What substance is god/gods made of?

[Royce]

'Godhead' is a better term. This is where the misunderstandings arise, since we seem to be saddled these days with a naive and over-anthropomorphised notion of God derived from institutional Christianity.

There is a Zen story that I came across long ago that pointed out that if everything is sacred, then nothing is sacred. I believe this and in light of our conclusion that everything, the universe, is the Godhead, I have come to the place where God is a natural God and not the "Great Outsider." The term "supernatural" is in itself a contradiction. Few, however, agree with or understand this position.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is a Zen story that I came across long ago that pointed out that if everything is sacred, then nothing is sacred. I believe this and in light of our conclusion that everything, the universe, is the Godhead, I have come to the place where God is a natural God and not the "Great Outsider." The term "supernatural" is in itself a contradiction. Few, however, agree with or understand this position.

How does that compare to Spinoza's Natura creatans?

 

[GaryCGibson]

The substance of my opinion was deleted, evidently because it was of an actual philosophical character instead of neo-fascist physics-only pseudo- philosophy...see my webpage at www.lulu.com/garycgibson if your interested in the uncensored version (the only one remaining. I'm sure this will be censored too however. It's really unfortunate that the censoring goons on this webpage make posting so tedious. Initially I intended to write just one brief paragraph to get a couple of opinions, yet the twin towers of censoring terror make this little defense requisite.

 

[hypnagogue]

The substance of my opinion was deleted, evidently because it was of an actual philosophical character instead of neo-fascist physics-only pseudo- philosophy...see my webpage at www.lulu.com/garycgibson if your interested in the uncensored version (the only one remaining. I'm sure this will be censored too however. It's really unfortunate that the censoring goons on this webpage make posting so tedious. Initially I intended to write just one brief paragraph to get a couple of opinions, yet the twin towers of censoring terror make this little defense requisite.

If you want to discuss ideas in this forum, you have to abide by the guidelines governing discussion of this forum. It's as simple as that. If you don't like our policies on religious discussion, perhaps this is not the right forum for you.

In the future, please refrain from discussing moderation issues in this forum. If you have issues with our guidelines or moderation, you should voice your concerns via PM or in the Feedback & Announcements forum. Thanks.

 

[Canute]

Spinoza is certainly relevant here. I must admit to having some trouble pinning down exactly what he meant in some of his writings, but my impression is that he came about as close as it is possible to get to the Zen view (or more generically the 'mystical' view) by reason alone. But opinions seem to vary on the precise details of what it was he was suggesting, and on some of the details I'm not sure.

Royce - Yes, I also feel that the notion of 'supernatural' is rather incoherent. If some event or entity contradicts the laws of the natural sciences then those laws are not laws. To define what is natural and what is not by reference to man-made laws or opinions seems a touch parochial, to put it mildly.

 

[Royce]

How does that compare to Spinoza's Natura creatans?

I have never read much of Spinoza's work and I'm not familiar with Natura Creatans at all. Can you give us a brief synopsis or are you going to make me read the whole thing.

 

[Royce]

Royce - Yes, I also feel that the notion of 'supernatural' is rather incoherent. If some event or entity contradicts the laws of the natural sciences then those laws are not laws. To define what is natural and what is not by reference to man-made laws or opinions seems a touch parochial, to put it mildly.

Yes, 'parochial' is putting it mildly. I think words like arrogance and hubris may be more fitting. Its not just the apparent breaking of our "natural laws"; but, the idea that if there is only One then there is nothing outside of that One and nothing that is or could be "super" or anything but natural. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that it is beyond nature, After all who in this world understands Quantum Mechanics?

 

[Canute]

Perhaps the idea arose because of the attempt to fully naturalise physics. Those who felt or feel that this cannot be done might easily use the term 'supernatural' to mean what is not explained by a fully naturalised physics, forgetting that the definition of 'natural' adopted by physics may be at odds with what is natural in fact. Then over time physicists forgot that their definition of 'natural' is just a formalism. As you say, it must be impossible in principle for something supernatural to exist or to happen.

 

[sd01g]

is it a substance that know human can detect or define?

