Are Gods physical?

[ytrewq]

In a previous thread I was astounded to hear the claim that Gods are not physical, presumably meaning they do not consist of physical matter. How any theist could actually claim to know that is a mystery, but never mind. The question being asked here is :-

Are Gods made from physical matter�, and if they are not, then what are they made from.

If they are able to think and do stuff, then presumably they must be made of something.

By “physical matter�, I mean the physical stuff within our Universe from which everything else is made from, which includes atoms, sub-atomic particles, and to be fair I suppose we must include dark matter as well.

But there are other classes of things that undeniably exist, that are not physical matter as such, that perhaps Gods could be made of. Here is a list of “stuff� that definitely exists, and thus Gods might potentially be made of :-

(a) Physical matter, including atoms, sub-atomic particles, and dark matter

(b) Electromagnetic radiation and other forms of radiation, energy and fields. For example, light and radio waves.

(c) Human (or animal) feelings, emotions, thoughts, love, hate jealousy, intelligence, stupidity, truth, dishonesty, spirituality and so on. All of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form.

(d) Similar to (c), morals, legal or scientific laws, stories, information, principles, and so on. As with (c), all of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form, although the media that encodes them may be physical, such as a book or CD.

OK. So what are Gods made from? Certainly not anything in the (c) or (d) category, which do not physically exist in their own right and are not capable of performing physical feats on their own. That is, it makes no sense to say that a God (or anything else) is made from love, or justice or logic or spirituality. These are attributes of something that physically exists.

I have heard it said that Gods are not physical, but spiritual. Spiritual is an adjective, an attribute of something that exists, so it makes no sense to say that a God is made of spirituality, any more than saying it is made of love. So sure, Gods probably are very spiritual things, but that says nothing of what they are made from, which is the topic of this thread.

So what is left? Within the realms of human knowledge, and I’m not interested in just making stuff up, then I must conclude that Gods (if they exist) are made of the same stuff that everything else in the Universe is made of, being categories (a) and (b).

Anyone agree or disagree with the above?

[rikuoamero]

God may well be spiritual, but it is just plain meaningless IMO to say that he is a spirit.

Why? Is it meaningless to say an orange is a fruit? Is it "meaningless" to say a woman is a human? If not why is it meaningless to say "[a] god is a spirit"?



JW

Because, out here in the real world, we have examples of other things that we call fruit, and another thing that we call human. If I honestly did not know what these were
and someone said to me "Oh, they're a fruit", I'd realize that these things share some properties in common with apples, pears and the like.

To say God is a spirit though...? We don't have any other examples of this category, at least not unambiguous, non-controversial like any of the categories that OP gave. I can agree with you that the category fruit exists, and that examples given like oranges, apples and pears all do exist...but the category spirit? Examples of spirits...?

[ytrewq]

God may well be spiritual, but it is just plain meaningless IMO to say that he is a spirit.

Why? Is it meaningless to say an orange is a fruit? Is it "meaningless" to say a woman is a human? If not why is it meaningless to say "[a] god is a spirit"?



JW

Because we know what an orange and a human is, and we know that they are physical objects and what they are made from. They have mass, and will injure you if they collide with you when moving fast.

But when you talk about a God being a "spirit" then it means nothing because no one knows what a "spirit" actually is, what it is made from and so on. But worse still, you tell me that spirits are not physical! Eh what? Well if they are not physical, then what the heck are they? Can something that is not physical, and presumably massless to boot, think and perform physical feats? Surely not.

But there are things that "exist" that are not physical, and I made a list of things of that type in category (c) and (d) in my opening posting. Stuff like Love and Logic and Greatness and Spirituality and so on. But the problem is, these these things do not exist physically in their own right, but are are attributes of something that does exist physically. As you claim God is not physical, then perhaps you would claim it is in this category. As in the claim that God is love, or God is greatness, or God is spirituality, and I have heard Christians say this sort of thing before. Is that the sort of thing you are saying? But really, this does not tell us what God actually is, it just assigns attribute(s) to him.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by ytrewq]

Okay so what you are saying is that the sentence is meaningless because you don't know ( or agree) with what a spirit is.

