God Is a Physical Being

[JAL]

Nah, I keep on asking the same questions over and over again because I cannot make heads or tails of your position. I'd be happy to make objections, but first you have to help me understand precisely what you're talking about.

Are you saying that God is something similar to a human? Does he have a brain? Does he have some sort of neural circuitry? We would not have free will if we didn't have brains, so where does his come from?



If you think your worldview is empirically confirmed, I dare you to take it to the Apologetics forum.



If someone told me they had a computer, and then said that it was made up of black matter and ran by magic, I would be very skeptical that they actually had a computer.



Come on, put it in Apologetics. Everyone there claims to be objective.

Your dodge-tactics, misrepresentations, and feigned confusion have become overwhelmingly conspicuous. I've had enough.

 

[Silmarien]

Here is why I find it incoherent.
(1) A material human body cannot interact with an immaterial soul, by definition (more on this later).
(2) An immaterial God would be too intangible to even push a pencil. I provided plausible exegetical evidence to the effect that God does indeed move matter by His own direct agency.
(3) DDS holds that God is spatially indivisible into parts (no size and shape) - and yet claims He is omnipresent throughout the universe! I am literally at a loss for words to describe how thoroughly incoherent such a claim seems to me.
(4) This omnipresence isn't volumetric, or graduated, or staggered in any way. Rather, the fullness of His presence is essentially said to be duplicated as to coexist simultaneously at every point in space. (If I were to claim that I'm simultaneously in the USA and Russia, you'd say I'd lost a marble).
(5) The volumetric nature of God's presence is strongly implied in the divine pillars of Smoke, Cloud, Fire, Light - but is also exegetically demonstrable (an argument not yet shown).
(6) As noted earlier, such omnipresence contradicts outpourings. If God is already plenally present everywhere, there can be no meaningful outpouring of His Presence from one locale to another.
(7) DDS claims that God is indivisible into parts - and yet consitutes a Trinity! Even Millard J. Erickson - whose famous systematic theology textbook is featured in probably every evangelical seminary in the world - admitted that the orthodox Trinity is "logically absurd from the human standpoint" (his words).
(8) DDS claims that God is immutable, and yet became man. The hypostatic union claims to reconcile this, but that doctrine isn't humanly comprehensible. As Charles Lee Feinberg stated, "No sane study of Christology even pretends to fathom it" (Charles Lee Feinberg, "The Hypostatic Union: Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra, (1935), p. 412). Did I mention that my cosmogyny makes the Incarnation a cinch to explain? A debater once told me I was crazy to suggest that. But he became very quiet after I explained my view. He remained on the thread for several days, but never challenged me again on that point.
(9) DDS claims that God is atemporal, and yet intervenes in temporal human affairs.
(10) Immaterialism seems to postulate the oxymoronic concept of a substance without substance.
(11) In fact, DDS seems to divest God of any notion of substance - it seems to reduce Him to a concept. And then we're supposed to believe that He exists? That dilemma is introduced in the first two paragraphs of this article:
Divine Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

1) Debatable and irrelevant, since divine simplicity does not imply that God is an immaterial soul.

2) Divine simplicity does not imply that God is an immaterial substance that is pushing material substances in a pseudo-physical manner. He sustains them in existence, and gave presumably move them according to his will. No literal touching involved.

3) No, divine simplicity doesn't hold that God is omnipresent throughout the universe in a spatial manner. He eternally sustains it in existence.

4) This is a false understanding of divine simplicity, as explained above.

5) So what? God sustains reality in existence. He can presumably make a pillar of smoke appear if he so desires.

6) I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, so can't respond.

7) It would be heretical to say that the Trinity is composed of parts. God is three in person, but only one in essence, so this coincides with divine simplicity.

8) This point I would be willing to grant. I find immutibility very difficult to reconcile with the Incarnation, though I admittedly haven't gotten around to looking into the theology on it yet. You would need to explain how your view makes it a "cinch," though.

