On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Jack Knave]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

[cyberman]

Regarding point (1), I think that's why he said "plausibly" rather than, say, "necessarily", isn't it?

Regarding point (2), the trouble with the word "something" is that it can mean, well, anything, can't it? I think Alien was suggesting a noun which if used would be known to refer to the 'causing existence without itself being caused' thing he was describing. People can use that noun whether they believe such a thing exists or not, just as we can use nouns like "dragon" or "telepathy" without believing that those things exist, and be confident of a reasonably common understanding of what is being discussed. "Something" doesn't quite work, does it? Try again. I could call cars "somethings", but if I said I bought a something last week you wouldn't know about my lovely new Citroen. Nouns are handy like that.

[cyberman]

Looking forward to hearing your views on this, Jack

[Alien]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

See above.

[Jack Knave]

Regarding point (1), I think that's why he said "plausibly" rather than, say, "necessarily", isn't it?

Regarding point (2), the trouble with the word "something" is that it can mean, well, anything, can't it? I think Alien was suggesting a noun which if used would be known to refer to the 'causing existence without itself being caused' thing he was describing. People can use that noun whether they believe such a thing exists or not, just as we can use nouns like "dragon" or "telepathy" without believing that those things exist, and be confident of a reasonably common understanding of what is being discussed. "Something" doesn't quite work, does it? Try again. I could call cars "somethings", but if I said I bought a something last week you wouldn't know about my lovely new Citroen. Nouns are handy like that.

Firstly, Alien didn't include this definition in the philosophical arguments in his #92, quoted in the OP, which made those arguments flawed.

As for your first point he should have included for completeness a 'plausibly' for an impersonal position. That is 'God' could be no more than some kind of force or energy act that has no decision making capability but merely follows some kind of potential.

"...it can mean, well, anything, can't it?" - That is the whole point!!! What/how this universe etc. came about is open to anything and everything, because we just don't know.

But that noun, God, is not neutral because when one uses it people surreptitiously bring in their notions of It, and all manner of baggage that they have accumulated and associated with it over their life time. So "Something" is a far better word as it is neutral and includes all possible things. And what is being discussed is philosophy first as this is how Alien starts things off. Skewing the argument by slipping in the non-neutral term God is totally disingenuous and underhand.

Your car analogy thing doesn't work, we are talking about something no one, none of us, have seen or can comprehend.

[Jack Knave]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

See above.

It was an analogy. If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.

See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.

[Alien]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

See above.

It was an analogy.

No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home?

If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.

See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.

As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.

[Jack Knave]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

See above.

It was an analogy.

No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home?

If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.

See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.

As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.

And what terminology would you prefer me to use? There isn't none, for this is a realm none of us know about, it is the realm of metaphysics. Hence my analogy!!! Hence my inadequate term 'force-act' because there isn't any terms we can appeal to. I was hoping your Cambridge education had given you the broad mindedness to have cotton on to this, to think outside the box, but sadly something must have gone wrong...

You made no mention that this God-thing of yours could have plausibly been impersonal; as impersonal as a gust of wind blowing on your face.

[Alien]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

See above.

It was an analogy.

No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home?

If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.

See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.

As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.

And what terminology would you prefer me to use?

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

There isn't none, for this is a realm none of us know about, it is the realm of metaphysics. Hence my analogy!!! Hence my inadequate term 'force-act' because there isn't any terms we can appeal to. I was hoping your Cambridge education had given you the broad mindedness to have cotton on to this, to think outside the box, but sadly something must have gone wrong...

Wow, that was helpful.

You made no mention that this God-thing of yours could have plausibly been impersonal; as impersonal as a gust of wind blowing on your face.

Which post are you referring to, please? It may be that I didn't on whichever post that was, but I have done a number of times in the past. Do you mean my #92 in the "What is God made from?" thread. There I wrote, "Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…" I didn't use the word "plausibly", I grant you that, but what I did write was "it has been argued", not "it has been proven/demonstrated".

[Dicky Underpants]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

[Alien]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

[Jack Knave]

On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-

"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."

I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).

1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.

You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.

There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.

2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.

So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?

See above.

It was an analogy.

No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home?

If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.

See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.

As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.

And what terminology would you prefer me to use?

1) Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

There isn't none, for this is a realm none of us know about, it is the realm of metaphysics. Hence my analogy!!! Hence my inadequate term 'force-act' because there isn't any terms we can appeal to. I was hoping your Cambridge education had given you the broad mindedness to have cotton on to this, to think outside the box, but sadly something must have gone wrong...

2) Wow, that was helpful.

You made no mention that this God-thing of yours could have plausibly been impersonal; as impersonal as a gust of wind blowing on your face.

3) Which post are you referring to, please? It may be that I didn't on whichever post that was, but I have done a number of times in the past. Do you mean my #92 in the "What is God made from?" thread. There I wrote, "Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…" I didn't use the word "plausibly", I grant you that, but what I did write was "it has been argued", not "it has been proven/demonstrated".

1) But the context here are philosophical arguments. By bringing in the word God with that restrictive definition you have already rigged the 'dice' to give a certain answer, an answer, with your confirmation bias, that you want the argument to lead to. To paraphrase your approach: Where did the universe come from etc.? answer God, as defined by Alien. This closes off all other possible answers before you even start, but you try to present the word God, in an underhand way, to be broader and more inclusive than you actually allow it to be.

You don't seem to have considered the possibility that matter may have always existed and therefore space as well in some form, thereby forgoing the need to a thing like God.

2) If you are going to be sarcastic do use the smileys.

3) Yes, #92.

"it has been argued", :- Was that argument in #92 or is it just a general statement of what has been done elsewhere by other people?

iv.   Since time and space, matter and energy came into existence at this beginning, the cause of the universe, whom we identify as God,

Again, was this 'whom we identify' following on from an argument presented in #92? And again I would object to the term God in a philosophical argument.

I need to reread this section of your #92 again. I can see that your definition is in there of a fashion.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to add a point to Jack's post 'whom' is (a) begging a question and (b) in assuming being vs non time  logically incoherent

[Jack Knave]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

I find this argument very odd. The whole point is to get as far as possible to the truth of the matter but what you are saying here is let us restrict ourselves to our cultural etc. notions of what God is. This 1) narrows down the possible paths one could go down to presenting possible answers and 2) assumes that ones idea of what God is is correct based on nothing but ones bias for ones culture and upbringing etc.

[Nearly Sane]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

[Jack Knave]

Just to add a point to Jack's post 'whom' is (a) begging a question and (b) in assuming being vs non time  logically incoherent

Could you please clarify 'your' post?

[Dicky Underpants]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.

[Alien]

...

1) But the context here are philosophical arguments. By bringing in the word God with that restrictive definition you have already rigged the 'dice' to give a certain answer, an answer, with your confirmation bias, that you want the argument to lead to. To paraphrase your approach: Where did the universe come from etc.? answer God, as defined by Alien. This closes off all other possible answers before you even start, but you try to present the word God, in an underhand way, to be broader and more inclusive than you actually allow it to be.

So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.

You don't seem to have considered the possibility that matter may have always existed and therefore space as well in some form, thereby forgoing the need to a thing like God.

That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God".[/quote]

2) If you are going to be sarcastic do use the smileys. [/quote]Happy to do so if there is any doubt about my reply being sarcastic.

3) Yes, #92.

"it has been argued", :- Was that argument in #92 or is it just a general statement of what has been done elsewhere by other people?

By other people.

iv.   Since time and space, matter and energy came into existence at this beginning, the cause of the universe, whom we identify as God,

Again, was this 'whom we identify' following on from an argument presented in #92? And again I would object to the term God in a philosophical argument.

I need to reread this section of your #92 again. I can see that your definition is in there of a fashion.

OK.

[Alien]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

I find this argument very odd. The whole point is to get as far as possible to the truth of the matter but what you are saying here is let us restrict ourselves to our cultural etc. notions of what God is. This 1) narrows down the possible paths one could go down to presenting possible answers and 2) assumes that ones idea of what God is is correct based on nothing but ones bias for ones culture and upbringing etc.

See above.

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

[Alien]

Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".

It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).

Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").

Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.

That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.

[Nearly Sane]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Is everything about a person measurable though?

[Nearly Sane]

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Is everything about a person measurable though?

Dunno, not even sure the question makes sense. Since nothing I have said states everything about a person is measurable, am at a loss as to relevance. I understand the concept of peron to be temporal and material so the idea of a non temporal non material person seems nonsensical to me - if it does not seems nonsensical to you, can you help out in how you understand it?

[Alien]

What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.

A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.

So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical

Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.