God as a Spirit - a question for theists

[Revenant_Threshold]

@mswas

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.

Sorry, I don’t mean deep as in profound, but as in too far, too much. It seems like too much of a reduction.

I suppose the question to ask here is, if there were no people to have the idea, would there only be the fundamental objective existence, and no idea? I’d argue so.

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.

No, I disagree. I can’t imagine a house, and then physically live in it. I can imagine my house, but my idea of my house and my house as it exists in reality are not one and the same thing. One is a representation of the other (you could argue that each represent each other, really), but they aren’t the same. The physical house is not an idea. And the idea of the house is not a physical object.

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.

Yes, the sculpture is the medium through which the idea is conveyed. As opposed to the idea itself, which is not the medium through which it is conveyed. They are different things. And of course an idea which cannot be conveyed is still an idea, since there are no ideas which can be conveyed perfectly. You may get the gist of an idea you have to me, but I cannot get exactly the same idea as you from your sculpture, because the sculpture is not an exact copy of the idea. It is different, and because of the difference that comes from making a representation of an idea rather than an idea (and the similar effect from making an idea based on a representation of an idea), the initial, original idea is not conveyed in full.

The physical car and the idea of the car are two seperate things, most certainly. But the physical matter that the idea of the car is dependent upon is not the car, but minds. Without minds, you’d still have a car, but you couldn’t have the idea of a car.

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.

I’m not claiming that the physical matter required is the representative object, but the mind. A sculpture isn’t an idea, it’s a representative of the idea. We could destroy the sculpture - but the idea would remain. Likewise, we could destroy the idea, and the sculpture would remain. The two are not the same. Likewise, were there no clay or forming materials, there could be no sculptures. Without minds, there could be no ideas.

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.

I would have called it culture, I think.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Alan_Smithee

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.

I don’t think the idea of the immaterial is nonsensical either. I think specific claims of what is or isn’t immaterial to be wrong nonsensical (or just incorrect), but that’s a different thing.

[mswas]

@Revenant_Threshold

Sorry, I don’t mean deep as in profound, but as in too far, too much. It seems like too much of a reduction.

Well the question regarded the nature of spirit. I think that material/spiritual are intrinsically linked to one another.

I suppose the question to ask here is, if there were no people to have the idea, would there only be the fundamental objective existence, and no idea? I’d argue so.

This is the part where I have to rudely flash my vitalism at you. I am not sure that there is objective existence independent of the idea.

No, I disagree. I can’t imagine a house, and then physically live in it. I can imagine my house, but my idea of my house and my house as it exists in reality are not one and the same thing. One is a representation of the other (you could argue that each represent each other, really), but they aren’t the same. The physical house is not an idea. And the idea of the house is not a physical object.

Nor is the physical object a house independent of the idea. Even if the house contained the exact same form, it would stop being a house if no one perceived it as such.

Yes, the sculpture is the medium through which the idea is conveyed. As opposed to the idea itself, which is not the medium through which it is conveyed. They are different things. And of course an idea which cannot be conveyed is still an idea, since there are no ideas which can be conveyed perfectly. You may get the gist of an idea you have to me, but I cannot get exactly the same idea as you from your sculpture, because the sculpture is not an exact copy of the idea. It is different, and because of the difference that comes from making a representation of an idea rather than an idea (and the similar effect from making an idea based on a representation of an idea), the initial, original idea is not conveyed in full.

LOL unfortunately we are stuck with lossy file compression and there is nothing to be done. I agree with you both epistemologically and ontologically.

To clarify my point is that the idea is DEPENDENT upon matter, but it is not the matter itself. Does that make sense?

The physical car and the idea of the car are two seperate things, most certainly. But the physical matter that the idea of the car is dependent upon is not the car, but minds. Without minds, you’d still have a car, but you couldn’t have the idea of a car.

But is it a car if no one deems it as such? You are seeming to claim that you can imbue the physical environment with certain ideal properties that then become objective facts after the imbuing. I am arguing that active participation in the formulation of an idea is required in every present moment for the form to remain significant. If the car remained but suddenly everyone who could comprehend the purpose of the car disappeared, is it still a car or merely an oddly shaped rock?

