Wyrdsmyth

I'm just curious. Does anyone here believe in the superdupernatural? By that, I mean a tier of existence that is transcendently above the mere 'supernatural'?

You know, like gods to the gods, or meta-gods. That sort of thing.

Would an omnigod necessitate a creator, who in turn would require a creator, ad infinitum?

Mageth

I've thought about this the other way around (after reading it in a book, perhaps by Joseph Campbell; I can't recall). If something created the universe and us, then it is the true "natural" and we are the "supernatural" (or subnatural?).

Wyrdsmyth

Exactly! You have the idea.

The terms are irrelevant, but you know what I mean.

Subnatural is to the natural, as natural is to the supernatural. Sure.

There is stance, and substance... or, that upon which everything else stands.

Turtles all the way down...?

rainbow walking

Only it may be that the micro-particle natural is responsible for all other naturals up to and including the supranatural

Rhaedas

Or gods all the way up.

Wyrdsmyth

That's the idea. I was just wondering if there was any philosophy or religion that subscribed to this view.

It could also be a "Matrix" kind of world, where the world you thought was real wasn't really, and you wake up. But then, after a while, what you think is the real world the second time really isn't, either. Gradually, you may come to realize that reality is like an infinite onion. You peel one layer, there is another one. Ad infinitum.

emotional

If there is an infinity of layers all the way down, for example, then how are there limits at all? If my finger is composed of atoms, and they of subatomics, and they of quarks, ad infinitum, how is there a limit between my finger and the air? Since there are limits in the universe - distinctions between one thing and the other - infinite regress is falsified.

EGGO

If we're natural, and god is supernatural

And god created us...then does that mean

God's creator is superdupernatural?

Wyrdsmyth

This is a pretty old line of reasoning. I think it originated with Democritus and that is where the original atomic theory comes from. But as you note, we keep finding smaller things. So, what is the proper inference to make? That with better microscopes and technology we'll keep finding even smaller things, or that we'll come to the "final, absolutely smallest thing." The same applies to looking outward. Is there an object that's "furthest away" or just the "furthest object we've been able to see so far"? Logic like what you're using would say there have to be limits. But what does that mean, if we don't actually find the limits? If we never actually come to them?

Wyrdsmyth

Yes, the idea is that if our entire universe is what we call 'natural' then what is transcendent to that, or out side of that, would be termed 'supernatural.' And then, whatever is outside of this supernatural universe would be called the 'superdupernatural.' And so on. It's like a distinction of layers of transcendence.

If you operate on the logic: "Everything that exists must necessarily have a creator," then God needs a creator, too. That would be the Supergod, who would in turn need yet another higher god, the Superdupergod, and so on. 'Super' in this reference would just refer to the next tier up relative to the term it is prefixed on, just as 'sub' would go the other way. 'Duper' just adds another transcendent layer to 'super' and so on.

Imagine it like this. In the comic books, Superman is far superior to ordinary men. But then a guy shows up who is as far superior to Superman as he is to ordinary men. We call him Superduperman.