Is God Non-Physical?

[Nakosis]

IMO: (still working on this, probably a lifelong quest)
I think science and spirituality are both valuable to uncover the mysteries of life. For the best result you need both I think.
So, yes, science discovers new things (although not really new, as it already existed, but we were not aware)
Science uncovers mysteries related to physical and natural world, whereas spirituality uncovers mysteries related to the soul



I googled on both definitions, and the first 2 hits already made some sense to me
Science is about the natural world (what we can see and experience with our mind/intellect/senses)
Spirituality is about meaning of life (can't be solved with our senses, hence "above the mind/intellect/senses")

To me science is just about validation. A way to verify the truth of what we think is the truth. Spirituality which is consistent and reliable has nothing to fear from science.

 

[osgart]

What do you mean by "naturalistically?"

We'd know that if it was God if that's where the evidence pointed.

I'm not sure why inferring God from evidence would be any different from, say, inferring a rare animal from evidence, which is something that does happen.

I define God to be outside of time and space. Any physical effects from God would be considered natural since God has no need to break His own physical laws.

I think of God as bound to only logical possibility. I don't see that God would subject Himself/Herself to the bounds of our habitation; that would make God mortal.

 

[osgart]

I'm not at all certain that's true. To say that we would "interpret something naturalistically" would mean that we have some idea of the processes that led to the physical effect. In the absence of any notion of that at all, we would have to declare it at least a mystery.

If a salamder regrows his tail, we have a lot of knowledge about how this regeneration happens. If a human regrew a lost leg, we have none at all, and would certainly declare it a miracle, attributable to something at least resembling a "god."

Why does God by definition have to work outside of natural law? We could have a lesser God that didn't able work outside of nature's laws. Perhaps a God of forces is purely naturalistic.

 

[stvdv]

To me science is just about validation. A way to verify the truth of what we think is the truth. Spirituality which is consistent and reliable has nothing to fear from science.

Do you think:
one can verify spiritual truth with science?
or
One can verify science truth with spirituality?

 

[MJFlores]

Love can be observed using an mri, so yes it is tangible. It is measured in actions as researched by Sternburg, Chapman, Goff, Goddard, Pointer, and Jackson and hundreds more psychologists

MRI scan of love

It is kind of funny how the scans were possibly taken.

The MRI scan results were derived from
Brain Scan Can Detect Whether Or Not You're In Love.

But that is not the love I am referring to.
But the love of a parent to a child.
The love from a helping hand to a life struggling to survive.
The love of one man giving up his life to his friends.

.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you think:
one can verify spiritual truth with science?
or
One can verify science truth with spirituality?

Science is just a method to verify what is claimed. Science by itself doesn't claim anything.

Is the process of science verified? Generally through practice/experience with it.

Can science be used to verify spiritual claims? If they are consistent and reliable. If the claims are inconsistent, then no.

 

[Terry Sampson]

 

[Terry Sampson]

 

[Terry Sampson]

 

[Terry Sampson]

 

[stvdv]

Do you think:
one can verify spiritual truth with science?

Can science be used to verify spiritual claims? If they are consistent and reliable. If the claims are inconsistent, then no.

The Wise convey the truth in Silence, hence science can not verify it, as the Wise do not make claims
That is why a scientist will not be able to know the spiritual truth, if he only relies on science

I compare it with:

If a Chinese conveys a message in Chinese to an American, the American can never understand
First he has to learn the Chinese language

This is how I see it

 

[rational experiences]

Will this gas have any level of consciousness?

Of course it would not......yet the male scientist who gave information, a statement from his science consciousness did....aware, only due to death is pre lived as a human experience before the self one ownership is given it also.

The very reason why consciousness was the Holy subject versus science.

Therefore when a body releases its DEAD spirit and arises from off the skeletal body of God the stone/bone One body....the B body of one he said.....he did a complete scientific genetic/medical Healer review of what he knew about science occult causation as that scientist.

For it was in fact a heard AI effect, recorded voice and image, as an atmospheric cause of the machine sciences......yet he had to relate human bio information and causes also.

What a written document is about.