9) We do not actually know what "atemporal" means, since our minds are conditioned to think in temporal terms. I don't have more of a problem with an atemporal God intervening in a temporal world than I do with an author writing himself into a book.

10) Divine simplicity postulates that God is not a substance at all.

11) Neither substance nor concept. Genuinely Other, I'd say.

Here's what's incoherent to me. How is such a God a person? You like pizza, I prefer cheeseburgers. What kind of food does a CONCEPT prefer? And how does He move matter?

God isn't a concept. God also doesn't physically move matter. He causes it to move.

 

[JAL]

What is of interest is not that an angel can function in a physical environment. If angels functioned just like humans, and nothing beyond that, there would be no question.

Again, virtually 100% of my project here is to demonstrate plausible biblical evidence for tangibility. That means, scenarios seemingly impossible to explain, if we are being reasonable exegetes, without recourse to physical dynamics.

YOU are trying to claim that I can't justifiably draw any conclusions about angels unless - they function exactly like humans in all respects! And thus they are humans! And then I can't draw any conclusions about God unless He is human! Totally ridiculous. Of what use would the Bible be to anyone, on that standard of exegesis? None!

What is of interest is that an angel can do things we can't like appearing to people, instead of taking the usual physical means of arriving via space and time.

And they do. I see no clear evidence that they don't. David Copperfield is a magician who comes out of hiding on a regular basis. He suddenly APPEARS to them. There is plenty of evidence that angels travel, and no hard evidence that they magically hop. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Traveling is not an extraordinary claim. Hopping would be. Evidence of travel:

"I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’[k] the Son of Man.”

"He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."

Many angels utilize chariots of fire or have wings - a clear sign of traveling:

"With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying....Then one of the seraphim flew to me, and in his hand was a glowing coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar." (Isa 6).

He carried a tangible coal in his tangible hands. Par for the course. It's the same story, from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Saint Steven]

If God pre-existed time and space then He cant be essentially physical.

Does that assume that the nothingness that God "used" to create the universe is the same "nothingness" of which he consists (consisted) of? There was nothing here before he created it, but most likely there was something where God was prior. Unless he first had to create himself. (not likely)

 

[Saint Steven]

God is spirit.

John 3:8
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

 

[JAL]

1) Debatable and irrelevant, since divine simplicity does not imply that God is an immaterial soul.

Missed the point. Ignored.

2) Divine simplicity does not imply that God is an immaterial substance that is pushing material substances in a pseudo-physical manner. He sustains them in existence, and gave presumably move them according to his will. No literal touching involved.

Exactly. A completely incomprehensible notion, or to use one of your favorite words against me, it's not coherent. That's the whole point.

3) No, divine simplicity doesn't hold that God is omnipresent throughout the universe in a spatial manner. He eternally sustains it in existence.

Exactly. Ditto again. It affords no humanly coherent theory of omnipresence. It's pure gibberish.

4) This is a false understanding of divine simplicity, as explained above.

That wasn't an "understanding of divine simplicity". It was an exegetical claim.

5) So what? God sustains reality in existence. He can presumably make a pillar of smoke appear if he so desires.

Um...the whole point is here to contrast the exegetically supported claims (such as God appearing as tangible Smoke) with the exegetically unspported claims (Platonic immaterialism).

6) I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, so can't respond

. I covered this before you joined.

7) It would be heretical to say that the Trinity is composed of parts. God is three in person, but only one in essence, so this coincides with divine simplicity.

Regardless of that, mission accomplished - I cited Millard J Erickson on the fact that the orthodox trinity is "logically absurd from the human standpoint" (his words) or, in your words, it is not humanly "coherent".

8) This point I would be willing to grant. I find immutibility very difficult to reconcile with the Incarnation, though I admittedly haven't gotten around to looking into the theology on it yet. You would need to explain how your view makes it a "cinch," though.

False. I don't need to explain my views to expose someone else's as incoherent.

9) We do not actually know what "atemporal" means...

Precisely. You have no coherent theory of the divine relationship to time. That was my point.

