Atheists, Who Is the Most Powerful Being in Existence?

[BilliardsBall]

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 believe they are the most powerful beings in existence, and that they are superior to theists. I thought everyone knew this (except certain atheists).

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheists believe they are the most powerful beings in existence, and that they are superior to theists.

Hey, give us some credit for not lording it over you 24/7.
Being superior is a burden.

 

[Valjean]

Atheists believe they are the most powerful beings in existence, and that they are superior to theists. I thought everyone knew this (except certain atheists).

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?"

That's funny, since you original OP was all about what entity is more powerful than god. And later you wrote:

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.

Doesn't that also mean that your answer was undefined?

 

[stvdv]

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

I am not an Atheist. But when Atheists believe in Science, then they believe in the existence of the sun, and they know that the earth depends on the sun quite a bit. So whatever is on the earth does not compare in power to the sun (or even exist). So at least the Atheist, being very smart, won't come up with a being living on earth I guess.

That takes out quite a bit of options. And you must have good vision to come up with something else.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists believe they are the most powerful beings in existence, and that they are superior to theists. I thought everyone knew this (except certain atheists).

That's nonsense. Certainly we don't believe we're powerful -- much to the contrary, the most thoughtful among atheists know full-well how little control we actually have over a lot of things. We acknowledge even less power than theists, who assume that they can effect change in the way things are by praying to their God to make things better. Atheists have nowhere to turn for such help.

That does have the effect, however, of making us more realistic, and more likely to try to rely on our own resources to fix the things that are threatening us.

 

[gnomon]

Ever come across a thread in which the author of the OP does't know a damn thing of what they are talking about?

And the rest of us should just step away.....

 

[SalixIncendium]

Consciousness comes from physical brains.

Please provide your objective evidence.

I'm unaware of a "consciousness" that doesn't come from a brain.

So if you're unaware of it, then it cannot be, right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

If you're looking for objective evidence, I won't like or pretend. I have none to offer.

Experiential evidence is all I have, and I won't be opening that can of worms in a debate thread, though I'd be glad to share in a discussion thread.

You're entitled to argue that you believe that what science has uncovered is the extent to all knowledge, but I take exception to closed-minded arguments simply dismissing possibilities stating in no uncertain terms that consciousness only exists in the 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.

I can't tell you exactly what was aware, and neither can you unless you've experienced existence as any of these things. We can test and observe reaction, but who is to say that any of these would react as a mammal or other animal does?

But do we have objective evidence as to what makes a mimosa pudica recoil upon touch? Can you disqualify some sort of awareness?

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.

I honestly couldn't answer this intelligently without having had the experience of being an electron. Does it have intelligence? Certainly not. It doesn't have a brain. But there is no evidence that intelligence is consciousness. I think while related, the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ever come across a thread in which the author of the OP does't know a damn thing of what they are talking about?

And the rest of us should just step away.....

Ever come across a poster that has no idea what inspires an OP and posts asinine assumptions?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Wood seems to come only from trees.

And it appears that a false equivalence is the only response you can provide to reasoned argument. If these are the only kind of responses you have in store for me, don't bother wasting keystrokes engaging me, because you won't see a response.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please provide your objective evidence

Every time we encounter a consciousness, it comes from a brain.
When you damage the brain, you alter the state of consciousness.
If you destroy the brain, the consciousness goes away.

It's the same kind of evidence we have that wood comes from trees.

Can we rule out that wood doesn't come from other things then trees? No.
But why would you assume it can?

So if you're unaware of it, then it cannot be, right?

No. Rather: there's no reason to think so.

When all the available evidence points one way and no evidence points the other way, it provides a good reason to assume the one way and not the other way.


I'll be happy to consider the other way the second you can demonstrate the other way.
Until then, why should I?

 

[SalixIncendium]

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

Nope. Not at all. The thread was inspired by another that assumed theists believe God is the most powerful being in the universe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Nirguna Brahman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And it appears that a false equivalence is the only response you can provide to reasoned argument. If these are the only kind of responses you have in store for me, don't bother wasting keystrokes engaging me, because you won't see a response.

