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]

[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'?

Well I kinda thought I did when, in that same post just a few sentences before the bit you've quoted, I wrote:

"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. "

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".

Yes, I've kept that in mind.

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

Yes, God would take a material form in such instances.

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

It's an interesting question to be sure.

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.

I would agree that the question for debate is not answerable given certain views about God.

[William]

[Replying to post 91 by Goose]

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'?

Well I kinda thought I did when, in that same post just a few sentences before the bit you've quoted, I wrote:

"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. "

Yes. You are trying to explain how you think about the question and subject. The explanation requires explaining, 'tis all.

Repeating what is said isn't explaining what was said.

Your 'Why' = "There is no answer to that question." needs explaining outside of the 'that's just how some Christians think about things." routine.

Why is the question 'incoherent' to you as that type Christian?

Yes I know you mentioned stuff being made, and GOD not being made. We agree on that together, but not for the same reasons.

The question is entirely coherent to me as a theist. And I explain adequately enough WHY.

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

It's an interesting question to be sure.

It is the same question the OP is asking. Is your idea of 'incoherent' also your idea of 'interesting'?

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.

I would agree that the question for debate is not answerable given certain views about God.

Good. Might the answer then be framed;

"Due to my particular views about GOD, the best answer I can provide for you is..."

..."I don't know...but this is what I believe is the case..."

...and go on to explain why the belief...if given that opportunity...

[Goose]

Yes. You are trying to explain how you think about the question and subject. The explanation requires explaining, 'tis all.

And your explanation here of why my explanation requires explaining also requires explaining. I will say this, at least one other poster in this thread seems to have gotten the basic gist of where Im coming from. Granted thats due more to his astuteness than anything to do with my intelligence or ability to explain things.

Your 'Why' = "There is no answer to that question." needs explaining outside of the 'that's just how some Christians think about things." routine.

Yeah, well if thats all you got from my posts I can't help feeling that you arent paying close enough attention.

Why is the question 'incoherent' to you as that type Christian?

Because it creates a contradiction.

Yes I know you mentioned stuff being made, and GOD not being made.

I mentioned a little more than that. But at least you got that bit.

We agree on that together, but not for the same reasons.

Okay so you agree God was not made. Good. But you dont think the question of what is God made creates a contradiction to the view God was not made?

The question is entirely coherent to me as a theist.

Okay, well logically explain how God can be made and not made.

And I never said it would create a contradiction and therefore an incoherent question for theists as a whole. Just the Christians of my ilk. I was quite clear about that.

And I explain adequately enough WHY.

Did you? I have to confess, and please dont take this the wrong way, I generally dont pay much attention to your posts. Would you mind telling me in which post(s) you adequately explained yourself? I will have a look.

It is the same question the OP is asking.

No, it quite clearly isn't.

Is your idea of 'incoherent' also your idea of 'interesting'?

I was trying to be kind. If you are going to press me for an answer, the animator is composed of God.

Good. Might the answer then be framed;

"Due to my particular views about GOD, the best answer I can provide for you is..."

Well such an answer was given in the form of a tautology by another poster. It wasnt my answer, but I do agree it was at least a proper answer.

..."I don't know...but this is what I believe is the case..."

Yeah, thats all implied when I say stuff like given certain views about God.

...and go on to explain why the belief...if given that opportunity...

Sure, you are free to address the question any way you see fit.

[Mithrae]

[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.

That's one possibility, for sure. And of course if you are free to define your logic any way you like without the normal requirements of providing evidence or being tied to reality, then no doubt you can find "reasons" why the argument (or any other argument) is not logical. Obviously it takes little skill to do that, but you presented your "review" of the thread from your chosen angle and perhaps that's the important thing. As you can probably tell I found both its tone and its (mis)representation of the discussion quite disappointing, but I really shouldn't have let it get to me; so I apologize for the tone and accusation of dishonesty in my earlier posts. I think it might be best for me to take a step back and try to refrain from commenting in this thread for a bit, at least until you get 'round to answering my original comments.

[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.

