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?

[ytrewq]

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.

Now hang on, we already both agreed that there are things which are said to exist but they are not physical. Things like Love and Consciousness. We agreed on that already, and there is no confusion about it.

So let's review the situation. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say "God is consciousness", any more than I know what it means to say "God is love".

In a sincere attempt to understand, I presented some common expressions that everyone understands, to see if your intended meaning matched them. Namely :-

(a) "God is consciousness"
Does this mean God is conscious?
I suspect this is not your meaning, but don't know for sure as you did not answer my question.

(b) "God is consciousness"
Is this similar to a statement of the type "This wall is concrete", meaning God is physically composed of consciousness? But that makes no sense, because consciousness is not (as agreed) a physical substance. And you made it clear in your last posting that this is not your intended meaning.

(c) "God is consciousness"
Is this actually a metaphor, as discussed in reply to JW?

(d) "God is consciousness"
Simply swaps the word "God" for the word "Consciousness"
Trivial and pointless, as discussed below


OK. Assuming that your intended meaning is not of type a,b,c,d above, then I still have no idea what the statement actually means. It is a very odd and unusual kind of statement indeed, of the general type :-

Something is XXX
where XXX is something that is agreed to exist, but not physically, such as Love or Pain or Consciousness.

To try to understand what statements of this type mean in general, I suggest we first walk before we run, and try to understand what the very similar statement "God is Love" actually means.

You will note that I am not the only one that does not know what it means. Rikuoamero doesn't know what it means either, and JW was only able to make sense of it by assuming it to be a metaphor, but as yet has not been able to explain the real meaning is behind the metaphor.

I suppose there is one more possibility, that I haven't mentioned in previous postings because it is trivial and pointless, is that someone, for reasons unknown, prefers to use the word "God" interchangeably with the word "Love". In other words, we could ditch the word Love, and call it "God" instead, or indeed any other word that we wanted, such as puve or yeck. But that's just playing with words, swapping one word for another that means the same thing. Anyway, this is another Option (d) that conceivably explains what you mean when you say that "God is consciousness". But if that is the case, then there is nothing to discuss, for it is merely swapping one word for another.

OK. Can you or anyone else suggest some other meaning apart from a,b,c,d above that can solve the mystery of what it means to say that "God is Love" or "God is Consciousness"?

Re "God is Love", my personal opinion is that it means nothing at all, and is an expression that was invented to sound grand and befitting of a God, to sound something superior to and over and above just saying "God is Loving", but when boiled down means nothing at all. In my experience, this is quite common with religious expressions.

[ytrewq]

[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,

I have no problem at all with the metaphor that plants "turn light into sugar" by photosynthesis, for in this case we know exactly what is meant. One could say the "where the rubber meets the road" is another rather good metaphor here. Yes, I like it.

... 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.

Whereas this, purely in my opinion you understand, is meaningless fluff and waffle.

If you are thinking of the Greek or Hindu gods you would be right to say these are not physical.

Really? How do you know that? I'm strongly suspect that if you had asked an ancient Greek whether the God of Thunder was physical, he was think it was. And if we consider the claimed Christian God, how on earth do you know if it has mass (ie is physical) or not? It seems self evident to me that any being capable of performing massive physical feats must be physical.

But even these mythic heroes have had a physical effect on people's behavior.

Agreed, just as fear or pain can influence our physical behaviour. But are you really so certain that these ancient Gods are mythical? There is just as much evidence for them as the Christian God. They do clash with modern scientific knowledge, but certainly no more so than with the claimed Christian God. In my case, I can make the self-consistent claim that they are mythical, because I believe that all Gods are mythical.

So yes the gods are physical in the people who believe in them.

I have no idea what that means. Better to state what you actually mean, that non-physical beliefs can influence our physical behaviour. Like length, precision matters.

[William]

[Replying to post 151 by ytrewq]

I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say "God is consciousness", any more than I know what it means to say "God is love".

Do you know what consciousness is ytrewq?

Because if not, then I can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to comprehend the idea that "GOD is Consciousness."

I recall a similar interaction I had with another forum member - a Christian - who also said he couldn't understand what I meant, and even after trying various analogies to try and help him understand, he was still unable to grasp the idea and I had to conclude that there was no point in continuing with the interaction.

♦ GOD as Consciousness

♦ The process of Consciousness Divesting into form - Looking for GOD in all the right places

♦ The mind of First Source GOD is not outside of the consciousness of First Source.

♦ GOD = Consciousness in all things - throughout the universe (and likely beyond)

♦ Which came first- the material [chicken] or the material [egg]? Most likely it was the non-material.

