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]

[Replying to post 43 by Goose]

Why is the question incoherent?

Because the question, when applied to the Christian view of God, implies a contradiction. Of what is X made, when X is not made.

Yes, that is indeed your reasoning in a nutshell, and it is pure semantics.

And it is reasoning that shows your question is incoherent. You can try to hand wave it aside by calling it pure semantics if you wish, but that alone doesnt address what Ive argued.

You are the one who asked from what is God made, ie his physical composition. YES
You are the one that has affirmed (for purpose if the discussion) God is not made, meaning he has always existed. YES

Thats your reasoning, not mine. And its contradictory. It is therefore incoherent. No, it is not "reasoning". It is merely two statements, and they are not contradictory, as I show below.

Apparently you honestly believe what you are saying, so out of common decency, I suppose I should make further effort to discuss it with you.

All you are doing is equating the word "made" where it appears in one place with a particular meaning, with the same word "made" where it appears in another place, but with a different meaning. That's a semantic argument, mere trickery with words, though I accept that it was done without intention to deceive. Let's look in detail. Your claimed "contradiction" is the statement :-

Of what is X made, when X is not made.

On the left hand side, the word "made" has the meaning of physical composition, and is not being used as a verb.

On the right hand side, the word "made" is a verb, and has the meaning of being constructed.

So because what appears to be the same word is being used in distinctly different ways on the left and right hand sides, there is no contradiction at all. It pains me to my core to have to have to carefully explain such a very simple fault in reasoning, but what can I do? If you still don't understand what I'm saying here then I really don't know how it can be explained more simply or clearly.

If you have something to say beyond wrongly equating the same word "made" when used with two different meanings, then I should like to hear it. Maybe you do.

But unless and until then, there is no contradiction in anything I have said, and my original question remains reasonable and valid.

[Mithrae]

All you are doing is equating the word "made" where it appears in one place with a particular meaning, with the same word "made" where it appears in another place, but with a different meaning. That's a semantic argument, mere trickery with words, though I accept that it was done without intention to deceive. Let's look in detail. Your claimed "contradiction" is the statement :-

Of what is X made, when X is not made.

On the left hand side, the word "made" has the meaning of physical composition, and is not being used as a verb.

On the right hand side, the word "made" is a verb, and has the meaning of being constructed.

So because what appears to be the same word is being used in distinctly different ways on the left and right hand sides, there is no contradiction at all. It pains me to my core to have to have to carefully explain such a very simple fault in reasoning, but what can I do? If you still don't understand what I'm saying here then I really don't know how it can be explained more simply or clearly.

While I don't think Goose's way of explaining it was the clearest way to do so - and he hasn't unambiguously confirmed that my take it on it is correct, only that it was "close enough, I think" - I have offered two other types of explanation in addition to Goose's. So if the 'God is spirit' and 'god is consciousness' answers are rejected as inadequate or misleading (a view which I don't share, but could be legitimate*), we have:

1 - There's no way to talk (and hence think) about what God is 'made from' or even 'consists of' without it being an incoherent question, or getting an answer which you described as 'meaningless' but would more accurately be recognized as a tautology providing no further information.

2 - Trying to provide any other answer, describing God in terms of something which can be conceived and potentially exist independently of God, would be giving an ontological priority to whatever it is we say God consists of.

3 - Trying to provide any other answer to what God consists of implies reducibility - at least by analogy to everything else we say consists of anything other than itself - which again would make God not the most fundamental ground of all being.

I for one managed to decipher what Goose meant, or at least something which was probably close enough, and have offered two additional ways of explaining it. If that is still not enough, perhaps we should consider the possibility that the problem in understanding doesn't actually lie with this concept itself?



* Actually I do think the 'God is spirit' answer is both inadequate and misleading, at least for the modern era, even though I think it's an ancient way of saying something very similar to 'god is consciousness'; I'd actually be interested in hearing Goose's thoughts on that, whether inadequate/misleading is the reason he doesn't like those answers, rather than actually disagreeing.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 43 by Goose]

Why is the question incoherent?

Because the question, when applied to the Christian view of God, implies a contradiction. Of what is X made, when X is not made.

Yes, that is indeed your reasoning in a nutshell, and it is pure semantics.

And it is reasoning that shows your question is incoherent. You can try to hand wave it aside by calling it pure semantics if you wish, but that alone doesnt address what Ive argued.

