God Is a Physical Being

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If it's good enough for Church fathers, it's good enough for me :).
You see no reason to 2nd-guess the adoption of the philosopher Plato? Really? Trust me, God's not going to accept the excuse, on judgment day, "It's not my fault I fell into hollow and deceptive philosophy. The church fathers told me to do so!"
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
P.S. in addition to WIND, God, in the scriptures, is also likened to FIRE, FOOD, WATER, LIGHT, a VINE, etc.
He isn't LIKENED to those things. He IS those things. He IS the Holy Breath. He IS the divine Water. He IS the divine Light of the world. He is the Living Water. He IS the divine Fire. That's the biblical view. The only question is whether you want to accept it.

If He is not those things, why manifest Himself that way, and document it - just to foster cognitive idolatry? How dumb an instructor do you suppose God is?
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Does God have gravity?
Isaac Newton invented the theory but considered it foolish to take it literally. He figured it must either be the hand of God at work, or atmospheric pressure.

I cast my vote for the former. Thus the divine Word physically creates gravity by exerting appropriate pressure on each and every particle in the universe. Thereby He upholds the stars, or as Hebrews put it:


"He sustains all things by his powerful Word" (Heb 1:3).
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And more than that. The physical divine Word assumes the shape of crystalline substance in much of our solar system. What I'm proposing is that the divine Word is the crystalline Firmament postulated in Genesis 1. Thus I am able to read the text literally where it teaches that God literally anchored the stars in a solid dome or heavens. Materialism always offers the prospect of greater fidelity to the text than immaterialism.
 
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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. ...

Interesting claim. I believe what that God is spirit and love, because Bible says so.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting claim. I believe what that God is spirit and love, because Bible says so.
No one is questioning whether God is love.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
God is not spirit. I've done plenty to discredit that reading, on this thread. "Spirit" is a philosophical term originating in Plato. Contextual exegesis contradicts that translation, as I've been showing.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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.

Tertullian is one of the greats, but certainly only one. His materialistic approach to God's nature is on the fringe compared to the greater majority of Christian thinkers before him and after him. If you are a Tertullianite, fine. But that also means you are on the fringe. That should give you some pause when considering the level of credence you give to your own position. That's not to say you're wrong. Maybe you and Tertullian are correct and the vast majority of Christians who have considered related questions are wrong. But, your confidence level should be tempered. Even Tertullian did not reject all of Plato (e.g. that the soul is simple and not compound). And it's that very aspect that puts your understanding of "physical" and "material" into question. It doesn't seem you have thought through what it means for something to be physical.

There is no burden of proof on materialists because the existence of material object is not an extraordinary claim. Matter is something we see every day. Whereas immaterialism

Several church fathers acknowledged that angels are physical - and yet God (normally) keeps them hidden from material instruments.

First we have the translocation of the Son - and it's a wholly physical event...

You're not being consistent here. On the one hand, your argument rests on the notion that matter and the physical are part of our everyday experience, and so there is no burden of proof on the part of the materialist who asserts that God is corporeal. On the other hand, your examples of angels and the post-resurrected Christ are instances that don't fit our experience of "matter" and "physical" reality. Angelic appearances, no matter how rarefied their supposed physical being, are not part of our everyday experience. If they are physical, in the same space as us, and yet hidden from our sight as substantiated entities, then "matter" and "physical" are taking on characteristics unlike what we know as "physical" and "matter."

Likewise, instances where people simply appear in the room, as Jesus did post-resurrection, are not what one would expect from the physical. I suppose examples where these so-called "physical" beings act in ways wholly unlike our experience of the physical could be multiplied. So, if you're going to extend "matter" and "physical" to include all of reality (angels and God), then you do have a burden of proof. It's the same burden of proof faced by the idealist, just the opposite position. In short, you must show that all of reality is of one kind of substance (i.e. matter). It's a burden you have yet to satisfy. And, unfortunately for you, you will have to do some philosophy to achieve that.

it's all dismissed out of hand because a heathen philosopher named Plato didn't much care for material things.

You have rejected the philosopher without engaging his philosophy, as if what he thought was the result of some agenda against true religion. Of course, that is not the case. This is where it is not clear whether you have consider the metaphysics of physicality and matter. Since you depend on what we know from everyday experience, let's start there.

