2 Questions

[POI]

1. Why did God create anything at all?
2. What arena/space/other did God dwell within or upon before he first had to create it?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #50]

I’ve made a lot of different points in conversation with POI. One of those points was that I believe the non-physical exists and would be offering arguments for it, but was giving time for POI to respond to some other points first. Therefore there is no “assumption of immateriality” that needs to be removed from this thread. You just need to be patient.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #51]

In my framework, the concept of 'God' or a creator mind has not been removed. What has been excluded is the assumption that this creator mind is immaterial. The distinction lies in recognizing that a creator mind can be understood as fundamentally material or grounded in a yet-to-be-discovered foundational substance that underlies all of existence. This adjustment removes unnecessary assumptions while maintaining the integrity of the creator concept.

If you believe the creator mind must be immaterial, it is incumbent upon you to provide reasoning or evidence for this assertion. Until such a case is made, my framework remains consistent with observable phenomena and avoids introducing speculative immateriality where it is not demonstrably necessary.

I’ve made a lot of different points in conversation with POI. One of those points was that I believe the non-physical exists and would be offering arguments for it, but was giving time for POI to respond to some other points first. Therefore there is no “assumption of immateriality” that needs to be removed from this thread. You just need to be patient

Perhaps you could clarify your apparent need to make post #43, where you claim, 'it referred to how it wouldn’t interact physically, which is how physical beings interact with other physical realities.' My framework demonstrates that divining a need for an immaterial creator mind is unnecessary when we consider that mind can be understood as apparently material in nature rather than apparently immaterial.

The apparent differences arise from the over-divined assumption of an immaterial nature, which has been inserted without sufficient evidence. It is, therefore, incumbent upon those who believe that an immaterial creator mind is the best explanation to provide a compelling argument to substantiate this claim. Until then, my framework remains coherent and avoids unnecessary assumptions by grounding the concept of mind in a material basis.

I might add that I am, as ever, patient, and my offering of this framework is not motivated by impatience. Instead, it is presented as an alternative for all readers to ponder upon—a perspective that seeks to engage and enrich the ongoing dialogue.

[POI]

Contextually, being made in God’s image seems to at least be about us ruling over the earth in the same way God does.

Noted. Which, in this particular case, means I'm not sure if I agree, but maybe it will come into play later, and maybe not?

I do think God was completely immaterial until the Incarnation, but not in the same way a concept like ‘love’ is. Love is a concept that describes the actions of another being, while God is a being.

Noted again. Then I guess reasonable follow-up Q's might be...

1) Can such an "immaterial being" actually be demonstrated, <or> only instead assumed/asserted/inferred (and/or) faith-based?
2) Is God still an "immaterial being?" Like maybe in the 1st and 3rd asserted part of the 'trinity'?

Spatial relations are only necessary when distinguishing one material being from another material being.

Addressing the above statement depends on how you answered Q 2) above. Meaning, if God is no longer immaterial, then okay, I guess. If God is still immaterial, then I guess you are maybe arguing that "Jesus" became a definable way in which believers could direct their prayers towards?

I’m a bit confused here since these seem to be two different issues, but I’m probably missing something. There is no logical problem with the existence of an immaterial being (whether God or not) and nothing else existing. I don’t see why anyone would question how that logically works.

Let me see if I can clarify a bit more then. Let's say God decided never to 'create' materialism (i.e.) never to create the heavens and the universe/earth. At one point, there was only God, and no one else, and/or, nothing else. And then God decides to create. But God does NOT decide to create anything in materialism, but instead more immaterialism, like other immaterial beings, etc...

1) How might that work?

2) And also, how might such created immaterial beings and/or other be distinguishable from one another and/or from such a being's surroundings in such an immaterial arena?

As to whether there is actual evidence of the immaterial, I’m not sure your question makes sense. And I’m not trying to be funny here; it’s a serious question. Can ‘love and hate’ exist if all is matter? If you think it can, can you demonstrate this? If it can’t, then the only way ‘love and hate’ can actually exist is outside of a material brain.

