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?

[William]

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 139 by ytrewq]

Would it be fair to say that the second catigory only exists because of the first?

Yes, in any practical sense that would seem to be true. The second list of things in green (Category C) are all experienced by something that physically exists. Something (eg love or consciousness) cannot be experienced unless there is a physical something to experience it.

[William]

[Replying to post 139 by ytrewq]

All of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form. They are not physical objects or substances, and accordingly they do not have mass. Physical objects and substances have mass.

All that I have just said above is common knowledge, and is not up for debate.

So there are things which are said to exist but they are not physical. How is it then that you are having a problem about my saying that GOD=Consciousness?

[dio9]

In effect we are all Gods. And we ought to treat each other thusly. God is real in the things that he has made. There is a divine principle within each being and thing. and we can see it in the mother bird putting herself between her chicks and danger. In the equation within a leaf called photosynthesis turning light into eatable sugar. God is physical in the things that he has made.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 139 by ytrewq]

All of these can be said to “exist�, but not in a physical form. They are not physical objects or substances, and accordingly they do not have mass. Physical objects and substances have mass.

All that I have just said above is common knowledge, and is not up for debate.

So there are things which are said to exist but they are not physical.

Yes. we agree about that.

How is it then that you are having a problem about my saying that GOD=Consciousness?

I am not the pedantic, anal PITA type of person. My "problem" with this statement is that I don't have the faintest idea what it means. Let's skip the "=" sign as that is used in math, and go back to your original sentence :-

God is consciousness.

This is a very strange type of statement, the equivalent of saying, for example :-

John is love.

What on earth do such statements mean? If someone was to say to me "John is love", then I would be equally mystified, but assume that what the speaker was really saying is "John is loving", meaning John is a very loving person, so the word love is in effect being used as an adjective, though the word that should actually have been used is "loving", which is the adjective from the none "love".

Therefore, along the same lines, the most likely interpretation of your odd statement is that what you are really saying, is that "God is conscious", where "conscious" is the adjective of "consciousness". Is this what you are actually saying, that God is conscious?


But there is another possible interpretation, and again, I will use an example to clarify. What about statements of the type :-

Oceans are water
This floor is concrete
etc

In this case, the words "water" and "cement" are nouns, and the meaning is that "Oceans are physically composed of water", and "This floor is physically composed of concrete". In other words, these sentences tell us about physical composition, that a particular object is materially composed of some physical substance, noting that we have already discussed and agreed on what are physical substances. Physical substances are made of atoms, and have mass.

Unfortunately then, your statement is not of this type, because consciousness is not a physical object or substance. It makes no sense to say that something is physically composed of "love" or "consciousness", that are not physical substances.

And so, I am left to conclude that your statement "God is consciousness" either has no sensible meaning, or else what you are really saying is that 'God is conscious".

I am not trying to be anally pedantic or make trouble for the sake of it. When boiled down and examined in detail, I can only conclude that your statement either has no sensible meaning, or else what you are really saying is that "God is conscious".

[JehovahsWitness]

What on earth do such statements mean? If someone was to say to me "John is love", then I would be equally mystified, ...

God is LOVE

The expression "God is love" is what we call in English a METAPHOR. A metaphor is has been defined as

METAPHOR

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

The website Literary Devices explains

• In simple English, when you portray a person, place, thing, or an action as being something else, even though it is not actually that “something else,â€� you are speaking metaphorically. For example, the phrase, “My brother is the black sheep of the family,â€� is a metaphor because he is not a sheep, nor is he black. However, we can use this comparison to describe an association of a black sheep with that person. A black sheep is an unusual animal, which typically stays away from the herd, and the person being described shares similar characteristics.
  
  Furthermore, a metaphor develops a comparison that is different from a simile, in that we do not use “like� or “as� to develop a comparison in a metaphor. It actually makes an implicit or hidden comparison and not an explicit one.
  
  Source: https://literarydevices.net/metaphor/

Why do people use metaphors?

• Metaphors are a powerful and colourful way to convey ideas. While poets and philosophers have long knkwn this, metaphors are a common feature of everyday language because with relative concision they can effectively communicate complex or abstract ideas in an understandable way.
  
  The bible contains many dozens if not hundreds of metaphors because it is often dealing with abstract ideas

JW



RELATED POSTS



What are the top 40 qualities of Jehovah's personality?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p869944

Does God have a sense of humour ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 63#p883863

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 146 by JehovahsWitness]

The expression "God is love" is what we call in English a METAPHOR.

