What substance is god/gods made of?

[neurocomp2003]

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

 

[Pengwuino]

dr. pepper

Im sure many will agree with me

 

[arildno]

Dreams, I'd say.

 

[Royce]

What substance is consciousness made of? Can humans detect it? To hard? How about thought or ideas, philosophy itself? Can we detect it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

What substance is consciousness made of? Can humans detect it? To hard? How about thought or ideas, philosophy itself? Can we detect it?

If this is just a call for opinions, I vote for No Substance, it's a process. And I also vote that it can't be detected by a third party mechanism. (Some might dipute that, but I reject supernatural faith, Inspiration, inner light, and all that as sources of truth). I think the processes of our brain and body kid us along (delay between potentials and consciousness, bllindsight, etc. etc.), and it's a mistake to take first order appearences in your own awareness too seriously.

 

[WilliamLP]

What substance is consciousness made of? Can humans detect it? To hard? How about thought or ideas, philosophy itself? Can we detect it?

I could imagine that we could make progress figuring out how conscious behaviour emerges. For example, looking at feedback loops in the brain to the senses, or the 'self' as a symbol, or things along those lines.

But I don't see how science could ever distinguish between things that act in every respect like conscious things, when there is no subjective feeling to "be" something, and the existence we all experience. (Well, *I* experience it, you might all be zombies:) )

This seems sort of equivalent to asking why I am "me", and why my subjective experience isn't you, or Napoleon, or some entity on the surface of a neutron star. I can't imagine that science could ever shed light on that, since the laws of physics are the same whether I exist as "me" or if I existed as someone else. Yet there most definitely *is* a difference for me, because I'm not you. Or something like that.

I could postulate a law that says there is subjective experience associated with anything that behaves exactly as if it were conscious. Is this reasonable? Is it a law of physics, or something else?

 

[neurocomp2003]

What substance is consciousness made of? Can humans detect it? To hard? How about thought or ideas, philosophy itself? Can we detect it?

...simple experiment can we remove your brain? or at least destroy all the synaptic knobs in your brain. Long thought out thoughts and ideas...lets destroy the concept of papers/ink and fingers.

 

[the_truth]

If god is omnipotent he can choose whether to exist in this universe as a substance or not and what substance he will exist as.

However you cannot prove god's existence so it is best to assume he does not exist. Even if you cannot disprove god's existence as the lack of disproof is worthless if you cannot prove god in the first place.

 

[SteveRives]

what substance is god/gods made of? is it a substance that know human can detect or define?

What will be your basis for accepting or rejecting the answers? One could say "Dr. Pepper" is the god-matter and, excepting some criteria, it will be as valid as any other answer. So, what criteria are you going to use to judge the answers?

Are you going to use your own reasoning? -- where each answer stands before the court of your mind to be weighed? If so you are a final arbiter and the answer must pass the bar of your own understanding. You will decide what divinity is made of (note: you imply in the question that it is "made" -- i.e. creational). In which case, only answers that conform to a mental image of your creation will "work." You are thus forced to end with a god/gods made in conformity to you own image-idea. That's called idolatry in some religious circles (which is just my observation based on the study of religious texts).

If, on the other hand, you are going to appeal to some source as judge of the answers, then you already have the answer in that source. In which case, our answers don't matter. That is, unless you are making this list that source. In which case, you will get the answer from people creating the image for you. But you will still make yourself judge of the source, either accepting or rejecting the consensus.

 

[quasar987]

Here's a nice idea from Spinoza.

God is existence itself. More rigorously...

Definition I: By that which is ‘self-caused’ I mean that of which the essence
involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

Definition II: A thing is called ‘finite after its kind’ when it can be limited
by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is
called finite because we always conceive another greater body.
So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is
not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

Definition III: By ‘substance’ I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived
through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

Definition IV: By ‘attribute’ I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

Definition V: (irrelevent)

Definition VI: By ‘God’ I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

Explanation—I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and
involves no negation.

Definition VII: That thing is called ‘free,’ which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.


Starting from these definitions and a handful of axiom, Spinoza then proceeds to show the existence and uniqueness (LOL ) of God.

Later, follow two theorems that says more about the nature of God:

Thm XX: The existence of God is its essence itself.

Thm XXXIV: The power of God (i.e. that which he CAN DO*) is its essence itself.

*I will quote one last theorem and its corollary just so this spinozian notion of what God can "do" is not ambiguous.

Thm XVII: God acts solely by the laws of his own nature, [...].

Corollary II—It follows that God is the sole free cause. For God alone exists by the sole necessity of his nature, and acts by the sole necessity of his own nature, wherefore God is (by Def. vii.) the solefree cause.

