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 I’m 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 149 by ytrewq]

"God is consciousness" is not a bible expression.


I have no idea if William is speaking literally or metaphorically nor do I care. May I suggest you discuss Williams points with William?



JW

Sure, but you did fail to explain what "God is Love" actually means. Please refer back to my post #149. Want to have a crack at that instead?

[Mithrae]

Now let us be crystal clear as to the commonly accepted (including by me) meanings of "conscious" and "consciousness". The dictionary definitions are :-

conscious
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
"although I was in pain, I was conscious"

consciousness
noun
the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

Also, consider how we normally regard the sleeping (or those knocked out, or under anaesthetic.) We consider them to being conscious living creatures who exist.

Incorrect. When we are asleep or knocked out or under anaesthetic we are not conscious. Period. Please take the time to learn what the words "conscious" and "consciousness" actually mean, as clearly defined above. The commonly accepted meaning of "conscious" and "consciousness" is not up for debate.

Googling 'consciousness definition,' the first link suggests that
"It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something "that it is like" to "have" or "be" it, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[4]"

The second link offers the following definitions:

• 1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
  b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
  c : awareness especially : concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.
  2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind
  3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual
  4 : the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness
  5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

It seems that William is using the second definition above, as people who are asleep certainly experience sensations, emotions and thoughts, while even people under anaesthesia are not regarded as being without a mind completely.

Granted, at other times he seems to use it as a synonym for self-awareness, rather than mere sentience
[quote="William in the thread linked as "Which came first- the material [chicken] or the material [egg]?""]Consciousness = self awareness ability to acknowledge the self. Ability to understand the self as consciousness. Ability to acknowledge the existence of things. . . .



Consciousness = self aware ability to acknowledge the self. Ability to understand the self as consciousness. Ability to acknowledge the existence of things it creates.[/quote]

[JehovahsWitness]

... no one as yet has been able to explain what statements like "God is love"...actually mean.

QUESTION: Can anyone explain what the bible expression "God is love" actually means?

• ANSWER Yes, it means like the emotion of love, God manifests his presence in kind thoughts and deeds . The expression "God is love" as found in 1 John 4 verse 8, is, as one commentator said, "christianity's central metaphor for understanding God" . A metaphor is a literary tool that compares "two things which are not the same but share a common characteristic". God is love is a way of communicating the commonality between God and love, namely that just as love is an emotion which is usually manifest by those that feel it, in benevolent acts; God is a an intelligent spirit being that also manifests his presence through benevolent thoughts and actions.

David Edmond Hiebert

"Although John has just said that love is of God (1Jn 4:7-note), one cannot say that love is God, just as one cannot say that light is God. Without the article [ in greek], love is qualitative, depicting the nature of His being.... - The Epistles of John- An Expositional Commentary

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-is-love.html

...what does it mean that God is love? Love is an attribute of God. Love is a core aspect of God's character, His Person.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-is-love.html

JW


Further reading Mepaphors in the Hebrew scriptures
http://thetorah.com/exploring-the-multi ... s-for-god/



RELATED POSTS

Is 1 John 4: 8 ("God is love) a metaphor? [this thread]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p954183

What are the top 40 qualities of Jehovah's personality?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p869944

Does God love us?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#p876680

Does God only love those that obey Him?
viewtopic.php?p=1031096#p1031096

Is Divine love a threat?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p844379

Can one love God without liking him?
viewtopic.php?p=1026668#p1026668

Does God have a physical body? [this thread]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p952029

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOVE, HATE and ...RACIAL UNITY

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[William]

[Replying to post 162 by Mithrae]

It seems that William is using the second definition above, as people who are asleep certainly experience sensations, emotions and thoughts, while even people under anaesthesia are not regarded as being without a mind completely.

Granted, at other times he seems to use it as a synonym for self-awareness, rather than mere sentience

Semantics.

The overall point of the thread isn't asking the question "Are GODs physical" but making a statement along the lines that "anything which is NOT physical, therefore does not exist."

The tactic being used by ytrewq here is to to make arguments based upon human definitions which vary and are not necessarily easily defined subjects, such as consciousness - or love - for that matter.

My argument is that we are all individuate expression of "GOD" (so in that way 'GOD' uses the physical in order to express Itself.

[ytrewq]

... no one as yet has been able to explain what statements like "God is love"...actually mean.

QUESTION: Can anyone explain what the bible expression "God is love" actually means?

