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?

[Swami]

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?

Your options clearly leave out ideas from some of the major Eastern religions. From my understanding of Hinduism, Yoga, and Buddhism, God is nothing more than pure awareness or consciousness that pervades the entire Universe. It is boundless and formless. All forms or matter emerge from this source. This is what it means to say that consciousness exists everywhere or is part of everything.

You have questioned and disagreed with some of these points perhaps wanting to stay in line with the materialist belief that consciousness is only a brain process. Your view is short-sighted. As William and others have brought up, consciousness is really God or the source that underlies the entire physical Universe. That's much more than a brain isn't it. The individual consciousness that you associate with a brain is simply a limited expression of God - it is how consciousness is expressed in the system of the brain. But thankfully, the Eastern mystics long ago discovered a way (meditation) to access higher levels of consciousness which led to the insight that consciousness is more than just the body. Its (consciousness) true nature or full expression is boundless, formless, and pure awareness. Anything short of that is simply a failure to perceive reality as it is.

So you might ask what is the evidence for all of this? My answer is "experience" through meditative practices. Science has proven that meditation is a tool to access higher states of consciousness, change brain structure, etc. I devoted an entire topic on meditation as a tool of knowledge here... Using field research (Meditation) to discover Consciousness.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 181 by Razorsedge]

That's much more than a brain isn't it.

Can you substantiate this claim? It's one thing to simply say it's much more than a brain, but to date, no-one has shown me a consciousness that does not reside within a physical shell of some kind.

But thankfully, the Eastern mystics long ago discovered a way (meditation) to access higher levels of consciousness which led to the insight that consciousness is more than just the body.

I've been a practitioner of meditation for close to twenty years. Not once have I experienced anything like you describe.

[William]

[Replying to post 182 by rikuoamero]

As William and others have brought up, consciousness is really God or the source that underlies the entire physical Universe. That's much more than a brain isn't it. The individual consciousness that you associate with a brain is simply a limited expression of God -

Can you substantiate this claim? It's one thing to simply say it's much more than a brain, but to date, no-one has shown me a consciousness that does not reside within a physical shell of some kind.

Can you categorically show that the universe (or for that matter - The Planet Earth) is NOT a type of body/brain or WHY that it cannot be regarded as a type of brain in which consciousness can utilize?

Because you are half-way there already in acknowledging that 'a physical shell of some kind' is necessary for consciousness to experience the universe and express itself creatively through, which is all that I and others are saying anyway.

The fact of the matter is, that this is how consciousness or the universe is acknowledged. Through the fact that consciousness actually exists in this universe.

The Earth is no different from humans in this regard.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 181 by Razorsedge]

That's much more than a brain isn't it.

Can you substantiate this claim? It's one thing to simply say it's much more than a brain, but to date, no-one has shown me a consciousness that does not reside within a physical shell of some kind.

Strictly speaking no-one has ever shown you a consciousness at all, since it cannot be observed or directly detected, only inferred by analogy from similarities of structure (eg. neural networks) and behaviour (eg. appropriate response to stimuli). Such analogy becomes increasingly weak as similarities decrease; we reasonably suppose that dogs are conscious, and probably fish, but insects...? However even if all widely accepted examples of consciousness were represented by a strong, clear-cut analogue, the reasoning still wouldn't work in reverse; that would simply be denying the antecedant.

Thus unless we one day either a) find some way of directly detecting consciousness, or b) fully understand how it comes to be such that we no longer rely on inference to guess at its presence, the view that consciousness is absent from an amoeba or tree or planet or galaxy is simply an unsubstantiated assumption. It differs from the assumption that consciousness is universally present primarily in the fact that consciousness is the most basic and certain fact known to us, whereas the notion of some other type of stuff - "fysical" stuff - seems to be pure speculation. Even physicists have spent the better part of a century trying to disabuse us of the notion that what we see and touch bears any but the most tenuous similarities to the level of reality which they're able to study.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 184 by Mithrae]

Strictly speaking no-one has ever shown you a consciousness at all, since it cannot be observed or directly detected,

True...I can't disagree with this.

However even if all widely accepted examples of consciousness were represented by a strong, clear-cut analogue, the reasoning still wouldn't work in reverse; that would simply be denying the antecedant.

I am not denying that consciousnesses could exist sans shell...I am merely pointing out that any and all times I have been shown things that are called a consciousness, it has always existed with said shell. Indeed, it's at the point (at least for me) that it seems like a shell is a necessary component (for lack of a better word) for a consciousness. If one is going to argue the opposite, then one requires evidence.

the view that consciousness is absent from an amoeba or tree or planet or galaxy is simply an unsubstantiated assumption.

