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 130 by dio9]

we have something in us called a conscience.

Panentheism would state it this way;

We do not have consciousness, we ARE consciousness.

As far as conscience goes, that is an aspect of consciousness, and varies from individual to individual.

[William]

[Replying to post 70 by ytrewq]

I am actually very happy to give more thought to the Panenethiest idea. To be honest, the only reason I have not been able to give the panentheist postings the time and responses they deserve, is because others were endlessly wasting time arguing that "God consists of God" (what a surprise) and the like. There does reach a point beyond where reasoned, logical discussion becomes impossible.

My guess is it will be very slow going, because for me, at all times the debate needs to be anchored firmly to known reality, meaning widely accepted modern knowledge.

But I'm happy to give it a go. Maybe it makes more sense than the Christian God, I sure hope so. You have obviously thought about it a lot ....

Cheers

Well the smoke seems to have cleared somewhat. Are you still up for it ytrewq?

[dio9]

[Replying to William]

How about consciousness, one might say not everyone is truly conscious.We humans have to work to have pure consciousness. Maybe pure consciousness is God. We mortals can touch this , and be imbued with it, . (In my opinion) We are really talking here about where the spiritual meets the physical. Like is consciousness greater then our limited touch of it? I think it is. One might say this greater consciousness is the prime directive incorporated in our bodies and conscious of by our minds. Spiritual and physical are like the mind and body. Where the greater spiritual consciousness becomes and acts through the physical. Is God physical, well yes and no depending on the human.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 70 by ytrewq]

I am actually very happy to give more thought to the Panenethiest idea ...

My guess is it will be very slow going, because for me, at all times the debate needs to be anchored firmly to known reality, meaning widely accepted modern knowledge.

But I'm happy to give it a go. Maybe it makes more sense than the Christian God, I sure hope so. You have obviously thought about it a lot ....

Cheers

Well the smoke seems to have cleared somewhat. Are you still up for it ytrewq?

Yes, the question of the material composition of God(s) appears to be still valid, and the only answer so far, really, is that no one knows what the Christian God is composed of. Saying God is made of 'spirit" or something similar leads nowhere, as on careful questioning no one can tell us what "spirit" is either. Not a very satisfactory state of affairs, IMO.

But then you chime in with the completely different Panentheistic approach, where "God" and the matter within out universe are one and the same. This promises to get around some of the unknowns and problems and absurdities of the Christian God, but maybe it simply swaps those problems for other problems.

But I'm willing to consider it, remembering that all that is proposed will need to be tied back to reality, meaning widely accepted modern knowledge.

For example, if you use a word like "imbued" or "spirit" or "spiritual" then you will need to tell me what it actually means, with some supporting evidence, or otherwise I will reject it as meaningless. In other words, I won't let you simply make stuff up and talk in terms of meaningless fluff the way that some Christians do.

So tell me more about Panentheism. Do you believe in a "mainstream Panentheism", or do you have your own particular take on it?

[William]

[Replying to post 134 by ytrewq]

Well the smoke seems to have cleared somewhat. Are you still up for it ytrewq?

But then you chime in with the completely different Panentheistic approach, where "God" and the matter within out universe are one and the same. This promises to get around some of the unknowns and problems and absurdities of the Christian God, but maybe it simply swaps those problems for other problems.

We shall have to see if that is going to be the case.

But I'm willing to consider it, remembering that all that is proposed will need to be tied back to reality, meaning widely accepted modern knowledge.

That tends to be what Panentheism tries to achieve, yes.

For example, if you use a word like "imbued" or "spirit" or "spiritual" then you will need to tell me what it actually means, with some supporting evidence, or otherwise I will reject it as meaningless. In other words, I won't let you simply make stuff up and talk in terms of meaningless fluff the way that Christians do.

So tell me more about Panentheism. Do you believe in a "mainstream Panentheism", or do you have your own particular take on it?

I do not know of this "mainstream Panentheism" you mention. I call myself a Panentheist because it matches the closest with my own idea of GOD/theology, and I find that most folk seem to require some kind of identified position re those they interact with in such circumstances.

As far as the idea of 'spirit' goes, I see that as the same thing as consciousness. Thus we are consciousness in a material world.

Since those two are experienced as existing, thus it 'ties back to reality' as you put it.

I have many links to posts on this message board covering subjects I think have to do with Panentheism, which you can refer to is you wish. Call it a resource in relation to who you are interacting with.

[center]Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD[/center]


Wikipedia re: Panpsychism.

The Universe itself may be conscious.

{From the link}

For quite some time, scientists have been working to understand the universe, where it came from, and why we are here. However, they have often come up short until now. The scientist responsible for such a notion is Gregory Matloff, and his ideas are shocking, to say the least.

According to Matloff, a physicist at New York City College of Technology, in his recently published paper, humans could be like the rest of the universe, in substance and in spirit. Futurism reported that a proto-consciousness field could extend throughout all space. Basically, in lamens terms, the entire cosmos could be self-aware.

