Why God must be physical and not non-physical.

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by jayfoxpox, Dec 25, 2012.

  1. I'd like to propose that if God defined as non-physical , then he can't do anything or interact with the physical world at all , and if the physical world is all that exist then God doesn't exist. If you take a duality position , you would run into a wall on the interaction problem. You would have to either accept materialism or idealism and if you pick idealism , you cannot rely on physics and any field of science , since they all originate from physics , which is the study of matter and fits under the realm of materialism.

    It's be interesting to give an argument that a physical God exists.

    taken from another forum :Why a non-physical god can't do anything: Philosophy Forums

    (P1) Without energy you can't do anything.

    (P2) If energy is necessarily physical then a non-physical thing can't have energy.

    (P3) Energy is necessarily physical.

    (C) Therefore a non-physical god can't do anything.
  2. #2 RawStoner, Dec 25, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2012
    First of all, I just want to say that it's incredibly arrogant of you to assume that, if there is a Godhead, that you have the mental capacity to understand it. If a being like God exists, there's no way in hell our tiny monkey brains could even begin to comprehend something like that.

    But let's hypothetically assume that you or I were intelligent+spiritually enlightened enough to understand - the Godhead might be physical, but not physical enough to measure or interact with it.

    If you're watching a TV show, you can observe the characters on the show. You can interact with them (you can flip the channel or turn the TV off or turn the volume up, etc) but they can't interact with you or the dimensional realm in which you reside.

    Source/God is the same - it can interact with you, it permeates within you, it can control you, it can turn the Volume UP or DOWN in your life, but you can't ever truly grasp it.

    Nope. Ki, Chi, Prana, Dharma, Reiki, whatever you want to call "Spiritual Energy" is not physical.
  3. #3 jayfoxpox, Dec 25, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 25, 2012
    That's a purely physical process , and the characters are not actually in the TV , it's a physical projection of different wavelengths of light. It's just movement of energy ,which is physical.

    And what does it mean for god to be not physical enough ,can you elaborate more on how we can have a degree of being physical?

    edit : it seems you're touching on dualism , now you are going to have to prove how a corporeal or non-corporeal object can interact.

    Under materialism spiritual energy does not exist, period.
  4. #5 jayfoxpox, Dec 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 26, 2012
    1)\tI think it’s extremely naïve of you to assume I’m being arrogant, especially when this is a philosophy thread. If you can’t handle having god questioned, don’t bother replying.
    2)\t I’m a materialist, there is no spirit, it seems like you’ don't even understand my metaphysical position.
    3)\tAlready answered this from above post.
    4)\tProve it , don’t just make claims.
    5)\tThose things don’t exist under materialism; you’re going to have to give an argument on why dualism is more plausible than materialism. The null hypothesis is that they don’t exist. There has not been any considerable scientific evidence to give reason to fail to reject the alternative hypothesis.
  5. If "god" was physical then what caused god? Nothing oh so a physical thing can just exist so the universe can exist without a creator.

    There is no need for god. of course something caused whatever is happening now to happen but to call the unknown god is kind of lame, I'd rather just say I don't know because it is beyond human understanding
  6. Isn't God only supposed to be an idea? After the many translations of the ancient religious texts, and also the many mistranslations thereof, the words have lost their original meaning. Every reinterpretation had a different flavour, as each of the succeeding writers felt that God spoke through them and led them to change the work of the ignorant ones before them.

    It's quite interesting. A quick Google search will lead to many sources that talk of this.
  7. Why can't God be both? It's pretty common in mysticism to say transcendence and immanence are complimentary.

  8. I read your post...
    I don't even know what the fuck your on about...
  9. #10 jayfoxpox, Dec 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2012
    I'm not talking about god of a particular religion. I'm just exploring the theory of god. With as little assumptions as possible , if a maximal being(god) exists , what would its qualities be? I personally don't believe in the existence of a god of any sort , but that is a different issue.