It's not a false equivalence.

Every time we encounter wood, it came from a tree.
Just like every time we encounter consciousness, it came from a brain.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Why is it that atheists chose to lump all theists into the same basket?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's not a false equivalence.

Every time we encounter wood, it came from a tree.
Just like every time we encounter consciousness, it came from a brain.

We have objective evidence that wood comes from trees. It's observable, measurable, formulated, tested, and repeated.

Can you do any of this with consciousness?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Every time we encounter a consciousness, it comes from a brain.
When you damage the brain, you alter the state of consciousness.

If you destroy the brain, the consciousness goes away.

It's the same kind of evidence we have that wood comes from trees.

No. Observable motor function and thought goes away. We have zero evidence on what happens to consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

You're entitled to argue that you believe that what science has uncovered is the extent to all knowledge, but I take exception to closed-minded arguments simply dismissing possibilities stating in no uncertain terms that consciousness only exists in the brain.

Nobody, certainly not me, claims that science has uncovered the extent of all knowledge. There are many, many unanswered questions. But to deny the things we do know because we don't know many others seems silly.

I can't tell you exactly what was aware, and neither can you unless you've experienced existence as any of these things.

Huh??? Why would you think there *is* an experience of being these things??

We can test and observe reaction, but who is to say that any of these would react as a mammal or other animal does?

I can be sure, from observation, that the reaction is different, in fact. And that *is* the evidence of awareness and consciousness.

But do we have objective evidence as to what makes a mimosa pudica recoil upon touch? Can you disqualify some sort of awareness?

Yes, we do have evidence of what causes the reaction. And no, I would not classify it as awareness. It may be sensitivity, but not awareness.

I honestly couldn't answer this intelligently without having had the experience of being an electron. Does it have intelligence? Certainly not. It doesn't have a brain. But there is no evidence that intelligence is consciousness. I think while related, the two are mutually exclusive.

OK, all I can say is that your definition of the term 'conscious' must be very different than mine, even as working definitions. For me, it is quite clear that electrons are NOT conscious simply because they are too simple in structure to maintain consciousness. That isn't a scientific position, but one of definition. if your definition makes it conceivable that electrons are conscious, then your definition is quite far from mine and we have to dig deeper to have any conversation at all.

For you, what does it mean to be 'aware'? or 'conscious'? Give me some criterion by which I can test a new object and determine if it is or is not aware. If you cannot, then as far as I can see, the concept is simply undefined and there is nothing to say further.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Nobody, certainly not me, claims that science has uncovered the extent of all knowledge. There are many, many unanswered questions. But to deny the things we do know because we don't know many others seems silly.

I haven't denied anything we know. I have an open mind to what we do not. I'm not the one denying the possibility of consciousness existing in something other than a brain. Do we actually have evidence that consciousness exists in the brain? We know electrical signals do, and that these affect motor function, sense experience, thought, etc., all of which are subject to change. Do we have any evidence to immutable awareness and where it exists?

Huh??? Why would you think there *is* an experience of being these things??

I never said I think there is. But I'm not denying the possibility either.

OK, all I can say is that your definition of the term 'conscious' must be very different than mine, even as working definitions. For me, it is quite clear that electrons are NOT conscious simply because they are too simple in structure to maintain consciousness. That isn't a scientific position, but one of definition. if your definition makes it conceivable that electrons are conscious, then your definition is quite far from mine and we have to dig deeper to have any conversation at all.

For you, what does it mean to be 'aware'? or 'conscious'? Give me some criterion by which I can test a new object and determine if it is or is not aware. If you cannot, then as far as I can see, the concept is simply undefined and there is nothing to say further.

Consciousness, for me, is the immutable awareness with which we observe our experiences. Not that which we analyze, ponder, feel, etc. All of these change. But that which experiences and is unchanging. It is that which lies behind and is the witness to sense experience.