God Is a Physical Being

[JAL]

Seems like crude materialism as the only reality leads to pantheism and determinism which do not match the idea of God as a trinity of love. But I guess it depends on how complex you think the material reality is.

Care to define "crude materialism"? You seem to be barking up on the wrong tree.

God would simply be too imperfect if he was merely the universe.

Confirmed. Again, I'm not a materialistic reductionist. Neither was Tertullian. You can't begin with "crude", unconscious, non-sentient matter and then somehow end up with consciousness, creativity, humor, self-awareness, emotions, time-consciousness (etc. etc. etc). In a word, I'm not an epiphomenalist.

Every aspect of consciousness that YOU believe in, so do I, and just like you rightly believe that such cannot evolve from lifeless matter, so do I. What I disagree with is the assumption that matter need be defined as lifeless. Let's put the matter another way. Consciousness involves substance because, if no one exists, there is nothing conscious. So we have two choices. Either:

(1) Consciousness is a faculty of immaterial substance.
(2) Or consciousness is a faculty of material substance.

To prematurely assume - or even prefer - 1 over 2 is simply Platonic bias. All we can do, frankly, is try to take the most reasonable stance based on the available evidence (empirical, exegetical, phenomenological). And when we do that, we find that choice 2 is the decisive winner.

 

[JAL]

@1213,
@Noxot

Sorry, I disagree with you. If spirit means just breath/wind, it still would not be physical being and I don’t think it would fit to the description Bible has. Because Bible tells God is spirit and love that has certain influence, I don’t think it is just breath/wind.

I meant to follow up on this, although my last post 141 somewhat did so already.

Essentially the influence of Platonic indoctrination has landed you into a category mistake. Example of a category mistake:

"I have an excellent vocabulary, but I'm not really sure whether my vocabulary is red or green in color."

Clearly a vocabulary has nothing to do with the category "color". Getting back to your comment, it's a category mistake to reason like this (even though Thomas Aquinas engaged in such false reasoning):

1. Consciousness is not a mere material substance (such as breath/wind).
2. Therefore the mind is an immaterial substance.

Premise 1 is a category mistake because consciousness, in its essence, is not a substance. It's not supposed to be a substance. I can't pour you a glass of joy. (Well, I suppose that's debatable, depending on your favorite alcoholic beverage. (Smile) )

Rather, a conscious experience is an experience - the event of feeling/sensing something - had BY a substance. The question at issue is this. In regard to the person (the substance) having this experience, is he immaterial substance, or material substance? As explained in my last post (141), we can't just presume one or the other. We have to investigate the evidence.

 

[JAL]

More interestingly, I really do not know what you mean by "a Dad who transcends the laws of physics." Is he a material being or is he not? If he is material, how can he transcend the laws of physics, given that they are what define what matter even is?

I was pretty clear on this. For a person with a philosophy background, you're not making much effort to comprehend me. Or maybe your heart is set on a strawman argument? I hope not.

Think of "forces" such as electricity, magnetism, gravity. As Newton realized, it is inane to take forces literally, much more reasonable to claim that a direct physical pressure is being applied, whether the hand of God or atmospheric pressure (he vacillated on this, I'm told). In my view, it is the hand of God. Powered by what? Free will. I discussed this already. God transcends the "laws" of physics because His own hand artificially fabricates them. He can turn them off temporarily, or permanently, or universally, or for particular scenarios, individuals, pieces of matter, etc. Thus, for example, an angel need not be subject to gravity. It's God's call.

Basically the only real "law" of physics - the only non-fabricated rule that even God can't change - is that all matter is tangible by definition.

The atheist doesn't believe in the possibility of miracles because he's in denial about the reality of free will. You say that most atheists are determinists. That may be true in their philosophical confessions but in my experience - in actual practice - they typically hold to a standard of ethics and enjoin others to do the same. In fact I worked with an atheist for 2 years who insisted that homosexuality was an act of blatant immorality.

I do not agree with you that a material God exists. Our conceptions of theism are fundamentally opposed, so for the purposes of this debate, there is no common ground.