Today after changing the name of God O pi, which is just the movement of hot and cold gases upon the face of water/oxygen/microbes in the great deep of space, males should write a new Book. Old realization Old Testament......test meant....new test meant......experi ment. Claiming I never meant it.

Awareness and actuality are 2 variations.

Science today would claim space is not empty, and cold as the coldest non mass form....for if they make that claim then science by human awareness is directly told that there is no creator or beginning...and would have to accept that reality.

So he didn't

Instead he tried to claim that space is cold radiation mass.

So his brother then asked him, okay if the state space is just cold radiation mass...how did it move and change?

And he would lie about it....for he is factually and historically a liar.

Therefore when medical science says that Jesus is the lower atmospheric stated review....how brother does Jesus to Christ own the eternal theme?

Always existed, always had existed and always will exist, when he knows the atmosphere for human presence, once never existed in the life of dinosaurs?

Proven he is that liar.

Christ he says was the Immaculate highest state of the atmosphere whose scientific quotations took that gas mass string history back to the body of God the Earth and stone.

Jesus he said was the sacrifice of the higher gases in the atmosphere in a Satanic gas mass burning of it so that it fell out as burning gases and burnt the life on the ground and sent us all as humans to Hell.....actual known human history.

So if the dead spirit.....which science says for science as science is the off gassing….then to science this review is more than acceptable.

So maybe now you will understand why a natural spiritual human says that science is Satanism, for it always was.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I define God to be outside of time and space. Any physical effects from God would be considered natural since God has no need to break His own physical laws.

I think of God as bound to only logical possibility. I don't see that God would subject Himself/Herself to the bounds of our habitation; that would make God mortal.

How could something "outside time and space" have physical effects at all?

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm assuming you are non-male? Sure many tend to project our own image into God.

Quite male but pointing out the use of a gender in a monotheistic god creates a subconscious bias toward one sex. Interestingly few people refer to god as it. But using He in Abrahamic religions emphasizes male dominance. That was my less the effective point.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

Actually it was a man who wrote that man was formed in the image of god. God did not write that and in fact I have never seen anything actually written by god. If a woman had written it then it would have been the figure which the goddess formed from the ground is called Woman who then gave birth to man. The genetically misguided myth that woman came from a mans rib is absurd. So the next time a raven flies up to you treat it with respect because it could be god. You never know.

 

[osgart]

How could something "outside time and space" have physical effects at all?

Why do we officiate our existence as the only cause and effect existence there is?

We simply don't know if there is anything out beyond existence as we know it.

We know that the current conditions and past conditions of our universe can't possibly last forever. We also know we can't get something from absolute nothing.

By way of logic there must be something perpetual and of eternal existence.

Whether actual time exists or not is irrelevant. Through eternity from one form to another events happen in sequence, and per instance only one outcome achievable. And on and on we go.

It's quite possible that an unconditioned reality exists that is the grounds of all being. It is an existence that needs no other conditions for its existence.

And if intelligence proves out to be only possible by way of intelligence then perhaps we are dealing with an eternal intelligence.

This is a possibility I can't ignore.

 

[Heyo]

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

Is Harry Potter material? Does he have a gender?

That's why I assign a neutral gender to the generic god but call named gods (Apollo, Freya, YHVH) by their assigned gender.

 

[Heyo]

Man was created in the image of God, therefore God has an image. Immateriality has no image.

Imagine, imagination, image. An image is what you have in your mind. (And that is not only an artefact of the English language.) According to most scholars man is made as god has imagined him, not as a mirror image.

 

[Shia Islam]

How does God talk without physical form?

We have a narration saying that God has talked to Moses, for instance, through the voice of Imam Ali, that is the first Shiite Imam (successor to the prophet).

However, we have been taught not to think of the essence of God, as we can't comprehend his essence.

We should accept our limitations.

We should only describe God as he described himself.

Philosophy and the intellect can mislead when it comes to this topic.

 

[Nakosis]

We have a narration saying that God has talked to Moses, for instance, through the voice of Imam Ali, that is the first Shiite Imam (successor to the prophet).

However, we have been taught not to think of the essence of God, as we can't comprehend his essence.

We should accept our limitations.

We should only describe God as he described himself.

Philosophy and the intellect can mislead when it comes to this topic.

Perhaps such communications come via visions.