Greg2003

My question is what is meant by God if you are asserting that it is a non-physical entity? If God is just an idea, then it certainly is non-physical. But if God exists and the physical universe exists as we understand it to in accordance with the insights of modern physics, then what is this non-physical thing upon which the existance of all that is physical depends?

Taffy Lewis

tergiversant,

1) An agent is an entity which acts intentionally.

2) If by 'mind', you mean something which possesses qualitative and intentional states then an agent is a mind.

3) I don't know what you mean by 'stuff'.

God is supposed to be a person. This just means God is a conscious being that acts intentionally. His being rational means that he is capable of reflecting on normative considerations.

Having power means that one is capable of bringing about an effect. And having knowledge just means that one is aware of actual and possible states of affairs.

As to the asymmetrical dependence relation, this simply means that nothing apart from God has to exist in order for God to exist and in order for God to have the properties he possesses. But in the case of everything apart from God, these things cannot exist unless God exists and is in a certain state.

In general, if A depends on B that just means that A cannot be the case unless B is the case.

I don't have any difficulty understanding what 'God' means given this description.

Taffy Lewis

Philosoft,

Does this mean you think abstractions and concepts exist apart from brains? If so, what are concepts and abstractions 'made of' (assuming they are made of something)? And where are they? Or can something exist without being located somewhere?

Philosoft

No, I do not. The reason I make the distinction is that I can conceive of things that don't physically exist, yet are not logically impossible. I don't know how else to classify concepts.

<strong> They are emergent products of electrical impulses. Consider: I have three sticks which I arrange in the shape of a triangle. Should I remove a stick, I will no longer have a triangle. Did I destroy anything to acheive this non-triangle state? No, the matter still exists, I simply re-arranged it. It's the concept, the emergent product of 'triangle' that no longer obtains. Similarly, I can 'arrange' electrical impulses and chemicals in my brain to form representations of things, or of possible things.

<strong> Possibly. Where does the stick-triangle in my above example exist?

tergiversant

Only minds intend, so far as I am aware. I am not certain what definition of "entity" you are implying here. I imagine you do not mean merely some thing which "exists" in the ordinary (physical) sense of the term.

I think I understand this. I know what it is like to subjectively experience qualia and intentionality, at least.

Material -- matter and/or energy.

Minds intend, while bodies act. I have never heard of a mind acting, except in science fiction and popular mythology, e.g. telekenesis, spoon-bending, faith-healing, etc. Certianly I have never heard of a verifiable instance of a mind acting.

Only minds reflect. Thus far I get the sense that God is a disembodied mind of sorts.

Power refers to the ability to move stuff around. Minds do not do this, bodies do. I doubt that this necessarily poses a coherence problem, though.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

tergiversant

Is "disembodied mind" a coherent concept? How about "bodiless action?"

Taffy Lewis

tergiversant,

What does it mean for something to be (or have) a body?

And why would God having or being a body be something objectionable from a theistic perspective?

Amos

How about [b]God is exactly as I should be.[/]

The above may not include "everything that is said about God" but includes everything that is true about God.

The proof here is that each one of us has the potential to become God and all we need to do is know who we really are. To know who we really are is "to know the depth, width and breadth of the Lord your God" wherein we have the mind of God and thus are God.

From the above follows that even if we do not know who we really are we still are God but only do not realize this. If next, God is fair and just with respect to rewards and punishments we are in charge of God and deserving of our fate-- be it for better or worse-- as we journey along the road-dust of the sun even if we are only pretending to be free agents.

If you see a problem with the common concepts that describe God's character you have an interpretation problem.

tergiversant

I would think a body would invovle being made of matter. Most theists I know would never speak of God in this way (with the exception of the Incarnation, of course).

Taffy Lewis

tergiversant,

This seems like an obvious answer. But it doesn't seem very enlightening. After all, what is an example of a feature one could observe an object as possessing that wouldn't be physical?

We know that matter/energy includes such properties as mass, charge, position, momentum, spin, among others. But what is a possible property could one observe or become aware of that one would say "Oh, that's a nonphysical property."

My point is: the notion of physical, matter/energy, material, natural and similar terms seem so open-ended and general that they will necessarily include anything anyone could imagine. There doesn't seem to be any in principle limitation on what can qualify as physical.

If all of this is true then there is no reason for the theist to deny that God is physical. He would just be a physical being with unlimited power and knowledge on which everything depends and who does not depend on anything apart from himself.

In other words, the admission that God is physical doesn't seem to conflict with anything the theist wants to say (and this despite the fact that many theists are confused about the matter).

Further, it doesn't seem that the concept of physicality can be defined so easily.

Consider this quote by Galen Strawson:

The philosopher Barbara Montero argues for something similar in the mind/brain debate:

<a href="http://barbara.antinomies.org/Publications/PostforJCS.doc" target="_blank">Post-Physicalism</a>

<a href="http://barbara.antinomies.org/Publications/Chapter1" target="_blank">The Body Problem</a>

I started a thread back in May that deals with problems in defining naturalism:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000192&p=" target="_blank">What is Metaphysical Naturalism?</a>

A purported physical/nonphysical distinction seems just as meaningless as any suggested natural/supernatural distinction.

But this leaves open the question as to whether or not there is a personal being of infinite power and knowledge upon which everything apart from him/her depends and who depends upon nothing apart from him/herself.