah, fair argument.

How about the other one... We can't find God because they don't want us to. It would defeat the notion of faith if there was concrete evidence. Also, why are we pitting our (likely inferior) scientists skills to find God over their skill to hide- if that is what they're doing.

Again, not saying I believe that. It's just something that prevents me from being a fully convinced atheist. (Which I'd like to be.)