Since your argument attempts to distinguish a clear difference between "love" vs "God", I no longer think this follow-up is relevant to address?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #53]

Contextually, being made in God’s image seems to at least be about us ruling over the earth in the same way God does.

Noted. Which, in this particular case, means I'm not sure if I agree, but maybe it will come into play later, and maybe not?

Given the claim " A non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do." how do humans rule over the world in the same way the God does?

I do think God was completely immaterial until the Incarnation

Which "incarnation"? There are a number of stories where God supposedly visited humans before the story of Jesus, (eg. Genesis 1v28) where clearly the God is depicted there as interacting physically, which is how physical beings interact with other physical beings.

not in the same way a concept like ‘love’ is. Love is a concept that describes the actions of another being, while God is a being.

Yet 1 John 4:8 has it that "God is Love." and contextually they who love are "of God". Verse 12 clearly has it that God does indeed dwell "within those who love" which is how God becomes visible to humans. (God being invisible is not the same as God being immaterial)
So how does one accept the contrary claim that love is a concept rather than a state of being, without resorting to the argument that God is a state of being while love is not - contrary to what 1 John has to say about this?

Verse 16 summarizes by saying God is love; "and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."

Again, why the distinctions Tanager? Are these distinctions necessary in order for you to continue with the claim that God is "immaterial"?

1) Can such an "immaterial being" actually be demonstrated, <or> only instead assumed/asserted/inferred (and/or) faith-based?
2) Is God still an "immaterial being?"

There is no such thing as immaterial, so no. Immaterialism is a gross misunderstanding - like thinking that love is immaterial. The very act of creation is motivated by love and considered an act of incarnation where love inserts into quantum material resulting in functional physical objects being manifested.

Accordingly, God=Love and Love=God and there is no distinction.

Spatial relations are only necessary when distinguishing one material being from another material being.

What makes these relationships necessary - the space the beings occupy, or the beings themselves?

Let me see if I can clarify a bit more then. Let's say God decided never to 'create' materialism (i.e.) never to create the heavens and the universe/earth. At one point, there was only God, and no one else, and/or, nothing else. And then God decides to create. But God does NOT decide to create anything in materialism, but instead more immaterialism, like other immaterial beings, etc...

1) How might that work?

2) And also, how might such created immaterial beings and/or other be distinguishable from one another and/or from such a being's surroundings in such an immaterial arena?

This is one good reason for why the belief in immaterialism does not work.

Even if God were the only mindful being that existed, we cannot logically conclude or make claims that God is therefore "immaterial". There is no story involving God in the bible which tells us that God is immaterial.

Since your argument attempts to distinguish a clear difference between "love" vs "God", I no longer think this follow-up is relevant to address?

As has been shown, Tanagers distinguishing "love" from "God" fails on account that the bible itself tells it otherwise.

[The Tanager]

Thank you for those reasonable follow up questions. To make sure I’m understanding you correctly and to keep myself straight, I see at least these issues being addressed:

1. Can an immaterial being be demonstrated to exist?

I think an immaterial being can be demonstrated to exist as an inference to the best explanation of reality.

2. What does the Christian Trinity tell us about God’s immateriality and/or materiality? (And then another reasonable follow up would be: Can this be demonstrated to be true?)

The Christian Trinity tells us that two Persons are still immaterial, while a third Person is material, meaning that God is both immaterial and material. I also think this can be demonstrated as an inference to the best explanation. I don’t think it would be helpful to pursue both the demonstration of 1 and 2 at the same time, so I would say let’s focus on one and then the other. If you want to look at them more deeply, which would you like to look at first?

3. How would two immaterial beings be distinguishable from each other?

Assuming that we could telepathically communicate with each other, do you think you wouldn’t be able to distinguish your thoughts from my own? It seems you would be able to.

4. If materialism is true, can love/hate exist?

Perhaps you are right that the thought that got us to this question is tangential to the main points we are discussing. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it at some point in a different thread, however.