• ♦ANSWER Yes, it means like the emotion of love, God manifests his presence in kind thoughts and deeds . The expression "God is love" as found in 1 John 4 verse 8, is, as one commentator said, "christianity’s central metaphor for understanding God" . A metaphor is a literary tool that compares "two things which are not the same but share a common characteristic". God is love is a way of communicating the commonality between God and love, namely that just as love is an emotion which is usually manifest by those that feel it, in benevolent acts; God is a an intelligent spirit being that also manifests his presence through benevolent thoughts and actions.

David Edmond Hiebert

"Although John has just said that “love is of God� (1Jn 4:7-note), one cannot say that “love is God,� just as one cannot say that “light is God.� Without the article [ in greek], “love� is qualitative, depicting the nature of His being.... � - The Epistles of John- An Expositional Commentary

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-is-love.html

...what does it mean that God is love? Love is an attribute of God. Love is a core aspect of God’s character, His Person.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-is-love.html

JW

Further reading Mepaphors in the Hebrew scriptures
http://thetorah.com/exploring-the-multi ... s-for-god/
.....

Thanks JW. You put a lot of effort into that, and it is appreciated. I dispute that "God is Love" is a metaphor, but no point arguing about that. I do happily accept the intended meaning that you present, which is basically just that God is a very loving being. In other words, the noun "love" is in effect being used as an adjective. I did suggest that very same interpretation many, many postings ago.

And to be perfectly honest, we would all be better off if such "pretentious" and confusing wording was avoided, and we all just said what we actually meant, which in this case is very simply that "God is very loving".

Although not of interest to you, your interpretation of expressions of this type would lead us to believe that William's statement that "God is consciousness" would simply mean that God is conscious. That's apparently not what William intended but, as you see, the imprecise wording and expressions used by religious folk really is inconsistent and confusing.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 159 by ytrewq]

Neither of those (dictionary) definitions of consciousness are what I am speaking to in regard to the idea that GOD = Consciousness ....

To avoid any confusion with the accepted word "consciousness", how about we call whatever it is that you are talking about, "copness".

Thinking about this a bit more, maybe a better word for your personal version of consciousness would be "konsciousness".

What do you think about that? It is a slightly different spelling from the traditional "consciousness" as it needs to be IMO, but very similar spelling and pronunciation, reflecting the fact that presumably your version of consciousness does have much in common with the traditional interpretation.

I am open to discussing your personal beliefs about consciousness, but as always, your ideas do need to be anchored to reality and well accepted knowledge and experience.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 166 by ytrewq]

As shown in my post #162, the Oxford definition of consciousness is not the sole, indisputable meaning you've presented it as. Trying to create made-up words for your counterparts to use (not for the first time in the thread, I believe?) gives the impression of implicitly suggesting that there's no real meaning or grounds for common understanding in their concepts to begin with, that anything they're saying must be so alien as to demand a new word. When that effort has been predicated on insisting upon a highly selective definition of the word they chose to use, it seems even more questionable. Calling it "your personal version of consciousness" is both condescending, and entirely unwarranted.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 166 by ytrewq]

As shown in my post #162, the Oxford definition of consciousness is not the sole, indisputable meaning you've presented it as.

I agree totally with your part in blue, and I never stated or implied otherwise. I love agreement, and we are totally in agreement on this point, but the wide differences in what people understand "consciousness" to be is precisely the problem ....

Trying to create made-up words for your counterparts to use (not for the first time in the thread, I believe?) gives the impression of implicitly suggesting that there's no real meaning or grounds for common understanding in their concepts to begin with,

Not at all. You need to carefully read what I actually said, fully acknowledging the "grounds for common understanding". Here are my exact words "reflecting the fact that presumably your version of consciousness does have much in common with the traditional interpretation." You need to read my postings more carefully.

.. that anything they're saying must be so alien as to demand a new word.

I did not use the word "alien" but stand by my suggestion that when there are so many different interpretation of "consciousness" then it really is a good idea to use a specific word such as "konsciousness" to mean exactly and precisely whatever it is that "consciousness" means to William. That's just common sense, and any "implications" that you mention are yours entirely, not mine. In a debate setting, precision matters, perhaps even more so than length. And this would still be true even if Williams understanding of consciousness matched one of the several "dictionary" definitions. Ironically, it is you that is harping on about how many definitions of "consciousness" there are out there, which makes it even more imperative that we make it crystal clear exactly which one matches William's belief. But quite apart from all that, I take the time to read the links that Williams provided, so can inform you that William's understanding of "consciousness" appears to go well beyond any of the dictionary definitions, making it essential that we carefully and precisely differentiate his personal interpretation from others.

