My "More of the same" theory

We create in our image, as we have been created in something else's image. Everything we have inventend follow the rules within our own code. We begin, we and and react, and then we die. Furthermore, we cannot do anything outside this behaviour, because we are restricted to following it.

This behaviour is what we are and it is all we know. It is all we can replicate outside ourselves. All of our products, from computers to politics, from languages to cultures, exist in the same way within our genetic code.

The relationships between every obervable system and the way we understand it can also be found within our organs and our brains, although with some room for interpretation. That leads to variety, more of the same.

But if whenever we look at someting, all we can see around us is a representation of a part of ourselves, wouldn't we be a part of their system just as much as the things we're looking at?

If whatever we create follows the rules within us, wouldn't we follow the exact same rules of whatever event brought us into existence? Shouldn't this not be the case if our creator was superior to us, therefore being able to surpass the limitations that rule the entire universe?

This logic can only allow three possible answers:

1. Our creator's existence surpasses everything we can understand, so trying to understand it would never bear fruit. Anything humans say pretending to understand about it would be laughable. This leads to agnosticism being the only viable claim.

2. Our creator's existence follows the same logic of our universe. Just like we originate from something, our creator also originated from something. Our existence is a mere product of something else's work. This leads to simulism being the only viable claim.

3. We have no creator. The rules defining our universe are enough to justify it's existence, and although we may not yet understand how, we could understand it in the future. This leads to atheism being the only viable claim.

Out of these three options, simulism is the most depressing one. Living in a universe that was created just for the experimentation or entertainment of who created us is ridiculously pointless when our world is so unfairly cruel. Even if it would be the most frustrating reality of our universe, unfortunately it is still a possibility.

Meanwhile, agnosticism is the most apathetic version of the universe. We don't know why we are here even if we are here for a reason. Because it is so confusing and frustrating, many of us allow others (like religious, military or political leaders) to take charge of our lives only to fill up the meaningless void we feel inside.

Atheism however places us all on equal foot. Not just us, but everything. Morale and virtue are a matter of personal preference, although those who act towards the greater good of a community would certainly get ahead because publicly desiring the well-being of others would be very popular since we would still depend on each other due to our biological limitations.

Ironically, atheist rules are basically how human society works. But at least we're not here just for the joy of someone else like in simulism. By the way, I'm agnostic.

And now I leave you with "Mad As A Hatter" from Larkin Poe, because emotionally the lyrics fit like a glove in this theory. (It starts at 1:25)