Then, a clarification from me and (possibly) two needed from you:

Addressing the above statement depends on how you answered Q 2) above. Meaning, if God is no longer immaterial, then okay, I guess. If God is still immaterial, then I guess you are maybe arguing that "Jesus" became a definable way in which believers could direct their prayers towards?

I may be misunderstanding you, but, to clarify, I think an immaterial God is also a definable way in which believers could direct their prayers towards. Jesus would be an additional physically definable way in which humans were able to speak with the divine. Did you mean something else?

Let me see if I can clarify a bit more then. Let's say God decided never to 'create' materialism (i.e.) never to create the heavens and the universe/earth. At one point, there was only God, and no one else, and/or, nothing else. And then God decides to create. But God does NOT decide to create anything in materialism, but instead more immaterialism, like other immaterial beings, etc...

1) How might that work?

Could you be more specific about what you mean by “work”? There isn’t a logical contradiction, so it logically works.

[POI]

FYI. During this holiday season, I'm not able to field these topics like I normally have. I'll attack this more when things slow down a bit... Maybe tomorrow or later

[The Tanager]

Given the claim " A non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do." how do humans rule over the world in the same way the God does?

They rule in the same character (judgments of what is loving and unloving, etc.), not the same ‘substance’.

I do think God was completely immaterial until the Incarnation

Which "incarnation"? There are a number of stories where God supposedly visited humans before the story of Jesus, (eg. Genesis 1v28) where clearly the God is depicted there as interacting physically, which is how physical beings interact with other physical beings.

Genesis 1:28 does not depict God as interacting physically with humans, but there are better possible examples you could point to, like when Jacob wrestles with God, so that was a hasty thing for me to say. Assuming God had material encounters with humans before Jesus, my main point still remains, that God was completely immaterial at some point and has become material (in part) since.

Yet 1 John 4:8 has it that "God is Love." and contextually they who love are "of God". Verse 12 clearly has it that God does indeed dwell "within those who love" which is how God becomes visible to humans. (God being invisible is not the same as God being immaterial)
So how does one accept the contrary claim that love is a concept rather than a state of being, without resorting to the argument that God is a state of being while love is not - contrary to what 1 John has to say about this?

Verse 16 summarizes by saying God is love; "and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."

Again, why the distinctions Tanager? Are these distinctions necessary in order for you to continue with the claim that God is "immaterial"?

Yes, John says God is love (verse 8), but he also says God has a love that is made complete in us (verse 12). He clearly uses more than one sense of the term here. So, you need to argue for the specific sense you think it has for your above case to go through.

Spatial relations are only necessary when distinguishing one material being from another material being.

What makes these relationships necessary - the space the beings occupy, or the beings themselves?

What do you mean “the space the beings occupy”? I am distinguished from you by spatial relations. I am also distinguished from the physical matter around me that we call the physical space I am residing in.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #55]

1. Can an immaterial being be demonstrated to exist?

I think an immaterial being can be demonstrated to exist as an inference to the best explanation of reality.

The claim is unsupported. Tanager gives no example of what this refers to leaving it to the reader to divine what is being claimed. There is no reason given as to why such a being need be immaterial. If it is a matter if invisibility, there are many things invisible to the human senses which need not be regarded as immaterial.

2. What does the Christian Trinity tell us about God’s immateriality and/or materiality? (And then another reasonable follow up would be: Can this be demonstrated to be true?)

The Christian Trinity tells us that two Persons are still immaterial, while a third Person is material, meaning that God is both immaterial and material. I also think this can be demonstrated as an inference to the best explanation. I don’t think it would be helpful to pursue both the demonstration of 1 and 2 at the same time, so I would say let’s focus on one and then the other. If you want to look at them more deeply, which would you like to look at first?

This appears to contradict what Jesus spoke of re his relationship with The Father (God). The Father showed Jesus and spoke to Jesus and had a relationship with Jesus, and the relationship in that context cannot be truthfully divined as one of immateriality, since those contexts which make relationship, are material in nature.