Here's what we know from our observation of physical entities. Every single one of them, without exception, come into existence and depart, and they do so on account of their dependence on other physical entities. This is contingency. If we go on observation alone, without engaging in the metaphysics involved, we would have to conclude that contingency is a necessary feature of physical entities (physical objects are contingent in all the possible worlds in which they happen to appear). I assume, correct me if I am wrong, you believe that there is at least one physical Being (i.e. God) that does not come into existence and then depart. That is, God is necessary. So, here we have a Being that is both necessary and contingent, which is a contradiction.

Why is that a contradiction?

In short, you absolutely do have a burden of proof if you are going to posit the existence of a material God. As a classical theist, I really have no idea how such a proposition would even work conceptually. Is this material God a necessarily existing being that would exist in every possible world, and if so... how? What is it about matter that would make its existence a metaphysical necessity? Did matter exist before this material God? Could the material God cease to exist?

Silmarien has already touched on the problem with your position. If something is contingent, then it does not exist in all possible worlds. The reason for this is, if something is contingent then it will only exist in those worlds where the conditions entail that allow for its existence. Contingency is a property that can only hold within a world and has no trans-world guarantee. All this to say if something is physical, and therefore contingent, then it might or might not be.

A necessary Being, on the other hand, must exist in all possible worlds. Why is that the case? Because necessity does not depend on anything contingent. Necessity has a trans-world guarantee that ensures whatever is necessary in one world is necessary in all possible worlds. So...

If an essential feature of matter is that it is contingent (and for all we know from observation it is) then if God is "matter," God is possible in some worlds and not others. Is that your position? Could it have been the case that God does not exist? I doubt that is what you think, but that is one of the stranger conclusions of your position. You may balk at my use of philosophy. But, absurd conclusions, like the one to which your position is susceptible, are pretty objectionable as well.

Your topic is interesting, but I question the spirit in which you have engaged the topic. In particular, your ad homenim attacks towards @Paidiske are not fitting for one who claims to know the nature of God (1 John 4:8; see post #9 which seems to me too much against the person and not the argument). Maybe the more important distinction is not that between the physical and the spiritual, but the difference between that which comes from a place of love and that which does not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting claim. I believe what that God is spirit and love, because Bible says so.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
You might could start with posts 34 and 43, to get a feel for how I understand the term Pneuma usually mistranslated "Spirit".

Or let's start with this. When you open your mouth, what normally exudes forth? Which of these two, is most likely?
(1) Magical immaterial spirits exude forth.
(2) Air/breath/wind exudes forth.

I think you'll agree that #2 is more plausible? Fine. Ok, then I think you'll agree with me on the proper translation of Pneuma in the following passage:

"And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath [pneuma] of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming." (2Th 2:8).

That's what exegesis does. It's on a quest for the most PLAUSIBLE reading based on the context. Therefore we can definitely rule out this title:
"The Holy Spirit/Ghost"​
in favor of this title
"The Holy Breath/Wind"​
and there are several passages like that. If posts 34 and 43 aren't enough to satisfy, consider posts 51 and 61 as well.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Tertullian is one of the greats, but certainly only one. His materialistic approach to God's nature is on the fringe compared to the greater majority of Christian thinkers before him and after him. If you are a Tertullianite, fine. But that also means you are on the fringe. That should give you some pause when considering the level of credence you give to your own position. That's not to say you're wrong. Maybe you and Tertullian are correct and the vast majority of Christians who have considered related questions are wrong. But, your confidence level should be tempered. Even Tertullian did not reject all of Plato (e.g. that the soul is simple and not compound). And it's that very aspect that puts your understanding of "physical" and "material" into question. It doesn't seem you have thought through what it means for something to be physical.
Tangibility. That's the fundamental argument here. Seems you're trying to overcomplicate the issue as a basis for clouding the simplicity of my exegetical demonstrations.


