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!"If it's good enough for Church fathers, it's good enough for me.
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.P.S. in addition to WIND, God, in the scriptures, is also likened to FIRE, FOOD, WATER, LIGHT, a VINE, etc.
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.Does God have gravity?
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. ...
No one is questioning whether God is love.Interesting claim. I believe what that God is spirit and love, because Bible says so.
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.God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
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.
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...
it's all dismissed out of hand because a heathen philosopher named Plato didn't much care for material things.
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?
You might could start with posts 34 and 43, to get a feel for how I understand the term Pneuma usually mistranslated "Spirit".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
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.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.
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.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."
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?Likewise, instances where people simply appear in the room, as Jesus did post-resurrection, are not what one would expect from the physical.
Wow. You're actually not joking.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.
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.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.
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.Here's what we know from our observation of physical entities. Every single one of them, without exception, come into existence and depart...
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?A necessary Being, on the other hand, must exist in all possible worlds.
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.
God is not spirit.
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.
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're actually not joking
One thing we CAN do, however, is examine the facts of both Scripture an experience
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.
See above. I have SHOWN that Scripture confirms the default assumption (tangible objects).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.
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.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.
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.Again, you have claimed that all reality is physical without 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.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.
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:You still haven't shown that God is matter.
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?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 keep trying to impose an unrealistic burden of proof on me. Look, all we know is matter.
I have SHOWN that Scripture confirms the default assumption (tangible objects).
Did I say that? If I did, I think you misunderstood the context.
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!"
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?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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?
I could have chosen better wording. In fact I corrected it before you posted.God is not made. Your materialism seems to be adversely affecting your metaphysics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?