I doubt this is something most scientists think of as possible, but there is no reason to believe it couldn't be this. I think it is. It makes sense.


The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

Conference of neuro-Anatomiste Jill Bolte Taylor = "My Stroke of Insight".

GOD as Consciousness

Seeing GOD in all religions - Adhering to none

Evidence of Design

Evidence of the nature of GOD within the design of the universe

Panpsychism re empirical data and evidence

The universe does need a creator in order to exist

A creator without a beginning

Communicating with the local GOD at an individual level.

Why call it 'GOD'?

The process of Consciousness Divesting into form - Looking for GOD in all the right places

Reconciling religious ideas of GOD with the Earth Entity

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

Explaining Solipsism in relation to Pantheism

Fractals give a great visual of the processes of GOD+Creativity&Exploration

"God isn't very bright and is using a trial and error method of trying to design things" How Pantheism deals with such a notion.

The mind of First Source GOD is not outside of the consciousness of First Source.

We are GOD removing Itself from the knowledge of Itself in order to experience that condition

Thread - Panentheism

Thread - Can you be a Panentheist and a Christian?

GOD = Consciousness in all things - throughout the universe (and likely beyond)

Intelligent design or random probability?

Best Options or Suppressed Options?

Which came first- the material [chicken] or the material [egg]? Most likely it was the non-material.

The Breath of GOD...what is it?

If you think about consciousness long enough, you either become a panpsychist or you go into administration.~ John Perry

Pantheism does recognize morality as more than 'human-ape' opinion.

The Ghost In The Machine

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 135 by William]

I call myself a Panentheist because it matches the closest with my own idea of GOD/theology, and I find that most folk seem to require some kind of identified position re those they interact with in such circumstances.

Already I am concerned that you are going about things backwards. You already have ideas about and a need for God, and then you try hard to make Panentheism explain and justify your God/theistic ideas. That is certainly not how science works, where scientists are guided purely by the evidence, and don't try to bend the science to fit or justify something they want to believe, but have no evidence for. If I was to believe in a God, it would because clear evidence had been found for one, but no such evidence has ever been found, and thus I do not believe that Gods exist. I have no desire that Gods or any other part of 'theology" exists, so have no intention of trying to find or explain such things, any more than I would "try" to find and explain fairies or leprechauns. When one seeks truth, the order of operations is important.

As far as the idea of 'spirit' goes, I see that as the same thing as consciousness. Thus we are consciousness in a material world.

Now we need to be clear from the start that "consciousness" belongs in Category "C" in my original posting, and thus has no existence in it's own right. To say that 'we ARE consciousness" makes no more sense than saying that we are love or we are pain. Similarly, in terms of the OP, it makes no sense to say that a God is, or is made from, consciousness either. And consistent with this, we are not conscious when we are asleep, and you are presumably not suggesting that we or God suddenly ceases to exist when we are asleep.

So let's get it straight from the outset. Consciousness does not exist outside of our physical head, it is but a state of mind, not unlike love or pain, and it is thus nonsense to say stuff like "We are consciousness".

[William]

[Replying to post 136 by ytrewq]

Already I am concerned that you are going about things backwards. You already have ideas about and a need for God, and then you try hard to make Panentheism explain and justify your God/theistic ideas. That is certainly not how science works, where scientists are guided purely by the evidence, and don't try to bend the science to fit or justify something they want to believe, but have no evidence for. If I was to believe in a God, it would because clear evidence had been found for one, but no such evidence has ever been found, and thus I do not believe that Gods exist.

I am one who accepts that theological concepts are not ordinarily something scientific process can evaluate very easily, unless the claims made through theology are things which science can evaluate.
When it comes to claims such as you own above, where in your case you would not accept the existence of GOD unless you had clear evidence shown to you for the existence of GOD, I am entitled to ask you exactly what you would expect that evidence to be, and why you would expect that evidence to be what you expected it to be.

If you have no idea of what that evidence would possibly be, then I would suggest that it is you who are...how did you word it again? Oh yeah..."going about things backwards".

But we shall see. It might be a case of you having definite ideas as to what you think GOD should be, in relation to what you think should be clearly evidence for that GOD.

But in all my years of debating here, I have yet to find anyone who can successfully say what that evidence might be - what you would expect it to be...from those who claim it is their right to demand said "evidence".

I call "fallacy' on that.

I have no desire that Gods or any other part of 'theology" exists, so have no intention of trying to find or explain such things, any more than I would "try" to find and explain fairies or leprechauns. When one seeks truth, the order of operations is important.

Perhaps your atheist brethren have convinced you that the subject of GOD is like unto the subject of fairies or leprechauns, I don't know. This too is oft enough thrown into arguments of this nature as if they have something to do with each other. GOD - and leprechauns.

Perhaps in relation to some ideas of GOD, but not in relation to the Panentheist idea of GOD.