You're not being consistent here. On the one hand, your argument rests on the notion that matter and the physical are part of our everyday experience, and so there is no burden of proof on the part of the materialist who asserts that God is corporeal. On the other hand, your examples of angels and the post-resurrected Christ are instances that don't fit our experience of "matter" and "physical" reality. Angelic appearances, no matter how rarefied their supposed physical being, are not part of our everyday experience. If they are physical, in the same space as us, and yet hidden from our sight as substantiated entities, then "matter" and "physical" are taking on characteristics unlike what we know as "physical" and "matter."
Non-sequitur. That's like saying wind isn't "matter" or isn't "physical" unless I can see it, or can detect it. Materiality (tangibility) isn't dependent on my instrumentation available to detect them. The documented historical FACTS of Scripture ascribe tangible modalities and properties to both angels and God. That's all I need to know. Again, it isn't an issue of proving something 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. It's a matter of pursuing the most PLAUSIBLE interpretation in light of the context and facts.


Likewise, instances where people simply appear in the room, as Jesus did post-resurrection, are not what one would expect from the physical.
And yet easily explained in physical terms. Have you ever watched David Copperfied? You're asking me to doubt God's ability to manipulate matter in ways done by ordinary humans? You're joking, right?


I suppose examples where these so-called "physical" beings act in ways wholly unlike our experience of the physical could be multiplied. So, if you're going to extend "matter" and "physical" to include all of reality (angels and God), then you do have a burden of proof. It's the same burden of proof faced by the idealist, just the opposite position. In short, you must show that all of reality is of one kind of substance (i.e. matter). It's a burden you have yet to satisfy. And, unfortunately for you, you will have to do some philosophy to achieve that.
Wow. You're actually not joking.


You have rejected the philosopher without engaging his philosophy, as if what he thought was the result of some agenda against true religion. Of course, that is not the case. This is where it is not clear whether you have consider the metaphysics of physicality and matter. Since you depend on what we know from everyday experience, let's start there.
Speculative philosophy cannot always be decisively debated purely on the basis of speculative arguments. One thing we CAN do, however, is examine the facts of both Scripture an experience. For example the facts of experience, as Tertullian argued, tautologically indicate a material human soul/pneuma.

Here's what we know from our observation of physical entities. Every single one of them, without exception, come into existence and depart...
Let me stop you right there. No they don't depart. I don't believe that matter disappears into nothingness, I believe it is only transformed. Since your subsequent statements are based on this false premise, I'm going to ignore them.

A necessary Being, on the other hand, must exist in all possible worlds.
Really? Now we're going to play the how-many-worlds-do-you-believe in game? Or the how-many-dimensions-do-you-believe in game? And pretend that it's a much surer foundation for drawing conclusions than a simple grammatical/contextual exegesis of the Scriptures?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

An idea of "God" as inside of nature -- thus less than the totality of nature in a way, and unable to escape nature -- therefore constrained by nature ultimately.

An idea of God as only natural (not able to be superior or independent of the laws of physics) leads logically to the conclusion that such a 'god' could not be the Creator of all things. Ergo, this version of 'God' leads logically to concluding that God does not exist.

Wonderfully that does not fit scripture -- in scripture we see over and over God do things that are impossible in physics, such as stopping the progression of a day, of the sun in the sky, during a battle, for instance.

Clearly non-natural actions, which are not a part of nature physics, not part of nature.

Thus not the actions of a Being that is only part of nature.

He is above Nature, superior to nature, and not contained by nature.

He isn't less than what He created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Non-sequitur. That's like saying wind isn't "matter" or isn't "physical" unless I can see it, or can detect it. Materiality (tangibility) isn't dependent on my instrumentation available to detect them.

You are arguing that all of reality, including God, is physical. You feel no need to argue for that claim (i.e. you have no burden of proof, as you say) because 1) materialism is a given, as it is part of our everyday experience, and 2) your interpretation (which is good enough for you) says so. You can assume your interpretation is the only acceptable one. But that doesn't show that it is true. You still need to provide for an argument that all reality is physical, which you haven't done.

The one step towards an argument that you have made is your reliance on our everyday experience of physicality. I pointed out that your examples about God and angels are outside our experience of what we know about the physical. Your response is that "physical" entails more than we know. Fine. If that is true, then it is on you to show that what we don't know is also physical.

Again, you have claimed that all reality is physical without an argument. Since a vast majority of Christians disagree with your scriptural interpretation (i.e. they believe the spiritual is not the same as the physical), that approach is not on the table. You can keep saying, "It's true because that's how I read the scriptures" all day, but it only reinforces the fact that you don't have an argument.