10) Divine simplicity postulates that God is not a substance at all.

No coherent theory of divine existence.

11) Neither substance nor concept. Genuinely Other, I'd say.

Pardon me. No coherent theory of EITHER divine existence OR essence, is what I meant to say.

God isn't a concept. God also doesn't physically move matter. He causes it to move.

No coherent theory of divine activity.

Gee. Thanks for this post! I was going to let the gallery decide on this debate but you've confirmed for us all that Immaterialism is one incohorent claim after another. And that's in ADDITION TO the lack of exegetical support.

 

[Silmarien]

Your dodge-tactics, misrepresentations, and feigned confusion have become overwhelmingly conspicuous. I've had enough.

Look, I won't pretend that I don't think the idea of a material God is absurd. As far as I can tell, all you've been doing here is describing what anyone else would consider an immaterial God, and then saying that whatever might make it material, like having hands or arms, is not to be taken literally. I'm not feigning confusion. I cannot figure out how this is even supposed to work.

I have no dodge tactics, because I haven't been defending any view. If I'm misrepresenting you, it's because I literally have no idea what your position is. I'm trying to get you to draw a picture of it, but everything you say just makes it more confusing, and every time I try to ask a follow up question, you say that I'm just pretending to not understand.

If you'd like to actually present your view in a measured, respectful fashion, without constant jabs at Platonism and accusing everyone of being indoctrinated and/or ignorant as to what their own position is, then I would be happy to hear you out. If not, then yeah, I think I've had enough too.

 

[public hermit]

David Copperfield is a magician who comes out of hiding on a regular basis.

Well, that's the second time you've used David Copperfield to explain supernatural events. That's pretty much my limit of Copperfield analogies. Seriously, create a thread representing your cosmogony. Let's see the whole picture.

 

[Noxot]

All things that exist have their existence derived by God experiencing himself and thinking of himself. There is nowhere else to be but in God and nothing to make anything from but God. All silly Notions of a separation between the world and God are nothing more than a theme that God does. Ultimately it will be impossible to say that God could have an other. Our existence is the Divine equivalent of having characters in an MMO or being characters in a story. An infinitely powerful being, the one that came up with the idea of power, is trolling us with this guy's silly philosophy that is equivalent to making scientific claims from The Book of Genesis.

 

[JAL]

Look, I won't pretend that I don't think the idea of a material God is absurd. As far as I can tell, all you've been doing here is describing what anyone else would consider an immaterial God, and then saying that whatever might make it material, like having hands or arms, is not to be taken literally. I'm not feigning confusion. I cannot figure out how this is even supposed to work.

I have no dodge tactics, because I haven't been defending any view. If I'm misrepresenting you, it's because I literally have no idea what your position is. I'm trying to get you to draw a picture of it, but everything you say just makes it more confusing, and every time I try to ask a follow up question, you say that I'm just pretending to not understand.

If you'd like to actually present your view in a measured, respectful fashion, without constant jabs at Platonism and accusing everyone of being indoctrinated and/or ignorant as to what their own position is, then I would be happy to hear you out. If not, then yeah, I think I've had enough too.

Disingenuous. You say you want to understand, but REPEATEDLY IGNORE the explanatory scenarios provided. Multiple times, for example, I've pointed out that if our body does something immoral, it is free will, self-propelling our body, that MAKES it immoral. You neither discussed nor refuted that point even though it was clearly pivotal to my claim that God, in virtue of this self-propulsion by free will, isn't bound to gravity and other laws of physics. Instead you kept insinuating that I afford no explanation as to how a material God can transcend the laws of physics. And that's just one example. At some point I felt forced to conclude that, deep down, you don't really want a clear explanation of how my system works, because then you might have to concede some cogency to it.

