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]

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

Your "reasonable standards" to which you intend to "hold" others notwithstanding, it seems that a quest for understanding simply is not in the cards here. Non-religious is specifically listed right there in my usergroups next to every single post I write, and as if that weren't enough I had already in this very thread shown that I consider it a false accusation:

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 [me] having religious beliefs.

[ytrewq]

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

Your "reasonable standards" to which you intend to "hold" others notwithstanding, it seems that a quest for understanding simply is not in the cards here. Non-religious is specifically listed right there in my usergroups next to every single post I write, and as if that weren't enough I had already in this very thread shown that I consider it a false accusation:

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 [me] having religious beliefs.

It's not worth arguing about too much but what I actually said referred to your "religious ideas". If you don't have ideas on religion, which would include not believing in Gods, or whatever else you may or not believe about religious matters, then I have no idea what you are doing on a religious debate forum. Surely you have "religious ideas". Everyone does, don't they?

And yes, regardless of whatever ideas you might have, religious or otherwise, if you talk about "consciousness" or anything else where the dictionary meaning(s) vary or your interpretation differs, then I of course I will ask you to define exactly what you mean, and back up any claims that you make. Isn't that what is expected on a debate forum? That's all I'm saying, I'm not trying to arrogantly lay down the law.

But in any event, you have decided to contribute to discussion involving William and his Panentheistic views, and that is definitely involved with "religious ideas".

Were you happy with the rest of what I said in my post #170, which IMO was more important.

And where has William gone. If I have offended than I apologise, but when stuff makes no sense to me, or IMO needs defining, then I say so.

[William]

[Replying to post 167 by Mithrae]

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.

Yes - I had similar impressions (just now) after having read post#166

My thoughts triggered by those impressions are along the lines that there is an undercurrent of a type of contempt the poster is expressing for me (the individual) in relation to my comprehension abilities in regarding 'the real world' in which I am 'obviously' not 'anchored' to.

In all sincerity it might be considered a reasonable 'boast' that I am even one of the most Earthed members of this community, given my LOVE for the idea of GOD being 'The Consciousness of The Planet Earth' as my many other posts on this message board bear witness to, most recently this thread.

{Smiles}

The overall problem is the usual one. 2 individuals fail to get on the same page about something before they can discuss/argue/debate anything in any meaningful and upright manner.

Given part of that problem has to do with a barely concealed contempt on the part of the atheist, directed at the theist, it is understandable as to why better fields are continued to be scoped by the theist in order to ascertain wherein the best interaction between individuate consciousnesses might be developed in relation to the bit above, in blue font.

{Pokes the fire with his staff} [Link]

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 167 by Mithrae]

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.

Yes - I had similar impressions (just now) after having read post#166

My thoughts triggered by those impressions are along the lines that there is an undercurrent of a type of contempt the poster is expressing for me (the individual) in relation to my comprehension abilities in regarding 'the real world' in which I am 'obviously' not 'anchored' to.

In all sincerity it might be considered a reasonable 'boast' that I am even one of the most Earthed members of this community, given my LOVE for the idea of GOD being 'The Consciousness of The Planet Earth' as my many other posts on this message board bear witness to, most recently this thread.

{Smiles}

The overall problem is the usual one. 2 individuals fail to get on the same page about something before they can discuss/argue/debate anything in any meaningful and upright manner.

Given part of that problem has to do with a barely concealed contempt on the part of the atheist, directed at the theist, it is understandable as to why better fields are continued to be scoped by the theist in order to ascertain wherein the best interaction between individuate consciousnesses might be developed in relation to the bit above, in blue font.

{Pokes the fire with his staff} [Link]

Why is it that almost without exception, atheists never get offended. People are welcome to pick apart whatever I say, that's what we are here for. Where I am wrong, I immediately admit that I am. If I agree with a point made by the other person, I try to make a point of saying so. If further clarification or definition is required in something that I say, then I simply give it. And if I see no logical fault in what I have said, then I will stoutly defend it, in a coherent, logical manner, providing evidence and examples as necessary. Having a good case, and expressing it well, is the strongest armour that exists.

At no time have I intended to be condescending or disrespectful. But I have been honest, and made a substantial and sincere effort to understand and constructively criticise that which has been presented,which in itself reflects respect. You don't have to agree with the claim that someone is making to respect them.

To Mithrae and William. I knew from outset that discussing Williams Panentheistic ideas was going to be very slow, tough going, because I would boil down and carefully analyse every statement, and I said so way back. In my view, when put under the spotlight, the statements made so far by William simply have not stood scrutiny. I am happy to respectfully continue discussion, but I can't compromise on asking the hard questions, and insisting that vague terms like "consciousness" be properly defined as per what William understands it to mean, and that any claims made of William's understanding of consciousness be supported by evidence. You can't do fairer than that.

I'm happy to start a dedicated thread on "consciousness", if that helps. Personally I have never found anything puzzling or mysterious about it, or at least any more than that we experience emotions. It's pretty obvious that an awareness of ones surroundings, and an ability to "think" are advantageous to survival, and would therefore evolve, I reckon.