I don't care whether you agree with me that God is tangible. What I care about is the honesty to admit that:
(1) Exegesis decisively favors physicality (tangible substance)
(2) Immaterialism is not an exegetical datum. It's not a fact of Scripture, but rather an adoption of Plato's philosophy that flies in the face of Scripture.

What's a tangible soul? Sounds like gobbledygook to me. Can you provide empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing?

No, what's absolute nonsense - a patent contradiction in terms - is the notion that an immaterial mind could interact with a material body. That was Tertullian's argument alluded to in the OP. More on this later.

 

[Silmarien]

Think of "forces" such as electricity, magnetism, gravity. As Newton realized, it is inane to take forces literally, much more reasonable to claim that a direct physical pressure is being applied, whether the hand of God or atmospheric pressure (he vacillated on this, I'm told). In my view, it is the hand of God. Powered by what? Free will. I discussed this already. God transcends the "laws" of physics because His own hand artificially fabricates them. He can turn them off temporarily, or permanently, or universally, or for particular scenarios, individuals, pieces of matter, etc. Thus, for example, an angel need not be subject to gravity. It's God's call.

What does it mean for God to have a physical hand that transcends the laws of physics? Seriously, I don't hate your arguments, in that they're reminiscent of the arguments for classical theism, but what you keep on describing isn't in any meaningful sense a physical being. What does it mean for a physical being to be directing pressure upon the atoms in the universe? Is this a physical being that we neither see nor feel? Is it made up of the atoms that it's applying pressure to? How does that even work?

I don't care whether you agree with me that God is tangible. What I care about is the honesty to admit that:
(1) Exegesis decisively favors physicality (tangible substance)
(2) Immaterialism is not an exegetical datum. It's not a fact of Scripture, but rather an adoption of Plato's philosophy that flies in the face of Scripture.

I don't agree with either of these points, but it doesn't matter. Fight with someone else over Scripture, if you want. What I'm interested in is whether the notion of a material God can even be made coherent.

No, what's absolute nonsense - a patent contradiction in terms - is the notion that an immaterial mind could interact with a material body. That was Tertullian's argument alluded to in the OP. More on this later.

I'm not a Cartesian dualist, though I don't think it's ever been conclusively established that an immaterial mind could not interact with a material body. In any case, I don't see how it's relevant to the question of whether God is material or immaterial, since as per classical theism, God isn't an immaterial "substance" interacting with material substances.

 

[public hermit]

tangible substance

Yes, the physical is usually demarcated by that which we experience. The problem with your definition of matter as that which is "tangible" (i.e. experienced by touch) is that God and angels are not tangible entities. God is not an object of empirical experience. In fact, God is not an object at all, which is what you make God with your "tangible" matter. If God were tangible, we would have far less atheists because (Lord knows) all they want is empirical (i.e. tangible) evidence.

Ultimately all tangible substance, in essence, is qualitatively alike, but not quantitatively

So, God and I are (essentially) qualitatively alike since we are both composed of matter? You should write this down as absurdity #15.

Thus I consist of two parts:
(1) A body, as normally understood (unawakened, essentially inanimate matter).
(2) A soul (awakened matter) that self-propels by free will. God's hand permits it enough freedom from the laws of physics to escape determinism but not enough freedom to escape the human body. It's not inherently comprised of protons, electrons, neutrons, but possibly assumes such modalities as to properly meld with, and physically animate, the human body).

You give physical entities properties that physical entities just don't have. This has been my complaint all along. You want to call everything physical, and yet by "physical' you mean something wholly other than what is usually understood as "physical." And so, under your use the term "physical' become vacuous. It simply means whatever you want it to mean. I'll be honest, this is getting tiresome. Unless you can make some sense, your position can only be taken as nonsensical.

A state of mind is the event of feeling/experiencing something

Events are a series of states of affairs that happen in a contiguous manner. Telling me a state of mind is an event doesn't answer the question. Are these events physical? Please, don't answer because I doubt what you will say will make sense. Your dogmatism is showing.

He is simply a distinct mass of sentient matter

Lord have mercy. God is constituted by mass and sentience? Well, let's hope that compound stays intact, or we're all in trouble.

