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?

[William]

[Replying to post 268 by ytrewq]

Well yes, I don't dispute that people report these perceptions.

But are they real, or are they just perceptions?

Consciousness is that which decides and in relation to that, any reality can only be subjectively experienced by consciousness. That makes subjective experience real.

It can only ever be decided by the individual as to whether their subjective experience is real, or not.

[Zzyzx]

.
Throughout history people have pretended or claimed to know about 'gods' -- thousands of them proposed. Stories have been told, retold, and sometimes written. However, actual evidence that anyone knows about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities is LACKING.

Beliefs, testimonials, opinions, tall tales do not constitute verifiable evidence.

Attempts to determine whether 'gods' are physical, mental, spiritual are wasted unless they can be shown to exist in ANY form.

[William]

[Replying to post 271 by Zzyzx]

Throughout history people have pretended or claimed to know about 'gods' -- thousands of them proposed. Stories have been told, retold, and sometimes written. However, actual evidence that anyone knows about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities is LACKING.

Panentheism itself does not proclaim the existence of so-called supernatural entities. Everything is - quote - "natural".

My specific understanding regarding the invisible attribute of consciousness is that it is detectable in this universe through form. The form is natural and the consciousness occupying the form is natural.

The unnatural may be found in the way consciousness reacts through the form in a way which works against nature rather than with nature, causing disruption to nature, but that is unnatural not supernatural.

[ttruscott]

Are Gods physical?


There are no real Gods, only the one true living GOD. Has anyone said, "Only if HE wants to..."?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 266 by Razorsedge]

I've been open to the astral body being physical but that is not my experience because no one sees it. If it were physical, then that would be easier to deal with in scientific terms. The text says it is made out of the same stuff as the mind so I presume it's just as unobservable as our thoughts or consciousness.

Then it's not physical and cannot interact with or respond to things that are physical. I can mentally create a 'body' of a leprechaun that dances all around my bedroom right now...but lo and behold, the physical objects in my bedroom are completely undisturbed.

The text is saying that the soul is able to perceive imagery, sound, etc. How it perceives is another matter. This is why I brought up introspection because that also involves perception of sound, imagery, sensations without any physical stimuli and sensory organs.

Are you claiming that a deaf person, or a person without ears, can perceive music playing, be able to tell us the piece of music being played...simply by thinking about it?

There aren't any strict rules or laws of physics in reality. At some levels of reality that I've experienced, there aren't any laws of physics like what we have. At most, they're just constructs of "our" mind, otherwise we can make our own rules and objects behave based on how you think.

Then anything and everything you say is completely arbitrary.

Likely not but I have no experience of that part. Gases have no definite form. The author might have been using the closest physical analogy to describe his experience.

So then neither you nor I know what the author meant.

Don't simply go by what I say. I encourage you to experience it for yourself!

Much like I've had to tell Christians over and over throughout the years whenever they suggest to me to pray to God...what makes you think I haven't tried?

From there you can see patterns, consistencies, and derive an understanding from that.

You just said, a few lines up above
There aren't any strict rules or laws of physics in reality. At some levels of reality that I've experienced, there aren't any laws of physics like what we have. At most, they're just constructs of "our" mind, otherwise we can make our own rules and objects behave based on how you think.
We would need rules or laws in order for patterns and consistencies to emerge, to be able to derive understanding. The fact that in the real world, reality behaves according to laws that we are able to discover is just how we're able to understand reality at all.
So which is it? Rules and laws thus begetting patterns, consistencies and understanding...or no rules and laws?

What I'm interested in is the process of science, which is to apply empirical standards to any subject matter. Judging ideas as false solely because it doesn't square with a narrative is not science.

I'm not saying that it's wrong for not squaring with a narrative. I'm saying it's wrong because it would mean that it's all one giant mess of coincidences whenever medical doctors try to heal vision by doing something to someone's eyes.
How is your approach empiricist in nature? You contradict yourself by insisting that there aren't any rules or laws.

The 'silver cord' is completely non-physical or it is physical unlike anything else we've discovered so far. But it is undeniable that many people see it connected to their body while in an OBE state. I brought it up as part of my explanation because it may show that being out-of-body does not necessarily mean being separate from it. In other words, you can be out-of-body but still connected to it via the silver cord. Sensory and other types of information may very well be transmitted between the two bodies (human and astral body) via this cord.

This is you telling me what the silver cord is (or what you think it to be), which is not what I asked for. I asked you to demonstrate the existence of this cord. I reject the claim that 'sensory information may be transmitted' until or unless you do this.

