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 Im 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?

[ytrewq]

You are just repeating same mistakes over and over.

The idea of made is implied in every word you use to enquire of the composition of X. Its unavoidable since X is a thing and things are made.

This is an excellent example of your flawed logic.

(a) You say that the idea of made is implied in every word you use to enquire of the composition of X. But that is demonstrably not true. I defined a word "wobist" that quite specifically inquires of the composition of X without implying anything at all about whether X was made. It is not your business to tell me what my word means, though you are welcome to believe that all other words imply that something was made, if you choose to do so. Sorry, but end of story on that.

In any event, by your own admission, other words only carry the implication that the thing was made, they do not actually "state" it and sure as heck they don't "prove" it. But it matters not, because I defined the word "wobist" that removes all of that nonsense anyway.


(b) You present the following reasoning:

The idea of made is implied in every word you use to enquire of the composition of X.
The reason for this is because things are made.

And that's logical reasoning? Well I don't think so, and I'm fairly sure others here don't either. Your blue does not follow from the green, but it's a moot point, as the individual statements are demonstrably wrong anyway.

You claim that Gods are not made, so your broad statement that "things are made" is demonstrably wrong for starters. But even ignoring that, your statement in green has already been disproved by way a a contrary example, namely the word "wobist". Your statements are demonstrably wrong. End of story.

My guess is that you will continue to earnestly believe that you are right. I'm not sure it is possible to explain and demonstrate your errors more clearly than I have done already.

[ytrewq]

Goose, as you appear unconvinced after all efforts showing why you are wrong, it's time to change tack and instead demonstrate that you are wrong, after which it is your problem to figure out why.

You claim that the question What is the material composition of God is incoherent, meaning it is impossible to give a meaningful, sensible answer to the question. Further, you claim this to be the case because Gods are eternal and uncaused (not made). That is your claim.

OK. So, if I am able to give an example of a meaningful answer to the question What is the material composition of God, without in any way contradicting your requirement that God is eternal and uncaused, then your contention that the question is meaningless and impossible to answer is proved wrong, and that is the end of the matter.

To put is another way, your claim is disproved if I can describe a God that does indeed have a material composition that it would make sense to talk about, subject to your requirement that the said God is eternal and uncaused.

Most theists would claim that Gods do not reside in our universe, so Ill go along with that as well. We atheists are very, very accommodating, especially given that such claims are given without evidence of any sort.

Subject to that, I am equally entitled as you or anyone else to describe God as I think most likely, just as you do and every Theist does as well. An essential principle of meaningful debate is that the opinion of one person is not worth more than that of another.


So with that said, one valid possibility for God, conforming to being eternal and uncaused as agreed, is as follows. God is one and the same thing as a supra-universe. As we know, God created our universe 14.5 billion years ago (or some would claim less), as a teensy sub-universe, presumably for his amusement. As stated, God and the supra-universe are one and the same, and are eternal and uncaused. Needless to say, the matter that comprises God is very different to that in our universe. For a start, God is eternal, so the thermodynamic Laws that cause our universe to wind down over time do not apply here. So the matter and properties thereof that is the supra-universe God is quite different to the matter within our universe, being a superior, special kind of eternal matter. The details are not important, but there are 3879 fundamental "elements, plus sub-particles and remarkable forms of radiation unlike anything in our universe. Well of course, all these things would necessarily have to be very different and better than in our universe, because otherwise God would not be able to do all the amazing things that God does, such as create sub-universes, perform miracles, and look inside the minds of all those humans in his favourite hobby universe that he created, and so on.

So there you have it, a valid description of our eternal, uncaused, powerful God that does not reside within our universe. This God created our universe, and performs what for us seems like miracles and extraordinary feats, and is really smart and wise, too, though also having a distinctly human character and with a really quite nasty temper back in the days of the OT, though fortunately he mellowed somewhat by the time of Jesus. If there are any other God-like characteristics required, then feel free to add them.


And there is no problem at all enquiring as to his material composition " I already gave you the details of his material composition. The question of material composition is valid, and answerable. There are no contradictions here. There is nothing about the God above that contradicts the requirement of being eternal and uncaused, in fact I specifically said that he was.

Note that only one contrary example is required to disprove a claim, and I have provided it.

And therefore, my friend, your claim that it is inherently meaningless to inquire as to the material composition of an eternal, uncaused God is proved to be wrong. QED. The end of the matter.

Thank you for your time and patience.

[Goose]

I defined a word "wobist" that quite specifically inquires of the composition of X without implying anything at all about whether X was made.

Ive demolished this twice already showing that your wobist argument does indeed imply X was made and therefore leads to a contradiction with X was not made. I first did that in post 90 and again for a second time in post 100. You have yet to actually address those arguments. The first attempt you simply denied the conclusion that your wobist argument implied a contradiction. The second time you ignored the argument altogether.

You claim that Gods are not made, so your broad statement that "things are made" is demonstrably wrong for starters.