And yet easily explained in physical terms. Have you ever watched David Copperfied? You're asking me to doubt God's ability to manipulate matter in ways done by ordinary humans? You're joking, right?

You still haven't shown that God is matter. Before you use your position as an explanation, you should show why it's reasonable to believe that virtually anything we think we know about the physical is also potentially wrong. But, you can't do that since your argument is "Everything, including God, is physical" because we already know what the physical is like. It's the commerce of our everyday existence, after all.

So, which is it? Do we know the physical and therefore whether it makes sense to say, "God is physical." Or, is the physical like and wholly unlike our experience? If the later is the case, then your argument for God being physical becomes vacuous. It just means that God and everything else are constituted by the same stuff (whatever that is). That is another unhappy, and potentially absurd, conclusion. It sounds like you need to make an argument.

You're actually not joking

You're wasting time because you don't have an argument.

One thing we CAN do, however, is examine the facts of both Scripture an experience

Your use of scripture as concerns this matter is in doubt by too many of your peers to be assumed as a given. That leaves experience, which you have not put to full use in terms of an argument. Give it a try.

Let me stop you right there. No they don't depart. I don't believe that matter disappears into nothingness, I believe it is only transformed.

Who is "they." Let's talk physicality. If a rock disintegrates into its smallest constituent parts, is it still a rock? What is entity if it is reduced, as you want to, to its constituent parts? You are a materialist. Is God such an entity? If God disintegrates into God's constituent parts, is God still there? Or, maybe you mean God is everything, since everything is physical? Is that now your orthodox position?

If God is not simple, then God has constituent parts. Are God's parts eternal? How many Gods are we talking about, now? How many absurdities can you tolerate? You need to make your argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You keep trying to impose an unrealistic burden of proof on me. Look, all we know is matter. We have no clear evidence or proof of anything else. That's the default assumption if I'm told that something exists. I don't care what it is. My INITIAL assumption is that it is a TANGIBLE OBJECT until shown otherwise. That's the default.
You are arguing that all of reality, including God, is physical. You feel no need to argue for that claim (i.e. you have no burden of proof, as you say) because 1) materialism is a given, as it is part of our everyday experience, and 2) your interpretation (which is good enough for you) says so. You can assume your interpretation is the only acceptable one. But that doesn't show that it is true. You still need to provide for an argument that all reality is physical, which you haven't done.
See above. I have SHOWN that Scripture confirms the default assumption (tangible objects).

The one step towards an argument that you have made is your reliance on our everyday experience of physicality. I pointed out that your examples about God and angels are outside our experience of what we know about the physical. Your response is that "physical" entails more than we know.
Did I say that? If I did, I think you misunderstood the context. Because I don't believe that "physical" (tangible) entails anything more or less than what we already know and experience every day.

Again, you have claimed that all reality is physical without an argument.
See above. Tangible substance is the default assumption, backed by 100% of the biblical data. If you had any biblical data to the contrary, you'd adduce it here. Again, the FACTS of Scripture are inexplicable without recourse to physical dynamics. You choose to conveniently continue to ignore this reality.

Since a vast majority of Christians disagree with your interpretation (i.e. they believe the spiritual is not the same as the physical), that approach is not on the table. You can keep saying, "It's true because that's how I read the scriptures" all day, but it only reinforces the fact that you don't have an argument.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What would we say about an exegete who opted for the contextually and factually most UNLIKELY, IMPLAUSIBLE, EXTRAORDINARY rendering of a passage? Look, I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. That's not the goal here. Here's the goal - let's all admit that immaterialism flies in the face of the biblical FACTS and therefore can only be traced to a homosexual pagan philosopher named Plato.


You still haven't shown that God is matter.
Correct. I haven't proven my position 100%. Gotcha. Here's a little reminder for you, as to what the ISBE commented - a text composed by 200 evangelical scholars - on the "glory" of God, as manifested to Moses when God walked by him:

"The glory of Yahweh is clearly a physical manifestation, a form with hands and rear parts, of which Moses is permitted to catch only a passing glimpse, but the implication is clear that he actually does see Yahweh with his physical eyes."

Scripture time and again confirms the ONLY reality known to man, which is tangible reality. So don't try to seduce me into a flight of fancy that randomly embarks into the fairytale world of Plato, with no clear foundation. That's tantamount to telling me, "Trust in the Force, Luke!" Until proven wrong, I don't believe in magic - and neither should you.