[William]

Just to remind the reader that earlier on in this thread I gave links which would serve to assist anyone who conveys an interest in discussion/debate with me regarding the idea, could access in order to understand exactly where I am coming from in regards to what I think of as "Consciousness".

This was done simply for that reason, but I cannot be expected to answer to anyone's complaint that I am not being clear about my position when I afford all opportunity to all who claim to be interested, to find out for themselves by taking advantage of the links provided for that purpose.

The Universe itself may be conscious.

GOD as Consciousness

[ytrewq]

Just to remind the reader that earlier on in this thread I gave links which would serve to assist anyone who conveys an interest in discussion/debate with me regarding the idea, could access in order to understand exactly where I am coming from in regards to what I think of as "Consciousness".

This was done simply for that reason, but I cannot be expected to answer to anyone's complaint that I am not being clear about my position when I afford all opportunity to all who claim to be interested, to find out for themselves by taking advantage of the links provided for that purpose.

The Universe itself may be conscious.

GOD as Consciousness

I suggest you start a dedicated thread so people can discuss your personal religious ideas. I don't in any way want to discourage others from reading the threads you provide, which is another reason why I suggest you start a dedicated thread.

But re our discussions, I need to say again that I have taken the time to follow your links, and find them no more convincing than what you have said directly. For example, the very first line in the discussion attached to the link "GOD as Consciousness" is :-

My own understanding of GOD is closely related to Panpsychism which defines the idea of GOD as Consciousness ...

And we are back right where we started, with you unwilling or unable to explain what your version of "consciousness" actually is, and unwilling or unable to explain what on earth it means to say that "God is consciousness".


And then you go on to say that :-

...and in relation to this universe, understands that there is no place within the universe where consciousness is absent.

I asked previously what that means, and if there is any evidence for it, and you have not responded. Can you understand why I am tearing my hear out ...

I have also stated, that in my view, consciousness exists completely within our physical brain, as do our emotions, and there is not the tiniest shred of evidence demonstrating otherwise, and again your silence has been deafening. Do you agree with me on this, and if not, what evidence can you provide?

William, the ball is in your court, and has been for some time.

[ytrewq]

Just to remind the reader that earlier on in this thread I gave links which would serve to assist anyone who conveys an interest in discussion/debate with me regarding the idea, could access in order to understand exactly where I am coming from in regards to what I think of as "Consciousness".

This was done simply for that reason, but I cannot be expected to answer to anyone's complaint that I am not being clear about my position when I afford all opportunity to all who claim to be interested, to find out for themselves by taking advantage of the links provided for that purpose.

The Universe itself may be conscious.

GOD as Consciousness

OK William, you will be delighted to know that I took a good look at the article linked to in your red link above. To be honest, I was not impressed. Very sensationalist in tone, and totally lacking in any solid detail.

But never let it be said that I am not trying hard to come to grips with your Panentheistic ideas, for I took the trouble to find and read in full the paper that it referred to :-

Can Panpsychism Become an Observational Science?
Gregory L. Matloff

The guy appears to be a respected physicist, and after reading his paper it is clear that he does know his physics.

But to be honest, I found nothing in his paper that had anything to do with consciousness. Basically, all he had to say was that there were certain aspects of (for example) the operation of stars that as yet we don't fully understand. Sure, there are many things that scientists don't as yet fully understand.

And then he went on to say that maybe these not-understood subtle behaviours of stars is because the star is "conscious"!!!!!!

Um, really? No reason given why one would link the stars behaviour to "consciousness" and certainly not even the tiniest bit of evidence to support his ideas. Perhaps he also thinks that stars massively explode as a supernova because they get angry. This would make just as much sense, and there is just as much evidence for it.

Apparently, matter is ejected from "jets" from the star, in such a way as to influence the motion of the star. OK. So what??? Why should we therefore think that the star is "conscious"? No logical reason is given, and no evidence is provided, so in my view his paper is worthless, to put it politely. It sure as heck would not have passed muster in a high-end scientific journal such as "Nature" or "Science".

I don't actually know what your Panentheistic views are, but if you are pinning your hopes on this paper providing logical justification and evidence then you will be disappointed.

[Mithrae]

My own understanding of GOD is closely related to Panpsychism which defines the idea of GOD as Consciousness ...

And we are back right where we started, with you unwilling or unable to explain what your version of "consciousness" actually is, and unwilling or unable to explain what on earth it means to say that "God is consciousness".

And then you go on to say that :-

...and in relation to this universe, understands that there is no place within the universe where consciousness is absent.

I asked previously what that means, and if there is any evidence for it, and you have not responded. Can you understand why I am tearing my hear out ...

I have also stated, that in my view, consciousness exists completely within our physical brain, as do our emotions, and there is not the tiniest shred of evidence demonstrating otherwise, and again your silence has been deafening. Do you agree with me on this, and if not, what evidence can you provide?