However something doesn't become meaningless because one doesn't understand the terms, E=Mc2 is so much scribble to a monkey but that doesn't mean it is without meaning, it simply is beyond the monkey's brain to grasp the meaning.

"God is a spirit"... is not a meaningless sentence, it means something but like the monkey in my illustration, some might not be able to grasp what that meaning is.

That's fine, if you can live with that, I certainly can.





JW



PS I have no interest in dichotomic choices based on the presupposion of the the truth of naturalism or in the spurious restrictions such thinking imposes, which is why I will ignore your (a), (b) and (c)'s ect.

[Tcg]

"God is a spirit"... is not a meaningless sentence, it means something...

Well then please explain what it means. You claim to understand it so you should be able to explain it more fully than simply repeating the word spirit again and again.

Oh, and without comparing those of us you've failed to explain it to adequately as monkeys. That comes across as rather insulting even though we know you are doing so to deflect attention from the fact that you have failed to explain it.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 12 by ytrewq]


"God is a spirit"... is not a meaningless sentence, it means something but like the monkey in my illustration, some might not be able to grasp what that meaning is.

Then we must both be monkeys because from what you wrote previously in green below, you clearly don't know what a spirit is either :-

We don't know, nor can anyone presently explain what "a spirit body" is "made" of, what one looks like or what form(s) it takes. No human has ever seen God ...

But actually, I don't have a real problem with your quote in green, which is admirably open and honest.

PS I have no interest in dichotomic choices based on the presupposion of the the truth of naturalism or in the spurious restrictions such thinking imposes, which is why I will ignore your (a), (b) and (c)'s ect.

I offered my categories of things that exist in best faith, but never claimed it was inclusive. But hey, this is a debate and discussion forum. If you can think of another category that Gods fit into, then of course you should tell us about it. Perhaps there is a category of "spirits", and Gods live in that category. Would the "Holy Spirit" also live in that category? What about "evil spirits"? But let's be honest. None of these things are sufficiently well defined to place in a category, not to mention that none of them has been seen or reliably detected. Are all spirits massless? Are all of them literally made from nothing, which presumably is what "not physical" means, as per the God Spirit? What on earth does it even mean to say that something that exists is "not physical", unless you are talking about Love or the like? I certainly agree that I don't know, and I suspect that no one does. If you know the answers to these questions, then you need to tell us.

You are probably tearing your hear out now, these unimaginative atheists that just don't understand that religious things just don't follow the same rules as everything else, and you just can't analyse religious stuff by the normal rules. Honestly, I sense your frustration, and trust you sense mine.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are probably tearing your hear out now ...Honestly, I sense your frustration, and trust you sense mine.

Perhaps you can stick to the debate instead of useless speculations about my emotional state, I assure you I could not care less about yours.

Pauls explains that, If there are physical bodies there are also spiritual bodies. So, God (like all spirit beings), does have a body, a spiritual body. We don't know, nor can anyone presently explain what "a spirit body" is "made" of, what one looks like or what form(s) it takes. No human has ever seen God, nor could he and survive the experience.

I do apologise however if the above wasn't clear enough for you, I will clarify, a spirit is by the bible's definition an intelligent non-physical (non carbon based) lifeform. And in case you are also having difficulty with the rest of the quote, there is a difference between not knowing what something is "made/composed" of and what it is. I know for example what light is, I will leave you, however to explain the following ...

... these unimaginative atheists that just don't understand that religious things just don't follow the same rules as everything else, and you just can't analyse religious stuff by the normal rules.

Setting aside your speaking for atheists (even the unimaginative ones), which some might see as a little pretentious, those I have met are intelligent enough to grasp that it is a logical inevitability that if the universe had a creator he would have to exist outside and apart from that which he created, which logically would mean he would not be subject to the laws which govern it. Indeed the majority I have met are capable of grasping the principle that govern the idea of singularity and/ or first cause and are thus wise and perhaps modest enough to avoid foolish dichotomy about what.. {to quote you} "stuff" {unquote} is or is not possible.

Your choices are like two cows speculating if the farmer that feeds them himself eats (a) long grass or (b) short grass, amusing but not really helpful when analysing what may or may not exist. But if you limit what you think can exist to what you can see or presently detected I can understand your finding many sentences... "meaningless".



