It makes just as much sense to say that God has always existed as a material being as it does to say that he has always existed as an immaterial being. Concerning the untiold number of impossibilities we already have to deal with concerning the aspects of God, quibbling without any basis about whether a material entity is capable of creating all material objects seems silly.
That is what I am trying to say (in a different way), if a spirit is not material is is most likely not a thing or being, but a thought, or something of the mind or brain. It may emminate from the brain or mind. We say a horse is spirited, it seems to mean he acts in a lively way. Just as we cannot see life as a material thing but with out life a material being ceases to exist. Yet we can tell if something has life by its movement or change,or growth.
Which raises the question for me, what or who created the place for God (or the spirit) to be?
You’ve said this but it doesn’t make it any more true. You’re still incorrect. Patterns and process INFORM UPON the physical world but that doesn’t make them physical in and of themselves. Patterns and processes are not dependent upon any particular piece of matter for their continued existence. You can have a wireframe model of a house, a blueprint of a house, a photo of a house, you can live in that house and have experiences in that house, you can remember those experiences, but the actual house is made up of timber and copper and concrete, none of which are required for the idea of THAT house to exist.
This obsession with blowing off the metaphysical is a strange neurosis of materialists. That ideas are things and that they can exist independently of particular matter is simply true. You’re confusing the medium and the message.
Agreed, spirit is something that is intangible but still perceivable.
No, he isn’t. He is not considered to have created himself.
Did somebody make that claim? I most certainly did not.
The argument is not that anyone who creates something material must be immaterial. Rather, the philosophical argument is that anyone who created all material things must necessarily be immaterial, since he cannot create himself.
Wait a minute, fella. You’re the one who said that the Bible specifically teaches that God is material. Your argument assumes that your viewpoint is the only possible interpretation. If anything, saying that there are “other ways to look at it” works against you, since it shows that your conclusion does not logically follow.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “The Bible conclusively says that God is material!” then, when someone argues for a figurative explanation, say, “But… but… there are other ways of looking at it, too!”
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Exodus 33:23 was meant to be taken 100% literally – that the author was not using any figures of speech, as we often do in English. Let’s assume that it means he has a literal face and a literal back. Does this prove that God is absolutely material? No, it doesn’t. One could just as easily argue that an immaterial being can have a face or a back – or for that matter, manifest these parts as needed. This is not without precedent; after all, ghostly spirits are often depicted as having human-like bodies, and yet they are traditionally considered to be immaterial. (Mind you, I am not arguing for the existence of ghosts. Rather, I’m using this example to show that this viewpoint is not without precedent.)
“But… but… maybe ghosts do have physical bodies after all! Maybe all spirits do!” one might object. That’s an interesting question, albeit a misguided one, IMO. Ultimately though, that argument is irrelevant. For it to hold water, one must first demonstrate that spirit beings are NECESSARILY material in nature, which brings us back to the very topic under dispute.
As I’ve said, every single argument offered which attempts to prove God’s material nature ultimately assumes that spirits are material – or worse, that all things are material. It’s a circular argument through and through.
Also, human beings don’t ‘create’ things, they alter things that already exist to suit a new purpose. It’s a fine distinction that usually doesn’t matter, but for the purposes of this discussion it does.
In what order do these thoughts come about? That is to say, which are the more basic, accepted points, and which the extrapolations, to the extent that’s the case?
Apologies for that not being clear, but I can’t really think of how to put it in a clear way. Are we starting from the position that God is immaterial, ergo he cannot have created all that is immaterial, or that he did not create all that is immaterial but did create all that is material, ergo it is likely for him to be immaterial (or another option)?
I’d say that it goes as follows, RT. God created all things material, and thus, he must be immaterial. The latter is likewise consistent with his other attributes, e.g. his omnipresent and eternal natures.
If the sun went nova this evening, and vaporized us all, where would the idea of a house exist? An idea is associated with the brain of at least one person. (Only one person, perhaps, since ideas are mutated as they pass from person to person.) That’s the only requirement I have for them - they may come out of nothing else physical.