    Supernatural answers are useless imo. They explain nothing and give no predictive capabilities. If God is both , we hit a wall on how does the physical part of god interact with the nonphysical part. If we use the transcendence answer it's very similar to the logic of "god did it." It's useless to attribute properties that are supernatural then reason with it , since it does'n follow the same logic as natural matter.
  10. No one has any idea if a god or god like figure is neccesary for the universe.

    So isn't any speculation about it a moot point?

  11. I wanna have a crack at this question because lately I been wondering about "god" through the odd chance he may exist in sum form. Not for science sake but for my own reasons. In this time of "wishing" I couldn't of cared less about the above possible conflicts of technicalities. I think now that god exists in peoples minds and between the people that believe, it is real to them. That connection real or not supersedes any scientific evidence. Keeping in mind that "science" in all its glory is a human phenomena and potentially inherits human flaws both in perception and reality.

    That said I still don't believe in god I also dont beleive humans have the scietific capacity to prove god does not exist.
  12. @jayfoxpox

    Yeah, but you're assuming that God has some representational form, if that is even a term, when God being an idea could just as easily be a valid notion.
  13. @jayfoxpox

    If you assume that there is a God, then He must have created the material plane, right? And if He created the material plane, then he must be able to interact with it, right? Where's the wall I'm supposed to run into again?

    You already assume that there is a God, but then you question whether he could have created the world, when both ideas, God and the fact that he created the world, go hand in hand. I'm confused as to why this thread is still alive.

    As I said, I believe God to simply be an idea. I don't assume He created the universe, but I assume He exists, because I don't take Him to be the God I've been brought up to believe in. I know he doesn't exist, but I also know that he does exist. It all comes down to perspective, and when I'm sitting on cloud nine, I can't help but see him pulling the strings in this wonderful play.

  14. 1)If he created the material plane , then he must have be material also , but that may also suggest that he created himself and he himself was once non-material . This contradiction my imply an impossibility for a conscious god .

    So then we would have to propose that he is already made of material and so he created the universe of the same material .I will not say that he created the universe , since the universe is all that exist and ,so he himself is within the universe , so I must say he modified the universe. However ,if he is already made of material , then would this suggest that he is determined and trapped under the nature of matter , hence he would not ,be god but merely a higher power?

    2) I may have said that in other threads , but i'm ignoring that notion in this topic to see how far we can explore the concept of god.

    3)We know the concept exists , but we do not know if he exist or not, since know would be a knowledge claim and knowledge would be justified true belief.
  15. Yea , science can't prove anything, because at most it's extremely confident of a claim as more evidence accumulates. However, it minimizes human bias and human error, so it would be our best path to take to explore this topic. Science is a philosophy that deals with matter and if god truly is made out of matter , we can make inductive conclusions about his existence ( though may prove to be highly improbable) , assume he exist and use the most established scientific laws,principles and theories on what would he be like.
  16. Who says God is only limited to creating and manipulating physical matter? We could easily assume that if he is all powerful, that he can create abstract matter too, right?

    Again, you assume there is a God, so you have to assume that everything that comes with that assumption, such as the existence of an ethereal plane - Heaven in this case - is also real. Heaven isn't made of matter, right?

    Is heaven in the universe? Does God reside in heaven? Your theory is nonsensical intellectual masterbation. Peace.
  17. OP, an unrelated question I need answered: how old are you?
  18. 1)What's abstract matter? as far I know matter is physical. unless you're suggesting a non-physical substance(which is'nt necessarily matter.

    2) Why are you so fixated on heaven and hell? Just because there is a god it doesn't mean there is a heaven or heal , we could be all sent to oblivion , god could be a asshole and doesn't care about us, there are an infinite possibilities , but this is a red herring. You seem to keep connecting religious context with god. I'm trying to look at this through a deistic perspective. If you mention heaven/hell i'm just going to ignore you since it's unrelated to this topic , not to mention your rude statements.

    Why is this even important? If I said I was 14, is my opinion going to be suddenly invalid?
  19. Im not questioning the significance of science in human life. But in some instances it cant be applied logically if we don't fully understand the terms of the question. We cant even define the box that "god" may reside in because there are no parameters and as you have already stated only "assumptions" And any conclusions drawn from assumptions isn't science its just opinion.

Share This Page