When that effort has been predicated on insisting upon a highly selective definition of the word they chose to use, it seems even more questionable.

As discussed, that is not true. I am open to all dictionary definitions, and always have been. And it is precisely because there are so many definitions and opinions that we need to tie down exactly and precisely what is Williams personal version of "consciousness". This is just common sense, surely.

Calling it "your personal version of consciousness" is both condescending, and entirely unwarranted.

I speak the truth, no more and no less. William does indeed have a "personal version of consciousness", just as everyone does. To say so is not condescending. If you think that what is simply a fact is "condescending", then you need to apologise to William.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 166 by ytrewq]

As shown in my post #162, the Oxford definition of consciousness is not the sole, indisputable meaning you've presented it as.

I agree totally with your part in blue, and I never stated or implied otherwise.

That's explicitly what you said in post #156: "Please take the time to learn what the words "conscious" and "consciousness" actually mean, as clearly defined above. The commonly accepted meaning of "conscious" and "consciousness" is not up for debate. If you have some different belief or concept, then you will need to use a different word..."

Trying to create made-up words for your counterparts to use (not for the first time in the thread, I believe?) gives the impression of implicitly suggesting that there's no real meaning or grounds for common understanding in their concepts to begin with,

Not at all. You need to carefully read what I actually said, fully acknowledging the "grounds for common understanding". Here are my exact words "reflecting the fact that presumably your version of consciousness does have much in common with the traditional interpretation." You need to read my postings more carefully.

.. that anything they're saying must be so alien as to demand a new word.

I did not use the word "alien" but stand by my suggestion that when there are so many different interpretation of "consciousness" then it really is a good idea to use a specific word such as "konsciousness" to mean exactly and precisely whatever it is that "consciousness" means to William.

As you have just quoted, you continued to insist on a singular "traditional interpretation" of consciousness and recommending a new word even after (and without addressing) my post showing the fallacy of that view. Of course only you know what all that really means in your personal lexicon, but it definitely doesn't seem to be the same thing as acknowledging that there are a range of related, valid definitions for consciousness and requesting further clarification of which is under discussion.

In a debate setting, precision matters, perhaps even more so than length. And this would still be true even if Williams understanding of consciousness matched one of the several "dictionary" definitions. Ironically, it is you that is harping on about how many definitions of "consciousness" there are out there, which makes it even more imperative that we make it crystal clear exactly which one matches William's belief.

Harping on? I thought we'd agreed to leave our previous budding animosity in the past Precision is sometimes crucial in intellectual discussion: But as I suggested back in post #36, it seems quite likely that you would have a difficult time explaining the term 'physical' - which is central to your entire thread - without it becoming either vague/unhelpful, tautological (synonymous with existence), circular (implying naturalism) or simply in contrast to mind/consciousness. Naturally therefore I'm quite interested in this semantic discussion. Even the Oxford dictionary actually has three quite distinct definitions for the word 'physical.' In the interests of clearer communication, perhaps you should start using the word 'fysical' instead.

Calling it "your personal version of consciousness" is both condescending, and entirely unwarranted.

I speak the truth, no more and no less. William does indeed have a "personal version of consciousness", just as everyone does. To say so is not condescending.

Really? What was your gut reaction to my comment about your personal lexicon above? Even simply to illustrate a point it felt like a pretty patronising thing to write. Or to the suggestion that you start using the word fysical? Maybe we just have rather different perspectives on the matter. In any case, my main interest in this exchange was for the insight on what I might have to look forward to if my own perspective on god/consciousness comes under discussion.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 169 by Mithrae]

Let's get down to the the tin-tacks that I hope we can all agree on. At the end of the day, it's fine for William to use the word "consciousness", just provided he defines what he means by the it, and provides evidence to back up claims made about it.

For example, but not limited to, if he claims that his version of consciousness exists everywhere in the universe, then he will need to explain carefully what that means, and provide evidence for it. I predict that will be exceedingly difficult.

And if he claims that consciousness exists outside of our physical brain, then the chance of that flying is effectively zero. One cannot just make stuff up. But he may not make that claim. We don't know, because he has not told us.

That all seem very reasonable and just common sense to me.

And yes, if you wish to discuss your own religious ideas, then I will hold you to the same (very reasonable) standards.

I'm not sure if William even wants to continue his discussion. His original statement that "God is consciousness" did not fly as far as I could tell, and when put under the spotlight, it may be that his version of consciousness does not fly either, but too early to say.