There are three major ways to search for God (god): Empirically-- Rationally--Emotionally.

The Empirical search produces only Matter/Energy and its various transitional arrangements. Spinoza's god--Nature.

The Rational search produces only words, ideas, or concepts whose meanings vary and have been the source of conflict and disagreement since recorded history.

The Emotional search uses prayer, mind altering drugs, music, and testimonies of others to find/experience God/god.

So, what is God/god/Gods/gods made of? Answer: Nature or thought or experiences or any combination of the three.

Did I leave anything out?

 

[Les Sleeth]

There are three major ways to search for God (god): Empirically-- Rationally--Emotionally. . . . Did I leave anything out?

Yes. One might develop one's consciousness in a new way and search for God consciously.

 

[Les Sleeth]

is it a substance that know human can detect or define?

I’m a little late commenting (busy on other projects), but this is one of my favorite subjects and currently what I am personally contemplating for something I am writing. My latest thread addressed this topic: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76897

If you notice selfAdjoint’s answer to the call for an “absolute” substance, or as I like to call it, “ground state substance,” he seems to suggest we can explain everything with processes and don’t need no stinkin’ ground state substance (sA says, “I vote for No Substance, it's a process”). I don’t believe he is correct and have posted many individual comments and a couple of threads saying so (e.g. the infamous “The Logic that Suggests all Serious Physicists Believe in God” https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76137, and “Energy's Absurdity “https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46224).

Why would anyone think processes can eliminate the need for a base substance? My theory is, because scientists and science believers are primarily the ones who claim processes are the bottom line, they do so because processes are all science can observe and therefore study. It is not exactly an objective theory, not one derived from logic. My complaint about the absurdity of the energy concept, for instance, was that there is no explanation for what energy IS, only concepts about what energy DOES. It’s fine having process descriptions, and if that is what energy is, then to ask about the composition of energy is like asking what velocity is made out of. Velocity is a measurement of speed and direction, it isn’t a substance, just like energy is a measurement of movement/change or potential movement/change.

On the other hand, to say energy isn’t a substance doesn’t mean something substantial isn’t required for energy to operate, similar to the way something of substance has to exist that velocity measures the speed and direction of. In any other situation of life, we would admit it counters every known principle, and logic, that nothing (using energy as the example) can do work. It is more consistent with what we know that some unobservable something is making the universe change and move.

The references to Spinoza are apt because, in my opinion, he thought profoundly about the subject of what is sometimes called “substance monism” (Plotinus and Meister Eckhart are two other of my favorites). But besides not solving the infinite regress problem, his approach suffers the difficulty of all rationalistic proposals . . . we are not provided a way to test his theories.

Why not, after offering a theory, attempt to model some fundamental aspect of reality we do know about with the new theory? If God is made of something, and consciousness is made of the same thing, and atoms are too, then why not give us a model of each with the hypothetical substance? Show how the nature of the ground state substance accounts for what we can observe here in the universe. For example, why do atoms oscillate, and is the utter dependence of consciousness on oscillatory processes and information mean there is something vibratory about the ground state substance (and God)?

I think selfAdjoint is right to say no third party observation is possible for this. But that doesn’t mean we have to leave the discussion in the hands of blind faith or purely rationalistic conjecture. Somehow we have to try to link ideas about God or a ground state substance to that which we can experience or all we do is trade unsupported opinions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

My theory is, because scientists and science believers are primarily the ones who claim processes are the bottom line, they do so because processes are all science can observe and therefore study.

No it's because science, and especially physics, has an infamous history of hypostatizing substance from current empirical data. Phlogiston, caloric, and the luminiferous ether come to mind. Some quantum physicists of today (or the recent past) were eager to hypostatize the state function into a really existing wave, and you see in the debates between Patrick Vanesch and "ttn" how difficult it is for people learned in QM to give up on realism, although they have to embrace absurdities like Bohmian mechanics or literal many-worlds in order to hang onto it.

So I reiterate; process is all we know, and there is nothing to suggest we can know any substance. In particular the philosophers' attempt to generate substance either a priori or via premise handwaving is worthless.