That idea is clearly linked to your brain. Show me an idea not linked to any brain. You seem to be echoing the Platonic ideal, but attempts to nail down things like “chairness” independent of any interpretation have not succeeded very well.
I did a define: intangible, and got
So your definition of spirit is an oxymoron. (Other definitions echo the not able to be perceived aspect.)
I’m not sure I see why those other attributes are consistent with an immaterial being but not a material being; could you lead me through those?
I suppose an issue with this particular logical argument is that it presupposes God is constrained by logic, which is certainly possible. But might I ask for the basis of God creating all things material (though i’d imagine this is the sort of thing which likely has many sources, so I won’t ask for them all)?
Based upon what?
The only examples we have of ideas appear to come from people. We could cut off various limbs besides the head, and yet the person might still come up with ideas. Cut off the head, and we won’t get anymore. By all evidence we have, it would seem that ideas are very much dependent on particular matter. As far as I can tell, there’s no evidence that ideas can exist independently of particular matter at all, let alone to the extent that we could call it “simply true”.
Does the one billion-eleventh digit of pi exist? I’m pretty sure no one has calculated what it is, so it doesn’t exist in anyone’s brain. If someone does calculate it, did they invent it? Create it? Or did they discover it?
I remember a news item a few years ago about a mathematical proof that used the largest number ever used in mathematical proof or formula. It was many, many orders of magnitude larger than any number that had ever been used in any context before. Several new forms of notation had to be invented just to describe it. It is easy to say “add one to it,” but there are numbers far, far larger, that would require whole new notations to record, and that will never be used to describe any concept, quantity, or physical thing ever, and that are greater than the sum of the numbers of all finite things in the universe (assuming there are a finite number of finite sets of things). Do these numbers exist? What if I invent a notation to describe a certain one of these numbers? Does it then come into being? Does it exist implicitly (and what does that mean?) because I have in my brain the concept of an infinite series of numbers of the form n=n+1? My conception of the set of real numbers is much fuzzier; do they exist? All of them?
I’m a physicalist, and I don’t believe in any Platonic realm of numbers. I think these questions arise because we don’t have a consistent set of meanings for the word “exists.” I think that the one billion-eleventh digit of pi will be the same no matter who calculates it (in base-10) and would be the same if all intelligent life dies out and billions of years later a new form of intelligence developed. So in that sense, I think it is misleading to say that the one billion-eleventh digit of pi doesn’t exist or exist only within physical brains. At the same time, I don’t think there is a separate “realm” or place where it exists. It doesn’t exist in the same way that a physical object exists. It also doesn’t not exist in the same way that my solid gold yacht does not exist. It describes physical facts or ideas that can be extrapolated from physical facts, but it remains the same as long as the physical facts of the universe remain the same, even if no one is describing them or extrapolating from them.
Karen Armstrong’s “The Case for God” quotes several Church Fathers and orthodox theologians who refused to say that God exists because the predicates “exists” and “does not exist,” as they are usually understood, do not apply to God.
I already said based on what. Ideas are not tied to individual atoms. It’s as simple as that.
Well I can take the idea from my head and craft it into something else. Like say I imagine a sculpture. I can craft it with my hands, and when it is done other people can think about it. The sculpture is not my neurons that originally conceived it. Nor are the neurons of other people perceiving it the clay sculpture or even my neurons. The idea is independent of the medium. It can be represented by multiple different means.
You can print this post out, but it’s not the same electrons or photons that are currently being beamed at my eyes. If you print out 100 copies each individual copy contains different atoms but the same exact idea. You can disseminate it to 100 individuals all made up of atoms that don’t make up the other individuals, and yet it’s the same idea. It’s independent of the atoms that make up the vessel that contains it.
Again, medium/message. If every medium that contains it is destroyed yes the idea is destroyed, but as I said before, you can print this out and burn it and that doesn’t destroy the idea.