I always argue my case vigorously

You may argue vigorously, but you haven't thought this through thoroughly.

A very wise principle known as Occam's Razor

Please, don't. You have not provided the simplest explanation. You have muddied waters that have been settled for a long time. You have reinvented the wheel by trying to convince us a square wheel is much better than one that is round.

This isn't rocket science

It isn't even science. It isn't metaphysics. It isn't intelligible.

Occam's Razor, my friend. It's not complicated.

I wish you the best. I think you are sincere, as misguided as you might be. I have never come across this kind of position. I am thinking there is a reason for that, but it must be a reason that escapes you. Let's apply Occam's razor by ending this conversation between you and I and not complicating an already convoluted thread. Peace.

 

[JAL]

What does it mean for God to have a physical hand that transcends the laws of physics?

Wow. Still not clear? Really? Again. God creates the illusion of gravity by physically applying pressure to particles as needed, with His own physical hands. (Here I'm using "hands" in the extended sense of the divine Word spread throughout the universe, staying in contact with all matter at all times as to carefully monitor it). Therefore God Himself is not subject to the law of gravity - He is not subject to the laws of physics because He CREATES those laws by His own hands. (That's all I mean by "transcend" - don't read too much into it. ).

What does it mean for a physical being to be directing pressure upon the atoms in the universe? Is this a physical being that we neither see nor feel? Is it made up of the atoms that it's applying pressure to? How does that even work?

I don't fathom the disconnect here. What is unclear? Are you asking me what a hand is? Are you asking what it means to apply pressure to a piece of matter with your hand? Maybe you're thinking literally of big fat fingers too clumsy to segregate atoms. Look, every particle of the divine Word self-propels by free will and is thus an extension of God's arms and hands. Thus if He wants to apply pressure to 100 atoms, He'll utilize 100 atom-sized particles of the divine Word. Does that make it more clear?

You've asked if God is visible? Yes, when He's not hiding Himself. He is is visible to the extent that - and on the occasions that - He allows either His own Light, or ordinary light, to reflect off His Presence into your eyes. He can also create visions and dreams in your brain directly, by physically manipulating the electrochemical streams in the brain.

I don't agree with either of these points, but it doesn't matter. Fight with someone else over Scripture, if you want. What I'm interested in is whether the notion of a material God can even be made coherent.

Again, is it logically coherent for you to have a Dad? Yes. Problem solved.

If you're insisting that God has to correspond to Plato's expectations of what God should be, that's a separate issue. Good luck with that.

 

[JAL]

Yes, the physical is usually demarcated by that which we experience. The problem with your definition of matter as that which is "tangible" (i.e. experienced by touch) is that God and angels are not tangible entities.

Again, such dogmatic statements are blatantly Platonic assertions that are blatantly contradicted by the facts of Scripture. Am I the only one here who has noticed that, while I've provided plausible exegetical evidence for materialism, the immaterialists are not reciprocating? Again, pay attention to the facts of Scripture:

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow." (Mat 28)

Explain to me, how does an intangible angel push away a stone, and then sit on it, and remain garbed in clothing?

 

[Noxot]

Consciousness is the point where other realities intercept and join with this one. Spirit is like water in that it can be liquid, solid, gaseous, or plasma. It is infinite and so the symbols it makes to express part of what it is do not express all of what it is because it is the potentiality of everything which is why it is a realm of freedom. This freedom is not shown in the experience of our material reality clearly because our material reality is the effect of freedom or spirit. When something happens it has collapsed into that something or it has manifest something in itself and negated other things in itself. Therefore Freedom must be before being, precontaining all information or programming language that is needed for other things to be.

our souls cannot be a collection of experiences rooted only in the material body, because it is a discursive and constantly changing reality which does not remember information fully since that information is impressed upon another reality as experience occurs. It is also impressed on our material bodies but not in a perfect manner. A material body is corruptible which is why if it is damaged enough it can no longer functions as a person. Therefore God must have information of us somewhere else, which would be our soul - The House and container of our spirit. It is the micro of the macro reality. Because we are a micro reality we are said to be made in God's image. in fact I would say that the father is the macro reality and the Son is the micro multiplicity.

