The concept of a Supreme Being looks completely illogical to me. If God has always had unlimited knowledge, he has both infinite knowledge and zero experience of learning. In the words of Robot, from Lost in Space, 'that does not compute'. As far as the question of a Supreme Being is concerned, I'm an atheist but I'm not the kind of atheist Richard Dawkins is.
In the absence of a spiritual, or biological, explanation for how consciousness arises in the first place, I'm inclined to believe it's always existed, that we're all on an infinite journey from the past to the future. If we were ever without past experience, what was the basis of our current perspective? Anyone who was ever without a past sounds as causeless as a Supreme Being to me.
If beings have always been transformations from prior forms, as I suppose, what reason is there to believe any future transformation could destroy them, rather than merely change them?
If there is a God, what kind of God are they? He, she, or it, cannot possibly be omniscient. Even if there are beings who have been reading trillions of libraries per microsecond, for countless eons and conducting brilliant experiments just as swiftly, they still couldn't possibly possess infinite knowledge. Knowledge is power, so without omniscience omnipotence is impossible. What about omnipresence? Would a being with limited knowledge and power be capable of witnessing every event in the universe simultaneously? Even if they could, wouldn't the over stimulation result in psychotic panic?
If there is a God, perhaps it is a way of being, opposed to a particular being. Is each of us God to a limited extent, to the extent we are compassionate, creative or expressing any other positive trait?
Whatever the truth may be, regarding spiritual questions, I'm a big fan of secularism. I think that whether or not there is life before and after biological death is a fascinating question, but not one that is relevant to legislative and ethical debates.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.@RodneyHunter ...I am getting notification that you have replied to my comment but your reply isn't showing (on my computer). Could you repeat it as a new comment and tag me please?
skado
Level 9
Jan 22, 2018
0
It's hard to discuss something that simply isn't there. It's easier to describe radio frequencies that we don't see. At least they account for something.
BrigittaCuadros
Level 6
Jan 1, 2018
0
You are testing the definition of "destroy" here. What is destruction other than "mere" change? Leaving one iota of wiggle room for the possibility that any kind of cognitive integrity might survive the death of the body is the same as allowing that the views of the most zealous bible-thumping jesus-freak might be factually accurate. They "might" be, indeed, but we have zero evidence to support such a notion, and mountains of evidence to explain why we might be tempted to entertain the idea. Sure, there is life after biological death. But it doesn't belong to the dead.
skado
Level 9
Dec 29, 2017
1
God is not omnipotent or omnipresent. As well as he isn't omniscient.
Sarahroo29
Level 8
Dec 29, 2017
0
He?
It then.
To take your silly question seriously, you are going to have to take the ideal of supernatural beings, beings that have the control of space time seriously.
When I first joined this site, I asked this question.
"When filling out the questionnaire while signing up, it asked me what percentage do you believe in a God. I found this question to be disengenious for the question should be what is God? Is God a guy wearing a lab coat studying our artificial universe? Is God a tulpa, created by the worshipers in a church? is God a Devine field? I never once believed that God is some all powerful dude has a master plan, white and has a long beard."
And the reason why I asked these questions is that they're all possible.
so Maybe you should be asking the question, was this biblical God a fake, a supernatural being playing around with primative man for his own ego sake. Because that's the only way to logically think that your query has something base on reality
sirbikesalot06
Level 5
Dec 29, 2017
1
@KevinJohnston well my answer is based on fantasy. To take your question seriously, you have to throw away the fact that all things are material, and trust in the belief of soul, ghost, higher beings of existence, and my favorite, the trickster.
It seems to me that you’re referencing Spinoza’s definition of god as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. In any practical, rational sense no such thing could exist n our reality and make sense. Hence, if god does exist, then god would have to exist outside of our reality. Given the options, god is unapproachable, unprovable and irrelevant.
Gatovicolo
Level 8
Dec 29, 2017
2
You need to stop wasting your time in even thinking about it; gods do not exist they are a construct of the human mind to deal with our scientific ignorance.
HeathenFarmer
Level 8
Dec 29, 2017
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.