What Is God Made From?

[Alien]

God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.

Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?

Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.

So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?

No.

[Alien]

God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.

Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?

Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.

And if you were able to partially describe him, he would not be truly God, either.

Why not?

[torridon]

Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.

And if you were able to partially describe him, he would not be truly God, either.

Why not?

A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.

Hoping you will forgive my villainous mangling of tenses.

[Alien]

Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.

And if you were able to partially describe him, he would not be truly God, either.

Why not?

A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.

Why would that be? Is that a half-remembered quote from Philipians 4:7 or something deeper?

Hoping you will forgive my villainous mangling of tenses.

Mangling forgivenethed.

[Hope]

Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?

If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.

Jack, God existed before time and space.  As such, as people limited by space and time, we can't tell what he is made of.

[Nearly Sane]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

[Alan Burns]

Freewill does not exist

This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.

I assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.

The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation.  The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself.  We are spiritual beings made in God's image.  Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.

[Shaker]

This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.

What faith you exhibit in the infallibility of perception.

[ippy]

Freewill does not exist

This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.

I assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.

The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation.  The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself.  We are spiritual beings made in God's image.  Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.

Meaningless babble.

ippy

[torridon]

The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation.  The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself.  We are spiritual beings made in God's image.  Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.

Unfortunately there isn't any evidence for free will, nor any for gods or souls or spirits so I'm afraid all you've posted up here is a fog of internconnected fantasies.  If you want your ideas to gain traction you have to offer up something richer than mere bald repeated assertions, something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.

[Leonard James]

Freewill does not exist

This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.

I assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.

The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation.  The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself.  We are spiritual beings made in God's image.  Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.

Whilst I do not agree with the statement that free will does not exist, its existence show nothing more than that the human brain (and that of some animals) has evolved the ability somewhere in the past, suggesting that it is useful in the fight to survive and reproduce.

Consequently  the introduction of the "soul" explanation is superfluous, and nothing more than the result of wishful thinking.

[torridon]

A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.

Why would that be? Is that a half-remembered quote from Philipians 4:7 or something deeper?

Hoping you will forgive my villainous mangling of tenses.

Mangling forgivenethed.

Perhaps.  Maybe that is a snippet of scripture meriting contemplation. In my view, 'supernatural' would be a synonym for 'incomprehensible'.  Something that is supernatural is something that sense cannot be made of. I see no mileage in trying justify a notion of partially comprehensible incomprehensibility, its a binary thing old boy.  The love of God either passes all understanding if it is supernatural, or it is amenable to analysis if it is natural. Any half way house would be a fudge.

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately there isn't any evidence for free will,

Your posting is ample evidence.
Every key you press is intiated by an act of free will.

[Alan Burns]

something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.

I think of an action, and I do it.
This is not just how it seems.
It is how it is.
Free will exists in every human being.

[Alien]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

[torridon]

something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.

I think of an action, and I do it.
This is not just how it seems.
It is how it is.
Free will exists in every human being.

No, we have already covered this in other threads, that is just how it seems, but not how it actually is.  By the time you have thought of doing an action, you have already chosen to do it subconsciously.  The thought comes after the event of choice.

Here's a quick thought experiment to illustrate this. Get yourself comfortable, empty your mind (as far as possible), and when you are ready, do this :

Think of one of your favourite memories.

We've all got millions of memories to choose from.  Now think back to that instant when your chosen memory popped into mind.  Did you actually consciously choose it ?  No, you did not consciously choose it, it just popped into mind from the murky depths of your subconcious.  In fact, you could not possibly have consciously chosen it, because to have consciously chosen it, you would have had to have already thought of it in order to consider it.  That is circular.

This illustrates how all our thoughts, all our choices, originate in subconscious mind and emerge into consciousness some small time later.  You could try to argue that free will exists in subconscious mind I suppose, but that strikes me as particularly meaningless.

[Alan Burns]

Here's a quick thought experiment to illustrate this. Get yourself comfortable, empty your mind (as far as possible), and when you are ready, do this :

Think of one of your favourite memories.

We've all got millions of memories to choose from.  Now think back to that instant when your chosen memory popped into mind.  Did you actually consciously choose it ?  No, you did not consciously choose it, it just popped into mind from the murky depths of your subconcious.  In fact, you could not possibly have consciously chosen it, because to have consciously chosen it, you would have had to have already thought of it in order to consider it.  That is circular.

This illustrates how all our thoughts, all our choices, originate in subconscious mind and emerge into consciousness some small time later.  You could try to argue that free will exists in subconscious mind I suppose, but that strikes me as particularly meaningless.

But it is not the memory itself which constitutes the action of free will, it is the deliberate action of bringing a memory (any memory) into your mind.

[Nearly Sane]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

[torridon]

Here's a quick thought experiment to illustrate this. Get yourself comfortable, empty your mind (as far as possible), and when you are ready, do this :

Think of one of your favourite memories.

We've all got millions of memories to choose from.  Now think back to that instant when your chosen memory popped into mind.  Did you actually consciously choose it ?  No, you did not consciously choose it, it just popped into mind from the murky depths of your subconcious.  In fact, you could not possibly have consciously chosen it, because to have consciously chosen it, you would have had to have already thought of it in order to consider it.  That is circular.

This illustrates how all our thoughts, all our choices, originate in subconscious mind and emerge into consciousness some small time later.  You could try to argue that free will exists in subconscious mind I suppose, but that strikes me as particularly meaningless.

But it is not the memory itself which constitutes the action of free will, it is the deliberate action of bringing a memory (any memory) into your mind.

I think you skipped over my thought experiment witbout really trying it then.  You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.  You cannot think a thought before you thought it, but that is what is implied if you argue that you can consciously choose which memory to recall.  It's an impossible circularity.

[Leonard James]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Quite! It is a past tense, and without time there can be no past.

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't purely that it is a past tense, though in the statement it makes it worse. Any statement about a form of beingness is temporal.

[Rhiannon]

Slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails!

That's just gross!!!

And sexist. 

[Alan Burns]

You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.

But my point is that you can consciously choose to recall a memory.  It is the deliberate act to recall which is invoked by your consciousness.  Allowing your sub conscious to choose which memory to invoke is not proof that the act of recall was also done by the subconscious.

[Leonard James]

You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.

But my point is that you can consciously choose to recall a memory.  It is the deliberate act to recall which is invoked by your consciousness.  Allowing your sub conscious to choose which memory to invoke is not proof that the act of recall was also done by the subconscious.

What on earth makes you think that you can voluntarily access your sub-conscious? If you recall something it is from your conscious memory.

The subconscious is by definition not accessible by normal means ... it needs hypnosis or some other means.

[Alan Burns]

Whilst I do not agree with the statement that free will does not exist, its existence show nothing more than that the human brain (and that of some animals) has evolved the ability somewhere in the past, suggesting that it is useful in the fight to survive and reproduce.

Consequently  the introduction of the "soul" explanation is superfluous, and nothing more than the result of wishful thinking.

Len, I am pleased to see that there is something which we can agree on   

The reason the scientific community have problems with admitting the existence of free will is because the materialistic nature of this world does not allow events to have a deliberate cause.  They will assert that every event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.

The irony in your statement, however, is that "wishful thinking" is itself a free will event deliberately invoked by one's conscious self (your soul).