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?

[Mithrae]

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.

I quoted exactly what you said, and I addressed it. Recapping briefly, I earlier explained one view wherein the question 'what's God made of' contradicts the definition of God; because if God consists of some thing which can exist independent of God, it makes God a secondary type of being (gives ontological priority to the thing). You quoted and responded to that post (if not the core argument). Later I explained the some concept in a different manner, why your ongoing focus on "whatever it is God is made from" was problematic; because it requires that God, like ladders etc. is reducible to component parts. You quoted and responded to that argument, if only to express your bewilderment as to the meaning of 'irreducible.' So in yet a third post I offered yet a third and even simpler way of explaining it, that the question assumes something more fundamental than God of which God consists.

Two posts after that, you declared that you were "not personally able to find any logical argument" for the incoherency of the question. We could interpret that three ways:
> That had not seen any such arguments. That would obviously be a blatant lie, so I assumed that's not what you meant.

> That you really meant to say "I personally don't understand the arguments being made." Given the deeply derisive tone of the rest of that paragraph - comparing it to 'snufflepuff' and insisting that there's no correspondence with reality - this also was obviously not the meaning conveyed.

> That you hadn't found any logical argument because none had been presented. By elimination, this clearly seemed to be your meaning, and your continuing use of terms like "meaningless fluff" in discussing the argument seem to further confirm that.

Perhaps there's some fourth thing that you really meant and I'm simply missing, for which I apologize if so. But as is, at the time of my response and still at this moment, it seems evident that your "review" was a peremptory and extremely misleading dismissal of this (and other) aspects of the discussion. Most people would not struggle with the concept that God is the most fundamental ground of all being as you seem to, and suggesting in a "review" that no such logical argument has even been presented would indeed be dishonest.

[ytrewq]

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.

I quoted exactly what you said, ...

Go back to my posing #79, and look at the two statements in bold blue, the top one being what I actually said, and the lower one being what you later claimed that I said.

Sure, the top statement in blue is an accurate quotation, but you then later distorted that to something different, and incorrectly claimed that I said it.

Please, please, please, just go back to my posting #79 and read it carefully. I can't explain it any more carefully that I did there. And if anyone else thinks my posting #79 is wrong or unfair, then please let me know. I take the truth, and my responsibility to others, very seriously.

I'm still waiting for answers to my 2 questions in red.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 75 by ytrewq]

QUESTION What is God "made of"?


The verb "to make" (whether in active or passive voice) essentially encompasses both the idea of having a beginning and of composition. It is arguable whether the two notions can be separated but at least in Christian theology, when refering to the Creator, they cannot.

Even if one can argue that that which had no beginning can be composed of equally eternal elements, biblically speaking, as some in this thread have implied, YHWH is presented as being an intelligent being that exists as an indivisible whole. As a self admitted ignoramus when it comes to physics, if I'm not mistaken the notion of indisibility does exist in science. For example I came across the following :

Elementary particle : any of the particles of which matter and energy are composed or which mediate the fundamental forces of nature especially : one whose existence has not been attributed to the combination of other more fundamental entities.

Please NOTE I am not saying that God is an "elementary particle" not at all, only that the concept of something existing that is NOT a "combination of other more fundamental entities", ie that is in theory indivisible, exists in science. Whether it is eventually discovered that the particles presently classified as elementary are in fact "made" or composed of something else, (as was the case with th atom, the word "atom" meaning "unable to cut" in Greek) the notion of eventually discovering that which cannot be said to be composed of something else, and is therefore elementary in nature is not meaningless.

An n elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no sub structure, thus not composed of other particles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

If the notion of something being "elementary" or "fundamental" in nature can exist in physics (and be articulated, without being dismissed as a sentence that "doesn't mean anything at all"), I see no reason why the suggestion of the same thing in an a non-physical* realm suddenly becomes "meaningless".






JW


* The expression "non-physical" also has a meaning, it means "not of the physical", ie not composed of, part of, or subject to the laws that goven, the physical universe. Even if a notion is entirely fictional and unprovable, that doesnt render the words themselves as devoid of meaning.



RELATED POSTS

Does God have a physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 029#952029

Who made God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 192#925192

Can God die?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 877#951877

Does the bible speak of God exposing his naked buttocks?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 993#896993

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 81 by Mithrae]

Two posts after that, you declared that you were "not personally able to find any logical argument" for the incoherency of the question. We could interpret that three ways:
> That had not seen any such arguments. That would obviously be a blatant lie, so I assumed that's not what you meant.

> That you really meant to say "I personally don't understand the arguments being made." Given the deeply derisive tone of the rest of that paragraph - comparing it to 'snufflepuff' and insisting that there's no correspondence with reality - this also was obviously not the meaning conveyed.

> That you hadn't found any logical argument because none had been presented. By elimination, this clearly seemed to be your meaning, and your continuing use of terms like "meaningless fluff" in discussing the argument seem to further confirm that.

Perhaps there's some fourth thing that you really meant and I'm simply missing, for which I apologize if so. But as is, at the time of my response and still at this moment, it seems evident that your "review" was a peremptory and extremely misleading dismissal of this (and other) aspects of the discussion. Most people would not struggle with the concept that God is the most fundamental ground of all being as you seem to, and suggesting in a "review" that no such logical argument has even been presented would indeed be dishonest.

Truth stranger than fiction, apparently.

Mithrae, I said exactly what I meant, and meant exactly what I said, that I had not personally been able to find a logical argument supporting the claims that my question was "incoherent". In other words, I found the arguments that were presented unconvincing and lacking logic. If you found the arguments convincing then that's great, but I did not, and still do not, and I reckon I'm not the only one either. I suspect my standards are higher than yours.

Most people would not struggle with the concept that God is the most fundamental ground of all being as you seem to, ...

