Atheists, Who Is the Most Powerful Being in Existence?

[Polymath257]

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

The argument kinda falls apart, no?

Since consciousness seems to depend on brains, no.

To continue:

no biology => no brains
no brains => no consciousness

 

[SalixIncendium]

Since consciousness seems to depend on brains, no.

To continue:

no biology => no brains
no brains => no consciousness

“Seems to” does not provide objective evidence.

So to conclude:

No evidence => no argument

 

[dfnj]

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.

Atheists will never accept your presupposition that all of reality is evidence for some type of "being". The question you are asking has no meaning for an atheist. It would be like asking can God create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. Or can God have a thought so complex that even He can't understand it.

If some conscious being had the power to create ALL of existence then this being would of course be the most powerful. The thing is we have no evidence nonthingness ever occurred. All we know is something does exist. Therefore, without any evidence to the contrary, something has ALWAYS existed. Just because you and I come in and go out of existence doesn't mean reality has the same property.

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by the OP. Logic and words are not going to change the way atheists think. Atheism is one simple belief and that is atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods. The reasons why atheists believe this are kind of irrelevant. But atheists when pressed will say they believe this way because there is no evidence supporting any other way of believing. What I have found is most atheist will not accept any form of evidence as proof for the existence of God.

What I find strange is why does it matter at all to theists what atheists think. I'm perfectly happy with my atheist friends. I like drinking beer with them. How they believe does not change my faith in God one iota. My faith in God is too strong to be swayed by what other people think.

 

[dfnj]

Since consciousness seems to depend on brains, no.

To continue:

no biology => no brains
no brains => no consciousness

Consciousness is a side effect of brain activity. The argument is the side effect of the Universe carrying out the laws of physics would be God's brain activity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The argument kinda falls apart, no?

No.

Consciousness comes from physical brains.
I'm unaware of a "consciousness" that doesn't come from a brain. The concept makes no sense to me.
It's like talking about a type of wood that doesn't come from a tree.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I have no idea who the most powerful being is.
Does it matter?

 

[Polymath257]

“Seems to” does not provide objective evidence.

So to conclude:

No evidence => no argument

OK, all observations point to this and none point the other way. Since observation is the basis of all knowledge about the external world, there *is* an argument.

Give me *any* example of a conscious thing that has no brain.

But, let's define a bit better what you mean by the term 'consciousness'. You identified it with awareness, which seems to me to be no definition at all.

So, is a plant 'aware'? Is a bacterium aware? Is a rock aware? Is an atom aware?

As I understand the term, the answer to all of these is a clear NO.

On the other hand, the motion of an electron will be affected by other charged particles or E&M fields. Does that make an electron 'aware' of those other particles or those fields? Again, I would say not. But that's because as I understand it, awareness is a function of complex systems like those seen in brains.

And, being a result of such complex *physical* systems means it makes no sense at all to talk about such outside of the universe and physical reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Consciousness is a side effect of brain activity. The argument is the side effect of the Universe carrying out the laws of physics would be God's brain activity.

Which is one reason I could, potentially, go for some sort of pantheism. The problem is that the communication between parts of the universe is limited enough to not allow the complexity of processing required for global (as opposed to local) consciousness, as far as I can see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Seems to” does not provide objective evidence.

So to conclude:

No evidence => no argument

Wood seems to come only from trees.

 

[Polymath257]

So, in answer to the OP.

Given the ambiguities of *both* the concept of 'power' and the concept of 'being', I find it unlikely that there *is* a 'most powerful being'. The concepts involved are simply not specific enough to allow the ordering of different beings into a structure that meaningfully gives a 'most powerful'.

 

[Valjean]

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

Can you give me an example of a "god" that is not a personage?
No-one thinks of God as gravity, the inverse square law or EM radiation.

 

[dfnj]

Can you give me an example of a "god" that is not a personage?
No-one thinks of God as gravity, the inverse square law or EM radiation.

If you use the most basic elementary school definitions of God then you will think of God as being nothing more than grumpy old man sitting on a throne Heaven or someone you could meet in person as proof. However, the idea of God is often a little more complex than most atheists most simple definition. And why do atheist get to define God they way they want to anyway!