Except these things generally speaking do not act at all like any of the other things that you and I might agree have a consciousness. I have a consciousness (at least I hope I do! and that you agree with that), and as such I can decide to move where I want to, such as whether to stay in my room or go outside. Do we have any examples of planets deciding to move hither and thither, under their own power? Last I checked, the movement of planets is all down to gravity.

[William]

[Replying to post 185 by rikuoamero]

Except these things generally speaking do not act at all like any of the other things that you and I might agree have a consciousness. I have a consciousness (at least I hope I do! and that you agree with that), and as such I can decide to move where I want to, such as whether to stay in my room or go outside. Do we have any examples of planets deciding to move hither and thither, under their own power? Last I checked, the movement of planets is all down to gravity.

In your conflating consciousness with form and function of said form, you are doing what the Abrhamites do, which is to say that something must be able to speak and move where it wants to in order for it to be said to be displaying consciousness. (thus their 'images' of their idea of GOD.)

Do you not understand that in your arguing that the planet cannot be conscious 'because' there is no way you know of where IT can speak to you, and 'because' it is bound to the dynamics of the rest of the universe, you are basically saying that we ON that planet IN that universe have the exact same restrictions, yet you would not argue that WE are not able to display consciousness.

The universe does indeed 'speak' about itself in its actions and this is how human beings learn about it. That is how it communicates with us. Or one particular way in which it does.
Of course how we each CHOOSE to interpret what is being communicated to us, is the debatable thing.

But claiming it does not is very misleading, and the mislead are mislead by the very act of incorrect interpretation.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 184 by Mithrae]

Strictly speaking no-one has ever shown you a consciousness at all, since it cannot be observed or directly detected,

True...I can't disagree with this.

However even if all widely accepted examples of consciousness were represented by a strong, clear-cut analogue, the reasoning still wouldn't work in reverse; that would simply be denying the antecedant.

I am not denying that consciousnesses could exist sans shell...I am merely pointing out that any and all times I have been shown things that are called a consciousness, it has always existed with said shell. Indeed, it's at the point (at least for me) that it seems like a shell is a necessary component (for lack of a better word) for a consciousness. If one is going to argue the opposite, then one requires evidence.

All opinions should be supported by evidence, ideally, but you have it backwards here: You're the one introducing the concept of this 'shell,' something other than consciousness and somehow preceding or underlying it. We know that consciousness is a real thing, a viable concept from which we might extrapolate; that's the most certain thing I possibly can know - I think, therefore I am. But some kind of stuff distinct from and preceding consciousness? Where's the evidence for that? Seeing and hearing and touching are sensations or perceptions in the mind, hardly the best basis for claiming that it is the mind which is the dependent entity in the equation; and not only that, but our most knowledgeable scientists have been telling us for nigh on a century that the sights and sounds and feelings we perceive don't even have a recognizable similarity to the level of reality they're capable of studying at all! It seems far more plausible to suppose that the reality we perceive is an expression or product of consciousness - presumably consciousness similar to but far vaster than our own - than to imagine that some particular fragments of a hypothetical fysical reality somehow, by means unknown (AKA magic) managed to produce and act as a 'shell' for this supposedly unique subjective phenomenon.

the view that consciousness is absent from an amoeba or tree or planet or galaxy is simply an unsubstantiated assumption.

Except these things generally speaking do not act at all like any of the other things that you and I might agree have a consciousness. I have a consciousness (at least I hope I do! and that you agree with that), and as such I can decide to move where I want to, such as whether to stay in my room or go outside. Do we have any examples of planets deciding to move hither and thither, under their own power? Last I checked, the movement of planets is all down to gravity.

This is simply denying the antecedent, as I said. We reason that if it looks and acts similar to a conscious being - namely ourselves - it probably has consciousness itself; first of our family, then other humans, then dogs... But just because if P then Q, doesn't mean -P implies -Q. Just because something has dissimilar structure and behaviour to 'known' conscious beings does not imply (at all) that it doesn't have consciousness. That is a basic logical fallacy.

With that said, things like amoeba and trees obviously share with us the important structural characteristics of being living organic beings and, by responding to external stimuli, also demonstrate the key behavioural characteristic of consciousness: According to ytrewq's authoritative Oxford definition in post #156, consciousness is "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings." So there really does not seem to be any basis for supposing that amoeba and trees are not conscious beings besides the assumption that consciousness is produced by brains, which would be circular reasoning. On the contrary, single-celled organisms which sense and actively respond to their environment provide us with at least prima facie grounds for supposing that consciousness can and does exist without brains.