Like having hands or arms, is not to be taken literally

It is literal. The Father is a physical figure seated on a throne, with hands and arms. Shaped in His image is the Son seated at His right hand. The question was how does He sustain gravity - how does He push and pull particles all over the universe? Obviously not with THOSE arms alone. How would arms possibly measuring 3 feet in length apply pressure to every particle in every galaxy? So then I explained that the full measure of HIs physical presence includes the remainder of the divine Word distributed more or less sparsely throughout the universe, functioning as an extension of sorts, of his arms and hands. You claim to have a background in philosophy. I'm sorry but I honestly find it difficult, when I make such statements, to hear you say that you have NO IDEA what my position is on these issues. Not sure what I'm missing here.

 

[Silmarien]

Exactly. A completely incomprehensible notion, or to use one of your favorite words against me, it's not coherent. That's the whole point.

How is it incomprehensible or incoherent? You're just claiming that it is, but I don't know what your actual objection is.

Exactly. Ditto again. It affords no humanly coherent theory of omnipresence. It's pure gibberish.

Er... okay? "It's gibberish" isn't really an objection, and I don't know why you think it offers no coherent theory of omnipresence.

Um...the whole point is here to contrast the exegetically supported claims (such as God appearing as tangible Smoke) with the exegetically unspported claims (Platonic immaterialism).

Scripture is consistent with both possibilities.

Regardless of that, mission accomplished - I cited Millard J Erickson on the fact that the orthodox trinity is "logically absurd from the human standpoint" (his words) or, in your words, it is not humanly "coherent".

What mission has been accomplished? Is your objection to Trinitarianism? What has that to do with immaterialism?

False. I don't need to explain my views to expose someone else's as incoherent.

What's the point of saying that your view makes the Incarnation a cinch if you're going to turn around and refuse to say how that works?

Precisely. You have no coherent theory of the divine relationship to time. That was my point.

Actually, I have no coherent theory of time, full stop. I'm somewhere between Theory A and Theory B, and if temporality is basically an enigma, I'm reluctant to speculate on what eternity looks like.

No coherent theory of divine existence.

I side with the Thomists on the question of divine existence. God as pure Act, and being existence itself rather than something that exists.

We're delving into ontology now, though. You can't say "no coherent concept of divine existence" without addressing the question of what existence is at all.

Gee. Thanks for this post! I was going to let the gallery decide on this debate but you've confirmed for us all that Immaterialism is one incohorent claim after another. And that's in ADDITION TO the lack of exegetical support.

If that's true (and you certainly haven't established that it is), it's bad for all of us, since the only alternative is atheism.

 

[JAL]

Well, that's the second time you've used David Copperfield to explain supernatural events. That's pretty much my limit of Copperfield analogies. Seriously, create a thread representing your cosmogony. Let's see the whole picture.

No you are INSISTING they are supernatural events without justification. You are presuming what is in debate. You argue like this:
(1) Some of the events in the bible are definitely supernatural.
(2) Jal believes that everything can be explained in material terms.
(3) Therefore NOTHING that Jal claims could POSSIBLY be true.

I've already lost count of the number of logical fallacies in your replies to me.

Here's all I really aspire to show. Physical dynamics are clearly attested in Scripture. Immaterialism is not.

Yes I go beyond that - but everything else is just icing on the cake. Example of going beyond: I've argued that every physical event documented in Scripture can EASILY be explained in terms of principles like these.
(1) All of us experience self-propelling free will, in our bodies, every moment of every day.
(2) One material object can move another, if pressure is applied.

Then you come back and INSIST, for example, that some angelic behavior MUST be supernatural. How is that an argument? You say that angels appear - out of hiding (in my view) - and when I point out that magicians do this all the time, it's hardly supernatural, you tell me that's an invalid argument. Again, I can't keep count of the fallacies in your debating tactics with me.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. YOU want to claim the supernatural - with no evidence!

 

[JAL]

I'll say it again. I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in the supernatural. To believe in the supernatural is an extraordinary claim and, as such, calls for extraordinary evidence. Until that evidence is presented, I stand my ground.