Good day to you,


JW

[ytrewq]

You are probably tearing your hear out now, these unimaginative atheists that just don't understand that religious things just don't follow the same rules as everything else, and you just can't analyse religious stuff by the normal rules. Honestly, I sense your frustration, and trust you sense mine.

Perhaps you can stick to the debate instead of useless speculations about my emotional state, I assure you I could not care less what your is.

Well that's not very nice of you. It was an attempt a humour - sorry about that. And I was not being flippant in any way. I can dig you up quotes from this very forum where honest Christians have said exactly what I did, that religious things don't follow the same rules as everything else, and you can't analyse religious stuff by the normal rules. Would you like to see those quotes? I have no wish to offend you, but you seem very precious about your religious beliefs.

There is a difference between not knowing what something is "made/composed" of and what it is.

OK, so you have no idea what your god is made of, no idea of where it resides given that we humans have no knowledge of what is outside our universe, if indeed there is anything at all. You say your god is "not physical" but offer no explanation of what that even means.

And yet you assure us that you know "what" your God is, though all I have heard is that it is a "spirit", which tells us nothing. So the ball is in your court to explain "what" your God is. From what we have seen so far, you do not know, but I'm completely open to being informed.

BTW, some religious beliefs such Pantheism believe that God exists in everything within the universe, that the universe itself is god, and would probably be offended by your implication below that they must be unintelligent. For myself, I made no comment at all re where your God might reside. Apparently you believe that your God resides outside of our universe, or at least he did when he created our universe. Does he still reside outside, or has he moved somewhere within, so he can more easily keep an eye on us. I don't think you know.

Setting aside your speaking for all atheists, which some might see as a little pretentious, those I have met are intelligent enough to grasp that it is a logical inevitability that if the universe had a creator he would have to exist outside and apart from that which he created. Indeed the majority I have met are capable of grasping the principle that govern the idea of singularity and/ or first cause and are thus wise and perhaps modest enough to avoid foolish dichotomy about what s or is not impossible. Indeed your choices are like two cows speculating if the farmer that feeds them eats (a) long grass or (b) short grass, amusing but not really helpful when analysing what may or may not exist.
JW

If you think you know what preceded the Big Bang, if indeed that question even has meaning, then please tell us. Science does not know, so if you know then I suggest you publish it, and then receive your Nobel Prize. Saying "my God did it" is not an explanation for anything. It is science that has taught us all we know about the origin of the universe, and it has done a remarkable job in tracing the evolution of the universe back the an apparent singularity at the big bang, just as you say. And what has religion contributed to that extraordinary knowledge. Absolutely zilch nothing. Maybe that will offend you, but what can I do? I do believe in being polite and respectful, but do you really want me to wrap your religious beliefs up in cotton wool, and not be honest and say the obvious things that need to be said?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]


God is understood to be the only uncreated entity. Are you indicating that he is able to create bodies that are of his own substance?

[Goose]

In a previous thread I was astounded to hear the claim that Gods are not physical, presumably meaning they do not consist of physical matter. How any theist could actually claim to know that is a mystery, but never mind. The question being asked here is :-

Are Gods made from physical matter�, and if they are not, then what are they made from.

A Christian can't answer this because in the Christian tradition God was not made.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by ytrewq]

If you think you know what preceded the Big Bang, if indeed that question even has meaning, then please tell us. Science does not know, so if you know then I suggest you publish it, and then receive your Nobel Prize. Saying "my God did it" is not an explanation for anything.

Well done. Very well done. Insert Palpatine meme here.
I have said the same plenty of times on this site. "God did it" is a meaningless gibberish phrase. JW shot himself in the foot with that image up above of the "Let there be light" mathematics. Well....that too is gibberish to me. I haven't got the faintest idea of what it means, and I suspect neither does he.
"Spirit" is a nonsense word. At this point in time, it means nothing. JW and other christians might as well be saying "HDS did it, and HDS is 3r63x". What did what, and what is it? Oh they don't know, they admit.
...so why say it?
One of the most fundamental rules of debating is being able to articulate oneself. If one is unable to do that, by their own admission...then they "lose".