Is it a coincidence that all these things you believe exist are made up of atoms?

No I'm not. I'm asking... If not atoms, then what?

Again, I'm not arguing... I'm stating that atoms make up all matter. So if god is not made up of matter, then what is he/it made up of?

But concept is an incorrect word to use, because I am not referring to any concept. Atoms are real things. Yes, there are made up of smaller sub atomic particles, but so what? This is NOT a concept and once again, I am not arguing.

Haven't I mentioned that I'm not arguing? All I did was state what (I think) I know and posed a question in the OP. I did say that I won't accept deliberate attempts to divert, deceive, or derail the thread or by outright avoiding the question by throwing up concepts and equating them with real things. If you want to call that arguing, fine, but I don't think it is.

Maybe you should go away from your own thread for considering gravity which confuses the issue.

In any event, it's absolutely you who is creating a strawman. No theist that I'm aware of thinks that all beings/entities are comprised of atoms, yet this is your primary premise.

I wasn't trying to confuse anything by bringing up those examples. You aren't getting into the mind of many theists. I brought up "evil" or emotions because a lot of theists say things like, "God IS love".

Lastly, just as a fun point...if God is made up of atoms, and god is supposedly infinite (all knowing, etc.), that would mean he necessarily is comprised of infinite atoms, but then he has infinite mass, but then...well that's just silly.

God interacts with the physical world, so he must at least touch upon the physica. Concepts like 1+1=2 do not.



I'm rejecting silly or non answers (like does 1+1=2 exist without a brain thinking about it).

Hmm. Then why has no one yet answered that god is a force? I am curious to how people think. I do however, doubt that people actually do put much thought into what they think when it comes to god beyond what allows them to justify their belief.

This is not my premise. I make no claims as to what god is made of. I'm simply asking if not atoms, then what? Why is this question so hard?

No serious theologian would answer this question with, "God is love". God might be love, but he must be much more than that if he really exists. The only people who would give just a ridiculous answer are simple minded theists. There are many serious theists in this forum and I would expect a much better (and more detailed) answer from them.

Evil and love are concepts. Sockhead2 nailed it. Now only if a thinking theist would answer. I'm genuinely curious, but I'm not holding my breath.

LOL

No.

Nobody knows.

Apparently I'm going to have to keep wondering why you think this.

For any takers: The only thing that can interact with a physical thing is another physical thing? What is the logic behind this claim?

Your OP says, "Everything takes one of two forms: Matter or energy". That's your primary premise. Since the base unit of matter is atoms, from that of course the only conclusion is that God must be made up of atoms since you assume the conclusion that EVERYTHING that exists is matter.

But what you aren't grasping is that no theist is a pure physicalist like this. What is Lestat made up of? I'm not talking about your body or your brain. Those are made up of atoms. I'm talking about your "mind". Or your "soul". I think a lot of theists would say that your "soul" is not "made up" of a smaller discrete unit. The base unit IS your soul.

So I guess one might think of God as the entire discrete unit. God isn't "made up" of anything. God is the base unit.

I think you'd get a more digestible answer by doing so. Your o.p. is really asking, "what is God made of, atoms?" When we pose what questions, we're asking about the essence or quiddity* of a thing and so as per the below definition, you're really asking, "what does God have in common with physical reality or finite objects like atoms?" Presumably, most theists will claim God has nothing in common with physical objects, but transcends contingent, finite, physical existence.

So, I think opening the question up to gravity helps, because when we ask about the essence or quiddity of a force like gravity, the answer isn't a physical thing but an act. That's closer to the deeper theological definitions of God, IMO, because when theologians define God as Being Itself (again, not 'a' being), God's essence can be described not as a physical object, but the act 'to be'.

In this sense, even if you don't identify God with Being, you can still treat 'being' as an abstract concept and pose the question, "what is the essence of being?" But, it would sound kind of silly to ask, "what is being made of?" Obviously, being is not composed of anything, but transcends all particular existents, and the real essence of the concept being is to be, which I think is closer to what theologians think of when they talk about God's essence. For example, Aquinas thought the goal of all religious practice is the attainment of what he called the Beatific Vision, which he described as the direct experience of Existence (Being) Itself, which he identifies with God.


*from wiki: In scholastic philosophy, quiddity was another term for the essence of an object, literally its "whatness," or "what it is." It [quiddity] describes properties that a particular substance (e.g. a person) shares with others of its kind. The question "what (quid) is it?" asks for a general description by way of commonality.