The material reality as we know it is considered to be solid like ice. But this material reality is but one manifestation of spirit. In fact there are realities outside of the space-time of this one that our body is in. That is why in dreams and in certain psychedelic experiences we can even have whole entire other lives even though in this world only a few minutes pass. we simply take a little something of what our Soul experienced in another reality and make a crude impression upon this one. Humans for the most part function in their crude body which is why Christianity says that humans have fallen. the job of mysticism is to overcome creatureliness. In mysticism we find worlds that cannot be said to be just this Flesh or universe, even though those worlds are connected to this one. But the land is not in the ocean so much as the ocean is on the land.

 

[Noxot]

It is not wise to use Occam's razor for metaphysics. Occam's razor is better to be used for things like scientific inquiry, but even then it may have its limits.

 

[JAL]

So, God and I are (essentially) qualitatively alike since we are both composed of matter? You should write this down as absurdity #15.

That's a non-sequitur, and certainly not my position. The basis of the qualitative similitude, rather, is a cosmogony difficult to explain in detail for fear of seeing this thread shut down. I've reminded you of this concern multiple times now. I'm doing the best I can here. On this thread I'm mostly trying to surface the exegetical basis for materialism, at least right now. Down the road, or perhaps on another thread, I can perhaps detail my cosmogony a bit more.

You give physical entities properties that physical entities just don't have.

Category mistake based on Platonic bias - and already refuted at posts 137, 141, 142.

Events are a series of states of affairs that happen in a contiguous manner. Telling me a state of mind is an event doesn't answer the question. Are these events physical? Please, don't answer because I doubt what you will say will make sense. Your dogmatism is showing.

Category mistake. Asking whether a conscious experience is physical or nonphysical is like asking whether your vocabulary is red or green in color. Again, see posts 137, 141, 142.

Lord have mercy. God is constituted by mass and sentience? Well, let's hope that compound stays intact, or we're all in trouble.

What was that you said about dogmatism?

The irony of this entire conversation is that the ONLY incoherent position here is immaterialism. I plan to comment on that a bit more, shortly.

I can't imagine a more ironic position than the claim that an assertion grounded in matter is incoherent, while magical immaterial substance is a perfectly rational supposition.

 

[public hermit]

Down the road, or perhaps on another thread, I can perhaps detail my cosmogony a bit more.

If that's what it takes to make sense of your claims, then please do. If you create that thread in the appropriate forum, I will be sure to take a look at it and try to give as generous an assessment as I can.

I commend you on sticking to your guns and holding your position. I just can't see it. But, if you can offer your cosmogony and it helps then I look forward to it.

 

[Noxot]

Everyone who knows the truth speaks of it according to their capacity. Because of language being a Multiplicity and because of capacity being more or less having such and such and not this or that, discussion of reality becomes confusing.

it is sad that in censoring the search, inquiry and free discussion of Truth that those people may very well reject the truth itself. they are always kicking against the goads and trying to have the best seats in the synagogue. If they had any sense in them at all they would feel shame over the rules they make. But I really don't think they're that conscious of what they are doing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

All joking aside, some of us might indeed be alive when Jesus returns. And I surmise that He will send His angels to gather up His people.

26“At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."

"We who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever" (1Th 4).

As for these angels that will collect our bodies and transport them, do you expect they will they do so with tangible hands? Or intangible hands? Just curious what your take is on all this.

Even assuming your reading is correct, that angels will literally gather the Faithful together at Christ's glorious Parousia, trying to restrict an immaterial creature that we know next to nothing about because God hasn't bothered to say much about the angels to us to the limits of human understanding seems silly.

The angels are, yes, immaterial, not material. Can angels manifest as visible and even solid things? Sure, absolutely, according to God's will and purpose we see angels appear in many ways, often even with human appearance. So let's assume the most absolute literal reading that we're going to say that the text means angels are going to literally grab the Faithful by the toe? Shirt collar? This is still all within what we'd expect with immaterial angels who appear, work, and act in accordance with God's will and purpose. If He wants His angels to literally take the Faithful by the toe to meet the Lord in the air, then that's God's prerogative.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[public hermit]

Explain to me, how does an intangible angel push away a stone, and then sit on it, and remain garbed in clothing?