♦ The Ghost In The Machine

The above are selected from the list of links I offered in post #135 so that it might possibly assist you in understanding the argument I am making regarding the idea that Consciousness = GOD.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 151 by ytrewq]

I honestly have no idea what you mean when you say "God is consciousness", any more than I know what it means to say "God is love".

Do you know what consciousness is ytrewq?

Because if not, then I can only imagine how difficult it must be for you to comprehend the idea that "GOD is Consciousness."

I recall a similar interaction I had with another forum member - a Christian - who also said he couldn't understand what I meant, and even after trying various analogies to try and help him understand, he was still unable to grasp the idea and I had to conclude that there was no point in continuing with the interaction.

♦ GOD as Consciousness

The above are selected from the list of links I offered in post #135 so that it might possibly assist you in understanding the argument I am making regarding the idea that Consciousness = GOD.

Hi William. Yes, I believe that I know very well what consciousness is and is not, though it may not accord with your beliefs. Perhaps we need to firstly discuss and agree on what consciousness is, though I have mentioned it a lot in previous postings, noting that it is similar to other things that are "experienced" by our physical brain, such as awareness (which is effectively the same thing) or pain or love.

We agree that consciousness is not physical, and is something experienced within the brain.

Consciousness does not exist outside of our physical brain, and does not exist when we are unconscious (that's where the word comes from) either from being asleep, knocked out, or under anaesthetic.

Are we in agreement on all that?

[William]

[Replying to post 154 by ytrewq]

Hi William. Yes, I believe that I know very well what consciousness is and is not, though it may not accord with your beliefs.

Often our beliefs don't accord with other beliefs ytrewq.

Perhaps we need to firstly discuss and agree on what consciousness is, though I have mentioned it a lot in previous postings, noting that it is similar to other things that are "experienced" by our physical brain, such as awareness (which is effectively the same thing) or pain or love.

"experienced"? I take it that your use of quotation marks signifies "Not really", or something along those lines ytrewq?

We agree that consciousness is not physical, and is something experienced within the brain.

Is that now *experienced* as for real or still just "experienced"? We had best clear that up before proceeding.

Consciousness does not exist outside of our physical brain, and does not exist when we are unconscious (that's where the word comes from) either from being asleep, knocked out, or under anaesthetic.

Are we in agreement on all that?

I think the planet is a conscious intelligent creative self aware Entity. Do we agree on that?

Before you answer, perhaps think about what it is we look for when deciding what is conscious and what is not.

Also, consider how we normally regard the sleeping (or those knocked out, or under anesthetic.) We consider them to being conscious living creatures who exist.

We do not consider them to be 'dead' or 'no longer existing'. This consideration has little to do with the idea that human beings are the bodies they experience living through.

Consciousness has a great deal to do with the fact that we can understand each other as more than merely the physical nature of the container/human instrument.

But if you want to reduce this argument to mere semantics...

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 154 by ytrewq]

Hi William. Yes, I believe that I know very well what consciousness is and is not, though it may not accord with your beliefs.

Often our beliefs don't accord with other beliefs ytrewq.

Perhaps we need to firstly discuss and agree on what consciousness is, though I have mentioned it a lot in previous postings, noting that it is similar to other things that are "experienced" by our physical brain, such as awareness (which is effectively the same thing) or pain or love.

"experienced"? I take it that your use of quotation marks signifies "Not really", or something along those lines ytrewq?

We agree that consciousness is not physical, and is something experienced within the brain.

Is that now *experienced* as for real or still just "experienced"? We had best clear that up before proceeding.

Consciousness does not exist outside of our physical brain, and does not exist when we are unconscious (that's where the word comes from) either from being asleep, knocked out, or under anaesthetic.

Are we in agreement on all that?

I think the planet is a conscious intelligent creative self aware Entity. Do we agree on that?

Before you answer, perhaps think about what it is we look for when deciding what is conscious and what is not.

Also, consider how we normally regard the sleeping (or those knocked out, or under anesthetic.) We consider them to being conscious living creatures who exist.

We do not consider them to be 'dead' or 'no longer existing'. This consideration has little to do with the idea that human beings are the bodies they experience living through.

Consciousness has a great deal to do with the fact that we can understand each other as more than merely the physical nature of the container/human instrument.

But if you want to reduce this argument to mere semantics...

If my quotation marks confuse you, then remove them. Like most people, I understand exactly what is meant be experiencing pain or love or consciousness, and have no intention of wasting time quibbling about that.

