Is God a logical contradiction?

[Tom Fearnley]

Fake Messiah:  "Life-controlling signals originate from both physical chemicals and immaterial energy waves. " https://upliftconnect.com/embracing-imma...-universe/

Belaqua: "What makes you disagree? You seem to know something of God, so you can say that what theologians say of him is wrong. "

The material human brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe, correct? So even if something is "immaterial" the fact that it's intelligent (intelligible as you say) would likely make it complex I should think. William Lane Craig defines God as immaterial, all knowing, very powerful etc etc.

If God is "nothing" how could he do something? I take nothing to mean "lack of everything", including God. What is lack of everything specifically? Don't know. If God is made of no material how could he think thoughts? He doesn't have any neurons. Again back to the possibility of the married bachelor problem. Immaterial intelligence? Hmm...

EDIT: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has immaterialism defined as "The denial of materialism".

[Belacqua]

The material human brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe, correct? So even if something is "immaterial" the fact that it's intelligent (intelligible as you say) would likely make it complex I should think. William Lane Craig defines God as immaterial, all knowing, very powerful etc etc.

I've already addressed this. When theologians say that God is intelligent, it is not in the same way that a person is intelligent. If you skipped my description of this before you can look again, at my first post here. 

Intelligent and intelligible describe very different things. We'd better make sure we don't mix those up. 

William Lane Craig is, to put it mildly, not my favorite theologian. I'm not aware of much that he says, nor am I impressed with what I've heard. 

If God is "nothing" how could he do something? 

He takes no actions. This would require change, and he doesn't change. 

He causes things to be and to change because of what he is, but this doesn't require his own change. This is a long involved argument, and I guess we could do it later if you want. But it's not quite the same as the intelligence question.

Again, this is classical theology, not what you might hear from rank and file Christians. 

I take nothing to mean "lack of everything", including God. What is lack of everything specifically? Don't know. 

Right. But "not made of anything" means that there are no materials in him. No constituent parts, no elements. 

If God is made of no material how could he think thoughts? He doesn't have any neurons. 

See above. Thoughts come and go, but God is unchanging. He doesn't think, if by "think" you refer to what people do.

EDIT: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has immaterialism defined as "The denial of materialism".

That's true. Materialism in that sense is an opinion about the world -- what it's made of, etc. Does that dictionary say anything about how this is related to your question?

[Amarok]

So a  bunch of special made up stuff theists use to get out of admitting their god is nonsense. Theology is science fiction .

[Tom Fearnley]

Belaqua: "I've already addressed this. When theologians say that God is intelligent, it is not in the same way that a person is intelligent. If you skipped my description of this before you can look again, at my first post here. "

So in what way is God intelligent?

"He takes no actions. This would require change, and he doesn't change.

He causes things to be and to change because of what he is, but this doesn't require his own change"


Wouldn't causing things to change required a change of thought?

"Right. But "not made of anything" means that there are no materials in him. No constituent parts, no elements. "

So how could he do anything, such as "causing things to change"? Create a universe?

"Does that dictionary say anything about how this is related to your question? "

No, I came up with the question. I don't think you'd find it in any dictionary.

[comet]

Is God a logical contradiction? Is saying an [all-powerful] immaterial intelligence [God] like saying a square circle or married bachelor? To the best of my knowledge there are no immaterial things, such as energy waves, that exhibit intelligence. I need help with this. Anyone?

Can you give me a list of all immaterial things known to us? Do any of them exhibit intelligence? Are all immaterial things known to us (as in there can't be anymore)?

The problem with the above: Is it possible there could be something immaterial which is intelligent? Maybe, maybe not imo. This could be like asking "is it possible that a bachelor could be married?" No, it's not possible. But then maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks.

it depends on what the traits are.  Lets start with "material".  The standard model is all we have. I find most people do not know what they are talking about when they say immaterial.   we all know our understanding is incomplete but its all we have.  As soon as someone tells me "you are a materialist." I know instantly they do not understand how to form the best belief we can.

Yes, it is possible for something that is "immaterial" to be intelligent.  We just have to talk about what "immaterial" is.   

A claim that offers an explanation, makes predictions, and gives a mechanism is more valid than those that don't. period. deny everything is not the most valid claim we have. 

[Tom Fearnley]

comet: Well I'm confused as to what immaterial means then. How do you know it's possible for something immaterial to be intelligent?

[Belacqua]

Belaqua: "I've already addressed this. When theologians say that God is intelligent, it is not in the same way that a person is intelligent. If you skipped my description of this before you can look again, at my first post here. "

So in what way is God intelligent?

You've been saying he is, not me. 

I say that according to theologians he's omniscient, in that he and the truth are one. All the things that people may know are at one with him.

"He takes no actions. This would require change, and he doesn't change. 

He causes things to be and to change because of what he is, but this doesn't require his own change"

Wouldn't causing things to change required a change of thought?

Here's an analogy: 

The guy who plays Thor is asleep on a park bench. He's doing nothing, has no plans. Yet he causes action all around him, because people react to him. This is the Neoplatonic view: God causes action in the world because the world is motivated to be like him or near him. 

That's just one analogy, but it might serve as an example of how something that doesn't act causes action.

Create a universe?

I don't know of any arguments about how God created the universe at a point in time. Normally "creation" is taken by these people to mean a thing that must be the case in order for other things to be the case. For example, for human life to exist, the warmth of the sun must exist. For the warmth of the sun to exist, the sun must exist. For the sun to exist, hydrogen has to exist. For hydrogen to exist, space/time has to exist. For space/time to be the case, existence itself must be the case. The basic thing that must at root be the case is existence, but existence isn't caused by something that exists, because that would mean that something existed before existence. So God -- the case that all other cases rely on -- is existence.

[Fake Messiah]

Fake Messiah:  "Life-controlling signals originate from both physical chemicals and immaterial energy waves. " https://upliftconnect.com/embracing-imma...-universe/

This is trolling. I've noticed from the first post that you're a troll because you declare yourself as atheist and yet write fallacies that theists write like "immaterial stuff". This just proves more that you're a troll.

[Dmitry1983]

Fake Messiah:  "Life-controlling signals originate from both physical chemicals and immaterial energy waves. " https://upliftconnect.com/embracing-imma...-universe/

This is trolling. I've noticed from the first post that you're a troll because you declare yourself as atheist and yet write fallacies that theists write like "immaterial stuff". This just proves more that you're a troll.

atheists can be spiritual

[Tom Fearnley]

I'm not trolling. I promise you that. Sorry if you've got that impression. So people who are describing energy waves as immaterial are theists? How would you define immaterial? If immaterial is a meaningless word then a "meaningless [immaterial] intelligence" is a logical contradiction. I said this on the internet like a year ago and then got convinced that immaterial actually means something.

Belaqua: So you're saying God is everything? But that he is not intelligent, sorry I guess I'm just confused by this it's new to me. It seems as though you're contradicting yourself from what I can tell tbh.