Atheists, Who Is the Most Powerful Being in Existence?

[Polymath257]

Why the assumption that whatever formed it is unconscious? Isn’t it equally possible that whatever formed the universe could have been conscious or unconscious?

I don't think so. As far as I can tell, consciousness is something that happens in complex structures like brains. I find it very unlikely that such complexity was around in the early universe.

Also, I prefer 'non-conscious' as opposed to 'un-conscious' as the latter implies there is a possibility of consciousness. An atom is not conscious in any sense I can see.

How do you know that it isn’t you that’s forming the universe in your own consciousness?

If the universe is internal to me, then there is nothing else to do. I assume there is something outside of myself as part of my study of my sensory experiences. And that assumption has made it more possible to predict future experiences correctly.

Solipsism just isn't an interesting philosophical position in my view.

 

[Stevicus]

Who is the most powerful being in existence?

Without a doubt, it's Chuck Norris.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I answered this in post #19 of this thread. I should probably link that post to the OP.



I can't really speak for others, but I don't view my "god" concept to be powerful. I really never wrapped my head around the reason for the correlation of God to power.

What makes your god a god, if it has no power?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What makes your god a god, if it has no power?

Satcitananda. Existence, consciousness, bliss.

 

[Darkforbid]

Without a doubt, it's Chuck Norris.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Me.
As far as my life is concerned, I make the decisions and have to deal with the consequences. Who really has more power over my existence than myself? The rest of the universe is more or less an algorithm of cause and effect.

My favorite tee reads I am my own God.

For the purpose of this thread, "more or less powerful" is the degree of ability with which to possess authority, influence, or control over that which exists.

'Most' would obviously mean greatest in quantity, extent, or degree.



Let's use that which has conscious existence. And preemptively, we will define 'conscious' as having awareness.

Is nature aware?
If so in your definition, I vote nature.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In strong atheistic states, classically, authority is god. That is to say, because atheists believe that because there is no afterlife, that the one they ought to fear the most is political and military force (followed by celebrity).

Or as one church road sign put it, "When you kneel before God, you can stand before any man."

You might not want to have tried that in front of Pope Urban VI, but sure...

 

[Valjean]

I didn't ask who the most powerful "person" was.

But isn't God generally conceived of as a person or a personified natural quality?

To determine the most powerful being we'd need a clarification on "power," plus a description of every being everywhere in the universe -- and a lot of time to review the list, of course.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Satcitananda. Existence, consciousness, bliss.

O-kay... so anyone who has existed and experienced consciousness and bliss is a god. A rather bizarre definition... but you're welcome to it. So what do you consider to be more powerful than your god?

 

[Salvador]

Because at least one atheist thinks that theists think God is the most powerful being in existence.

So atheists? Who is the most powerful being in existence? Why do you believe this?

ETA: A few poster ITT asked me to define the terms "powerful" and "being." The definitions for the purpose of this thread are presented here.

As a Swedenborgian, not an atheist, please allow me to hypothesize our genetic code's Creator as being the most powerful being in existence. I posit our Genetic Code's Creator has conveyed the numeric message of "037" to me, Vladimir shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov , Natasa Misic, Artem Novozhilov, , Eugene Koonin, Chris Davis, and Craig Paardekooper who use base-ten math and understand how each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37. Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of "037" gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us by our genetic code's Creator.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code Icarus, 2013 February

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So atheists? Who is the most powerful being in existence?

Chuck Norris, obviously

Why do you believe this?

ETA: A few poster ITT asked me to define the terms "powerful" and "being." The definitions for the purpose of this thread are presented here.

I was gonna ask that too

Considering that definition, I'ld say that to best of our knowledge, it likely is some extremely rich person or some world leader or a high ranked official in some organization. The extent of their influence would be hard to measure and quantify in order to make a top 10 for example.

That's about the best I can come up with, with the knowledge that I have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Somehow, I knew that somebody later in the thread would have beaten me to it, when posting my reply....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Great Spirit.

I suspect more than anyone else is shaping our future.

Lex Luthor?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn’t it equally possible that whatever formed the universe could have been conscious or unconscious?

Not according to what we actually know about the universe and consiousness in particular.
The only example of consciousness we have, is as a trait of a physical biological brain.

Since physical biological brains are, ultimately, a product of the universe, it doesn't seem very likely that such a thing existed "before" the universe did.

How do you know that it isn’t you that’s forming the universe in your own consciousness?

I don't, but I don't really care for the "brain in a vat" idea, as it is just another unfalsifiable concept which is just a waste of time. There's an infinite amount of such concepts, only limited by your imagination.

 

[Darkforbid]

'Since physical biological brains are, ultimately, a product of the universe, it doesn't seem very likely that such a thing existed "before" the universe did.'

Assuming without any evidence, do you really think you can logically assume anything about before the universe

 

[SalixIncendium]

But isn't God generally conceived of as a person or a personified natural quality?

People tend to anthropomorphize God, but there are many theists that do not.

To determine the most powerful being we'd need a clarification on "power," plus a description of every being everywhere in the universe -- and a lot of time to review the list, of course.

Definitions for the purpose of this thread have been provided in post #19.

 

[SalixIncendium]

So what do you consider to be more powerful than your god?

I pondered this for a bit, and to me, the question is really undefined. It would be akin to me asking you, "What's more powerful than your universe?"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Assuming without any evidence, do you really think you can logically assume anything about before the universe

There is much evidence concerning how brains came about.
An existing universe, with stars and planets, is a prerequisite of those processes.

No universe => no physics of the universe.
No physics => no chemistry.
No chemistry => no biology.


The evidence justifies the assumption.
There is no reason to assume brains existed when the universe didn't.
There is much good reason to assume to opposite.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is much evidence concerning how brains came about.
An existing universe, with stars and planets, is a prerequisite of those processes.

No universe => no physics of the universe.
No physics => no chemistry.
No chemistry => no biology.


The evidence justifies the assumption.
There is no reason to assume brains existed when the universe didn't.
There is much good reason to assume to opposite.

Now try replacing the word ‘brain(s)’ with ‘consciousness.’

The argument kinda falls apart, no?

 

[Valjean]

As a Swedenborgian, not an atheist, please allow me to hypothesize our genetic code's Creator as being the most powerful being in existence. I posit our Genetic Code's Creator has conveyed the numeric message of "037" to me, Vladimir shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov , Natasa Misic, Artem Novozhilov, , Eugene Koonin, Chris Davis, and Craig Paardekooper who use base-ten math and understand how each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37. Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of "037" gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us by our genetic code's Creator.