So, which is it? Do we know the physical and therefore whether it makes sense to say, "God is physical." Or, is the physical like and wholly unlike our experience? If the later is the case, then your argument for God being physical becomes vacuous. It just means that God and everything else are constituted by the same stuff (whatever that is). That is another unhappy, and potentially absurd, conclusion. It sounds like you need to make an argument.
Yes, you and Plato have a real problem with God consisting of tangible stuff. But Plato's stance on that issue was already clear 2500 years ago. And?
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You keep trying to impose an unrealistic burden of proof on me. Look, all we know is matter.

But it's not an unrealistic burden. We know more than just matter. Are numbers and mathematics matter? Are my thoughts about numbers and mathematics matter? Is my love for another person merely matter? Is my unexpected appreciation for beauty matter? Are joy and hope matter? We know more than matter. But, of course, your argument is that all of those things, and including God, are matter. Don't you think that claim requires, not unassailable proof, but enough of an argument to conclude that all those things I listed are matter?

I have SHOWN that Scripture confirms the default assumption (tangible objects).

I read what you wrote. You have not shown that "All things are matter" is a default assumption, nor that the scriptures confirm as much.

Did I say that? If I did, I think you misunderstood the context.

Maybe I did. Here's what I am tracking so far: You argue that our experience as concerns matter is sufficient (i.e. no burden of proof on your part) to know that God is physical. Scripture can't help you since your interpretation is outside the pale. What most Christians call "supernatural" events and beings are also included under the term "matter." Therefore, matter must function in ways we don't understand, because God and angels act in ways wholly outside our experience of matter. So, is our experience sufficient or not when it comes to knowing whether God is physical?

All I am saying is that you have more of a burden of proof than you are willing to admit. There's no shame in it. If our everyday experience is not enough to settle the question as to whether everything, including God, is physical then you need to provide more of an argument. That's all.

So don't try to seduce me into a flight of fancy that randomly embarks into the fairytale world of Plato, with no clear foundation. That's tantamount to telling me, "Trust in the Force, Luke!"

^_^ Well, I like the reference. :)

Yes, you and Plato have a real problem with God being made of tangible stuff. But Plato's stance on that was already clear 2500 years ago. And?

God is not made. Your materialism seems to be adversely affecting your metaphysics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But it's not an unrealistic burden. We know more than just matter. Are numbers and mathematics matter? Are my thoughts about numbers and mathematics matter? Is my love for another person merely matter? Is my unexpected appreciation for beauty matter? Are joy and hope matter? We know more than matter. But, of course, your argument is that all of those things, and including God, are matter. Don't you think that claim requires, not unassailable proof, but enough of an argument to conclude that all those things I listed are matter?
Um...By existence I meant substance. Love is a state of mind. I can't pour you a glass of love. It's not a substance.

I read what you wrote. You have not shown that "All things are matter" is a default assumption, nor that the scriptures confirm as much.
Right. Trust in the Force, Luke! That is, believe whatever fantastical nonsense that suits your fancy. Perfectly justified, right? After all, no one can really "prove" that matter exists, or "prove" that it should be the default definition of substance. And until then, it's perfectly rational to believe whatever you want.

Maybe I did. Here's what I am tracking so far: You argue that our experience as concerns matter is sufficient (i.e. no burden of proof on your part) to know that God is physical. Scripture can't help you since your interpretation is outside the pale. What most Christians call "supernatural" events and beings are also included under the term "matter." Therefore, matter must function in ways we don't understand, because God and angels act in ways wholly outside our experience of matter. So, is our experience sufficient or not when it comes to knowing whether God is physical?
And all those events are explicable on tangible terms. "Miracles" of healing? God calls Himself the Great Physician. Does your doctor rely on magic? Mine uses his own hands.

God is not made. Your materialism seems to be adversely affecting your metaphysics.
I could have chosen better wording. In fact I corrected it before you posted.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Should I make my door bigger, so God has an easier time coming inside? I presume it needs to be a very big door, since "In Him we live and move and have our being".

How big do you think the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth is? Like, should I instead just have some sort of giant ceiling hatch on my roof or something?

I don't want God bonking His head when I pray.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums