Forgive me if this has already been said. But on the subject of farming, yes. Farming in general will harm animals in some ways, whether it be the plot of land, or the insects. However, eating plants results in less harm overall. I cannot say whether or not plants "feel" pain. However, eating a plant based diet (with some exceptions such as things that would require deforestation,) is greater than taking the life of an animal. Why? Because to raise the animal you need even more land for themselves, and so that you can grow even more plants for them to eat. As such, imagine if both are equally cruel. Then, I would suggest that eating plants is still better as it is not being used as a means to an end.

I have not read many of the comments here, so forgive me if someone said something similar to this effect. First, the idea of nothing in itself does not contradict the idea of a God. Note, I am not even specifying a particular religion, so whether this God is typical theism, Panentheism, or so on. This will come in handy later when we actually talk about what does a God mean.


Next imagine you have two figures representing squares labeled α. And β. With a middle a square seperating the two, ρ. Let ρ. be the contained nothingness between the two objects. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson will point out you have just quantified nothingness, which is therefore not really a nothingness especially if it is taking up space. Therefore, for this problem, we must remove ρ. completely from the equation.

This would plug the new equation as just α. directly across from β with no space between them. Now there really is NOTHING between them, but themselves. But then, does ρ. (Read: nothingness,) actually go? Because the nothingness itself is now effecting how α. and β. Interact with one another. And as such has properties in the way in which it effects one another. As much as α and β may exist seperately from each other without synthetic relation, they each have a synthetic relation with the nothingness present, i.e ρ.so while ρ is not demonstrated physically it is ultimately there, and ultimately creating a relationship between to two objects. This nothingness, which is colourless odorless touchless, and unobservable by its very absence of atoms is still a "thing" in as much as it is a "nothing." It is nothing in the sense of it being a lack of physicality, but it cannot be a nothingness in-itself as it is intellectually understood.

This reminds me of a point Descartes brought up in which Descartes could understand the idea of certain impossible geometric figures but not visualise it. In the same sense, there is the experience of understanding what nothing is, yet without ever experiencing such a thing. Nothingness exists a priori.

For what we might call "true nothingness" would appear to us to be an impossibility, for it's complete absence seems to defy all logic that I am aware of. Nothingness as described before is both non physical yet having a relationship with the physical world. This "nothingness" exists outside of human experience, but not outside of human thought. As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ρ still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical.

Maybe this is bad Philosophy, but if you're interested in correcting me or engaging with me I'm happy to learn and change my stance. Or if this didn't make sense.