Firstly, I claim The Christian God is not made. Please stop misrepresenting me on the point.

Secondly, I would not argue all things are made. Clearly I cant do that and maintain God was not made since God is a thing. This things are made argument was in context to material things like trees, planets, etc. I thought that was self evident. Youve been continually framing the questions in a physical/material way. Of what is X made youve defined made to have the meaning of physical composition in post 61. And in post post 75 you framed the argument as, What is the material composition of X? Indeed youve framed this whole debate with a materialistic view. One need only look at the thread title.

My guess is that you will continue to earnestly believe that you are right. I'm not sure it is possible to explain and demonstrate your errors more clearly than I have done already.

Well how can you when you ignore my arguments altogether? I mean if you are going to ignore the arguments that demolish your arguments and then do little more than merely assert that your demolished argument demonstrates Im wrong, well, there isnt much point continuing with you, is there?

[Goose]

So with that said, one valid possibility for God, conforming to being eternal and uncaused as agreed, is as follows. God is one and the same thing as a supra-universe. As we know, God created our universe 14.5 billion years ago (or some would claim less), as a teensy sub-universe, presumably for his amusement. As stated, God and the supra-universe are one and the same, and are eternal and uncaused. Needless to say, the matter that comprises God is very different to that in our universe. For a start, God is eternal, so the thermodynamic Laws that cause our universe to wind down over time do not apply here. So the matter and properties thereof that is the supra-universe God is quite different to the matter within our universe, being a superior, special kind of eternal matter. The details are not important, but there are 3879 fundamental "elements, plus sub-particles and remarkable forms of radiation unlike anything in our universe. Well of course, all these things would necessarily have to be very different and better than in our universe, because otherwise God would not be able to do all the amazing things that God does, such as create sub-universes, perform miracles, and look inside the minds of all those humans in his favourite hobby universe that he created, and so on.

So there you have it, a valid description of our eternal, uncaused, powerful God that does not reside within our universe. This God created our universe, and performs what for us seems like miracles and extraordinary feats, and is really smart and wise, too, though also having a distinctly human character and with a really quite nasty temper back in the days of the OT, though fortunately he mellowed somewhat by the time of Jesus. If there are any other God-like characteristics required, then feel free to add them.

In other words, What God consists of is God-stuff.

And by your own admission, here, that is a "valid" answer after all.

Congratulations. You've answered your own question for debate.

I guess we can all go home now.

[ytrewq]

So with that said, one valid possibility for God, conforming to being eternal and uncaused as agreed, is as follows. God is one and the same thing as a supra-universe. As we know, God created our universe 14.5 billion years ago (or some would claim less), as a teensy sub-universe, presumably for his amusement. As stated, God and the supra-universe are one and the same, and are eternal and uncaused. Needless to say, the matter that comprises God is very different to that in our universe. For a start, God is eternal, so the thermodynamic Laws that cause our universe to wind down over time do not apply here. So the matter and properties thereof that is the supra-universe God is quite different to the matter within our universe, being a superior, special kind of eternal matter. The details are not important, but there are 3879 fundamental "elements, plus sub-particles and remarkable forms of radiation unlike anything in our universe. Well of course, all these things would necessarily have to be very different and better than in our universe, because otherwise God would not be able to do all the amazing things that God does, such as create sub-universes, perform miracles, and look inside the minds of all those humans in his favourite hobby universe that he created, and so on.

So there you have it, a valid description of our eternal, uncaused, powerful God that does not reside within our universe. This God created our universe, and performs what for us seems like miracles and extraordinary feats, and is really smart and wise, too, though also having a distinctly human character and with a really quite nasty temper back in the days of the OT, though fortunately he mellowed somewhat by the time of Jesus. If there are any other God-like characteristics required, then feel free to add them.

In other words, What God consists of is God-stuff.

And by your own admission, here, that is a "valid" answer after all.

Congratulations. You've answered your own question for debate.

I guess we can all go home now.

Yes, we can now all go home, or at least move on. You have dropped your objections to the question, and in effect said that we don't know the answer to the question of God's composition, beyond guessing (and it is only a guess) that God might be made from a different kind of physical matter to that on Earth. And, as with any guess for which we have no evidence, it is a worthless guess at that.

But there is nothing wrong with the question. It is possible that if God exists, that science might one day find out where he resides and what he consists of. Just because we don't know something does not mean it is invalid to ask.

With objections to the question removed, let the thread continue.

Another answer might be that we are jumping the gun asking for the material composition of God, given that there is essentially no evidence that the God exists in the first place. We do not know what Dark Matter is, but in that case it is not jumping the gun to ask, because unlike with God we have very strong evidence for the existence of Dark Matter.

So may the thread continue. I know from PM's that others want to discuss more ideas on this thread, but have been patiently holding off until your concerns were resolved.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 102 by ytrewq]

God is described as having created the heavens and the earth as a single creative act.

These heavenly realms must then be a part of our universe. How does that fit in your concept? Is science at some point going to locate them?