 

[Les Sleeth]

No it's because science, and especially physics, has an infamous history of hypostatizing substance from current empirical data. Phlogiston, caloric, and the luminiferous ether come to mind. Some quantum physicists of today (or the recent past) were eager to hypostatize the state function into a really existing wave, and you see in the debates between Patrick Vanesch and "ttn" how difficult it is for people learned in QM to give up on realism, although they have to embrace absurdities like Bohmian mechanics or literal many-worlds in order to hang onto it.

Yes, but I'd suggest that people expert at studying processes are least qualified to propose an absolute generality. If you are familiar with business, it's similar to why accountants normally don't make good CEOs . . . great with processes, crappy generalists. So citing all the process experts' attempts at generalizing a ground state substance as reason to avoid the theory is like saying we should do away with CEOs because accountants have failed so miserably at it.

So I reiterate; process is all we know, and there is nothing to suggest we can know any substance. In particular the philosophers' attempt to generate substance either a priori or via premise handwaving is worthless.

I TOTALLY agree that "philosophers' attempt to generate substance either a priori or via premise handwaving is worthless." But that has nothing to do with our potential for knowing. If you are content with all you can know using the consciousness skills we are born with, fine, but it doesn't mean that by developing new consciousness skills, we can't learn to know something new.

I say, we CAN know the ground state substance experientially, and so it doesn't have to be an a priori assumption, rationalization, or premise handwaving we are destined to rely on.

 

[neurocomp2003]

nuts, if only i was so fond of reading some of the people you references...but i am not =[

 

[Les Sleeth]

nuts, if only i was so fond of reading some of the people you references...but i am not =[

It's not that hard to research quickly with all the great online sources availiable. Here's one of my favorites: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

 

[sd01g]

Yes. One might develop one's consciousness in a new way and search for God consciously.

I did leave out one very important emotional tool one can use when searching for God/gods--meditation. However, developing one's consciousness in a new way is part of the mind altering drugs category.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I TOTALLY agree that "philosophers' attempt to generate substance either a priori or via premise handwaving is worthless." But that has nothing to do with our potential for knowing. If you are content with all you can know using the consciousness skills we are born with, fine, but it doesn't mean that by developing new consciousness skills, we can't learn to know something new.

I say, we CAN know the ground state substance experientially, and so it doesn't have to be an a priori assumption, rationalization, or premise handwaving we are destined to rely on.

My probem with introspective "knowing" was laid out by Dennet in Consciousness Exlained and by many others: you can't trust your consciousness. Your brain generates lies and they are all you know internally.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I did leave out one very important emotional tool one can use when searching for God/gods--meditation. However, developing one's consciousness in a new way is part of the mind altering drugs category.

Meditation, at least as I practice it, is most definitely not an emotional tool, and certainly not rationalistic. The closest on your list would be empirical, which would work as a category if it weren't commonly accepted that the experiential aspect of empiricism is limited to sense experience. The deepest experience of meditation is not sense experience.

Regarding mind altering drugs, I did a lot in my youth, and certain drugs (e.g., mescaline) did seem to help. But that was also when I didn't have meditation to rely on, and I dropped all drug use once I discovered how much more effective meditation is.

 

[Les Sleeth]

My problem with introspective "knowing" was laid out by Dennett in Consciousness Exlained and by many others: you can't trust your consciousness. Your brain generates lies and they are all you know internally.

Sometimes you make me laugh (sincerely, not from ridicule). I don't know why that cracked me up. Let's see if I can dig it out of my psyche.

First, I say Dennett is not an authority on consciousness potential. Let's say you assign a computer the task of figuring out what love is. The computer thinks for years and never gets it because love is a feeling, not a thought. Dennett is determined to reduce everything to a concept, but not everything fits into a conceptual framework, not fully anyway. IMO, he is just another intellectual who thinks he is so smart he can figure out anything, even that which can't be thought. And that which can't be thought . . . he "dismisses" as illusion.

Regarding not trusting one's consciousness, to me that seems a really strange thing to say since I am convinced I am consciousness and therefore trust it more than any other thing in the universe. What am I going to do, doubt my being?