You are the one who asked from what is God made, ie his physical composition. YES
You are the one that has affirmed (for purpose if the discussion) God is not made, meaning he has always existed. YES

Thats your reasoning, not mine. And its contradictory. It is therefore incoherent. No, it is not "reasoning". It is merely two statements, and they are not contradictory, as I show below.

Apparently you honestly believe what you are saying, so out of common decency, I suppose I should make further effort to discuss it with you.

All you are doing is equating the word "made" where it appears in one place with a particular meaning, with the same word "made" where it appears in another place, but with a different meaning. That's a semantic argument, mere trickery with words, though I accept that it was done without intention to deceive. Let's look in detail. Your claimed "contradiction" is the statement :-

Of what is X made, when X is not made.

On the left hand side, the word "made" has the meaning of physical composition, and is not being used as a verb.

On the right hand side, the word "made" is a verb, and has the meaning of being constructed.

So because what appears to be the same word is being used in distinctly different ways on the left and right hand sides, there is no contradiction at all. It pains me to my core to have to have to carefully explain such a very simple fault in reasoning, but what can I do? If you still don't understand what I'm saying here then I really don't know how it can be explained more simply or clearly.

If you have something to say beyond wrongly equating the same word "made" when used with two different meanings, then I should like to hear it. Maybe you do.

But unless and until then, there is no contradiction in anything I have said, and my original question remains reasonable and valid.

I think they're getting bogged down in their theistic way of thinking, because over here in atheistic land...your question makes perfect sense. There's no assumption of a creator/maker/designer/composer if I point at say a tree, and ask "What is that tree composed of?" I'm not assuming there's a composer of that tree. I'm merely asking what are the underlying pieces that make up the tree, perhaps even down to a sub-atomic particle layer. There may be a composer, there may not be.
Do theists have this problem with this question when its asked of other things? If I ask Goose "Of what is that tree made of?", does he think he has to tell me there is a God who made it? Or is it as I suspect, when the question is asked of their God, they feel...shall we say...uncomfortable with the question?

[ytrewq]

All you are doing is equating the word "made" where it appears in one place with a particular meaning, with the same word "made" where it appears in another place, but with a different meaning. That's a semantic argument, mere trickery with words, though I accept that it was done without intention to deceive. Let's look in detail. Your claimed "contradiction" is the statement :-

Of what is X made, when X is not made.

On the left hand side, the word "made" has the meaning of physical composition, and is not being used as a verb.

On the right hand side, the word "made" is a verb, and has the meaning of being constructed.

So because what appears to be the same word is being used in distinctly different ways on the left and right hand sides, there is no contradiction at all. It pains me to my core to have to have to carefully explain such a very simple fault in reasoning, but what can I do? If you still don't understand what I'm saying here then I really don't know how it can be explained more simply or clearly.

While I don't think Goose's way of explaining it was the clearest way to do so - and he hasn't unambiguously confirmed that my take it on it is correct, only that it was "close enough, I think" - I have offered two other types of explanation in addition to Goose's. ....

Thank you Mithrae. You and I agree, and I think Goose will need to agree as well, that the argument originally posted by Goose as above is nothing more than semantic sophistry, albeit with no intent to deceive.

You have "another take" on it which you proposed to Goose, who thought it might have merit. Is that a fair summary?

OK, so lets move on and see if your "other take" on it makes sense, though ultimately you have your own Pantheistic ideas that are different again, so I'm not sure if it is worth spending too much time on your "other take" of Goose's position, given that that is not your position anyway. Really, it is up to Goose to discuss his position, and to do that he needs to first get over his original semantic argument. And judging from his most recent posts, he still has not. But I'm a patient man. If Goose can get over that hurdle, I will still listen and consider. If not, then I'll move onto your Panentheistic discussion.

[Mithrae]

While I don't think Goose's way of explaining it was the clearest way to do so - and he hasn't unambiguously confirmed that my take it on it is correct, only that it was "close enough, I think" - I have offered two other types of explanation in addition to Goose's. ....

Thank you Mithrae. You and I agree, and I think Goose will need to agree as well, that the argument originally posted by Goose as above is nothing more than semantic sophistry, albeit with no intent to deceive.

You have "another take" on it which you proposed to Goose, who thought it might have merit. Is that a fair summary?

No, I said that the way he was putting it could easily give the impression of being empty word-play to a casual reader. But then, after adding a second way of explaining the objection, your ongoing focus on "whatever it is X is made from" in response to my comment that "What God consists of, is God" inclined me towards thinking that Goose's emphasis on the semantics was perhaps not so misplaced after all, and led to my third (and clearer) explanation of where you seem to be going wrong.