Believers always read heavens as the rest of the universe. That is incorrect. The Bible indicated that all other interstellar objects exist in situ on a dome covering our earth.

Genesis 1:6-8 New International Version (NIV)

6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water. 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault sky. And there was evening, and there was morning"the second day.

Genesis 1:14-19 New International Version (NIV)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so. 16 God made two great lights"the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning"the fourth day.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 105 by ytrewq]

Yes, we can now all go home, or at least move on. You have dropped your objections to the question, and in effect said that we don't know the answer to the question of God's composition, beyond guessing (and it is only a guess) that God might be made from a different kind of physical matter to that on Earth. And, as with any guess for which we have no evidence, it is a worthless guess at that.

Reading Goose's replies, it sounds eerily like the Kalam Cosmological Argument all over again. My response to that argument is to ask what two categories are we dealing with? The theist will answer that there are things that have causes and things that do not have causes. I'll ask are there any other things that can fit into the second category, even if only hypothetically but not actually, only to be told...no, only God. To which I ask...isn't the second category just God? A mask for God? Why bother going through this whole rigmarole, all these pages upon pages of tortured reasoning, if you (the theist) could have just come right out and said he has two categories, the second of which is simply God and that operates by its own special rules that not even the theist understands.

[Goose]

You have dropped your objections to the question...

You must be joking here. Ive done no such thing. What has happened is that you have simply ignored most of the arguments and even entire posts Ive made in this thread.

You have ignored most of my arguments in these posts:
Post 71
Post 90
Post 100

Youve entirely ignored these posts of mine:
Post 56
Post 103

Youve also ignored a related post from JW's Post 83

If I only had dollar for every argument and post of mine youve either ignored or failed to properly address I could finally make some money at this.

...and in effect said that we don't know the answer to the question of God's composition, beyond guessing (and it is only a guess) that God might be made from a different kind of physical matter to that on Earth.

What? You - YOU - said that in post 102! You were the one who effectively argued What God consists of is God-stuff in that post. And you said of that argument, and I quote, So there you have it, a valid description of our eternal, uncaused, powerful God that does not reside within our universe.

You argued and agreed What God consists of is God-stuff is a valid answer. You literally typed out it was valid.

With objections to the question removed, let the thread continue.

Look, if you want to move on and just ignore the arguments I've made, thats fine. I don't blame you, they basically demolish your arguments. You are under no obligation to address anything Ive written. But please, if you are going to ignore arguments and posts dont then turn around and imply some imagined victory by claiming, "With objections to the question removed..."

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 108 by Goose]

Apparently, Gods are made out of nothing.

I couldn't agree more.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 108 by Goose]

Goose, as you appear unconvinced after all efforts showing why you are wrong, it's time to change tack and instead demonstrate that you are wrong, after which it is your problem to figure out why.

You claim that the question What is the material composition of God is incoherent, meaning it is impossible to give a meaningful, sensible answer to the question. Further, you claim this to be the case because Gods are eternal and uncaused (not made). That is your claim.

OK. So, if I am able to give an example of a meaningful answer to the question What is the material composition of God, without in any way contradicting your requirement that God is eternal and uncaused, then your contention that the question is meaningless and impossible to answer is proved wrong, and that is the end of the matter.

To put is another way, your claim is disproved if I can describe a God that does indeed have a material composition that it would make sense to talk about, subject to your requirement that the said God is eternal and uncaused.

Most theists would claim that Gods do not reside in our universe, so Ill go along with that as well. We atheists are very, very accommodating, especially given that such claims are given without evidence of any sort.

Subject to that, I am equally entitled as you or anyone else to describe God as I think most likely, just as you do and every Theist does as well. An essential principle of meaningful debate is that the opinion of one person is not worth more than that of another.


So with that said, one valid possibility for God, conforming to being eternal and uncaused as agreed, is as follows ....


And there is no problem at all enquiring as to his material composition " I already gave you the details of his material composition. The question of material composition is valid, and answerable. There are no contradictions here. There is nothing about the God above that contradicts the requirement of being eternal and uncaused, in fact I specifically said that he was.

Note that only one contrary example is required to disprove a claim, and I have provided it.

And therefore, my friend, your claim that it is inherently meaningless to inquire as to the material composition of an eternal, uncaused God is proved to be wrong. QED. The end of the matter.

Thank you for your time and patience.

Goose, it's all over. Please again read my posting #102, reproduced above for your convenience. All of our posting prior to that are irrelevant, so yes, I will indeed ignore them for they are no longer relevant. The above posting #102 demonstrates by the method of contrary example that you are wrong in claiming that my question is "incoherent" or "inconsistent". I accept and agree that you do not know the answer to the question of God's composition, but the question itself is demonstrably fine. QED. End of the matter

With that achieved, it is your responsibility and problem to figure out why you were wrong, if you wish to do so.

With that said, I do have a responsibility to address any points you make in respect of posting #102, and will do so now.