 

[Silmarien]

Disingenuous. You say you want to understand, but REPEATEDLY IGNORE the explanatory scenarios provided. Multiple times, for example, I've pointed out that if our body does something immoral, it is free will, self-propelling our body, that MAKES it immoral. You neither discussed nor refuted that point even though it was clearly pivotal to my claim that God, in virtue of this self-propulsion by free will, isn't bound to gravity and other laws of physics. Instead you kept insinuating that I afford no explanation as to how a material God can transcend the laws of physics. And that's just one example. At some point I felt forced to conclude that, deep down, you don't really want a clear explanation of how my system works, because then you might have to concede some cogency to it.

I don't understand what any of this means. Why would I refute the point that we have free will and if we do something immoral, we are responsible for that act? I agree with that, though I have no idea how you make the jump from "we have free will" to "God is a material entity who is not bound to the laws of physics." That is a complete non-sequitur, since free will certainly doesn't mean that we are free to disobey the laws of physics.

You haven't explained how a material God can transcend the laws of physics. I'm not insinuating that; I'm stating it. No known material being has the free will to transcend the laws of physics, so you are positing something that is far outside of the realm of what we observe empirically.

It is literal. The Father is a physical figure seated on a throne, with hands and arms. Shaped in His image is the Son seated at His right hand. The question was how does He sustain gravity - how does He push and pull particles all over the universe? Obviously not with THOSE arms alone. How would arms possibly measuring 3 feet in length apply pressure to every particle in every galaxy? So then I explained that the full measure of HIs physical presence includes the remainder of the divine Word distributed more or less sparsely throughout the universe, functioning as an extension of sorts, of his arms and hands. You claim to have a background in philosophy. I'm sorry but I honestly find it difficult, when I make no such statements, to hear you say that you have NO IDEA what my position is on these issues. Not sure what I'm missing here.

Nice ad hominem. I'm familiar with your views on materialism in philosophy of mind, and also with materialism as a metaphysics. Your notion of a material God who controls the laws of physics, on the other hand, is truly novel. I've never seen it before, unless you count certain forms of pantheism. Is that what the divine Word is supposed to be in this context? Some pantheistic presence?

Where did this material God come from? Did he always exist? If he always existed, does this mean that matter always existed? Does matter pre-exist the material God? If not, then what was the material God before he became matter? If so, then were there laws of physics to govern matter before the existence of the material God? How did the material God happen to come into existence?

Seriously, your view raises so many questions.

I'll say it again. I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in the supernatural. To believe in the supernatural is an extraordinary claim and, as such, calls for extraordinary evidence. Until that evidence is presented, I stand my ground.

A material being who transcends the laws of nature is somehow not a magical claim?

 

[JAL]

Er... okay? "It's gibberish" isn't really an objection, and I don't know why you think it offers no coherent theory of omnipresence.

The irony is unbelievable. When I describe to you simple material principles, you supposedly cannot connect the dots, but you intimate that traditional omnipresence is perfectly clear to you. Let's compare. Let's imagine an atheist or agnostic asking the both of us our definition of omnipresence.
(1) I go first. "God is a material being more or less sparsely distributed throughout the universe".
(2). Then you go. "I believe in DDS. God has no size, no shape,no location in space, no concrete substance - but He's omnipresent!"

I wonder which theory would be more lucid to him. Boy, that's a tough one!

Look, I'm going to ignore the rest of your post. In terms of coherence, immaterialism can't hold a candle to materialism - because matter is the stuff we see, touch,and feel 24 hours a day. So don't even try to pull me into the 1700-year metaphysical/ontological gibberish-debates characterizing the Scholastics and their predecessors. Not interested.

 

[JAL]

A material being who transcends the laws of nature is somehow not a magical claim?

You continue to conveniently ignore the implications of self-propelling free will. This is a pretense of a real debate.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Does that assume that the nothingness that God "used" to create the universe is the same "nothingness" of which he consists (consisted) of? There was nothing here before he created it, but most likely there was something where God was prior. Unless he first had to create himself. (not likely)

Yes... the 24 elders perpetually worship Him in the timeless dimension in which had always existed before this created order began in Genesis. If this were not so the Priestly order of Melchizedek would not exist.

