Or rescue it. The point is, the hillbilly has a preponderance of options that the ant does not. Partly due to size, but also due to intelligence. He could move the ant out of the sun, or place it back with its queen or feed it to a spider or crash it. These are all thoughtful actions, if not necessarily moral actions. The issue of moral superiority is something else altogether. I suspect that you are weighing moral superiority heavily in this discussion. Correct. 'Better' is an arbitrary criterion. In many ways he is. But you have sort of answered your own argument. Since, as we have established, superiority is a semantic thing, we can assign some criteria to superiority that makes God superior. Like the hillbilly is preponderantly superior to the ant, so would God be preponderantly superior to humans - having far more options than we. We may choose to squish us, or he may choose to spare us. but the one thing in which he is unequivocably superior to us is his sheer depth and breadth of options to act (or not act). Apropos of nothing (just because it came up): range of options is a criterion I consider an absolute (as opposed to relative) test of progress. when someone asks if we as a civilization have really advanced, my answer is that, whether or not we choose to be good or evil, rich or poor, life a long healthy life or a short chaotic life, work 80 hours a week or 10, live in the tropics or the arctic ... whatever we choose - the key is that we absolutely have more choices than ever before. That is an absolute criteria for progress. Whatever my idea for a "good" and "superior" life might be, I can more feasibly enact it now than ever before.