In other words, that which he does, he does so by necessity, and the factor "choice" plays no role in God's doing. Everything that exists is a part of God (i.e. affirms a finite number of its infinitely many attributes), since God is existence itself. Everything that happens, must necessarily have hapened (quantum theory:1, Spinoza:0), and everything that will happen will have no choice but to happen. (Spinozism is a complete determinism)

I find the way spizona describes God particularily charming because as you may have noticed, it is human-centric, i.e. it defines God through what is accesible to our mind/perception. He does not pretend to state the truth as it really is, but only as perceived by our mind.

 

[neurocomp2003]

SteveRives "if, on the other hand, you are going to appeal to some source as judge of the answers, then you already have the answer in that source. In which case, our answers don't matter. That is, unless you are making this list that source. In which case, you will get the answer from people creating the image for you. But you will still make yourself judge of the source, either accepting or rejecting the consensus."

obviously i play final arbiter to my own beliefs...but religious people seem to just assume that god exist suffice and do not question what he is made out of ...and if in the event that he is made of dr.pepper..then we should look more into the substance that dr.pepper is made out of ...and ask whether such a substance existed in the days before the universe was created...if in the event that he is not made out of dr pepper than he made out of something else is he not? or does this question not matter in t he religious world? If it does matter, then he is made of something so is it detectable in our universe someday? if not ...then why not? and how does he change back and forth between forms of communication between his world and ours for there must be a way to jump back as he does.

if not then do we live in a "matrix" world in that the mechanism to which we believe move in so called spacetime are artificial and run on a framebyframe basis like a computer game.

 

[Canute]

Fascinating how the question about the substance of God turned immediately to a discussion of the substance of consciousness. The situation seems to me to be this, although I'm sure there will be objections.

If consciousness is non-existent, in a true ontological sense, as has been argued, and if solipsim is unfalsifiable, as it seems to be, then it is logically impossible to know that anything exists, and Descartes' was clearly muddled in thinking that his mystical first-person 'cogito' axiom was trustworthy. In this case the substance of God is not the pressing issue. The substance of matter must be determined first, which will be tricky if in principle we cannot prove that it has any substance.

On the other hand, if consciousness is more fundamental than mind and matter there is at least an in principle possibility that we can know what it is made out of, first-hand at least, and thus an in principle possibility that we can know something about the substance of God, should He/She/It exist, and as long as neither turn out to be immaterial.

But sticking to just the question about God - it seems incoherent to say that God exists within spacetime. In this case if He is made out of substance it is one that is capable of existing outside spacetime. This is some very peculiar substance, since it has no extension in spacetime. From this it seems likely that if there is a God He must be insubstantial or immaterial.

Does this seem reasonable so far?

 

[Tournesol]

If this is just a call for opinions, I vote for No Substance, it's a process. And I also vote that it can't be detected by a third party mechanism. (Some might dipute that, but I reject supernatural faith, Inspiration, inner light, and all that as sources of truth).

Physicalim has the implication that everything is fully detectable and comprehensible form a 3rd-person POV. So you can't have your complete
rejection of the non-natural AND your fundamentally 1st-person consciousness.

 

[SteveRives]

obviously i play final arbiter to my own beliefs...

Your Mathematics Professor might see playing final arbiter as less-than-noble if you did it in the math classroom (esp. if you did it on a test). We don't make up our own math, physics, chemistry, English, etc., independent of the larger society. E.g., I am not the final arbiter on what a noun is. I was born into a community with nouns. So why should I treat this subject any differently and make myself judge of what is or is not god?

but religious people seem to just assume that god exist suffice and do not question what he is made out of

Your question assumes the existence of god/gods! You even seem to assume the creation of the god/god when you asked what they are "made of".

All kinds of religious people question what their gods are made out of -- you are part of the club. In fact, there is a famous (and large) religious group that lives mostly in one of the Western states, and they have a big doctrine about the god-substance (hint: they started in the 1800's).

...and if in the event that he is made of dr.pepper..then we should look more into the substance that dr.pepper is made out of

But that's the problem. We can look at Dr. Pepper all day long. But you have to have some criteria to say that that then is the god-substance. That's why I asked you how you would know how to work backwards from a known substance and say that divinity is composed of it. What will be your rule for knowing this?

If you reason is the final arbiter, then what keeps you from making this stuff up as you go along?

or does this question not matter in t he religious world?

It must, because you are asking! You may be more cynical about your beliefs than the regular religious person, but your question is about some metaphysical construct -- it has religion written all over it.

and how does he change back and forth between forms of communication between his world and ours for there must be a way to jump back as he does.