That's one possibility, for sure. And of course if you are free to define your logic any way you like without the normal requirements of providing evidence or being tied to reality, then no doubt you can find "reasons" why the argument (or any other argument) is not logical. Obviously it takes little skill to do that, but you presented your "review" of the thread from your chosen angle and perhaps that's the important thing. As you can probably tell I found both its tone and its (mis)representation of the discussion quite disappointing, but I really shouldn't have let it get to me; so I apologize for the tone and accusation of dishonesty in my earlier posts. I think it might be best for me to take a step back and try to refrain from commenting in this thread for a bit, at least until you get 'round to answering my original comments.

Thanks Mithrae. You have shown more courage and decency in this posting than I have in mine, and I feel humbled by it.

And yes, in parts the tone of my "review" could be seen as disrespectful and offensive. For that I apologize. Sometimes we get "carried away" but that is not an excuse. We needed a "circuit breaker" to reset the relationship, and allow us to start anew and discuss stuff rather than criticize each other, and you have provided that, and I thank you for it.

On another topic, when I said that it is difficult to give every posting the attention it deserves, then I was not trying to hide or make excuses. It's simply a fact. To be honest, for the past few days I have given highest priority to Goose, because he has shown a great honesty and commitment in defending his opinion that the question was "incoherent" and I thought it would be great to at least clear that up with Goose so I could then spend more time on other postings such as your own. There are only so many hours in the day, and it is physically impossible for me to respond to every single posting on this busy thread, but honestly I try my best.

... at least until you get 'round to answering my original comments.

Well I did make a particular point of responding to what I understood to be your key and most obvious and understandable argument purporting to show that my question was "incoherent", and I did ask two questions in red that as far as I can remember have not as yet been answered. But I admit to being a less-than-perfect human with a poor memory, so feel free to keep prodding and reminding me of what you would like from me.

Cheers

[William]

[Replying to post 93 by Goose]

Okay so you agree God was not made. Good. But you dont think the question of what is God made creates a contradiction to the view God was not made?

No, I don't. The gist of the OPQ might involve ideas of 'materials' but the argument involved 'things' which are not ordinarily are thought of as being material in nature, but still exist in nature. I do not see any contradiction and gave reasons why in the posts I made.

I have to confess, and please dont take this the wrong way, I generally dont pay much attention to your posts. Would you mind telling me in which post(s) you adequately explained yourself? I will have a look.

I have made very few posts in this thread so one should be able to find them quickly enough if one has the interest in doing so.

Like Mithrae, I think it might be best for me to take a step back and try to refrain from commenting in this thread for a bit, at least until the to and fro between you and ytrewq subsides.

[ytrewq]

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?

Quite so, but what I actually referred to was the meaning of the expression "made of", which is not in the dictionary. But never mind about that. My statement was primarily referring to the rest of my posting, where I defined and used the word "wobist", after which dictionary definitions became irrelevant. But that may not have been clear. Sorry about that.

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.

You misunderstand me. I was not talking of legal entitlement or whether I needed to ask your permission or anything like that. I was, of course, referring to logical entitlement, whether there was any logical objection to ask the question. And there isn't.

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?

Yes, we already agreed that trees and the like are in some sense "made". But so what? No one denies that. The key point, that you are just not getting, is that there is no logical reason why we can't enquire as to the material composition of something, without any implication of whether it is made. It is true that some words and expressions used to enquire about material composition (eg what is X made of) may vaguely imply that the thing was made, but other expressions do not, and if in doubt we define our own word to make it 100% clear that we are enquiring about material composition with any implication or connection whatsoever to if the thing was made. Can I make it any clearer?

That's enough for this posting. I'll continue with the rest of your posting in my next posting.

[ytrewq]

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.

Nope. No contradiction at all in what I wrote in red, or what you wrote in green, though you are more likely to get tricked if you use the green version, so don't use it.

As explained in the posting from which you quoted, whatever other words or expression may or may not mean are totally irrelevant once I define and use my own word as in red. It's very common in science to carefully define what a word or expression means - I'm not doing anything controversial or setting any precedents.

The word "made" is totally confusing you, because it can be used in ways that have different meanings. Simply don't use it at all, and everything is just fine.

AFAIK, you are the only one that agrees with your argument, though Mithrae apparently agrees with the conclusion. Now that does not necessarily mean that your argument is wrong, but in such cases is is not a bad idea to step back and at least consider that you might be wrong, and read previous postings very carefully with a different hat on, so to speak.

