Is God Non-Physical?

[dybmh]

What is the proper non-gender pronoun for God?

I would have normally used "their" instead of "his" in this case.

For me, I just re-use God. For example the message in the poster would have read:

"The Immateriality of God: God is not composed of any matter or substance. God's existence is without form and distinct from creation."

vs.

"The Immateriality of God: God is not composed of any matter or substance. His existence is without form and distinct from His creation."

I think the first one describes God without form. The second one describes His existence, His creation... God apparently is a Dude. That's a form. I find it ironic.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Before you say yes, I'd consider anything non-physical unable to physically interact with the universe.

If God is non-physical and does interact with the universe, how is this possible if God is not physical.

OTOH, if God is physical, shouldn't we be able to detect/measure God?

No offense, but what the hell is God? Heck? Is your shoe detectable? If someone called your shoe God and you considered your shoe detectable, then how is God not detectable. Oh, but you must not think your shoe is God (or your shoe isn't detectable, where did it go?).

What is God? Refer to something detectable and you have a detectable God.

God for me is totally detectable. Is "what causes the next moment of experience" or "what animates experience" physical? It doesn't seem to be, but it is detectable, since your moments appear to be changing. "What does that" or is the ultimate abd immediate cause of that is what I consider God. What do you consider God?

Maybe someone says that God has a form. That is a different God from my God, since my God is what a Form-God depends on to process or exist.

If you have a Form-God, its bordered and what limits it and surrounds it, like the background for example which allows you to see the form, is greater than it.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

The proper pronoun is She!

So god looks like a Man? Not Woman? Not Raven, Not a bear? So you have seen God to know?

I'd be bored if God wasn't represented by everything and nothing.

 

[dybmh]

Not me. Why? Because we either refer to God in the second person singular (i.e. You or Thou) or the second person plural (i.e. You or Thou), or in the third person singular (He, She, or It) or the third Person plural (They).

The only sentence in the OP which uses the third person singular possessive form of He" is: "His existence is non-physical and is distinct from His creations." So, which version are you most comfortable with or which do you think is most accurate?"

• "Your existence is non-physical and is distinct from Your creations."
• "Thy existence is non-physical and is distinct from Thy creations."
• "His existence is non-physical and is distinct from His creations."
• "Her existence is non-physical and is distinct from Her creations."
• "Its existence is non-physical and is distinct from Its creations."
• "Their existence is non-physical and is distinct from Their creations."

Please see Post #21

 

[dybmh]

perhaps I could see what a non-physical God would look like.

But would you want to? and if so, why?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The proper pronoun is She!

So god looks like a Man? Not Woman? Not Raven, Not a bear? So you have seen God to know?

Symbolically (not literally of course), there is a lot of power in the Divine Feminine. (of which even the three Abrahamic religions have their controversial equivalents). And I take a lot of solace in it myself,.

At the same time it brings to mind the notion of the chicken and the egg - metaphysically speaking.

The masculine phallic energy represents the creative impulse and the Will, intent, commandments (so-to-speak). Solar.
The feminine energy on the other hand (and literally, with eastern LHP) is the Womb, the nurturer, Mercy basically (ar-Rahman in arabic is directly connected to the concept of a womb btw). Lunar.

The two have their aspect of symbolic depiction as the Absolute (for instance, between Shaivism and Shakta traditions) but both kind of rely on each other. It remains perhaps a mystery.

 

[Jimmy]

But would you want to? and if so, why?

I don't have a desire to.

 

[rational experiences]

A simple life relevance review.

All humans exist created equally by 2 human being parents having sex. Science cannot therefore exist in that formula.

Machines, machine design, building and reactions. For unless you are imposing medical sciences on the existence of a physical human for medical conditions, then other science speeches is just a human spruiking belief.

For even if you claim before self.....never are you ever living the 2 separate lives of 2 humans as your owned parents. And when they never existed, a human would talk about animals, when animals are not talking about their self.

Yet a human claims that animals in their past....instead of claiming a human in their past was sperm and an ovary....in a string theme.

An animal in its past is deceased, what conscious reality knows...for animals to exist in a future with no humans living on Earth is by natural sex.

Why science is a falsehood, rationally....for all ideals are falsified.

If a higher energy mass that destroys removes your living capability of surviving in any given moment...a human just died...your equal....another human just died....your equal...and another human just died...your equal.

And the human psyche is intricately aware of self and also their human existence and family...then radiation by mass advises you a human is removed by radiation mass. Instant advice. The idea of a higher power relating to self and then a fake self belief of adult life eternal existence all preached by the one self thinking/believing it in a natural life that one day dies also.

What we have been arguing against the whole of our human reality and life destruction, science is a liar.

God in science is inferred by self, human, through self human being, all information is just thoughts and words with no relative truth to a spirit named God.

Yet x mass of humans, like I experienced, in AI effects by radiation radio waves being enabled to voice record and image record, the human then claims a human deification of their own person beyond their own reality, by the conditions of how radiation x mass affects them.