I’m not claiming that the physical matter required is the representative object, but the mind. A sculpture isn’t an idea, it’s a representative of the idea. We could destroy the sculpture - but the idea would remain. Likewise, we could destroy the idea, and the sculpture would remain. The two are not the same. Likewise, were there no clay or forming materials, there could be no sculptures. Without minds, there could be no ideas. I would have called it culture, I think.

Ok, I think we mostly agree but we are operating at such a fine-tuned epistemology I cannot be certain. Yes, the sculpture can remain even if the idea has been destroyed, but again it falls into the ‘oddly shaped rock’ category sans the idea.

[monavis]

@JThunder

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.

I am not making myself clear (apparently) I do not believe a spirit is a thing, I do not believe the Bible in most things. As I read the Bible it seems to indicate that the god Moses is supposed to have heard, and saw would indicate that god was material or showed Moses in a material way that he existed. The same god was supposed to have taken his finger and wrote over 600 commandments that now boil down to 10. A person who is human sa Moses was supposed to be would have to see a being in a physical way. I believe the whole story was just a human telling a story, like Hans Christian Anderson or Aesops fables that meant to convey a moral message and not have anything to do with a powerful. all knowing being. It is my belief and if no one agrees with me I do not expect them to. But to make a statment that something is one way for sure because one believes it or because some one wrote that it happened is ones right to believe that person or not.

There was no newspapers, TV. Science classes, and really no writings until long after the events had taken place,people were illiterate for the most part. One can believe in a god or not. That is the difference; a believer looks for things to prove their faith, the non-believer needs proof of some kind. Using the Bible is not proof, but can be used to show the things that seem to be contradictory.

[JThunder]

@monavis

I am not making myself clear (apparently) I do not believe a spirit is a thing, I do not believe the Bible in most things.

I understand that. The point is that you were insisting that Exodus 33:23 conclusively depicted a God that is material in nature. When I pointed out that there is ample reason to believe that this was meant figuratively, you protested by saying that other interpretations are possible.

As I said, you can’t have it both ways. Your entire case rests on a strictly literal interpretation of Exodus 33:23 – one that does not allow for any figures of speech. For your argument to hold water, it’s not enough to say that multiple interpretations are possible. Rather, you would have to show that your strictly literal interpretation is the ONLY possible interpretation.

[adhay]

All things are reflections of ideas. Thoughts do not leave their source (spirit). The world I see is my interpretation of my own choice of ideas for which I am entirely responsible.

[mswas]

“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first create the Universe.” - Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan - ‘A Glorious Dawn’ ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed)

[lekatt]

This writing is a summation of many near death experiences, what the experiencers saw and understood. Fits in well with quantum mechanics, but not with religion or science.

Creation - Lekatt Thoughtful Living

[mswas]

@lekatt

This writing is a summation of many near death experiences, what the experiencers saw and understood. Fits in well with quantum mechanics, but not with religion or science.

Creation - Lekatt Thoughtful Living

You do realize that Quantum Mechanics is science right?

[Voyager]

@mswas

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.

No, because the idea exists in other places. You admit that if you destroy all the places where the idea exists, the idea is destroyed also.

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.

If ideas truly exist independently of any brain, then destroying all brains would not destroy ideas, so you are contradicting yourself. Now, it is interesting to consider whether the ideas lodged in each brain are subtly different from each other; that your idea of chairness is a bit different from mine since we’ve seen different chairs in our lives. As another example, we all know that a story told in a movie will always be different from a story told in a book because of the differences in media. So, if you accurately convey an idea to me, you are figuratively giving me a piece of your mind. I’m not sure if any of us can accurately convey ideas, though.

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.

Intangible means something that cannot be sensed. If you are using it to mean something not physical, then no problem, but you should probably use a different word.

[mswas]

@Voyager

No, because the idea exists in other places. You admit that if you destroy all the places where the idea exists, the idea is destroyed also.

Yes, I never suggested that the message didn’t require a medium.