But if you still think that you have presented a sound case to shown that my question is contradictory, then I'm happy to continue discussion. In that case I would take a completely different tack, because I cannot explain what I have already said any better or clearer.

[ytrewq]

[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

I don't agree with that written in red. If you posit that "creative intelligence" was involved in the creation of our universe, then you have the much greater problem of explaining where that "greater intelligence" came from, not to mention that you will also need to explain how that intelligence actually did/does what is claimed. All you are doing is creating additional, even greater problems to explain, than you started with. Science does not work like that, and for good reason, and it is science and the scientific method that has in fact provided all modern knowledge about the evolution of our universe, and led to the understanding of planetary motion, how stars and planets were formed, how the heavier elements were all created from hydrogen, and so on. The achievements of science in increasing our understanding of all that we see around us and beyond is absolutely extraordinary.

Your though provoking posting probably deserves and should be in a thread of it's own.

[Goose]

Quite so, but what I actually referred to was the meaning of the expression "made of", which is not in the dictionary.

Adding the preposition of to made doesnt at all change the meaning of the word made. The preposition of, here, merely acts as a function word to indicate the relationship between the result " which is X " and the constituent parts of that result. The word made in the phrase made of still means to make, create, bring about, bring into existence. The word made has only one essential meaning. You dont change that meaning by adding a preposition.

You misunderstand me. I was not talking of legal entitlement or whether I needed to ask your permission or anything like that. I was, of course, referring to logical entitlement, whether there was any logical objection to ask the question. And there isn't.

Oh, but there is a logical objection to the question. Ive been harping on that objection for pages now. Moreover, you, specifically, are no longer logically entitled to ask the question of what is God made in this debate because you have explicitly affirmed God was not made (if even for the purpose of discussion only) in post 37 found here and post 61 found here.

Your only way out of this dilemma is to backpedal in this thread by changing your position to God was made. Then, and only then, are you within your intellectual rights in this thread to ask the question Of what is God made? But, of course, by backpedaling in this way, you will tacitly concede the point that you are in a contradictory position by asking Of what is God made? while holding to God was not made.

Yes, we already agreed that trees and the like are in some sense "made". But so what? No one denies that.

Okay. Now keep in mind you do not deny that things, like tress and other material things, are in some sense made. In other words, you affirm the general rule: Things are made (Things dont just inexplicably pop into existence).

The key point, that you are just not getting, is that there is no logical reason why we can't enquire as to the material composition of something, without any implication of whether it is made.

The point you arent getting is that there is no logical way to enquire about the material composition of a thing without implying the thing is necessarily made of those constituent material parts of which you are enquiring. Its those constituent parts that make X exist as X. It doesnt matter how you phrase the question or which words you use (composition, made, composed, constituent parts, etc) to ask the question. The implication that X is made is logically inescapable because the making of X is implied by virtue of the simple fact X is a thing. As you affirm above, things are made.

----

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.

Nope. No contradiction at all in what I wrote in red, or what you wrote in green, though you are more likely to get tricked if you use the green version, so don't use it.

You offer no counter argument here, merely a denial of the conclusion.

What I argued was not a trick. It was a logical progression that took your original statement in red and demonstrated, logically, how that statement implies a contradiction. If you want to dispute the conclusion you need to dispute either the logical validity of the argument or the truth of at least one premise. Its validity is air tight so which premise do you dispute?

• 1. "What is the material composition of X" -> "Of what material is X composed"
  2. "Of what material is X composed -> "Of what material is X made"
  3. "Of what material is X made" -> "X is made"
  4. "X is made" contradicts the statement: "X is not made."

The word "made" is totally confusing you, because it can be used in ways that have different meanings. Simply don't use it at all, and everything is just fine.

The idea of made is implied in every word you use to enquire of the composition of X. Its unavoidable since X is a thing and things are made.

AFAIK, you are the only one that agrees with your argument, though Mithrae apparently agrees with the conclusion. Now that does not necessarily mean that your argument is wrong, but in such cases is is not a bad idea to step back and at least consider that you might be wrong, and read previous postings very carefully with a different hat on, so to speak.

Its irrelevant who agrees or disagrees with me. The argument is either sound or is not. For you to show it isnt you need to show a premise is false.