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. 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.

You are saying, "Since angels can function in a physical space, then angels must be physical." But, when an angel does things that no physical entity is known to do, you want to say, "Well, that's physical, too." No, it's not physical in any sense that the term "physical" is commonly used. This is my complaint. You want to extend "physical" to cover everything. That's all good and fine. But to claim further that it should be obvious, or that thousands of years of Christianity are mistaken, it's just too much credence for an outside position.

But, maybe that is where your cosmogony comes in? It would be great to see a detailed account of your position. Lay out the mechanics of your system. I get that it doesn't have to be perfect. Just paint the picture. You have already given your scriptural support. If you want to convince those duped by philosophy, you might need to use a little of the same to break the spell.

 

[Silmarien]

Wow. Still not clear? Really? Again. God creates the illusion of gravity by physically applying pressure to particles as needed, with His own physical hands. (Here I'm using "hands" in the extended sense of the divine Word spread throughout the universe, staying in contact with all matter at all times as to carefully monitor it). Therefore God Himself is not subject to the law of gravity - He is not subject to the laws of physics because He CREATES those laws by His own hands. (That's all I mean by "transcend" - don't read too much into it. ).

Alright, you're using "hands" to mean "the divine Word spread throughout the universe, staying in contact with all matter at all times as to carefully monitor it."

In what sense precisely is the divine Word material? If it's not a literal hand, what is it? Is it not literal matter? Are we talking about a figuratively material God?

I don't fathom the disconnect here. What is unclear? Are you asking me what a hand is? Are you asking what it means to apply pressure to a piece of matter with your hand? Maybe you're thinking literally of big fat fingers too clumsy to segregate atoms. Look, every particle of the divine Word self-propels by free will and is thus an extension of God's arms and hands. Thus if He wants to apply pressure to 100 atoms, He'll utilize 100 atom-sized particles of the divine Word. Does that make it more clear?

No. We are light years away from being clear. What does it mean for every particle of the divine Word to self-propel by free will? What is a "particle of the divine Word"? Does it act like normal subatomic particles? What is an atom-sized particle?

You've asked if God is visible? Yes, when He's not hiding Himself. He is is visible to the extent that - and on the occasions that - He allows either His own Light, or ordinary light, to reflect off His Presence into your eyes. He can also create visions and dreams in your brain directly, by physically manipulating the electrochemical streams in the brain.

Is God literally the universe? Is God dark matter? Is this pantheism? Are you in a part of the country that's currently locked down? Is this cabin fever?

Again, is it logically coherent for you to have a Dad? Yes. Problem solved.

If you're insisting that God has to correspond to Plato's expectations of what God should be, that's a separate issue. Good luck with that.

Pretty sure God isn't my biological father.

 

[JAL]

Alright, you're using "hands" to mean "the divine Word spread throughout the universe, staying in contact with all matter at all times as to carefully monitor it."

In what sense precisely is the divine Word material? If it's not a literal hand, what is it? Is it not literal matter? Are we talking about a figuratively material God?

You keep asking the same questions because you're frustrated that you can't find any credible objections to my position. Again, God is tangible substance self-propelled by free will. All of us experience self-propelling free will every day. That's why, if you physically assault me, the courts won't blame the "laws of physics" - they will blame YOU, they will blame your free will, and hold you accountable for it.

My whole world view is empirically confirmed 100 billion times a day before your very eyes but you're trying to make it sound confusing and unusual, for lack of any credible objections. Whatever.

No. We are light years away from being clear. What does it mean for every particle of the divine Word to self-propel by free will? What is a "particle of the divine Word"? Does it act like normal subatomic particles? What is an atom-sized particle?

That's like saying, I can't believe in the existence of computers until I specifically can name and delineate every type of component, circuit, and atomic particle on the motherboard. Until then, don't tell me that computers constitute a coherent concept." Again, whatever.