William, the ball is in your court, and has been for some time.

Meanwhile, I posted a fairly clear introduction to those concepts on page four of the thread, not only providing an answer to your OP question but challenging some of the underlying assumptions which you seem to be holding on this topic. After twenty days, several reminders and fourteen pages of discussion, you still have proven unable or unwilling to respond... at least beyond the seeming well-poisoning effort of twice calling my conclusions 'religious beliefs.'

[ytrewq]

My own understanding of GOD is closely related to Panpsychism which defines the idea of GOD as Consciousness ...

And we are back right where we started, with you unwilling or unable to explain what your version of "consciousness" actually is, and unwilling or unable to explain what on earth it means to say that "God is consciousness".

And then you go on to say that :-

...and in relation to this universe, understands that there is no place within the universe where consciousness is absent.

I asked previously what that means, and if there is any evidence for it, and you have not responded. Can you understand why I am tearing my hear out ...

I have also stated, that in my view, consciousness exists completely within our physical brain, as do our emotions, and there is not the tiniest shred of evidence demonstrating otherwise, and again your silence has been deafening. Do you agree with me on this, and if not, what evidence can you provide?

William, the ball is in your court, and has been for some time.

Meanwhile, I posted a fairly clear introduction to those concepts on page four of the thread, not only providing an answer to your OP question but challenging some of the underlying assumptions which you seem to be holding on this topic. After twenty days, several reminders and fourteen pages of discussion, you still have proven unable or unwilling to respond... at least beyond the seeming well-poisoning effort of twice calling my conclusions 'religious beliefs.'

How bizarre. Are you replying on William's behalf, or what? In my opinion, we would progress better if you left William to defend his own statements.

I do apologise if I have neglected your postings. My priority so far has been to discuss with William, and you must admit that has progressed slower than hoped or expected. Way back in the thread I spent a vast amount of time responding to Goose because I felt I had a responsibility to do so, and eventually that was resolved. In best faith I am now spending a great deal of time and effort responding to William, and again I feel a responsibility to do so. If and when William and I are finished, then I'm happy to discuss with you. I try my best, honestly I do. And it still seems clear to me that when you get involved with William's discussions about his Panentheistic beliefs, then you are in fact involved in a discussion involving religious ideas, so I don't understand the bee in your bonnet over that.

[William]

[Replying to post 178 by Mithrae]

Meanwhile, I posted a fairly clear introduction to those concepts on page four of the thread, not only providing an answer to your OP question but challenging some of the underlying assumptions which you seem to be holding on this topic. After twenty days, several reminders and fourteen pages of discussion, you still have proven unable or unwilling to respond... at least beyond the seeming well-poisoning effort of twice calling my conclusions 'religious beliefs.'

Yes - it is interesting to observe how the atheist argues for their pet theory that all consciousness is emergent of the brain, as if the theory is the only one which can count in relation to what is observed and how that observation is interpreted.

Even given that there are prominent scientists who do not accept it is their natural 'right' to promote one interpretation of observation over any other, or make claims that they understand Consciousness, let alone that they believe it is or can only be an 'emergent property of brains' doesn't appear to have any effect on atheists.

The likeliest reason for this may be that - as with the idea of the possibility of afterlife - the idea that consciousness might NOT be an emergent property of brains brings focus on the possibility that 'GODs' exist (at least as far as general ideas as to 'what are GODs' go) and this threatens the atheist belief that 'GODS do not exist', because that particular belief is the foundation on which atheism is anchored.

In post#60 I link a short youtube video to one such prominent scientist who speaks about another famous scientist who did indeed have opinions regarding "God and the universe", which shows that while scientists of that caliber might not think too much of ideas of GOD as proselytized by members of organised religion, they do not allow those kind of ideas to muddy the waters sufficiently that they proclaim "GODs do not exist."

In light of how ytrewq is continuing to respond, his definitive position of interpretation and subsequent belief appears as nonnegotiable as any faith-based beliefs are, and thus - be the subject 'consciousness' or 'religion' he appears unable/unwilling to budge a micrometer away from those well set definitions which allow the atheist to remain fixated on GOD being 'dead'.

Understandably, Panentheism (and it's associated 'isms' etc) is a complex subject, as well it must be due to the complicated nature of this reality we are finding ourselves locked within.

That is why, when it became apparent that the OP author made noises signifying his interest in another theist perspective, I gave him an extensive amount of internal links (all from my Members Notes) in post#135 in which he could choose to school up on in order to at least make an attempt at understanding where I personally am coming from.
The subject of "Consciousness" is far too complex for a simplified (and strangely pro-atheist) dictionary interpretation. Far too complex. Every good scientist understands that about the nature of Consciousness. It cannot just be hand-waved away by sloppy atheism on account that it threatens their belief that GODs do not exist.

Until that wall is breached willfully by the atheist, there is nothing more that this theist can offer in the way of reasonable argument when unreasonable walls are built to protect those atheist beliefs from said arguments.