'Made from' or even 'consists of' are problematic not primarily for reasons of causality or chronology, but because of the assumption of something more fundamental than God of which God consists. That is an even simpler way of saying because they assume that God is not irreducible (and does not have ultimate ontological priority/ground of all being). God is the most fundamental 'thing' there is* - reality itself - so it's easy to see why asking what God consists of can be viewed as a meaningless question. Perhaps we can count this as a fourth way of explaining it



* Not only as Christian dogma, I should add; anything which has the characteristics of fundamental reality + thought or consciousness meets the key criteria for god, matching most major theistic views and as the key point of contrast against most if not all non-theistic worldviews.

[Guy Threepwood]

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

yes, and the same goes for any materialistic/spontaneous mechanism, by definition they must transcend the physical reality they created- no way around that.


So God is not a physical being in the sense that we understand physics, he is not bound by the laws of his own creation- that's only logical

[ytrewq]

Let's review the answers so far, to the OP's question :

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

(a) We had a number of answers directly quoting the Bible, that "God was spirit". But when it was then asked what "spirit" actually is, no one could provide an answer, so in effect people that gave this answer did not know what their God was made of. But hey, it was an honest answer, and if we can ever figure out what "spirit" is ....

(b) Then we got the answer that "God consists of God". Doubtless, just as surely as snufflepuffs consist of Snufflepuff. This "answer" does not advance the debate in any way. It contains no information. It's not even an answer.

(c) Guy claims that "God is not a Physical being", though I haven't the faintest idea of what that actually means. No more than saying "God is Spirit", I suspect.

(d) Some claimed the question itself was "incoherent" though I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this. Well of course, if you are free to define your God any way you like without the normal requirements of providing evidence or being tied to reality, then of course you can find "reasons" why the question (or any other question) is incoherent. My God is snufflepuff. Go on, ask me a question about him, and I will show you why the question cannot be answered. It takes little skill to do that when you are permitted the luxury of defining your god in any way you choose, without evidence, without being tied in any way to known reality.

(e) I don't believe in the existence of Gods myself, but if I did, then the answer that I would give is "I don't know". At least it's an honest answer. Given that there appears to be consensus among Theists that Gods exist somewhere outside of our universe, and given that we have no knowledge whatsoever of anything that lies outside our universe (that's a fact), if indeed it even makes sense to speak of being outside our universe, then it is patently obvious that we are not in position to say anything at all about something claimed to exist outside our universe. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply kidding themselves.

I can't recall any other answers, but apologize if I missed any.

While I am here, I did previously ask if Gods have mass, and are thus gravitationally attracted to other masses. Any takers? I suggest we don't know that either.

Let's stop kidding ourselves people. No one has the faintest ides of what a God actually is, not the faintest idea of whether any exist, and not the faintest idea where God(s) might reside if they did exist, not the fainest idea of what a God would be made of, not the faintest idea if Gods have mass, not the faintest idea of how Gods are able to think and perform feats, and so on. Not even the Bible answers these questions, certainly not in any way that meets the standards of modern knowledge. Should we therefore not ask them?

Given this dearth of knowledge about or evidence for Gods, then the greatest mystery of all time is why people would believe in them.

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by ytrewq]

I would say that if you had already decided what the answer to your Q was, what was the point in wasting others time creating a thread in the debating section?

I also think that you have not given enough thought on the panentheist idea of GOD and my stating GOD and Consciousness were one and the same (as mysterious as both are to the human condition) as you have yet to satisfactorily address that.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

Could consciousness exist in a undifferentiated state or substance. What would it be aware of? What would it be motivated by?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 67 by ytrewq]

I would say that if you had already decided what the answer to your Q was, what was the point in wasting others time creating a thread in the debating section?

I also think that you have not given enough thought on the panentheist idea of GOD and my stating GOD and Consciousness were one and the same (as mysterious as both are to the human condition) as you have yet to satisfactorily address that.

I gave my answer to the question, just as everyone else did. What's wrong with that?

I am actually very happy to give more thought to the Panenethiest idea. To be honest, the only reason I have not been able to give the panentheist postings the time and responses they deserve, is because others were endlessly wasting time arguing that "God consists of God" (what a surprise) and the like. There does reach a point beyond where reasoned, logical discussion becomes impossible.

My guess is it will be very slow going, because for me, at all times the debate needs to be anchored firmly to known reality, meaning widely accepted modern knowledge.

But I'm happy to give it a go. Maybe it makes more sense than the Christian God, I sure hope so. You have obviously thought about it a lot ....

Cheers