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]

...and in effect said that we don't know the answer to the question of God's composition, beyond guessing (and it is only a guess) that God might be made from a different kind of physical matter to that on Earth.

What? You - YOU - said that in post 102! You were the one who effectively argued What God consists of is God-stuff in that post. And you said of that argument, and I quote, So there you have it, a valid description of our eternal, uncaused, powerful God that does not reside within our universe.

You argued and agreed What God consists of is God-stuff is a valid answer. You literally typed out it was valid.

So what is your point? Why not just go ahead and answer my original question to the best of your ability, which as far as I can tell is something like :-

I don't know the material composition of God, but without any evidence, would guess that he may consist of some matter that is different to the matter in our universe.

I'm happy with that, and from what you are saying you are too. If you had done that in the first place, we would not have wasted so much time and so many pages.

I love it when we are all happy, honestly I do.

Of course, such an answer tells us little if anything beyond simply saying "I don't know". And really, that's the guts of it. I sincerely hope I have never torn strips off anyone for giving the honest answer, "I do not know".

[ytrewq]

Goose ... Please again read my posting #102, reproduced above for your convenience. All of our posting prior to that are irrelevant, so yes, I will indeed ignore them for they are no longer relevant. The above posting #102 demonstrates by the method of contrary example that you are wrong in claiming that my question is "incoherent" or "inconsistent". I accept and agree that you do not know the answer to the question of God's composition, but the question itself is demonstrably fine. QED. End of the matter

With that achieved, it is your responsibility and problem to figure out why you were wrong, if you wish to do so.

The method of disproving a claim by providing a contrary example may not be familiar to you, so here is an illustrative example.

Joe claims that if a piece of metal of mass 1kg or more is placed in a 10 litre bucket of water, the water will boil. He gives reasons for this, and I do my best to explain why in my opinion the reasons are wrong, so we argue back and forth for a week, Joe convinced his reasons are sound, and me equally convinced they are not. So what to do to break the impasse?

So what I do, is get a 1 kg piece of steel, and immerse it in a 10 litre bucket of water, and demonstrate that the water does not boil, thus disproving Joe's claim that it would. From that point on, all previous discussions are irrelevant, and it is up to Joe to find the errors in his arguments, if he wishes to do so, which is why I wrote what I did in red above.

My equivalent contrary example in posting #102, was to posit a God that completely met your stated requirements of being eternal and uncaused and then observe that in fact there was no reason at all why we could not enquire as to it's composition, and that asking that question was meaningful and sensible, regardless of whether we knew the answer. And as with Joe's example, once even a single contrary example is demonstrated, that is end of the matter.

My apologies if the explanation in this posting was clear to you already.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 112 by ytrewq]

A single contrary example?

Genesis 17:8
The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.

Isaiah 65:17
[ New Heavens and a New Earth ] See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.

God lied! Whatever it is he is made of is irrelevant. He's a liar and nothing he might promise is worthless.

[dio9]

Of course god's , small g, don' exist. If this is why you are atheist, join the club. The real God is transcendent, not material at all. yet imbued in all that is, to varying degrees of course. Meaning there can be more of God in some people and less in others. Jesus said the very rocks could rise up and sing God's praise They don't have a choice. Only people it seems and refuse to sing with the rest of creation. God is not material but rather the ground of material. In other words all things exist in God and because of God. Everything is sacred. .

[postroad]

[Replying to post 114 by dio9]i

God's word isn't worth the paper it's printed on. This text indicates that God simply
wouldn't allow any more false prophecies or far future fulfilment. All previous prophecies would be fulfilled shortly and any prophecy from that point would near future non conditional and certain.




Ezekiel 12:21-28 New International Version (NIV)

There Will Be No Delay
21 The word of the Lord came to me: 22 Son of man, what is this proverb you have in the land of Israel: The days go by and every vision comes to nothing? 23 Say to them, This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to put an end to this proverb, and they will no longer quote it in Israel. Say to them, The days are near when every vision will be fulfilled. 24 For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel. 25 But I the Lord will speak what I will, and it shall be fulfilled without delay. For in your days, you rebellious people, I will fulfill whatever I say, declares the Sovereign Lord.

26 The word of the Lord came to me: 27 Son of man, the Israelites are saying, The vision he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies about the distant future.

28 Therefore say to them, This is what the Sovereign Lord says: None of my words will be delayed any longer; whatever I say will be fulfilled, declares the Sovereign Lord.

[Goose]

You claim that the question What is the material composition of God is incoherent, meaning it is impossible to give a meaningful, sensible answer to the question. Further, you claim this to be the case because Gods are eternal and uncaused (not made). That is your claim.

OK. So, if I am able to give an example of a meaningful answer to the question What is the material composition of God, without in any way contradicting your requirement that God is eternal and uncaused, then your contention that the question is meaningless and impossible to answer is proved wrong, and that is the end of the matter.

There is no logical way you can give a meaningful answer to the question What is the material composition of God without implying a contradiction with the premise: God is not made. That is the point you are continually overlooking.

I formulated this point into an argument in Post 90 to make it explicitly clear. Your response to that argument in Post 98 was to simply deny the conclusion without any counter argumentation whatsoever. All you said was, 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.