3. How would two immaterial beings be distinguishable from each other?

Assuming that we could telepathically communicate with each other, do you think you wouldn’t be able to distinguish your thoughts from my own? It seems you would be able to.

The claim lacks grounding
This implies that without form there is only mind and if there are other minds, then these minds can be presumed to distinguish their own thoughts from another’s thoughts while remaining immaterial to each other.
What qualifies one’s “own” thoughts as distinct from “another’s,” enabling any meaningful differentiation?

In the case of hive-minded creatures, such as bees and ants, there are observable physical forms. However, we cannot assert with certainty whether these beings are individually minded or if they experience themselves as a single mind with many parts, rather than as separate entities with distinct thoughts. Observed behavior suggests it is more accurate to view them as a single mind with many parts. Based on this, the assumption of one mind and many parts appears to be the best explanation.

If this is the case, what foundation do we have for claiming that multiple distinct thoughts necessarily originate from multiple distinct minds? Furthermore, how can such a claim be justified when it often relies on an unsupported notion of the non-material actually existing?

4. If materialism is true, can love/hate exist?

Perhaps you are right that the thought that got us to this question is tangential to the main points we are discussing. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it at some point in a different thread, however.

Materialism is true in the sense that it is quantifiable. The same goes for love and hate although the waters are muddied therein due to misunderstanding.
For example, is it wrong to hate anything if one operates within the understanding of “what love is”?
Essentially these operate through expressions which are physical/material and are most often associated with human beings specifically/especially. Even so, one can study other lifeforms and their subsequent actions and in theory, deduce actions which are loving or hateful.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #57]

Given the claim " A non-physical being cannot, by definition, dwell within something like physical beings do." how do humans rule over the world in the same way the God does?

They rule in the same character (judgments of what is loving and unloving, etc.), not the same ‘substance’.

This response implies that human beings are made of substance but also possess an “extra” aspect that is “not physical.” While we might agree to call this “mind,” it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the mind is non-material. In fact, all available evidence suggests that the mind requires matter—such as the brain—to function and express itself.

Why, then, should we accept that the God-mind does not also operate through a similar process? Why should we assume that mind and matter are fundamentally different in their nature, rather than understanding them as different aspects or manifestations of materiality? Viewing mind and matter as distinct elements creates an unnecessary dichotomy, especially when materialism offers a coherent framework grounded in observable evidence—one that can still accommodate the notion of a mindful creator and our existence within a created reality.

Furthermore, judgments of what is loving or unloving do not require a non-material/material relationship to exist. These judgments can be understood as emergent properties or functions of the same material substance. Invoking a non-materialist explanation for such phenomena seems unwarranted, particularly when materialist perspectives can sufficiently account for them while still allowing for the existence of God.

But there are better possible examples you could point to, like when Jacob wrestles with God, so that was a hasty thing for me to say.

Genesis 1:28 does not depict God as interacting physically with humans,

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them..."
Are you now claiming that God has no voice, and that Adam and Eve were hallucinating? Or are you suggesting something else entirely?

but there are better possible examples you could point to, like when Jacob wrestles with God, so that was a hasty thing for me to say.

Is it truly a matter of haste, or is it a difficulty in understanding God as a material being?

Assuming God had material encounters with humans before Jesus, my main point still remains, that God was completely immaterial at some point and has become material (in part) since.

Since there is no direct biblical text to support the claim that God was ever immaterial, what do you base this assertion on? The Bible contains numerous accounts of God interacting with humans in ways that appear explicitly material—for example, walking in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8), wrestling with Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30), and appearing to Moses in a burning bush (Exodus 3:2-4). These interactions strongly suggest that God's nature is not immaterial, as they involve physical manifestations and tangible engagements within the material world.

Without clear scriptural evidence asserting God’s immateriality, what grounds do you have for claiming that God was ever immaterial? The biblical evidence overwhelmingly points to a God who operates materially in human history, directly challenging the notion of a purely immaterial deity or even a partially immaterial one.