Now let us be crystal clear as to the commonly accepted (including by me) meanings of "conscious" and "consciousness". The dictionary definitions are :-

conscious
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
"although I was in pain, I was conscious"

consciousness
noun
the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

Also, consider how we normally regard the sleeping (or those knocked out, or under anaesthetic.) We consider them to being conscious living creatures who exist.

Incorrect. When we are asleep or knocked out or under anaesthetic we are not conscious. Period. Please take the time to learn what the words "conscious" and "consciousness" actually mean, as clearly defined above. The commonly accepted meaning of "conscious" and "consciousness" is not up for debate.

If you have some different belief or concept, then you will need to use a different word, and define exactly what it means, and you will need to provide evidence that your belief actually means something.

And with those points cleared up. I stand completely by everything I wrote.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by ytrewq]



All gods are mythological beings.



They are all created to provide comfort for those who follow them.



The only physical component of these mythological beings is the physical chemicals in the brains of those who accept the idea of these mythological beings for the comfort they provide.





Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 156 by ytrewq]

Way back in post#70 you had this to say;

I am actually very happy to give more thought to the Panenethiest idea.

Now it appears you have changed your mind?

Now let us be crystal clear as to the commonly accepted (including by me) meanings of "conscious" and "consciousness". The dictionary definitions are :-

conscious
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
"although I was in pain, I was conscious"

consciousness
noun
the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

Okay so it appears that religious folk are not the only ones who have books which they consider to be without error.

Neither of those definitions of consciousness are what I am speaking to in regard to the idea that GOD = Consciousness, as the reader should have easily enough picked up on in what I write.

But it appears that you are not going to budge at all on the 'meaning of consciousness' as the word is defined by your dictionary appears to be a nonnegotiable thing you are arguing for.

If so, then there is no debate to be had, and likely never was, in relation to the OPQ and blurb.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 156 by ytrewq]

Way back in post#70 you had this to say;

I am actually very happy to give more thought to the Panenethiest idea.

Now it appears you have changed your mind?

Now let us be crystal clear as to the commonly accepted (including by me) meanings of "conscious" and "consciousness". The dictionary definitions are :-

conscious
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
"although I was in pain, I was conscious"

consciousness
noun
the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

Okay so it appears that religious folk are not the only ones who have books which they consider to be without error.

Neither of those definitions of consciousness are what I am speaking to in regard to the idea that GOD = Consciousness, as the reader should have easily enough picked up on in what I write.

But it appears that you are not going to budge at all on the 'meaning of consciousness' as the word is defined by your dictionary appears to be a nonnegotiable thing you are arguing for.

If so, then there is no debate to be had, and likely never was, in relation to the OPQ and blurb.

What makes you think I have "changed my mind"?? I have been discussing the topic with you, with open mind, and am happy to continue to do so. And I want to stress that for me this is NOT a debate of you supporting Panentheism versus me opposing it. I am completely open to everything you say, but note that as yet nothing you have said makes sense to me, when carefully boiled down and analysed.

You completely misrepresent what I actually said about the dictionary definition of "consciousness". Of course I should assume that you are using the commonly accepted meaning of consciousness, and you knew that very well, because I had extensively discussed "conventional" consciousness in many previous postings. But in final desperation, in my last posting I flagged the possibility that maybe you were using the word "consciousness" quite differently. And here is what I said :-

If you have some different belief or concept (of consciouness), then you will need to use a different word, and define exactly what it means, and you will need to provide evidence that your belief actually means something.

Hopefully you can now see the absurdity, and even dishonesty though doubtless not intended, of you saying :-

But it appears that you are not going to budge at all on the 'meaning of consciousness' as the word is defined by your dictionary appears to be a nonnegotiable thing you are arguing for.

So to the bottom line. Of course I won't budge on what is the accepted meaning of "consciousness".

But with that said, if you personally have some different concept of what consciousness is then that is OK, but then you will need to use a different word, and define exactly what it means, and you will need to provide evidence to back up any claims that you make of your version of consciousness.. And needless to say, you can't define what your version of consciousness is by equating it to a God that we have equally no idea what it is.

To avoid any confusion with the accepted word "consciousness", how about we call whatever it is that you are talking about, "copness".

All clear? You can't just make stuff up. For example, if you claim that copness exists everywhere in the universe, then you will need to tell us exactly what copness is, and tell us what it actually means to say that it exists everywhere in the universe, and provide evidence that it does exist everywhere in the universe.

All clear? Again I stress, you can't just make stuff up.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 149 by ytrewq]

"God is consciousness" is not a bible expression.


I have no idea if William is speaking literally or metaphorically nor do I care. May I suggest you discuss Williams points with William?



JW