There is the idea of God as being both knowable and unknowable at the same time. There is a dual concept of "immanence" and "transcendence". So although we experience aspects of God manifesting himself in the World, at the same time, we are not able to understand or experience the vastness of God's being. This type of definition of God does not lend itself to the idea of "testability" as confirmation of its truth.

"Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God"

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only"

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

 

[Polymath257]

If you use the most basic elementary school definitions of God then you will think of God as being nothing more than grumpy old man sitting on a throne Heaven or someone you could meet in person as proof. However, the idea of God is often a little more complex than most atheists most simple definition. And why do atheist get to define God they way they want to anyway!

There is the idea of God as being both knowable and unknowable at the same time. There is a dual concept of "immanence" and "transcendence". So although we experience aspects of God manifesting himself in the World, at the same time, we are not able to understand or experience the vastness of God's being. This type of definition of God does not lend itself to the idea of "testability" as confirmation of its truth.

"Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God"

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only"

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

I am very aware of negative theology. And, once again, the question is why I should believe it is talking about anything at all. As far as I can see, ALL of theology is simply re-arranging personal biases, hopes, and wishes. It is far from clear to me that theology legitimately has a subject matter at all, whether negative theology or more standard versions. Why would I think a 'transcendental being' exists at all?

 

[dfnj]

I am very aware of negative theology. And, once again, the question is why I should believe it is talking about anything at all. As far as I can see, ALL of theology is simply re-arranging personal biases, hopes, and wishes. It is far from clear to me that theology legitimately has a subject matter at all, whether negative theology or more standard versions. Why would I think a 'transcendental being' exists at all?

Because there is no evidence your choice is better than my choice.

There are two choices here. The first choice being a little nihilistic with the idea there's nothing sacred, holy, or divinely meaningful about the Universe, evolution has no purpose, and ultimately the Universe is just carrying out the laws of physics where no one pattern of energy is really anymore meaningful than any other pattern of energy.

The second choice being God exists, there is a divine purpose to our existence, sacredness exists, and holiness exists in our lives. And there is a divine importance to behaving with a certain level of morality in our relationships with each other, nature, and God.

Now you could argue the second choice is all meaningless BS. You could argue there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of anything being divine or sacred. Before you make this argument you have to consider there is a big difference between a choice and a decision. Decisions are based on reasons. Some choices are not based on reason. A true choice is based on no reason whatsoever. The problem with most atheists is they want to base their beliefs on decisions. And most theists base their beliefs on choices. Having faith in God is a choice but also an irrational decision. I'm not going to try to convince you having faith in God or believing in God's existence is rationale or reasonable. It is clearly not.

So why would you choose one over the other? The thing is although everything in the Universe may ultimately be meaningless on the cosmic timescale, it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. Since it is meaningless that it is meaningless then you might as well choose meaningful since it doesn't matter anyway. This is my best argument to try to convince you to throw off your shackles of atheism and switch to the side of light and glory. My second best argument is the curves of a woman's body are proof for the existence of God. And beer is my third best argument.

 

[Valjean]

If you use the most basic elementary school definitions of God then you will think of God as being nothing more than grumpy old man sitting on a throne Heaven or someone you could meet in person as proof. However, the idea of God is often a little more complex than most atheists most simple definition. And why do atheist get to define God they way they want to anyway!

Atheists don't usually define God. We just reiterate the descriptions given by theists. It's you theists who imbue god with human qualities like consciousness, intention, emotions, wants, likes and dislikes.

"Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God"

Yes, in Hinduism it's expressed as "Neti neti." Yet with no qualities the concept can't even be spoken of.
Again, show me a god that has no human qualities. Perhaps a recluse in a cave somewhere conceives of a qualityless god, but I know of no god that's spoken of who's not personified.

 

[Valjean]

If you use the most basic elementary school definitions of God then you will think of God as being nothing more than grumpy old man sitting on a throne Heaven or someone you could meet in person as proof. However, the idea of God is often a little more complex than most atheists most simple definition. And why do atheist get to define God they way they want to anyway!

Atheists don't usually define God. We just reiterate the descriptions given by theists. It's you theists who imbue god with human qualities like consciousness, intention, emotions, wants, likes and dislikes.

"Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God"

Yes, in Hinduism it's expressed as "Neti neti." Yet with no qualities the concept can't even be spoken of.
Again, show me a god that has no human qualities. Perhaps a recluse in a cave somewhere conceives of a qualityless god, but I know of no god that's spoken of who's not personified.

 

[viole]

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.

it depends. Is the Universe a compact set?

ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

Because there is no evidence your choice is better than my choice.

There are two choices here. The first choice being a little nihilistic with the idea there's nothing sacred, holy, or divinely meaningful about the Universe, evolution has no purpose, and ultimately the Universe is just carrying out the laws of physics where no one pattern of energy is really anymore meaningful than any other pattern of energy.

The second choice being God exists, there is a divine purpose to our existence, sacredness exists, and holiness exists in our lives. And there is a divine importance to behaving with a certain level of morality in our relationships with each other, nature, and God.

Now you could argue the second choice is all meaningless BS. You could argue there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of anything being divine or sacred. Before you make this argument you have to consider there is a big difference between a choice and a decision. Decisions are based on reasons. Some choices are not based on reason. A true choice is based on no reason whatsoever. The problem with most atheists is they want to base their beliefs on decisions. And most theists base their beliefs on choices. Having faith in God is a choice but also an irrational decision. I'm not going to try to convince you having faith in God or believing in God's existence is rationale or reasonable. It is clearly not.

So why would you choose one over the other? The thing is although everything in the Universe may ultimately be meaningless on the cosmic timescale, it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. Since it is meaningless that it is meaningless then you might as well choose meaningful since it doesn't matter anyway. This is my best argument to try to convince you to throw off your shackles of atheism and switch to the side of light and glory. My second best argument is the curves of a woman's body are proof for the existence of God. And beer is my third best argument.

Well, first of all, I am far from being convinced that these are the only two choices. In fact, my personal view is that *we* are the ones that give meaning to events because they matter *to us*. WE choose what is 'sacred' and what is not to conform to *our* ideals and values. The meaning and value isn't something inherent in things in the universe. They become meaningful or of value because *we* say or feel that they do. No deity is required for this and so no deity is required for a meaningful life.

In your terminology, 'choices' (which are not based on reasons) seem to be things to avoid. Instead, I would like to base all of my beliefs on decisions (in other words, based on reasons). If anything, it seems to be a *very bad idea* to have beliefs NOT based on reasons.

Your examples of beer (I prefer whiskey) and a woman's body are good examples of things *we* declare to be meaningful.

 

[dfnj]

Well, first of all, I am far from being convinced that these are the only two choices. In fact, my personal view is that *we* are the ones that give meaning to events because they matter *to us*. WE choose what is 'sacred' and what is not to conform to *our* ideals and values. The meaning and value isn't something inherent in things in the universe. They become meaningful or of value because *we* say or feel that they do. No deity is required for this and so no deity is required for a meaningful life.

I do not disagree. All "good" science or all "good" objectivity is something *we* choose to say or feel is correct.

In your terminology, 'choices' (which are not based on reasons) seem to be things to avoid. Instead, I would like to base all of my beliefs on decisions (in other words, based on reasons). If anything, it seems to be a *very bad idea* to have beliefs NOT based on reasons.

You can certainly choose to believe "it seems to be a *very bad idea* to have beliefs NOT based on reasons." However, energy follows thought. Before you can be great you first have to believe in yourself as having the potential to be great. Having faith with ourselves is not based on reason. There is a great value in having irrational beliefs. Having irrational beliefs is the only way anything significant and meaningful can come into existence.

But you are certainly entitled to your own nihilistic opinions and choices about what is important and meaningful.

Your examples of beer (I prefer whiskey) and a woman's body are good examples of things *we* declare to be meaningful.

I'm not sure why you think what you are saying here is significant. You seem to be operating under the delusion we are somehow objectively separate from the reality we are experiencing. It seems to me we are deeply connected to reality which is the source of all our meaning. I just do not see myself as somehow separate from reality.

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

I used to think it was "the refrigerator" who played for the Chicago bears but now I'm thinking its Arnold Schwarzenegger )