What communication?! Is this like space-alien communication you are talking about here? Seriously, what information flow do you have in view at this point?

if not then do we live in a "matrix" world in that the mechanism to which we believe move in so called spacetime are artificial and run on a framebyframe basis like a computer game.

Let me get this right, the two options are 1) the one you are proposing, or 2) we live in a "matrix" world.

Why only these two options?

 

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

to know what god is made of we'd need to know if he/she truly exists... difficult i know... but i guess as of now i think god is made of belief (not really a substance, but what the heck!)

 

[Royce]

If this is just a call for opinions,

Not really a call for opinions, more of a socratic method of discussion. However I have yet to see or make any statement or question that does not evoke numerous opinions including my own.

I vote for No Substance, it's a process.

I agree, no physical substance; but the insubstantial substance of pure thought and consciousness, spirit in other words.

And I also vote that it can't be detected by a third party mechanism.

While a third party mechanism cannot detect thought or consciousness directly we can and do detect the results or effects of consciousness and thought in others. This forum and these posts are a prime example.

(Some might dispute that, but I reject supernatural faith, Inspiration, inner light, and all that as sources of truth). I think the processes of our brain and body kid us along (delay between potentials and consciousness, bllindsight, etc. etc.), and it's a mistake to take first order appearances in your own awareness too seriously.

This of course is your opinion and your welcome to it. I can't dispute or disprove it, just as you can't dispute or disprove my opinions.

 

[Royce]

I could imagine that we could make progress figuring out how conscious behaviour emerges. For example, looking at feedback loops in the brain to the senses, or the 'self' as a symbol, or things along those lines.

I reject the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. I believe that consciousness is a property of being alive and part of the Universal consciousness.

But I don't see how science could ever distinguish between things that act in every respect like conscious things, when there is no subjective feeling to "be" something, and the existence we all experience. (Well, *I* experience it, you might all be zombies:) )

This is true, unless one accepts that truth, information and knowledge exist that did not and does not originate from purely within yourself. If one acknowledges that there exist information not original to himself them one must conclude others exist in addition to himself. If others exist then something greater than himself may or must exist including the world, reality and the Universe. After this it is just a matter of observing and experiencing the universe, the world and life all about us.

This seems sort of equivalent to asking why I am "me", and why my subjective experience isn't you, or Napoleon, or some entity on the surface of a neutron star. I can't imagine that science could ever shed light on that, since the laws of physics are the same whether I exist as "me" or if I existed as someone else. Yet there most definitely *is* a difference for me, because I'm not you. Or something like that.

As you (and I) are an intragal part of the universe as it is, if you were someone else, it would be a different universe.

I could postulate a law that says there is subjective experience associated with anything that behaves exactly as if it were conscious. Is this reasonable? Is it a law of physics, or something else?

I would say that it is an observation not yet a law. As I understand it one has to determine and show a one to one cause and effect relationship before it can become a law. I would also say that subjective experience is a property of consciousness.

 

[Royce]

...simple experiment can we remove your brain? or at least destroy all the synaptic knobs in your brain. Long thought out thoughts and ideas...lets destroy the concept of papers/ink and fingers.

Can you prove that removing my brain will destroy all consciousness in the universe? What of unconscious brains and people still having experiences and experiencing what is happening around them.

"papers/ink and fingers" give proof that thoughts exist and can be conveyed and saved. What substance do they consist of. Are thoughts energy? Is what gives that energy intelligent meaning force? Is there something more than force, energy, mass, matter and physics. I think so; but, I don't think that it can be quantized or detected by physical means. There must be some other state in which such things exist for it is obvious that they exist.

 

[Royce]

If god is omnipotent he can choose whether to exist in this universe as a substance or not and what substance he will exist as.

If God is then he is part of, exists in or is the universe as the universe is all that is, all that exists. In that there is substance in the universe and in that God is the universe then is not God that substance plus all else that is?

However you cannot prove god's existence so it is best to assume he does not exist. Even if you cannot disprove god's existence as the lack of disproof is worthless if you cannot prove god in the first place.

I cannot even prove to you or anyone else that I exist. Is it therefore best to assume that I do not exist. Who then is writing this, God?
The lack of proof or disproof proves nothing so your last statement has no meaning.

 

[neurocomp2003]

Royce: "unconscoius brain" is such a awkward word to use does your brain ever stop firing? if it was you'd be in a state of cryogenics...Thoughts are just a relay of your brain and your sense. Do you think a baby will live when their brain is removed?