Well in that case, it should be very easy to convince me and other atheists, you would think. Sure, you believe in stuff like "God is the most fundamental ground", but it is notable then when I actually ask you to explain exactly what this means then you have as yet been unable to do so. My suspicion is that when you boil it down, it doesn't mean anything at all, as with for example the claim that "God is Spirit". But please, present a case and convince me otherwise.

Please respond to my questions in red in my posting #80. Discussion of your religious beliefs cannot proceed unless those questions are clearly answered.

[Goose]

* 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.

The reason I dont think that God is Spirit or God is consciousness are proper answers is that, as Ive been saying all along, I dont think there is a proper way for a Christian (at least one who holds to an uncaused eternal God) to answer the question: Of what is God made? Not withstanding a tautological answer, there is no answer to that question which doesnt contradict the notion of an uncaused eternal God who, as you put it, is the foundation of reality for the Christian. So, for the orthodox Christian at least, the question is incoherent.

Further, the quote from John 4:24 wasnt answering the question: Of what is God made? So Id caution against using that assertion to answer the question. To do so may be taking the authors intended meaning out of context (and I think it is, but that's another debate). That doesnt mean to say the assertion God is Spirit or God is consciousness is false, so long as one doesnt mean God is Spirit or God is consciousness and that is all that God is. It just means I dont think its a proper answer to the question: Of what is God made? So to answer your question directly I suppose in that sense, yes, I would agree with you that the pithy assertion God is Spirit or God is consciousness is inadequate.

In short, asking a Christian (at least an orthodox one) Of what is God made? reveals, I think, an ignorance of Christian theology. This is why I argue that the fault is with the question itself, that the question is incoherent, when addressed to a Christian.

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

If you saw 'HELP' written with rocks on a deserted island beach-

who wrote it? what do they look like? where did they come from? where are they now?

do you conclude the random action of the waves did it?

why not?

i.e. we deduce intelligent agency from what it has produced, regardless of what we know about the creator. Who produced it and why - those are interesting higher order questions

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 85 by Goose]

That is essentially the first cause paradox though is it not?, i.e. it's not a problem unique to theism, but applies to any explanation for the universe 'where did that come from?'

So the question is not only a wash, but a moot point, because here we are- obviously there is a solution to the apparent paradox one way or the other

Only it's far more difficult to solve if creative intelligence is prohibited from being any part of the solution

[Mithrae]

Well in that case, it should be very easy to convince me and other atheists, you would think. Sure, you believe in stuff like "God is the most fundamental ground", but it is notable then when I actually ask you to explain exactly what this means then you have as yet been unable to do so. My suspicion is that when you boil it down, it doesn't mean anything at all, as with for example the claim that "God is Spirit". But please, present a case and convince me otherwise.

Please respond to my questions in red in my posting #80. Discussion of your religious beliefs cannot proceed unless those questions are clearly answered.

In post #36 I posted a brief summary of my thoughts on the topic, under the assumption that the OP asked a question in good faith without a predetermined intention of strawmanning, dismissing and mocking those who answered. Some six pages and three days later you still haven't responded, nor to William's slightly earlier and fairly similar views, but here you are crowing over a few hours in which I haven't got 'round to answering one of your posts (though JW has already noted some relevant points)... not to mention throwing out a baseless accusation of having religious beliefs. I slept and went to work, I'm on my break now. When I get home, if I think it's worth bothering, I'll try to explain even further, maybe.

[William]

[Replying to post 85 by Goose]

In short, asking a Christian (at least an orthodox one) Of what is God made? reveals, I think, an ignorance of Christian theology. This is why I argue that the fault is with the question itself, that the question is incoherent, when addressed to a Christian.

Perhaps the best way to avoid any confusion in such circumstances is to explain WHY this type of question is 'incoherent when addressed to a Christian'?

Bear in mind that Christians generally hold to the OT ideas of GOD, and there are plenty of circumstances where the GOD pays visit to human beings as a visible entity whom the humans refer to as "LORD".

Thus, in such circumstances, the GOD is 'made of some thing' in relation to the form occupied.

The question then is 'What is it that occupies that form, giving the form animated expression'? What is that animator composed of?

I said "Consciousness" - and make no claims as to what Consciousness is made of. For the purpose of the debate - given the debate subject - the question is not answerable.

[Goose]

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

Dictionaries are irrelevant? Wow.

If dictionaries and standard meanings of words are irrelevant then we are just making up words and meanings as we go. How then are we to properly communicate? When you say a kitten how do I know you dont mean a squirrel?

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.

Correct. To deny this is to hold that things like trees, ladders, and planet earth just inexplicably popped into existence.

(b) [strike]Gods are not made because they have existed for all time[/strike]. [The Christian God was not made. God is eternal and uncaused]...If God has existed [strike]for all time[/strike][eternally], then it cannot be said to have been made as such.

Fixed that for you.

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.

I have never said you are not entitled to ask of the material composition of a God. You are entitled to ask any question you please. You are entitled to ask me what a square circle looks like if you wish.

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...

This isnt confusion on my part. You are agree with me. Things are made - brought into existence. Unless of course you hold that things like trees inexplicably pop into existence. Do you hold that position?

...that the thing has existed for all time.

Well that would be the another option I suppose. That a tree has existed as a tree for all time. But that's just as absurd as thinking trees inexplicably pop into existence.

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.

But thats still a contradictory meaning. The question What is the material composition of X is to ask of what material is X composed? To ask of what material is X composed? is to ask Of what material is X made?.

So your definition implies this:

Of what material is X made, where there is no implication of any sort as to whether X was made or not made.

How can you logically imply X was made, by asking Of what is X made, with no implication of any sort that X was made?

Thats incoherent.

For the life of me, I dont understand how you cant see this.