 

[Silmarien]

The irony is unbelievable. When I describe to you simple material principles, you supposedly cannot connect the dots, but you intimate that traditional omnipresence is perfectly clear to you.

Of course traditional omnipresence is clear to me. It is my view. Why would my own view not be clear to me?

Simple material principles are also clear to me. The idea of a material God who somehow transcends everything entailed in the word "material," on the other hand, is not.

Let's compare. Let's imagine an atheist or agnostic asking the both of us our definition of omnipresence.
(1) I go first. "God is a material being more or less sparsely distributed throughout the universe".
(2). Then you go. "I believe in DDS. God has no size, no shape,no location in space, no concrete substance - but He's omnipresent!"

I wonder which theory would be more lucid to him. Boy, that's a tough one!

No, it really isn't. They would laugh at yours and ask you to provide evidence demonstrating the existence of a material God distributed throughout the universe.

I've had difficulty getting people in Apologetics to understand mine, it's true. Professional atheistic philosophers of religion, on the other hand, tend to be significantly more sympathetic to classical theism, so I don't think the problem is with the view. It lies either in my ability to explain it or their interest in hearing it out, depending on the atheist or agnostic.

Look, I'm going to ignore the rest of your post. In terms of coherence, immaterialism can't hold a candle to materialism - because matter is the stuff we see, touch,and feel 24 hours a day. So don't even try to pull me into the 1700-year metaphysical/ontological gibberish-debates characterizing the Scholastics and their predecessors. Not interested.

You don't have to be interested in classical theism. I don't have any aim besides getting you to actually answer questions about your own view.

You continue to conveniently ignore the implications of self-propelling free will. This is a pretense of a real debate.

I have no idea what the implications of "self-propelling free will" even are.

I repeat my questions:

Where did this material God come from? Did he always exist? If he always existed, does this mean that matter always existed? Does matter pre-exist the material God? If not, then what was the material God before he became matter? If so, then were there laws of physics to govern matter before the existence of the material God? How did the material God happen to come into existence?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I'll say it again. I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in the supernatural. To believe in the supernatural is an extraordinary claim and, as such, calls for extraordinary evidence. Until that evidence is presented, I stand my ground.

Jesus presented the evidence, do you believe His words?

 

[Dale]

The church father Tertullian (200 AD) was rightly a staunch materialist who realized that all of the biblical data - not just some of it, literally all of it - favors a wholly physical God. In fact the entire exegetical case for an immaterial God is predicated on the blatant, exegetically unsupportable mistranslation of the terms pneuma and ruach (breath/wind) as "spirit", due to the influence of a Platonic philosophy known as The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS). The term "spirit" is, in a nutshell, an English term unjustifiable exegetically. Moreover the human soul (i.e. the human pneuma) is truistically/tautologically material on an essentially empirical basis - for example Tertullian's tautological argument for the materiality of the human soul has never been refuted.

Understand that I'm a staunch Trinitarian, like Tertullian. In fact:
(1) Tertullian is the first person known to use the word Trinity.
(2) Phillip Schaff, one of the world's foremost experts on othodoxy, considered Tertullian to be one of the best defenders of orthodoxy in church history.

This discussion began on another thread closed at the request of the opening poster. I will copy some of that material, as it pertains to my posts, over to this thread.

JAL: “The church father Tertullian (200 AD) was rightly a staunch materialist who realized that all of the biblical data - not just some of it, literally all of it - favors a wholly physical God.”


I am familiar with Tertullian and I don’t believe that he ever said any such thing. Tertullian did believe that Jesus Christ had a physical body and spent a great deal of space explaining that to Gnostics. I don’t remember Tertullian ever saying that God the Father, or the Holy Spirit, had physical bodies.


JAL: On the first page of this thread you have made fifteen posts. You start by saying that Tertullian is a “materialist” who believed that God has a body. You have not offered one quote from Tertullian to back up this claim.