The definition is fairly simple. When I Google "introspection" this comes up:"the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes." Observation has to do with perception, but of course in this case its perception without the senses. And as one topic from the Science section brings up, it's a perception or observation involving imagery and sound, just like your dreams would have.

Okay then. Here's a challenge for you. Via introspection alone, please detail the objects on my desk. In fact, I'll make it a bit simpler for you. Give me the title and author of the two books that are currently on my desk.
Normally, this question of me to you would be unfair, as after all, you don't know who I am or where I am, nor can you see my desk. You would have to be physically present in my room, focusing your sight on my desk. However, these limitations do not necessarily apply to introspection. Apparently, according to what you've been saying, one can learn things about the wider world via introspection.

There are many different types of meditation.

Presuming I haven't tried different types...

f you say that you don't want to experience these things, which appears to the case,

Far from it. I'm saying that 'these things' are apparently completely unevidenced.

then it's safe to say that you aren't looking for proof.

Wrong.

But from this you will only get a superficial understanding of consciousness and it shows since your scientists are stumped. The Eastern approach is a critical first-person approach. The Eastern mystics have the proof but this "proof" has to be experienced.

And yet according to you, there are no rules or laws or consistency, so why even bother, since without consistency there can be no understanding?

This may not be the case in other systems. Your view may simply be based off of current technological limitations no different than an ancient caveman saying he could never fly to the moon.

Light is very well understood by scientists (albeit we are stuck at the particle+wave duality). A caveman understands very little about his world, so this is a false comparison. A caveman understands nothing at all about chemistry or physics or even what the moon is. He has no understanding that he has to reach escape velocity to escape the Earth's gravity, he has no inkling as to what escape velocity or gravity are.
Please do not insult my intelligence again.

Right now I'm thinking of how a camera doesn't need sensory organs to capture and process images.

Please look at this.
https://thinklucid.com/tech-briefs/unde ... e-sensors/


Cameras have sensors. They're not biological, but still sensors never the less.

Technically, a computer only sees digital code but if we were building a robot I'm sure it could be hooked up to camera to process visual information.

Or it could be fed data about its environment via some other tools. Thing is, all those techniques, tools and equipment can be demonstrated to exist.

The Wheel of Time book series? I haven't read them nor have I thought of applying any technique from it. I'm willing to try it out.

Then you get the bonus points. At least you would, since I'm guessing that by your admission of not having read the books, this indicates to me that you just googled the phrase.

As I mentioned before, not knowing how something works does not mean that it doesn't work.

But we do know how it works. We do know that sight involves light. Just like I understand very well what it takes to get Metro Exodus playing at 4K resolution at 144 frames per second with ray tracing on, and asking to see what hardware your computer has. After saying to me you don't have a gaming computer, then this is why I I raise a very skeptical eyebrow at the initial claim. Simply blustering that I "don't know how it works" doesn't make up for the fact that you don't have the required hardware, nor any evidence that any of what you say is true.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 268 by ytrewq]

Well yes, I don't dispute that people report these perceptions.

But are they real, or are they just perceptions?

Consciousness is that which decides and in relation to that, any reality can only be subjectively experienced by consciousness. That makes subjective experience real.

It can only ever be decided by the individual as to whether their subjective experience is real, or not.

For me, this is the most extraordinary, most telling, reply for the whole thread.

First you say that reality can only be subjectively experienced by consciousness.

Yes, I agree with that. Frequently our experience of reality is indeed subjective rather that objective - that't the whole point I have been making. And specifically in terms of your meditation experiences, your perceptions are indeed a subjective rather than objective measure of reality. Totally agreed.

But then you contradict yourself by saying That makes subjective experience real.

What!? Subjective experiences are real because reality can only be subjectively experienced? That's as nutty as it is contradictory.


Anyway, let's go on to look at your statement that subjective experience are real, which is easily disproved.

Dreams are a subjective experience, therefore you would claim they are real. That's nuts.

When we watch a magician show then we are subjectively led to believe that the amazing feats are real. By your reasoning, the magicians feats therefore are real. That's nuts.

If I'm in the audience watching a tennis match, then I might subjectively judge that a certain ball hit by a player lands inside of the court. By your reasoning, therefore it did, and what anyone else thinks does not matter, for it is only the person who subjectively experiences something that can decide if the subjective experience is real - your words. That's nuts. If the video referee (quantitative evidence) says that actually it landed outside of the court, then that doesn't count, because because reality is judged by my subjective experience of where the ball landed. That's nuts.

If during meditation, you subjectively perceive that your consciousness and visual senses moved around outside your body, then that is real. That's nuts.