But I don't think we are talking about the same thing. What you say we can't trust I believe is the conditioning of the mind we are all subjected too. That conditioning, along with selfishness, ignorance, emotional instability, fear, etc., all can bias our views and decisions. But I don't see that as consciousness; rather it stuff consciousness gets caught up in using the mind. The thing about the deepest experience of meditation is that it stops the mind, and that is exactly where all the deluded stuff is! So I don't know why you would think introspection doesn't lead to new consciousness skills.

You say you don't trust intropsective knowing but what isn't, in the end, internal when it comes to each individual consciousness? Besides, I doubt if you have given the type of intropection I talk about a serious try, so aren't you just guessing about that?

 

[Rade]

The initial post asked this question:
What substance is god/gods made of? is it a substance that know (sic) human can detect or define?

The question asks if humans can know god/gods as a "substance", and if so, what this substance must be. First to definitions, god is defined as (Webster) 1. "any of the various beings conceived of as supernatural"... Thus, the substance of god (by definition) is "supernatural".

Now, "supernatural" is defined (Webster) 1. "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; caused by other than the known forces of nature"...

So, to answer the first question, the "substance" of god/gods is not caused by known forces of nature (such as electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear force). Thus, humans do have in general an understanding of what the "god substance" is not made of (it is not caused by forces of physics and chemistry such as quantum mechanics), and any attempt to try an understand the "god substance" using concepts of physics or chemistry must fail, because these two sciences operate within the known forces of nature.

Now, someone suggested that the god substance was the soft drink-Dr. Pepper. Clearly we can see that this is a false premise--Dr. Pepper is a chemical derived from forces of nature. Others have suggested that the god substance is within all that exists--but this also is a false premise because all that exists also operate via forces of nature. Now, the god substance may have "created" all that exists using forces of nature, but by definition god substance itself cannot "be" all that exists.

In summary, the god substance is a supernatural identity that is maintained by processes that operate outside the known forces of nature.

 

[sd01g]

force). In summary, the god substance is a supernatural identity that is maintained by processes that operate outside the known forces of nature.

The above statement is completely devoid of empirical evidence. Much like the notion of parallel universes, it should properly be viewed as imaginary, as it exists only in the mind. It may be of emotional significance, and should be evaluated as having the ability to affect human behavior and, hence, value to the INDIVIDUAL.

 

[neurocomp2003]

so rade:

your basically saying that whatever substance that god/s are made out of, it will never be detectable by humans no matter how far and wide physics/chemistry probe our university. Thus you have made the conclusion that humans will never understand the universe as a whole picture, and thus implying that they will never understand the fundamental nature of physics/chemistry.

 

[Intuitive]

is it a substance that know human can detect or define?

I would believe that God is an Artificial Intelligence with an 11th dimension brain, Possibly a brain made of a Quantum singularity in 11 dimensions, Science will achieve this with the square law of technology, Not tied to time and space as we experience it but a more advanced level of living thought.

The forunner to this is Quantum Computers but radically more advanced.

However, it will be the top end computational system not limited to our three dimensional way of thinking. The ultimate Chess player! possibly thousands of years into our own scientific computational future.

________________________________________________
We make our own Gods, Science makes them better.

 

[Rade]

so rade:your basically saying that whatever substance that god/s are made out of, it will never be detectable by humans no matter how far and wide physics/chemistry probe our university. Thus you have made the conclusion that humans will never understand the universe as a whole picture, and thus implying that they will never understand the fundamental nature of physics/chemistry.

Exactly. By definition, the concept of "god substance" is outside knowledge gained via scientific method (all the physics, chemistry, biology, etc. type observations and experiments--have nothing at all to do with search for "god substance"--scientists search for truth using knowledge gained via application of the laws of nature). By definition, "god substance" is "supernatural", thus outside laws of nature. However, your logic errors that we must then hold that humans will never understand the whole universe or laws of nature, because you assume in your argument that such a thing as "god substance" in fact exists. If in fact it does not exist, humans do have "potential" to uncover the "whole" of existence, for the simple reason that the whole may not contain any god substance at all.