 

[MJFlores]

Is gravity non-physical?
Is the heat from the sun, non physical?
Is the air that we breath non-physical?
Is the wind that we feel non-physical?
Is love of the a parent to his child, non-physical?

Are things we do not see, non physical?
These are things we do not see, yet we know its presence.

 

[ChristineM]

Does anyone else find the gender specific pronoun in this message ironic? God has no material or form, but is a Dude?

Aphrodite, Hera, Bes, Ziva, Freyr etc would have something to say about that.

How come so many female goddess's are associated with sex?

 

[ChristineM]

Is gravity non-physical?
Is the heat from the sun, non physical?
Is the air that we breath non-physical?
Is the wind that we feel non-physical?
Is love of the a parent to his child, non-physical?

Are things we do not see, non physical?
These are things we do not see, yet we know its presence.

And can be measured

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If God is non-physical and does interact with the universe, how is this possible if God is not physical.

In the Baha'i writings this explanation has been offered;

"We find God only through the Intermediary of His Prophet. We see the Perfection of God in His Prophets. Time and space are physical things, God, the Creator is not in a 'place' as we conceive of place in physical terms. God is the Infinite Essence, the Creator. We cannot picture Him or His state; if we did, we would be His equals, not His Creatures. God is never flesh, but mirrored in the attributes of His Prophets, we see His Divine characteristics and perfections." Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 504

Thus God to us is Spirit, but in saying that, it in no way defines the Essence of an Unknowable God.

Regards Tony

 

[stvdv]

Is God "non-physical"?

Before you say yes, I'd consider anything non-physical unable to physically interact with the universe.

Advaita teaches that God is "all", so also both "non-physical" as well as "physical"

If God is non-physical and does interact with the universe, how is this possible if God is not physical.

Good question, solves a lot.

OTOH, if God is physical, shouldn't we be able to detect/measure God?

Problem is, that we have not yet "defined" God, as far as I know (definition all agree on; hence comparing/debating gets problematic)
Advaita teaches that God is "beyond" definition

The wise express that the Truth is revealed in Silence (no mind, hence Science won't be able to reveal it IMO).

 

[Shia Islam]

Before you say yes, I'd consider anything non-physical unable to physically interact with the universe.

If God is non-physical and does interact with the universe, how is this possible if God is not physical.

OTOH, if God is physical, shouldn't we be able to detect/measure God?

In Shia Islam God is not material, not physical, and has no body. And his essence can't be comprehended by human.

On the other hand, God talks about himself, and about his creatures. And He is different from his creatures. In that sense it seems that I can say that: the Shiites believe in a personal God.

 

[epronovost]

God for me is totally detectable. Is "what causes the next moment of experience" or "what animates experience" physical? It doesn't seem to be, but it is detectable, since your moments appear to be changing. "What does that" or is the ultimate abd immediate cause of that is what I consider God.

From your definition of God, I would say it's physical since your "God" is basically a composite of several fundamental elements of the observable universe like causality, spacetime, matter, thermodynamic, electromagnetism, etc. It's even observable and possible to experiment with and study.

 

[PureX]

The source and limitations of the expression of energy that generates the physical universe was by definition, 'metaphysical'. As is our cognitive awareness of the universe, being generated within and by it. So clearly, the proposition that a non-physical God cannot effect the physical expression of being, is wrong.

 

[LightofTruth]

The proper pronoun is She!

So god looks like a Man? Not Woman? Not Raven, Not a bear? So you have seen God to know?

The figure which God formed from the ground is called man even before he was given the breath of life.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is man who was formed in the image of God and it is man who became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into the man.
The text doesn't say the living soul is man, but that the man became a living soul.
Therefore, whoever says that the image has to do with the living soul is incorrect.

 

[rational experiences]

God is constantly given by the human male science inventor, of science itself and all human inferred statements to be male.

As a scientist for his science.

Natural humans know they live on a planet, that they live with all life that supports their life...we live, have sex, grow babies who become adults, and life dies.

Only science owns the self human motivation to claim that it is researching what they claim is the human knowledge and awareness to own what they say they want to own, will own it and do anything to own it....being irrationality in self presence.

If a so called unseen spirit or power created everything...then all things are created by it....so it is owned by all things.

And there would be no EXTRA.

Science uses, applies and causes the manifestation of EXTRA....so if you studied their sick minds, which are possessed by their own sciences....seeing EXTRA never existed until they manifested it.

So science said it manifested its own AI, artificial intelligent GOD....and it was always science that said it.

Hence in modern times, they witnessed a scientology group who they all studied and owned evaluations about.....as if they are looking at their own science community in the past going tsk, tsk, about behaviours and conditions of a new organization.

Being a truthful summary of what you believe you scientist are achieving.

 

[danieldemol]

Before you say yes, I'd consider anything non-physical unable to physically interact with the universe.

If God is non-physical and does interact with the universe, how is this possible if God is not physical.

OTOH, if God is physical, shouldn't we be able to detect/measure God?

My God is non physical.
I don’t know how God interacts with the universe.

 

[dybmh]

It remains perhaps a mystery.

Indeed. Gen. 1:27. It's part of the mystery of creation.