Totally ridiculous. Your claim is that a position grounded in basic material principles is incoherent? Fine. In my next post I'm going to enumerate the incoherent aspects of immaterialism. And I guess we'll just have to let the readers decide for themselves which of the two sides of this debate is most coherent. (Not that I can expect much objectivity after 2,000 years of indoctrination).

 

[JAL]

@Silmarien
@public hermit,


In the church, the official definition of immaterialism is known as DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity). 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)

Since that's a difficult article, I will try to summarize those 2 paragraphs now. When I say that a dog is brown, I myself attribute the color entirely to the arrangement of its particles. Plato had a different theory. He believed that concepts such as brown-ness exist (as immaterial realities) and somehow physically influence matter. (How does an immaterial substance manage to influence tangible matter ???). In DDS, however, God is bodiless and thus is pure concept. He doesn't HAVE omniscience. He IS the omniscience concept itself. God doesn't HAVE love for us - rather He is the love-concept itself.

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?

This doesn't fit well with Scripture. At Gen 18, God came over to Abram's for supper. Abram baked Him up a loaf of bread, fired Him up a beef steak, and chatted with Him over the meal. Try doing THAT with a concept!

(12) If the soul has no size and shape, it is incoherent to claim that is located within the human body.
(13)In terms of our heavenly hope, it is totally incoherent and futile to even TRY to imagine a bodiless state, that is, an environment where I am a member but have no size, shape, location in space, no body, etc. Essentially it would mean that I've faded from the picture. As such, I can't feel, see, touch, taste, participate, etc. Scripture teaches that Christ's face illuminates the heavenly city. That betokens a city materially similar to the cities that we know now, with streets of gold.


(There's a bit more, but again, my hands are tied).

 

[JAL]

I missed a point or two. I'll update, by adding points 12 and 13.

 

[Silmarien]

You keep asking the same questions because you're frustrated that you can't find any credible objections to my position. Again, God is tangible substance self-propelled by free will. All of us experience self-propelling free will every day. That's why, if you physically assault me, the courts won't blame the "laws of physics" - they will blame YOU, they will blame your free will, and hold you accountable for it.

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?

My whole world view is empirically confirmed 100 billion times a day before your very eyes but you're trying to make it sound confusing and unusual, for lack of any credible objections. Whatever.

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

That's like saying, I can't believe in the existence of computers until I specifically can name and delineate every type of component, circuit, and atomic particle on the motherboard. Until then, don't tell me that computers constitute a coherent concept." Again, whatever.

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.

Totally ridiculous. Your claim is that a position grounded in basic material principles is incoherent? Fine. In my next post I'm going to enumerate the incoherent aspects of immaterialism. And I guess we'll just have to let the readers decide for themselves which of the two sides of this debate is most coherent. (Not that I can expect much objectivity after 2,000 years of indoctrination).

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

 

[JAL]

Even assuming your reading is correct, that angels will literally gather the Faithful together at Christ's glorious Parousia, trying to restrict an immaterial creature that we know next to nothing about because God hasn't bothered to say much about the angels to us to the limits of human understanding seems silly.

And it isn't necessary to do that, to undermine immaterialism. You don't have to accept my ENTIRE METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM to acknowledge that:
(1) Exegesis provides clear support for material dynamics.
(2) Provides ZERO support for immaterialism
(3) Thererefore immaterialism is fundamentally the adoption of Plato.

Sure, absolutely, according to God's will and purpose we see angels appear in many ways, often even with human appearance. So let's assume the most absolute literal reading that we're going to say that the text means angels are going to literally grab the Faithful by the toe? Shirt collar?

Not sure why the specifics are critical to the debate. Self-propelling matter can, for example, shape-shift if God allows it. As such, an angel could likely afford you much better traveling accomodations than a 747. So? And? Relevance? What IS relevant is that it doesn't make sense to claim that angels carry away our bodies as an intangible process.

As usual the exegetical evidence for physical dynamics is clearly attested, and that for Plato conspicuously absent. That's all I'm saying.