 

[Rade]

The above statement is completely devoid of empirical evidence. Much like the notion of parallel universes, it should properly be viewed as imaginary, as it exists only in the mind. It may be of emotional significance, and should be evaluated as having the ability to affect human behavior and, hence, value to the INDIVIDUAL.

By definition, all attempts to define "god substance' must be lacking empirical evidence--by definition, god substance is "supernatural" (not my definition, see Webster), thus all talk about concept of "god substance" only existing "in the mind" is in fact the only place such a concept can exist such that humans can have understanding of the spatial "place" of god substance--as opposed to the unclear spatial concept of heaven. When I tell someone that "god substance" exists in my mind--it is given personal (and hence human) meaning. Thus I agree that having a concept of "god substance" can be of great value to the individual mind, whether or not such a concept in fact exists outside the human mind in another place.

 

[neurocomp2003]

huh? websters dictionary defines the whole phrase gods substance?

and by stating "gods substance" does not mean one assumes supernatural
it is a scientific statement asking what material(matter/nonmatter/energy) would god/s be made outof if they can have contact with our world)

if a persons' argument is that humans will never be able to detect god then it becomes supernatural...however if a person can converse with god in our known physical realm or feel god does that not change the medium

 

[selfAdjoint]

huh? websters dictionary defines the whole phrase gods substance?

and by stating "gods substance" does not mean one assumes supernatural
it is a scientific statement asking what material(matter/nonmatter/energy) would god/s be made outof if they can have contact with our world)

if a persons' argument is that humans will never be able to detect god then it becomes supernatural...however if a person can converse with god in our known physical realm or feel god does that not change the medium

Well, then what do you mean by "substance"? Science doesn't use this word. Matter is fermions interacting with bosons, which carry forces. Mass is an interaction; so is charge. Non-obvious properties like spin are more important in what happens than mass. Location is on a sliding scale with momentum. Energy is maybe or maybe not conserved. Any room for a divine being in there?

 

[neurocomp2003]

selfadjoint: any substance...something of a corporeal form. I use the word subtance because I'm not sure what word physicists use to classify both matter/nonmatter. I would use the word material but people associate that with matter. Substance is the only word I've found to describe both but even then somepeople associate it to matter.

K back to the topic
Think about an empty space(as one would interms of programming 3D graphics).
Then you populate it with objects/substance(of a very low scale <~10e-15m i think is an e-)

Now god/s, if they exist(i'm atheist but some of my family are religious), must exist in this realm of socalled empty space(when it is populated).

The question i guess then becomes is the substance("supernatural" term has been used above) that gods are made out of detectable by human-means or is the substance/universe that we are comprised of disjoint from that "supernatural" substance or a "subspace" of that supernatural substance and thus DIFFERENCE remains undetectable. Since people can have "vision" or "speak" to god...does that mean ther eis a transformation or mapping that occurs between the two realms.

 

[jimmie]

what substance is god/gods made of?

While there are many parts, the actual recipe calls for one part...

 

[Rade]

huh? websters dictionary defines the whole phrase gods substance?

No, first define "god", then "substance", then put the two concepts together. Here is what I said at post no. 50 about the concept of "god substance" you asked about:

The question [initial thread post] asks if humans can know god/gods as a "substance", and if so, what this substance must be. First to definitions, god is defined as (Webster) 1. "any of the various beings conceived of as supernatural"... Thus, the substance of god (by definition) is "supernatural".

Now, "supernatural" is defined (Webster) 1. "existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; caused by other than the known forces of nature"...

So, to answer the first question, the "substance" of god/gods is not caused by known forces of nature (such as electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear force). Thus, humans do have in general an understanding of what the "god substance" is not made of (it is not caused by forces of physics and chemistry such as quantum mechanics), and any attempt to try an understand the "god substance" using concepts of physics or chemistry must fail, because these two sciences operate within the known forces of nature.

But perhaps I am just dense, so would someone please provide a scientific definition of "god substance" so that we can begin experimental search for it.