If you think otherwise, then you will need to explain why you are wanting to use that as argument.
Q: What is the relevance you see in it, that you choose to use the argument?

As far as the idea of 'spirit' goes, I see that as the same thing as consciousness. Thus we are consciousness in a material world.

Now we need to be clear from the start that "consciousness" belongs in Category "C" in my original posting, and thus has no existence in it's own right.

Okay lets take a look at that;

(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.

So coupling that with your statement, what can be seen here?

You appear to be claiming that none of these things can be said to exist IN physical form, therefore they do not exist, and that they only "do not exist" - "in there own right". You may want to adjust your claims so that they are not so confusing to the reader ytrewq. It (whatever 'it' is) cannot both exist and 'not really exist'. Except in the case where individuate CONSCIOUSNESS decides for itself, that something which appears to exist doesn't actually exist.

It seems an absurd belief to adopt in my mind that Consciousness (Aka GOD re Panentheism), let alone individuate Consciousnesses, would deem itself an illusion AND (but wait there's more!) make every effort to try and convince any other individuate consciousness who will lend an ear, that 'we are all an illusion'

That is simple "woo", to use a popular atheist term.

Atheist: {using ghostly hypnotic voice} "You are just a wooooo0000OOOOO! You do not really exist!"

{Taps temple with pointing finger}

To say that 'we ARE consciousness" makes no more sense than saying that we are love or we are pain.

Yet neither love or pain would be acknowledged, if Consciousness were not the defining factor.
Your argument appears here to be that 'we are not consciousness, but only something which consciousness allows us to think we are, whatever it is we think we are, but we mustn't ever think of ourselves as actually being real, 'Consciousness' or not.

Did I nail it? Or do you need to explain your argument in far more detail than you are presently doing?

Similarly, in terms of the OP, it makes no sense to say that a God is, or is made from, consciousness either.

Why not? Why does it make 'no sense' to say that? It is the very thing which allows us to make claims regarding 'who we are' in the first place.

Perhaps it really makes no sense why anyone would make that a rule that 'we cannot call ourselves 'consciousness' because 'it makes no sense to do so'?
I think you need to explain your self here ytrewq, as there seems to be something missing in logic from the premise of your argument, as far as I can tell.

And consistent with this, we are not conscious when we are asleep, and you are presumably not suggesting that we or God suddenly ceases to exist when we are asleep.

Well I cannot speak for anyone else but myself on that, and I can tell you that I am Conscious even in my dreaming whilst asleep.
There are even those among us who think that a lot of their problem solving is aided through something referred to as 'subconscious' (which is still an aspect of consciousness) when their body rests in sleep.

So let's get it straight from the outset. Consciousness does not exist outside of our physical head,

Well am I to understand your position is 'Atheist' (One who believes that GODs do not exist) and of solipsism?

Not sure.

But anyway, I cannot be so sure as you appear to be about this ytrewq, as the evidence of the fact that there are consciousness biological life forms on the planet leads me to think it possible and even probable that The Earth itself is a conscious self aware creative entity.

If an atheist wishes to convince me that this life on this planet is not evidence that the planet is an intelligent being worthy of the title "GOD", then they will have to do better than simply make claims based upon their interpretation of what 'exists' and what does not 'exist' because it has at least been established that there are non physical attributes which do indeed exist WITHIN physical forms!

Your (c) argument claiming;
All of these can be said to exist, but not in a physical form. is shown - even by your own argument - to be false.

To argue that some things 'appear to exist but do not 'really' exist, is - to me at least - like unto a magician doing sleight-of-hand tricks. It [looks] sounds impressive but when one examines the argument one sees the flaws (fallacy) of said argument.

I see no reason at all just to accept your argument as any more valid than a Christians argument for the idea of a human-like GOD on a throne in the "clouds", casting souls hither and thither.

Shall we perhaps move this to the "Head To Head" Forum?

[Mithrae]

Shall we perhaps move this to the "Head To Head" Forum?

But then I won't read it and perhaps throw in my 2c at some point

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 137 by William]

Looks like we need to go back to the basics, re what are (and are not) physical objects and substances.

Basically, physical objects and substances are made from physical matter and have mass. This is commonly accepted knowledge, and is not up for debate.

Some examples of physical objects and substances, which are always nouns :-
Rocks
Water
Air
Brains
Human bodies
Your mobile phone


OK. Now with that said, we have another category of "things" that are also nouns, but are not physical objects or substances. As per my original Category (c), these include :-

Emotions
Pain
Pleasure
Love
Jealousy
Intelligence
Stupidity
Truth
Dishonesty
Awareness
Consciousness and so on

All of these can be said to exist, but not in a physical form. They are not physical objects or substances, and accordingly they do not have mass. Physical objects and substances have mass.

All that I have just said above is common knowledge, and is not up for debate.

When we are in agreement on the above, then (and only then) may meaningful discussion continue.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 139 by ytrewq]

Would it be fair to say that the second catigory only exists because of the first?