Similarly in the case of our particular planet, at least, despite much greater structual dissimilarities:

More for the sake of argument than anything else - questioning our common assumptions about consciousness - I've occasionally mused on the forum whether the earth as a whole might be perceived as a conscious being. After all if we were looking at it over the aeons, from a broader perspective than we normally do as evolved organic beings, what we'd see is many of the same characteristics we otherwise associate with consciousness in our fellow organic beings: Apparent long-term intentionality in the evolution of 'higher' life-forms, response and adaptation to external stimuli (eg. asteroid impacts), short-term unpredictability (eg. 'chaotic' weather patterns) and even some degree of homeostatic control (eg. ratios of predator to prey to producer species). Granted on the scale from which we study these phenomena it seems appropriate to view them as blind, mechanistic processes; but then many folk suppose that on the scale of electrochemical neural impulses our own consciousness is blindly mechanistic too! The planet has a respiratory system in its plants, circulatory system in its oceans, and if humans or some later species ever leave Earth and terraform other planets in its image it could even be viewed as a form of reproduction, making it a contender for meeting most formal criteria of 'life.'

[ytrewq]

Gentlemen, I would like to gently bring you back to reality.

There is overwhelming, verifiable evidence available showing that our consciousness, as with our emotions and thoughts, reside completely inside our brain, and not outside of it.

I present the following as as verifiable facts, not wishy-washy opinion.

It is a fact that things that physically affect our brain also affect our consciousness. Drugs that circulate through the brain can massively affect our consciousness, from altering our emotions, to putting us in psychotic states, to making us feel drowsy to making us unconscious. That, my friends, is a fact.

Another fact is that a hard blow to the brain via the head also massively affects our consciousness, from (hopefully temporarily) interfering with clear thought and memory, through to complete unconsciousness.

It is also a fact that putting needles into parts of our brain alters our consciousness, in different ways depending on where the needles are placed, and if the brain is sufficiently damaged then the nature of our consciousness can be permanently altered, or we lose consciousness forever. That is also a fact

As if the above is not enough to tell us beyond doubt where our consciousness resides, it is also a fact that the environment surrounding our head does not alter our consciousness, except in as much as we can sense our environment via receptors that in turn send information to the brain. We can heat the environment nearby our brain to 10,000 DegC and, provided the said heat is insulated from our receptors, this does not in any way affect our consciousness. This is a fact. We can irradiate the region outside our head with lethal X-rays or other electromagnetic radiation or particle beams or anything and everything known and, provided our head and brain and receptors are shielded from it, then it does not affect our consciousness.

It is also a fact that the "consciousness" of one person has never been demonstrated to be detectable by another person.

How much frigging evidence do you want, or are you simply blind to the overwhelming evidence already available?

As above, there is overwhelming, verifiable evidence available showing that our consciousness, as with our emotions and thoughts, reside completely inside our brain, and not outside of it.
If anyone can show fault in the factual evidence given above, then please do so now or cease making ridiculous statements.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 181 by Razorsedge]

That's much more than a brain isn't it.

Can you substantiate this claim? It's one thing to simply say it's much more than a brain, but to date, no-one has shown me a consciousness that does not reside within a physical shell of some kind.

I can prove it. However, I use Eastern science to do so. As I stated before, consciousness is not limited to the brain so trying to understand it within that confine will only get you a piece of the puzzle, at best. If you follow consciousness to its fullest and purest expression then it will lead you to the very nature of reality.

I've been a practitioner of meditation for close to twenty years. Not once have I experienced anything like you describe.

Everything I told you can be experienced by anyone.

The first insight that anyone would gain from meditation is that you can have consciousness without mind. This happens when you clear your mind of all thought which is one way to do meditation.

The second insight is that you can have consciousness beyond or outside the body. This happens when you have a transcendent experience or even an OBE. Here's one example of a transcendent experience:

I was meditating one late afternoon when I began to settle down much more deeply than usual. As I became more and more still, all thoughts and feelings settled and I was left in a deep quietness. All familiar boundaries that defined where I was and what time it was, and even who I was, began to fade from awareness and dissolve altogether. I was still awake and yet all that remained was my own wakefulness. The being of my wakefulness and the wakefulness of my being was what filled my awareness. There was nothing else. No trace of thought or memory entered into my awareness: even the sense of my body and its position in space had vanished. It’s not that I missed these things. It simply did not enter my awareness to miss them or not to miss them.

pdf: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ajklalr5kb

[ytrewq]

The second insight is that consciousness is not limited to brain or body.

I'm sorry, but there is overwhelming evidence that consciousness resides within the brain, and not outside of it. Please read my posting #188

What you might personally "feel" re where your consciousness is while in some psychotic state provides no evidence of anything and is irrelevant.