These are all concepts, which reside in brains. We are beginning to touch the edges of how this works:

I mean, it remains technically possible that our consciousness is some non-physical agency that simply manifests itself through the physical brain, and that rather than being itself altered, the brain's ability to express it is damaged. Like the difference between damage to a speech centre and removal of the tongue. That just seems like a very inelegant arrangement.

Awesome.

This isn't my premise. I thought I was stating a well known/established scientific premise. If not, I'll stand corrected.

It seems you are saying that many theists are willing to overtly abandon science in order to justify their beliefs. I knew that some people unconsciously did this, but didn't realize it was purposeful or the problem so severe.

This is true. But it's also irrelevant to at least the current point, which is that you acknowledge that non-physical entities can (at least potentially) exist. Now we have a different framework of discussion than simply atoms and energy.

It's not as silly as you think it is. There are entire concepts of truth which are worth consideration. Does the claim that 1+1=2 reflect some sort of fundamental reality (this is not just the symbols that we use to express the relationship, but the relationship itself)? For example, how is it possible that multiple civilizations have come to agree upon this type of relationship (perhaps using different symbols, but still expressing the same idea) independently of each other? The universal acceptance of this basic math fact as being undeniably true suggests that this isn't something that minds have just imagined. If so, is that fundamental reality actually exhibited within the physical universe?

Probably because nobody believes this.

I think this is probably true. But it's probably also true for a wide range of beliefs that both religious and non-religious persons hold.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? The "well known/established scientific premise" that everything that that exists is made of matter clearly is only talking about physical objects. Evil is not made of matter. Gravity is not made of matter. These things exist but aren't physical objects and don't happen to be made of matter.

I don't think anyone thinks that god is a physical object so why are you so surprised that no one thinks he is made up of matter? Non-physical things aren't made up of matter. It's not a rejection of science to say that gravity isn't made up of matter, nor is it a rejection of science to say that god isn't. That's why your question is silly. You're asking for the constituent parts of a non physical entity.

So you continue on, well then how can a non physical thing interact with physical things in the way theists believe? Just because you can't think of answer to that doesnt mean their isn't a way (argument from ignorance).

I hope that you understand that by saying that God is "not" in the universe, you put a limit to God's existence. You also posit that universe is an "artifact" which you have absolutely zero reason to assume. This is not your fault, this is the fault of your religion (Christianity) which has a shallow and rather ridiculous understanding of God. All the eastern traditions (as well as the mystical traditions of the western religions-Sufism etc.-, as well as a couple of intelligent and honest guys such as Spinoza) have realized the basic problem with this understanding of God a long time ago. According to those traditions, God is infinite and boundless, which means that it is as much "in" the universe as it is "out" of it. It is the existence itself which cannot be limited.

In Spinoza's philosophy, this idea is captured by the understanding that all we see as separate things (you name it, atoms, energy or whatnot) are simply "modes" of this underlying reality, which is God. Certain eastern traditions go beyond that and do not even mention duality in their speech about God at all and simply assert that everything is God (yes, you are God too).

Monotheistic traditions (especially Christianity) have a hard-time understanding and accepting this basic point, because it means that they then will have to give up their ideas about their inflated egos, about the separate existence of their subjects (or souls, a concept which does not make any sense), but above all because they then will have to give up their sadistic beliefs about "punishment" in the afterlife etc. (You need the separate existence of subjects, souls and similar non-sense to preserve the illusion of "moral responsibility", hence the necessity of punishment in hell etc.). As Nietzsche asserted some time ago in the Twilight of the Idols, scratch the surface of Christianity and you will see the metaphysics of the hangman.

To the OP, the answer is yes (provided that all existence is made up of atoms). If not, and if there are some non-atoms things also in existence, then these non-atom things are God as well.

End of my non-dualistic sermon.

PS: I do not believe in God

Cheers

I explained the sense in which I meant "in" the universe. You either ignored it or are incapable of grasping it.

You have absolutely zero reason to assume this.

Come back after your haughtily self-inflated balloon ride. That is, if you can get enough lead in your pencil to making a logically connected presentation, preferably without multiple cubic meters of fluffily condescending ballast for me to wade through in order to disassemble your case.

Lestat is not being super-rigorous in his phrasing, but what satisfaction can it give you to keep attacking the weakest interpretation of an opposing view? Gravitation is proportional to mass (I'm told) and (I'm likewise assured) the standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of a particle associated with it. I'm not sure where 'not physical' comes in, there.

We do have a problem of defining terms but the people pointing that out aren't helping it.

As for 'evil' - you're not showing anything until you can at least plausibly argue (as opposed to just asserting) that it is more than just a concept, or that concepts exist besides residing in brains.

