Counterpoint to "Why there has to be a Supernatural Being"

by Nonexistent One

Source of critiqued essay.

Writing an essay with a tone of absolute certainty is probably a decent strategy for swaying a reader's opinion, but when it is known to the reader that the theories presented as facts are only theories, the author loses credibility. Many superstitious people make the mistake of assuming that their subjective view of the laws of the universe is correct. In Why there has to be a Supernatural being, Absolut Genius (hereafter known as AG) has unfortunately made the mistake of so many in the superstitious community, presenting opinionated theories as factual evidence for the existence of supernatural beings.

A major point that AG makes for the existence of a "God" is a supernatural realm that can have an effect on our own dimension. This effect may be widely known as a "haunting." While the author indicates that some claim that electro-magnetic fields residing in a specific area act on the brain to induce hallucinations, AG alternately claims that the observation that these fields "fluctuate in magnitude, disappear, reappear, and move" is evidence that the fields are generated by "`spirits' of people that have gained the ability to move between realms at will." If this is not an incredibly long stride in logic, then stating that humans are fish because they can usually swim is perfectly logical. Because of fluctuations in magnetic fields, we are to assume that the energy of long-deceased beings is responsible.

The principle of Occam's Razor is a principle of logic that states, basically, that one should make the least amount of assumptions as possible to reach the most logical conclusion. Why must unexplained magnetic activity be explained by the extravagant assumption that dead people have returned? Why are we not satisfied by the conclusion that these fluctuating magnetic fields are just what they are; fluctuating magnetic fields?

AG then states that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and near-death experiences also contribute to the evidence for a Supernatural Being. First of all, it seems AG may have misinterpreted the concept of Nirvana. As far as the Wikipedia and I are aware, Nirvana is neither a place nor a state; rather, it is a truth to be realized, mainly that the individual soul does not exist. But even assuming that Nirvana is a perceived state of separation from the mortal body, one must not automatically assume that a person actually separates from themselves. If this state is achieved through meditation, the mind may take full control of one's consciousness; and things perceived in the mind could be more potent than a hallucination.

As for near-death experiences, when a person's brain is near to shutting down, who knows what could be happening in the brain. Perhaps, since the brain would probably be the last surviving organ prior to death, all function and energy is reverted to the brain itself. Try to imagine all of the mental energy required to sustain human thought and bodily function, conscious and subconscious, bouncing around solely inside a panicked brain fighting to keep its hold on life. Is it possible that illusions of tunnels and glimpses of afterlives might be produced from such chaos, and that perhaps most people have similar experiences because we all have similar brains? It is only a rough theory, but it is much more soundly logical than assuming that we are transcending this plane to glimpse another.

AG used these concepts of hauntings and Nirvana to state that if human spirits are able to traverse between planes of existence, surely those on the "other side" may do the same. AG states that "Supernatural events tell us that the laws of physics can be defied by something that is not able to relate to the laws of this dimension." In my opinion, everything that physically happens must be a natural occurrence, even if this event may seem so rare as to place it among the "unnatural." For everything that seems to defy the laws of physics, there is a theory of "Unknown Causes," in that one may assume that if something doesn't happen the way it should, there are likely to be unknown variables not overtly apparent. Even then, who is to say that the Universe actually follows any law at all? The laws that we equate with nature are only human observances of reoccurring patterns, patterns that we assume must then be equateable to a universal law.

The human brain is designed to look for patterns, among other things. This might explain why so many seem to find faces in pictures, since facial recognition is one of the strongest pattern-related instincts. This might also explain superstitious behavior.

AG also points to the theory of the "Big Bang" as supportive to the Supernatural being theory. Since the massive spec of matter that exploded to form the universe must have come from somewhere, perhaps a being from another realm found its way into this realm, was converted from energy to physical matter, and exploded because of the massive amounts of energy and compression. Then again, perhaps this explosion resulted from the compression of a previous universe; as in, the universe might go through an infinite cycle of compression and decompression, and the "beginning" that we perceive is only one of an infinite number of previous beginnings. But then maybe the "Big Bang" actually resulted from the whims of an ornery purple chimpanzee from the 29th dimension. It is equally likely that this last scenario could be proven true as either of the previous.

In closing, AG states that "something cannot come from nothing." Therefore God must have created the universe. Perhaps the author could have ended on a stronger note, because the last statement concerning nothing from something only precedes the question, "Who or what created God?" In my opinion, if this ambiguous "God" figure is allowed to have existed infinitely, then why is the universe always assumed to be finite? Mightn't something as vast and mysterious as the universe itself actually have neither a beginning nor an end? Mightn't the characteristics we attribute to "God" actually be derived from the awe-inspiring notion of the cosmos?

In closing, all I have to say is this: arguments from superstition do not prove the validity of a superstitious concept.