SteveRives: Why would you assume me to be religious? I'm actually atheist, my question was posed because there are many threads talking about science & religion...
need I write full sentences and state "if god existed..."? what a wast of time of course i'd need to assume abstractly that gods exist in order to pose the question to others.

and everytime I've asked someone what god(s) is...the simple answer we don't care OR it doesn't really matter...if people put such faith in god existing...should they not ask that question?

 

[Royce]

Fascinating how the question about the substance of God turned immediately to a discussion of the substance of consciousness.

What is the concept of God if not a concept of ultimate consciousness.
I think that this is implied in the concepts of omnipotent and omni-sentient.
If there is one God, if there is one universe and if there is one reality, does that not imply an identity.
If God is outside of the physical space/time universe then there are two (at least) universes and two realities. The one with God within and the one with God without (outside) I humbly ask, is this not an absurdity.

If consciousness is non-existent, in a true ontological sense, as has been argued, and if solipsim is unfalsifiable, as it seems to be, then it is logically impossible to know that anything exists, and Descartes' was clearly muddled in thinking that his mystical first-person 'cogito' axiom was trustworthy. In this case the substance of God is not the pressing issue. The substance of matter must be determined first, which will be tricky if in principle we cannot prove that it has any substance.

On the other hand, if consciousness is more fundamental than mind and matter there is at least an in principle possibility that we can know what it is made out of, first-hand at least, and thus an in principle possibility that we can know something about the substance of God, should He/She/It exist, and as long as neither turn out to be immaterial.

Agreed!

But sticking to just the question about God - it seems incoherent to say that God exists within spacetime. In this case if He is made out of substance it is one that is capable of existing outside spacetime. This is some very peculiar substance, since it has no extension in spacetime. From this it seems likely that if there is a God He must be insubstantial or immaterial.

Does this seem reasonable so far?

If God is made out of a substance that is capable of existing outside space/ time, why is is inconceivable that that substance could also exist within space/time? While I agree that God must be non-material (unless the pun was intended) I do not agree that he must be insubstantial (again, pun?)
If he created the physical space/time universe it logically must have been created within the existing universe in which God exists or is. Thus space/time must be within God or God's non-spacetime universe of which our space/time universe is part or a subset of.
That is, of course, assuming that God does exist. If He/She/It does not exist other than as a human idea then all of this is moot and as pointless as; "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

[Canute]

Yes, I probably agree with all of that, especially the point about identity, except I'm not sure how you make a distinction between immaterial and insubstantial.

 

[SteveRives]

Why would you assume me to be religious?

Because of your question.

I'm actually atheist,

Congratulations.

my question was posed because there are many threads talking about science & religion...

Yes, it is interesting how scientific people believe in and discuss the Divine. For example, there was Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Pascal, H. Ross, Lord Rayleigh... When I worked at Oak Ridge National Labs, I remember visiting a religious service. Guess what I found: many scientists were members of the theistic faith community. Nuclear physicists, chemists, material researchers, biologists, all there, with each having a religion and a scientific brain.

everytime I've asked someone what god(s) is...the simple answer we don't care OR it doesn't really matter...

It may be hard for religious people to get worked-up over this since human inability to discover the answer is an inhibiter. I appeal to Flatland, and the analogy of a 2-D entity trying to understand a 3-D entity. The 2-D person can't know the third dimension -- not because of lack of caring or because the extra dimension does not matter, but because of inherent inability. Your question has not exposed a huge hole missed by all the scientific minds, but you are asking a question that is beside-the-point.

if people put such faith in god existing...should they not ask that question?

I don't know. Besides, who are we to decide what kinds of questions religious people should be asking? I think we would agree, however, that because physicists and researchers don’t ask the questions someone else thinks they should ask, that does not mean that they have put their brains in their pockets.

 

[Royce]

Yes, I probably agree with all of that, especially the point about identity, except I'm not sure how you make a distinction between immaterial and insubstantial.

I took "immaterial" to mean non-material, not made of physical matter. I course agree totally with this.

I took "insubstantial" to mean not made of substance. This I'm not so sure about. I had Les Sleeth's "esse" in mind.

I was half serious when I first asked what is consciousness made of. Is it energy, force or what? There is no doubt that it exists, but what is it? Is thought energy? Is there a messenger particle for consciousness like the photon is the messenger particle for EM?

There are four known physical forces in the physical universe. I think it obvious that there is a life force, the martial artist call it chi. Is the a consciousness force also? Could we call its messenger particle an infoton as in information carrier? Is it too limited to the speed of light?

