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?

[Goose]

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.

The word made, my friend, has only one essential meaning along the lines of: brought into existence or caused to occur. No dictionary I can find defines made along the lines you want it to mean. What you are attempting do with your response here is redefine the word made to mean something different in one context. You have to do this to avoid the contradiction. Now who is the one playing semantic word games?

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 :-

You accuse my argument of being mere trickery with words and then go on to make the following counter argument. Theres more than a little irony there.

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.

Weve been over this. Even if you use this meaning of physical composition for made its asking the same essential question. We can rephrase the question with your intended meaning to, What is Xs physical composition? However, you are still asking, Of what is X made? since its only that physical composition in that particular arrangement in that particular context which makes X. No matter how you word it or define it, you will always be implying the same thing, that X was made. You necessarily have to imply X was made otherwise you imply the only alternative which is that X just inexplicably popped into existence. Which of course is absurd once we start plugging in objects such as trees and so on for X. Therefore, the implication that X was made is logically unavoidable no matter how you word the question: What constitutes X?

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

The word made has the same meaning in both statements Of what is X made, when X is not made. This is true regardless of whether made is being employed as a verb or not. The process of making X is unquestionably implied when one asks Of what is X made? just as forcefully as the not making of X when one states X is not made. Theres no difference in meaning whatsoever. To deny this is hold the absurd position that X inexplicably just popped into existence.

Consider asking, Of what is a tree made? Surely when one asks that question there is an implicit, if not an explicit, assumption that the tree was brought into existence (made) by something. That something being any natural process, mechanism, series of events, personal agent, and so on capable of bringing a tree into existence. The question becomes absurd without the implied assumption there was a process by which the tree was brought into existence (made). The alternative is to assume the asker believes that the tree in your back yard just inexplicably popped into existence when she asks, Of what is a tree made? Or, What is a tree composed of? and so on.

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

Do you see yet how your question Of what is God made contradicts the statement God was not made? And how the question "Of what is God made?" is incoherent to the Christian who holds that God was not made? Or do I need to hammer on this further?

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 71 by Goose]

[Replying to post 71 by Goose]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. It is appreciated, as I did spend some time writing that posting and making it as clear as I possibly could. It's doubtful that I can make it any clearer.

We may have to just agree to disagree. I'm more than happy for others to judge for themselves whether my Posting #61 is logically sound.

I need to go for now, but will carefully read your response.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by postroad]

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

Its Self.

[Mithrae]

(d) Some claimed the question itself was "incoherent" though I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

It would be more honest to acknowledge that you simply don't understand (for whatever reason) the three additional ways in which a bystander explained why the question could be considered incoherent. Granted the first or even second way I put it might have been a little heavy on philosophical jargon for some folks' taste, but I'm pretty sure virtually anyone could understand the third:

'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.

Whatever the reason may be that you don't understand that, it really is quite dishonest to claim that no logical argument has explained it.

It's also disingenuous at best to present the only possible answer to such an incoherent question - what God consists of is God - as a distinct non-answer in its own right, when every single posting of that phrase has made the context abundantly clear.

It seems William is right; you had your mind made up to dismiss those silly old theists' views and are now trying to retrospectively justify that even though it hasn't really gone according to plan.

[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.

The word made, my friend, has only one essential meaning along the lines of: brought into existence or caused to occur. No dictionary I can find defines made along the lines you want it to mean. What you are attempting do with your response here is redefine the word made to mean something different in one context. You have to do this to avoid the contradiction. Now who is the one playing semantic word games?

etc.

What you or the dictionary may think that the word "made" means when used in the expression "made of" is ultimately irrelevant. Read on ....

Your key observations seem to be :-

(a) Most things are in some sense made, because they have not existed forever. Yes, in that sense, trees and ladders and planet earth were all in some sense made.

(b) Gods are not made because they have existed for all time. This would also be true for our universe had it not turned out that it apparently started with the big bang, and it is still possible that whatever created the big bang has been around forever, without God coming into the discussion. But lets keep it simple. If a God has existed for all time, then it cannot be said to have been made as such.

OK. But it does not follow from that, that we are not entitled to ask of the material composition of a God. That's crazy talk. Non sequitur.

Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that, in your opinion, English words or expression that seek the material composition of something, necessarily imply that the thing was made, that the thing has existed for all time. I dont agree with that, but its pointless to ague about. We could argue literally forever about the meaning of words, which perhaps is why we still disagree and have been going around in circles for so long. But there is a simple way out.

With any language, it is possible that no word exists to express a particular intention, but that in no way means that the desired intention is in any way invalid. In such cases, one is perfectly entitled to define a word to exactly express the desired intention, and this is frequently done.

In this case, we need a word or expression that enquires about the material composition of something, without in any way implying anything about whether the said thing was made or not. OK, so lets define such a word or expression, which we are perfectly free to do. Lets agree to use the expression :-

What does X wobist of?

to mean

What is the material composition of X, with no implication of any sort about whether X was made or not.

Job done. No longer is there any possible argument about what words mean and imply, because now we have a word and expression which by definition means what is the material composition of X, with no implication of any sort about whether X was made or not.

And needless to say, it is not your business to tell me my intended meaning of the word. All the stuff about whether words imply this and that are right out of it now. It no longer matter what you think other words imply. So, lets ask the exact question that I had intended to ask from the outset :-

What do Gods wobist of?

Which by definition means :-

What is the material composition of X, with no implication of any sort about whether X was made or not.

The answer may well be that we do not know, but at least there is nothing wrong with the question, and we all agree on exactly what it means.

And to Mithrae, much as I know you like to help, I ask that you leave Goose to answer this, as it is written with respect to his postings, not yours.

[ytrewq]

(d) Some claimed the question itself was "incoherent" though I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

Whatever the reason may be that you don't understand that, it really is quite dishonest to claim that no logical argument has explained it.

Now Mithrae, my good friend, you really do need to pay more attention and read what I actually said. What I actually said was :-

... I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

So I would ask you be more careful, and not quote me as claiming :-

... that no logical argument has explained it.

I said no such thing.

[Mithrae]

(d) Some claimed the question itself was "incoherent" though I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

Whatever the reason may be that you don't understand that, it really is quite dishonest to claim that no logical argument has explained it.

Now Mithrae, my good friend, you really do need to pay more attention and read what I actually said. What I actually said was :-

... I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

So I would ask you be more careful, and not quote me as claiming :-

... that no logical argument has explained it.

I said no such thing.

A logical explanation, putting the earlier arguments into the very simplest terms possible, was provided literally just two posts prior to that one. Professing to be unable to "find" that is hardly an improvement Let's not pretend that you were really confessing your own lack of understanding, given the deeply derisive tone in the rest of that paragraph.

[ytrewq]

It's also disingenuous at best to present the only possible answer to such an incoherent question - what God consists of is God - as a distinct non-answer in its own right, when every single posting of that phrase has made the context abundantly clear.

I certainly don't accept that the question is "incoherent" - is that the same as "contradictory" as claimed by Goose?

You seem to be saying that we agree that the statement "What God consists of is God" is devoid of useful meaning or information, so why not just say so?

If I misunderstood the context then I apologise.

[ytrewq]

(d) Some claimed the question itself was "incoherent" though I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

Whatever the reason may be that you don't understand that, it really is quite dishonest to claim that no logical argument has explained it.

Now Mithrae, my good friend, you really do need to pay more attention and read what I actually said. What I actually said was :-

... I was not personally able to find any logical argument for this.

So I would ask you be more careful, and not quote me as claiming :-

... that no logical argument has explained it.

I said no such thing.

A logical explanation, putting the earlier arguments into the very simplest terms possible, was provided literally just two posts prior to that one. Professing to be unable to "find" that is hardly an improvement Let's not pretend that you were really confessing your own lack of understanding, given the deeply derisive tone in the rest of that paragraph.

Mithrae. You misquoted me. End of story.

As for your "logical explanation" I will look at it in greater detail and get back to you.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 74 by Mithrae]

Re my question, What are Gods made of, what is their material composition?

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.

What on earth does it mean to say so something is "more fundamental" than God. It sound suspiciously like arguments that are based on meaningless fluff such as "nothing is more perfect than God" or the like. But hopefully I'm jumping the gun.

And what on earth does it mean to say the God is "reality itself". I don't think it means anything, a bit like saying "God is truth itself".

You will need to tie your arguments and claims back to reality, meaning well accepted knowledge based on evidence. Anyway, I will need clear answers to the first questions in red before discussion can continue.