So as god does. It's the same concept as evil, is unprovable and made of believe's more than other thing, so if believs are made of atom then yes.

The problem with that analogy is that ideas aren't agents. God, we are told, is one. She can take actions.

So She must be of some substance. Something, I know not what, as one philosopher said.

The one that told you that, has no prove or what's so ever of any kind, so this is just idea or believe and it's made of material that we havn't discovered yet, but we probably will within next 300 years .

By the way, on the merits of this, you can solve this problem in the way Spinoza did. But theists, of course, hate Spinoza's God because for them the whole point is the self-importance of the ruler of the universe caring about me me me!

That said, I'm seeing quite a bit of Spinoza's ARGUMENT as to what the nature of God must be in this thread; there's just a refusal to accept his conclusion.

Searched for that dude, and basicly yes he is right (from my point of view). I imagine everything in very similar way and i think that it would be most correct form of thinking untill we can proof otherwise.

What? I usually respect your posts and reasoning but how did you get from statements about what thoughts are and where they go, to a discussion about truth or falsity of statements. would you say that "1+1=3" is true if one brain is thinking it? whether a thought is true or false( can a thought be true or false?) is of no relevance to what thoughts are, how they come about, and where they go(if they go anywhere)

Okay what is the "strongest" interpretation of his view? This topic assumes the existence of god but then puts another assumption that god must be a natural entity made up of some "stuff". But thats a straw man. Theists don't think god is natural or physical. They think he is supernatural and/or metaphysical.

The funny thing in all this is that I'm not even a theist but even I can see the absurdity of this question. What do you think souls are "made up" of? (assuming you genuinely thout they existed?). Well why does a supernatural "thing" like a soul have to be made up of smaller constituent soul particles in the first place?

Again I think it all boils down to your belief that a supernatural thing must have some natural "presence" in order to interact with the natural world. But I think I agree with Concerto here that just because you can't think of the answer to that question doesnt meant there isn't one.

The bolded part is the problem. As far as I can see, OP is only asking what 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' mean in this context. Is it just 'not physical'?

It doesn't have to be. Nevertheless there is presumably a more satisfactory answer to the question 'Of what do souls consist?' than 'Not atoms'.

I don't have such a belief (I don't have a belief in supernatural things). What I do have is curiosity about how a 'supernatural' thing could interact with natural entities. It's true that I can't think of 'the' answer, but it appears equally true that neither Concerto nor your good self can, either. So I would have to say the fact that you can't think of the answer doesn't mean the question is stupid.

But gravity is a measurable force without which, the universe could not operate the way it does. Also, while gravity itself may not be matter, it might need matter to exist. I don't imagine many theists would want to say such a thing about god.

Perhaps I started a subject that is too difficult for me to partake in. As I've said, I'm not a scientist, nor do I have a thorough understanding of some of what I want to touch on. You guys are making it look like this was meant to be an attack on the existence of god, which it was not. I just wanted to know if god exists, then in what capacity does he do so?

It is my understanding that everything is comprised of either energy, atoms, or sub atomic particles. So maybe it would be better if someone better versed in particle physics had posed my question. Unfortunately, I have questions all the time in which I'm not qualified to ask, or even understand the answers I'm given (see some of my SMP questions for examples). But this doesn't stop my curiosity or trying to understand.

As Aaron W (correctly) points out, I often don't understand the subject of which I'm asking a question. I've never thought about whether I'm a physicalist or not. I didn't even know such a term existed (btw- my spell checker doesn't seem to be familiar with this word either). After reading this thread, I guess maybe I am. Things you guys are throwing up like evil, 1+1+2, etc., I consider as concepts, and no... I do not consider concepts to exist outside of brains even if they happen to be true. And as neeeel astutely pointed out, does 1+1+3 also exist?

Back when I was a theist, even though I didn't think of this type of stuff (which is why I think I was still a theist), I'm pretty sure I would have said that gods and spirits were comprised of energy. I don't think I would have said they are neither matter nor energy, yet they exist anyway. And if I found that I did think this way, I'm pretty sure it would have started me questioning exactly what my beliefs were about god, spirit, and soul.

I think the best thing about forums like this, is that they should either get you questioning your axioms, or better able to logically defend them. So to that end, I thought this was at least a reasonable question both for theists and non-believers such as myself.

Which is why I asked. But so far, I haven't heard anything convincing. Again, gravity is a measurable force. God is not. Evil and math equations are concepts. Supposedly, god is more than a concept. So I don't feel any answer so far to be satisfactory. But I'll move on now.