I can only respond to what you wrote, William.

[William]

Sorry premature post...still working on it...

[William]

[Replying to post 275 by ytrewq]

What!? Subjective experiences are real because reality can only be subjectively experienced?

Subjective experiences are deemed real or not through consciousness. Consciousness is real, and consciousness decides what is real and what is not.

Consciousness only experiences subjectively. Even objectivity is subject to subjectivity.

Dreams are a subjective experience, therefore you would claim they are real.

I am saying they are experienced as being real.

When we watch a magician show then we are subjectively led to believe that the amazing feats are real. By your reasoning, the magicians feats therefore are real.

Yes. In the case of the magician, the feats of illusion are real.

From the magicians subjective pov he has the inside understanding of how the illusion is created and that is the reality the magician subjectively experiences.
From the audiences pov, they each have a similar understanding that the are experiencing an illusion, and that experience is real from each of their subjective pov.

If I'm in the audience watching a tennis match, then I might subjectively judge that a certain ball hit by a player lands inside of the court.

Indeed, you might.

By your reasoning, therefore it did,

No. By your interpretation of the subjectively experienced event, it did. I wasn't there.

By your reasoning, therefore it did, and what anyone else thinks does not matter, for it is only the person who subjectively experiences something that can decide if the subjective experience is real - your words.

For everyone there watching the same match, it does indeed matter. You forget that every individual is subjectively experiencing something, not just you. Thus everyone there can also decide that their subjective experience about where the ball landed is real.

If the video referee (quantitative evidence) says that actually it landed outside of the court, then that doesn't count, because because reality is judged by my subjective experience of where the ball landed.

You forget then.

If you believe what you saw was the truth of the matter, and then you are shown something which is evidence to the contrary, then you are in every moment of that process experiencing what is real. Your interpretation of what was really experienced is shown to be false, but the experience nonetheless was still real.

What I have been arguing is that it is consciousness and only consciousness which gets to make the call. The Universe doesn't say to itself "Hey - I wonder if I am real". Rather consciousness experiencing the Universe is that which decides.

The ball in the tennis court does not wonder if it is real. Rather consciousness experiencing the ball and the tennis court is that which decides.

The same applies to magicians illusions.

One can argue therefore that consciousness decides everything it experiences is real.

If you experience a dream, you experience a real dream. You experience the dream as real.

If you experience an illusion, you experience a real illusion.

This is partially why the Simulation Theory is gaining traction in more and more scientific circles.

The overall point is that Consciousness cannot be objectified. It experiences the objective and can even interpret the objective experience as "real" - as something It and it alone can make the call on. The reality is, ONLY consciousness itself can be deemed real, and understand itself as being real. Everything it experiences cannot so easily be proven to actually being real.

Many clever scientists are acknowledging that fact.

Unlike atheists, they do not declare that the Universe cannot possibly be a simulation.

What atheists do is argue from the premise that "GODs do not exist". They are like the observers who declare that what they observed was the subject asleep, so that when the subject declared he experienced fighting and defeating a monster and the experience was real, the observers declare that this is not how they saw the event, and they show the subject a video where the evidence supports their observations.

The subject might then agree with the observers that what he experienced was not 'actually' real, but 'just' a dream which at the time 'appeared' to be real.

Meantime, in another reality matrix where consciousness might be observing this one, what is observed there, is that all those within the simulation being observed are assuming the experience is 'real' and thus what the dreamer defeating the monster experienced as real, was as real as the dreamers experiencing observing the dreamer was.

The only real thing happening in all of that, is consciousness making determinations.

Therefore only Consciousness is actually real. "Things" are not real, but CAN BE EXPERIENCED as real.

This is how skilled Panentheists understand reality.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 266 by Razorsedge]

I've been open to the astral body being physical but that is not my experience because no one sees it. If it were physical, then that would be easier to deal with in scientific terms. The text says it is made out of the same stuff as the mind so I presume it's just as unobservable as our thoughts or consciousness.

Then it's not physical and cannot interact with or respond to things that are physical. I can mentally create a 'body' of a leprechaun that dances all around my bedroom right now...but lo and behold, the physical objects in my bedroom are completely undisturbed.

Your question is similar to what philosophers of mind ask about consciousness so it's just like the 'hard problem'. Like the soul, consciousness can not be observed, at least not directly. The same goes for subjective experience, in general. If it's physical, then why can't it be observed? Either way, scientists do not deny that consciousness and brain can't interact like you did.

But I will admit that there's much more evidence for subjective phenomena, consciousness included, than there is for a soul type body.