Yes, John says God is love (verse 8), but he also says God has a love that is made complete in us (verse 12). He clearly uses more than one sense of the term here. So, you need to argue for the specific sense you think it has for your above case to go through.

Why should I assume that the writer of 1 John is differentiating between forms of love in such a way that they are distinct in nature, rather than understanding them as aspects of the same reality? Why do you insist on drawing such distinctions, and does this differentiation serve your broader claim that God was once fully immaterial but is now part material and part immaterial?

If this distinction is essential for your argument, it should be clearly and explicitly grounded in the text of 1 John. Otherwise, it appears to be an imposed interpretation, incorrectly divined to fit your theological framework rather than a properly divined reading of the scripture. Without clear textual support, your claim risks being a projection onto the text rather than a conclusion drawn from it.

What do you mean “the space the beings occupy”? I am distinguished from you by spatial relations. I am also distinguished from the physical matter around me that we call the physical space I am residing in.

In your answer, are you saying that the space beings occupy is what distinguishes relationships, and that this space is necessary for distinguishable relationships to occur? If so, does this imply that without spatial relations, no distinctions could be made, even conceptually?

Furthermore, what do you mean when you use the phrases “I am” and “material beings”? Are you including mindfulness or consciousness in your makeup? If so, are you claiming that your mind is immaterial and thus distinguishable from the material?

If you assert that your mind is immaterial, how does it interact with your material body and the spatial relations you describe? Alternatively, if your mind is not immaterial, does that not imply that all distinguishing factors—including consciousness—are rooted in materiality and spatial relations, thereby negating the need to invoke immateriality altogether?

[POI]

I think an immaterial being can be demonstrated to exist as an inference to the best explanation of reality.

We've had these exchanges before. The time to believe that something exists is after demonstration. Has "immaterial being(s)" actually ever been demonstrated anywhere, or, instead only asserted/inferred/postulated/hypothesized/other?

The Christian Trinity tells us that two Persons are still immaterial, while a third Person is material, meaning that God is both immaterial and material. I also think this can be demonstrated as an inference to the best explanation. I don’t think it would be helpful to pursue both the demonstration of 1 and 2 at the same time, so I would say let’s focus on one and then the other. If you want to look at them more deeply, which would you like to look at first?

I think we can table this particular topic for now, until you can first actually demonstrate any 'immaterial being' to exist at all.

Assuming that we could telepathically communicate with each other, do you think you wouldn’t be able to distinguish your thoughts from my own? It seems you would be able to.

I'm speaking more in terms of 'spatial relations', as this is what the thread attempts to expose. Before God created, it was just God, right? Once we establish actual demonstration of "immaterial being(s)", we can then determine if such "immaterial being(s)" actually occupy defined spaces...

Perhaps you are right that the thought that got us to this question is tangential to the main points we are discussing. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it at some point in a different thread, however.

William made a good point prior, in that God=love, which also means love=God. You stated "Love is a concept that describes the actions of another being, while God is a being.". My Q's remains:

1) Can "immaterialism" exist without the necessity of "materialism"?
2) Does 'love and hate' actually exist outside a material brain?
3) Since we 'know' materialism exists, is it possible that materialism has always existed, in one form or another?

I may be misunderstanding you, but, to clarify, I think an immaterial God is also a definable way in which believers could direct their prayers towards. Jesus would be an additional physically definable way in which humans were able to speak with the divine. Did you mean something else?

We both understand each other here, thanks.

Could you be more specific about what you mean by “work”? There isn’t a logical contradiction, so it logically works.

Sure. God never creates anything material at all, and instead decides to create more immaterial being(s), etc. Is this possible? Or, maybe instead to distinguish God from anything else in which he created, God requires all else to be materialistic?

I guess we must also first determine if such a God can be demonstrated, as opposed to only asserted/inferred/hypothesized/other. Can you do that?