I did not think that the original question to this thread as just an idle question or remark making fun. I took in semi-seriously when I really thought about the implications.

 

[Royce]

Royce: "unconscoius brain" is such a awkward word to use does your brain ever stop firing?

How about a brain or person who is unconscious or anesthetized. This is what I was referring to.

Thoughts are just a relay of your brain and your sense.

This is a large unproven assumption on your part that I don't agree with. I believe that thoughts originate in the mind that is interlinked and interactive with the brain but not necessarily a property of the physical brain.

Do you think a baby will live when their brain is removed?

No I don't think that the body of any higher animal will live if its brain is removed completely or severely enough damaged.

and every time I've asked someone what god(s) is...the simple answer we don't care OR it doesn't really matter...if people put such faith in god existing...should they not ask that question?

An awful lot of religious people or believers in God ask these questions. They don't know any more than you do. I am one of those people and took your question seriously enough to ask similar questions myself, not all that Socratic. If I believe that one of Gods aspects is consciousness, the universal consciousness then what is God and consciousness made of? "Spirit" is not an answer for the next obvious question is; " Okay what is spirit made of?"

By the way I had no intentionof hijacking your thread.

 

[Canute]

"I took "insubstantial" to mean not made of substance. This I'm not so sure about. I had Les Sleeth's "esse" in mind."

I see what you mean. But I suspect Les would argue that 'essence', or 'thing-in-itself' is immaterial and insubstantial (as in - not made of a substance).

 

[Royce]

Okay, I can accept that but how can we know? To answer this threads opening question then, you think God is not made of any material, matter or substance so that we cannot detect him by physical means.

At first glance, I would have to agree with you; however, going a bit deeper, if God exists and he is the creator of the physical universe and he created it out of himself, then everything we see, touch etc is of God. If everything and everyone is made of God then god is everything and everyone and everything and everyone is or is of God. This concurs with our agreement of the universe = reality = God identity. This belief is not rare. Is this what is called pantheism or a form of it? Or am I confusing this with some other term?

 

[the_truth]

...

First off there is nothing to suggest god exists, theists should focus on proving god exists before ponderring the meaning of it all.

Second of all if god exists it is omnipotent and can do whatever it wants. It can produce a rock too heavy for it to lift, it can create a universe it cannot control, it can defy logic if it wanted to and do things which are completely contradictory in this universe and do them anyway, because he created this universe and all it's laws and logic. God could create a universe where 1+1 = 8000 and the snetinet life there would be talking to each other in laws of physics we cannot possibly comprehend and communicate to each other "god could create a universe where 1 + 1= 2 and for them it would be equally unfallible as 1 + 1 = 800 is to us. He's omnipotent...

This discussion has no point, it's only purpose is to lead to this conclusion and perhaps to entertain. Or both in my instance.

 

[Canute]

Okay, I can accept that but how can we know? To answer this threads opening question then, you think God is not made of any material, matter or substance so that we cannot detect him by physical means.

Not exactly. I agree with you that God is everything, so to detect the physical is to detect God, or rather an aspect of Him. But also, in this case, then He is me (and you) and I (and you) can in principle detect Him directly. Indeed, we can hardly avoid it.

At first glance, I would have to agree with you; however, going a bit deeper, if God exists and he is the creator of the physical universe and he created it out of himself, then everything we see, touch etc is of God. If everything and everyone is made of God then god is everything and everyone and everything and everyone is or is of God. This concurs with our agreement of the universe = reality = God identity. This belief is not rare. Is this what is called pantheism or a form of it? Or am I confusing this with some other term?

I think it could be called pantheism, panpsychism, relative phenomenalism, hylozoism and other terms. Each is, or can be, a variation on the universal claim of mystics that "I am God", and that we all are. But, and this is the crucial point, in this latter view God does not really exist. '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. Given this notion of God one is forced into the Truth's position, extreme scepticism, since God in this form is clearly an incoherent concept. (To be fair to Christians many of them also argue that this notion of God is incoherent).

 

[Canute]

...First off there is nothing to suggest god exists, theists should focus on proving god exists before ponderring the meaning of it all.

I'm not sure there are any theists here. I'm not anyway.

Second of all if god exists it is omnipotent and can do whatever it wants.

Only if one defines God as omnipotent.

This discussion has no point, it's only purpose is to lead to this conclusion and perhaps to entertain. Or both in my instance.

In a way I agree, except that discussion of God cannot reach conclusions. Facts about God, even His existence and/or non-existence, cannot be established by talking about Him. But such discussion still serve a purpose I think, in that they can show some concepts of God to be incoherent, as you've shown.

 

[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.