What substance is god/gods made of?

[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.

 

[neurocomp2003]

well if god/s exist out side the human realm...then how do humans believe they can communicate with them as to what i remember communication of our kind exists in our realm.

What I'm getting at is if people believe in god/s...and that he exists in some form...doesn't he have to exist in some type of substance away from empty space.

 

[comwiz72]

i think philip pullman's dark matter / consciousness is a freaky idea...

"dust"y eh...

I agree with poster who mentioned a 2D body observing a 3D one, the 2d body cannot comprehend the 3rd dimension...

interesting topic indeed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

Then what does "corporeal" mean? My comments were intended to suggest to you that the unexamined use of terms like substance and corporeal renders all your arguments moot. You are using Aristotelian categories, and they just aren't the way the universe is.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

Then what does "corporeal" mean? My comments were intended to suggest to you that the unexamined use of terms like substance and corporeal renders all your arguments moot. You are using Aristotelian categories, and they just aren't the way the universe is.

Modern physics makes the idea of matter problematical. Tangible things are so because of a long chain of interactions, leading back to things that aren't tangible at all. Some of these interactions depend on things (virtual particles, Fadeev-Popov ghosts) that in some sense don't really exist!

 

[neurocomp2003]

self-adjoint
in 3D graphics...we place objects in an empty world with a position relative to a global position zero...it is these objects that i call substance/objects if i were working at that low of a scale like in QM. Force/MOvement/collisions are all behavioural properties for these objects...whether they have mass or notn depends on the application...but more than likely they are geometries...like meshes /spheres/boxes etc. What word would you apply that would categorize such fundamental objects in physics(if exists fundamental objects in physics). I use the term corporeal to imply some form/shape but i guess i ill-used the word. Because looking at "dictionary.com" it related to the words material/physical/visible...which i guess all have some other form of meaning in physics.

so

 

[sd01g]

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.

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

Great speculation. I was wondering if this Great Super Quantum Computer has any physical location and what would be its power source?