I repeated the argument again in post Post 100 but that time you ignored it outright.

I will repeat the argument again in the hope that you will finally address it because this argument logically demonstrates why you cannot ask or say anything about the material of Gods composition without implying a contradiction with the premise: God is not made.

• 1. God is not made
  2. "What is the material composition of God" -> "Of what material is God composed"
  3. "Of what material is God composed -> "Of what material is God made"
  4. "Of what material is God made" -> "God is made"
  5. "God is made"

So which premise do you dispute and why? You need to address this argument. You said in post 110, ...I do have a responsibility to address any points you make in respect of posting #102...

So Ive responded to your post 102. Will you follow through with what you committed to in post 110 and finally address the argument properly?

[ytrewq]

You claim that the question What is the material composition of God is incoherent, meaning it is impossible to give a meaningful, sensible answer to the question. Further, you claim this to be the case because Gods are eternal and uncaused (not made). That is your claim.

OK. So, if I am able to give an example of a meaningful answer to the question What is the material composition of God, without in any way contradicting your requirement that God is eternal and uncaused, then your contention that the question is meaningless and impossible to answer is proved wrong, and that is the end of the matter.

There is no logical way you can give a meaningful answer to the question What is the material composition of God without implying a contradiction with the premise: God is not made. That is the point you are continually overlooking.

I formulated this point into an argument in Post 90 to make it explicitly clear. Your response to that argument in Post 98 was to simply deny the conclusion without any counter argumentation whatsoever. All you said was, 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.

I repeated the argument again in post Post 100 but that time you ignored it outright.

I will repeat the argument again in the hope that you will finally address it because this argument logically demonstrates why you cannot ask or say anything about the material of Gods composition without implying a contradiction with the premise: God is not made.

• 1. God is not made
  2. "What is the material composition of God" -> "Of what material is God composed"
  3. "Of what material is God composed -> "Of what material is God made"
  4. "Of what material is God made" -> "God is made"
  5. "God is made"

So which premise do you dispute and why? You need to address this argument. You said in post 110, ...I do have a responsibility to address any points you make in respect of posting #102...

So Ive responded to your post 102. Will you follow through with what you committed to in post 110 and finally address the argument properly?

I appreciate that you are completely honest in all your discussions, and hope you accept that I am too. I will never run from a mistake, and happily accept correction. If I do make a mistake, then I acknowledge the mistake immediately and fully, and thank the other party for pointing it out, and I have no reason to believe that you do not hold similar views.

But with that said, I respectfully suggest that you carefully read, and try to understand, my recent postings #102, #110 and especially #112, which you clearly are not "getting".

As explained, you are now in the position of Joe, having been proved wrong by example, after which it is not my responsibility to explain the fault in your reasoning in red typeface above. You have been proved wrong and it's up to you to figure out where you went wrong. Again I implore you to read and understand my recent postings #102, #110 and especially #112.

As explained with the "Joe" example, it's like you claiming by some argument or another that red balls do not exist, and then I disprove your assertion by producing a red ball, From then on, I have no responsibility to take you by the hand and explain why your reasoning that red balls cannot exist is wrong. That's your problem.

I just can't explain it any clearer. I posited the existence of a God that met your requirements of being eternal and uncaused, that had a specific type of material composition, and in fact there was no problem at all in asking the nature of his composition, and receiving an answer that precisely described that composition. That is the bottom line. Your contention that it was "incoherent" to ask of his composition was proved wrong, and that is the end of the matter. It's all over.

[dio9]

[Replying to postroad]

I don't see any connection to the OP with Ezekiel prophecy's. God is not physical . The real God is within and without everyone and thing, breath for us, water for fish, space for the stars and planets. Is God Physical? The answer is yes and no. Can you did it?

[William]

[Replying to postroad]

I don't see any connection to the OP with Ezekiel prophecy's. God is not physical . The real God is within and without everyone and thing, breath for us, water for fish, space for the stars and planets. Is God Physical? The answer is yes and no. Can you did it?

That is the Panentheist idea of GOD. Christian doctrine veers away from that idea of GOD because it interferes with their own established idea of GOD.

But - as has been pointed out - there are plenty of biblical references which altogether more than hint that the Panentheist idea of GOD is the correct one to adopt as nearest to The Truth.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to postroad]

I don't see any connection to the OP with Ezekiel prophecy's. God is not physical . The real God is within and without everyone and thing, breath for us, water for fish, space for the stars and planets. Is God Physical? The answer is yes and no. Can you did it?

As William points out, the God you describe is not the one that most Christians describe. Indeed, several Christians here claimed it was "obvious" that as the Christian God made our world and universe, then he could not reside within it. So apparently your God is different to the mainstream Christian God. Do you identify as Christian?

As there are so many different Gods claimed, everyone here that uses the word "God" in a posting, really needs to identify just which God they are referring to. It's all very confusing, not to mention unsatisfactory as I presume there is only one true God. Atheism really is much simpler.

Anyway, your answer to the OP is that your God is not physical. I presume then that your God can't perform physical feats, is that correct ?