Unfortunately for you, saying this doesn't work. Let's use your own example, of the black sheep. People already know that it's a metaphor because they know that humans are not black sheep. We already know, when we hear the phrase "My brother is the black sheep of the family", that the speaker doesn't mean his brother is of the genus Ovis and has black wool. Even on the off chance that someone might be confused, that person can check, investigate.
However, when it comes to things like "God is love", or "God forgives all", or "God is mercy" or "God is merciful", or "God is just"...what the heck do those things mean? What's the metaphor? Where's the common ground between you and I, when you say those things (you meaning any person who is a Christian), such that I already know what you mean, can get the metaphor without you having to explain yourself? If you say "God is merciful", I don't know if that's a metaphor or not. It doesn't seem to be a metaphor to my eyes, because from Christian doctrine, God apparently requires that a specific man be nailed to a pole and die a tortuous death before he'll forgive or grant mercy.
If you say to me "God is love"...what's the metaphor? God loves...God loves what? God feels what? The only thing I have regarding this God character are the writings called holy by the followers, but no-one apparently seems to know just what exactly those writings say or mean. I see one thing, but everyone else sees other things apparently. It's not like I can go investigate this God to see just what the metaphor could possibly mean, not like I could investigate your brother to see if he really IS of the genus Ovis and is covered in black wool. All I have to go on are these writings and Christian after Christian after Christian telling me they mean this thing, no they mean this other thing, no the first two guys are wrong, it really means this other other thing! And if you don't believe this thing, God will damn you and sentence you to hell!


I notice JW, that in your post explaining metaphors...you don't actually explain WHAT the metaphor IS. You describe the black sheep metaphor, tell us what that means...but you don't tell us what "God is love" means.

metaphors are a common feature of everyday language because with relative concision they can effectively communicate complex or abstract ideas in an understandable way.

Except this doesn't work with Christianity, with the Bible. People disagree all the time about the Bible, and I'm not just talking atheists here. For example, "I and the Father are one". Is that a metaphor? Some people take it that it means Jesus and the Father God are one being, that this is an indication of the Trinity. Others take it to mean that they are separate beings but united in purpose and have a common goal.
In fact...this brings to mind a Star Trek Next Generation episode, where Captain Picard is beamed down to a planet to talk with an alien captain who literally talks only in metaphor. He says sentences in English (or that the universal translator puts out in English) like "Darmok and Jallad at Tenagra", but Picard hasn't got a clue what this means, because there is (at least at that time) no common understanding between the two.
What if the alien had kept repeating "God is love", "God forgives all", "God is merciful" or "I and the Father are one"?

[William]

Unfortunately then, your statement is not of this type, because consciousness is not a physical object or substance. It makes no sense to say that something is physically composed of "love" or "consciousness", that are not physical substances.

This is where you are confusing real things as having to be physical.

The way you are left arguing is that all things which are real are also physical. Therefore, anything which is not physical is not real.

Your argument shows that the OPQ is really asking "Are GODs Real?".

Your statement above clearly shows the reader that you are unable to identify real things which are not physical. without trying to make us believe that such things are therefore unreal.

Also, clearly the reader can see that I am not at all claiming that "something is physically composed of "love" or "consciousness". I have not said any such thing, so you are arguing against a straw-man which you created, not I.

Please address my actual statements, if indeed you are able to.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 146 by JehovahsWitness]

The expression "God is love" is what we call in English a METAPHOR. A metaphor is has been defined as :-

A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Oh boy, oh boy! William is not going to be happy with you. What you are saying is that statements of the type "God is love" or "God is consciousness" are actually metaphors.

In other words, William does not literally mean than God is consciousness, and consciousness is not literally applicable to God. Well I'm glad of that, because his statement makes no sense if taken literally, as you apparently agree.

So far so good, but if statements like "God is love" or "God is consciousness" are really just metaphors and not to be taken literally, then exactly what do they mean?

Let's think about "God is love". What is it a metaphor for? What is the actual meaning. From your own definition of a metaphor, love is therefore not literally applicable to God. So what on earth does "God is love" actually mean, given that love is not literally applicable?

And likewise for Williams statement "God is consciousness". What is it a metaphor for? What is the actual meaning, given that consciousness is not literally applicable?

The only thing for certain is that no one as yet has been able to explain what statements like "God is love" or "God is consciousness" actually mean. Until such an explanation is given, we are entitled to assume that such statements don't actually mean anything.

[dio9]

[Replying to dio9]

actually turning light into sugar is very like an existential metaphor. A leaf capturing the pure energy of light to make sugar. Sugar is the food all life depends as animals eat grass and people eat beef. In the oceans its happening too the microscopic phytoplankton are the first link in the food chain its where the rubber meets the road, where immaterial becomes material. At the base of the physical world, there is a Tao like give and take, where the positive and negative blink into and out of existence. God is within and without spiritual and material.

If you are thinking of the Greek or Hindu gods you would be right to say these are not physical. But even these mythic heroes have had a physical effect on people's behavior.So yes the gods are physical in the people who believe in them.