If ideas truly exist independently of any brain, then destroying all brains would not destroy ideas, so you are contradicting yourself. Now, it is interesting to consider whether the ideas lodged in each brain are subtly different from each other; that your idea of chairness is a bit different from mine since we’ve seen different chairs in our lives. As another example, we all know that a story told in a movie will always be different from a story told in a book because of the differences in media. So, if you accurately convey an idea to me, you are figuratively giving me a piece of your mind. I’m not sure if any of us can accurately convey ideas, though.

This is a false dichotomy with little merit. A piece of software isn’t dependent upon an individual computer but if we destroyed all computers that software would cease to exist as well. But that’s hardly the point and is of little relevance. You are trying to conflate interaction with material with BEING material.

Intangible means something that cannot be sensed. If you are using it to mean something not physical, then no problem, but you should probably use a different word.

I didn’t use the word intangible, I used the word imaginary. Even so, you are using the term intangible incorrectly. Intangible means that it cannot be touched, not that it cannot be sensed.

1. not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable.

[Voyager]

@mswas

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.

Really? The house just is. In this case it represents an idea, but consider the case of the first lump of matter which condensed from energy a few years after the Big Bang. That lump exists, but it is not an idea, and has nothing to do with ideas, since there was no one around to have them.

If the idea cannot be conveyed then it is not really an idea.

How about an idea in the brain of someone so profoundly paralyzed that he will be unable to express or convey it? Still an idea?

[mswas]

@Voyager

Really? The house just is. In this case it represents an idea, but consider the case of the first lump of matter which condensed from energy a few years after the Big Bang. That lump exists, but it is not an idea, and has nothing to do with ideas, since there was no one around to have them.

Right but a lump of matter that occurs from random annealing is quite different from a house which is matter fashioned into a form that is significant to human beings.

How about an idea in the brain of someone so profoundly paralyzed that he will be unable to express or convey it? Still an idea?

Yes. The inability to convey it is not a function of the idea but a function of the diminished capacity of the hardware that would allow it to be conveyed.

[lekatt]

@mswas

You do realize that Quantum Mechanics is science right?

From my experience most scientists don’t accept it as valid.

[mswas]

@lekatt

From my experience most scientists don’t accept it as valid.

Cite?

[JThunder]

@lekatt

From my experience most scientists don’t accept it as valid.

A strange sort of experience, considering that this is standard course material for any Physics student.

It’s true that scientists may question certain beliefs within quantum mechanics, but the same can be said of just about any scientific field.

[Frylock]

@lekatt

From my experience most scientists don’t accept it as valid.

Oh well yes, that’s all right then.

[spit take]

Whaaa…?

[Voyager]

@mswas

Right but a lump of matter that occurs from random annealing is quite different from a house which is matter fashioned into a form that is significant to human beings.

Right. The house is an instantiation of the idea. If we disappeared, the house would remain but the idea of the house would be gone. Think of someone digging up an idol or some other artifact. The idea associated with that thing might have nothing at all to do with the idea of the makers which caused it to be created.

Yes. The inability to convey it is not a function of the idea but a function of the diminished capacity of the hardware that would allow it to be conveyed.

Granted. Now, how accurately must the idea be conveyed? Surely you’ve had some ideas which you could lay out very clearly, and you’ve had others which you express only vaguely. How vague does it have to be to not be an idea anymore?

[Voyager]

@Frylock

Oh well yes, that’s all right then.

[spit take]

Whaaa…?

I think lekatt mostly hangs around with alchemists.

[mswas]

@Voyager

Granted. Now, how accurately must the idea be conveyed? Surely you’ve had some ideas which you could lay out very clearly, and you’ve had others which you express only vaguely. How vague does it have to be to not be an idea anymore?

Of course. Let me revise my position. An idea has the ‘potential’ to be independent of individual matter. Not all ideas transcend their initial material form, but what makes it an idea is that it has the potential to do so.

Again, to reiterate for clarity, I am not making an anti-materialist argument whereby spirit is independent of matter, only that it can maintain a continued existence despite the dissolution of particular matter.