Questions like these are really annoying. Because it's not actually what you want to ask, it's hidden in a hypothetical and framed as a question so that you can get away with a lot of unfounded assumptions.
If we take away the "if god doesn't exist" and deal with the rest of the question. You first have to show that there is indeed an order to the world that is governed by one single entity and not an order that resulted from the meddling of many different entities. Then only you get to ask who it is.
There is almost nothing you can show that will qualify inserting "if god doesn't exist" to the front of that sentence because it assumes that god would be the default answer. When the truth is the nature of god cannot even be articulated without introducing at least one logically impossible condition. So the question is invalid.
And then you introduce the false dichotomy that it has to be god or man. Well what if it is the fucking flying spaghetti monster?
If we take away the "if god doesn't exist" and deal with the rest of the question. You first have to show that there is indeed an order to the world that is governed by one single entity and not an order that resulted from the meddling of many different entities. Then only you get to ask who it is.
There is almost nothing you can show that will qualify inserting "if god doesn't exist" to the front of that sentence because it assumes that god would be the default answer. When the truth is the nature of god cannot even be articulated without introducing at least one logically impossible condition. So the question is invalid.
And then you introduce the false dichotomy that it has to be god or man. Well what if it is the fucking flying spaghetti monster?