My brain my have been the machinery that generated the idea. Why should I show you any idea not linked to any brain? That’s a straw man with no merit. I never said that messages don’t require a medium, I just said that they exist independent of the medium. I can take an idea and put it outside of my brain even if my brain generated. I am not literally giving you a piece of my brain when I give you a piece of my mind.
How is it an oxymoron? A motive self-aware pattern. How is that an oxymoron? You do realize that I am using it in a way people who believe in spirit tend to use it right? The soul is in the software as they say.
That seems like a far too deep reduction. Unless a thing can be tied to particular atoms, it can be said that it exists independently of particular matter? That would pretty much describe everything except atoms themselves.
No, I disagree. A sculpture based on an idea is not an idea. If I imagine a house, I can draw it, I can sculpt it, I can describe it in words or in writing, and all of these things are different things in and of themselves. They may all be representative of the same thing, but they are not all that thing. Representation of an object is not that object. The purpose of art, in many cases, may well be an attempt to get across an idea, but the piece of art in and of itself is not itself that idea. An idea is entirely dependent on particular matter; your sculpture may share features with your idea, but they are not the same thing, and can’t be.
It wouldn’t be the same idea, because it isn’t an idea. It’s a post describing an idea. It isn’t the same as the idea you had in the first place in the same way that a conceptual drawing of the idea wouldn’t be the same as the written post. They are different things; attempts to describe, to represent, the same idea, yes; the same idea, no. The only thing that is your idea is your idea.
I think i’d probably have to go with something similar to yours, the result of physical laws. But, still, whatever that can be described as, I would say that it is still a different thing that the idea of that thing. The one billion-eleventh digit of pi may be something, but the mathematician who figures out what it is’ idea of that number is something different to it itself.
Far too deep reduction? It’s the simplest concept in the world.
And actually no, it would describe the atoms themselves as the atom is a concept, the fundamental objective existance of the part of reality we have deemed an ‘atom’ would exist, but the idea of it is independent of particular matter. It’s not independent of matter as a whole.
Even the physical house itself is an idea, otherwise it’s just a pile of wood and congealed mud (concrete) laced with copper, steel and polymerized rotted plants.
The sculpture is the medium through which my idea is conveyed. If the idea cannot be conveyed then it is not really an idea. Now you are reducing it to an extreme. Of course the idea morphs as it is conveyed through various mediums, but so is any physical object. Your car is subject to subtle changes as it moves from your home to your place of work, not the least of which its existence is in a different spatial and temporal context than it was before. There are also mechanical stresses that have fundamentally altered the shape of your car, but it’s basic concept, it’s basic idea as a suitable conveyance to move you through space and time remains intact.
Sure the sculpture is an idea. The lump of clay is a thing, that my carvings have given it some sort of significance is an idea that is being conveyed through a physical medium. The lump of clay is a vessel, and yes the idea is dependent upon the vessel, but what makes it a sculpture rather than just clay is an idea. In fact the amount of shaping of reality that is required to go from congealing various kinds of dirt with water, then burning the water out in a kiln, the creation of the kiln itself, on to the requirements that society be at a certain level of advancement in order for clay or a kiln to be possible let alone my sculpture to be comprehensible are pretty amazing feats that required the ingenuity and cooperation of billions of people over thousands of years in order that I might learn the tradition of sculpting in order to convey my idea in a comprehensible fashion to another being. That is spirit, that is it exactly, that thousands of years of tradition could culminate in the mental and emotional value of the sculpture. That is what spirit is.
But physical laws and numbers aren’t “something” the way that objects are “something.” Theists generally make the claim that God is also something, but not in the way objects are something. The word they use is “spirit.” It’s a poorely defined word, and some mean by it “something closer to the way a number is something than the way an object is something” and some mean by it “something almost the way an object is something but invisible and undetectable and mysterious and all, like . . . wow, man!” I don’t find either of these definitions particularly useful and I don’t generally see much utility in god-talk, but I don’t think the idea that God is real but immaterial is inherently non-sensical (though much of what people try to do with the idea is!) I’m a materialist but I can speak idealist if I have to. 
That must be what makes you such a fine director!