Are souls, gods, or spirits made up of matter?

[snooper2]

[SheilaT]

1. My take is thqt they're pure spirit,

and they inhabit physical matter -- human bodies.

Others may differ.

[snooper2]

3. So Jesus is working at 7-11 in Madison WI?

are you talking about "souls" or "gods"?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. don't worry

its just gas.

[zeemike]

4. Yes but not matter as we know it.

Life of the physical body is in the world of dense matter and the spirit is not.

[snooper2]

7. how do you mean....subatomic particles?

protons and electrons are matter

we have discovered black holes 100's of billions of light years away
anti-matter has been found

Quarks are defined...

we have a pretty good grasp on it..Are you saying there is a form of matter that we have not discovered?

[zeemike]

22. According to some all matter has spirit.

So then it may not be new particles of mater but a part of matter we just can't measure yet....a different dimension so to speak....or the part of matter at a higher frequency of energy.
Spirit is involved in the organization of matter in our physical world.

[snooper2]

23. Is there a write-up on that somwhere? "higher frequency of energy"

really?

When you say "our" physical World...are you just talking about Earth?

How about the sun? The sun is almost completely composed of hydrogen and helium? Spirit is working there as well?

[zeemike]

24. The idea goes way back in recorded history

The Veda's comes to mind....and also is in native culture....they mostly believe that there is spirit in all things...even rocks and hydrogen gas.
Yes the sun has spirit and so do all the stars and all matter we can detect....matter may just be the shadow of our reality, not the total of it.

According to most Eastern mystics the physical world is illusion.

[snooper2]

25. But science has advanced so much further than that...

Shit, the Egyptians believed in some cool shit...but they just didn't know..

Just look at how much we have learned about say, solar flares. 1000 years ago probably would have scared the shit out of somebody :P

[zeemike]

26. I am surprised how little people know about spiritual belief.

But if you look at something like the Veda's in Eastern religions where it describes what is at the center of our galaxy...a black hole and did that thousands of years ago....one should ask how they came up with that.
But we think that we are at the pinnacle of what science could become...yet we have things yet unexplained and explain them with things like String theroy....which sounds more like what I am saying than conventional science.

[snooper2]

27. I'll have to read up on the Veda's

sounds like some interesting mythology, and actually is more "plausable" than say Allah or Jesus..

but still...just because somebody believed that rocks had a "spirit" doens't make it so.

I've broken rocks, no spirit there :) We are pretty good at determining the exact composition of every rock form on our planet.

[zeemike]

29. What would you call something that binds things together.?

Glue?
And every rock has it....and it binds those particles together to make it what it is.
And I suggest that spirit is like that...required for any physical manifistaton....but that is not to say that spirit IS gravity but is like it....nessesary for the existence of matter.
And when you broke that rock did you see the force that held it together?

[snooper2]

30. so you are saying there is another force out there parallel with gravity

"binding" some matter together..

And the folks at CERN haven't discovered this yet, okay :eyes:

Does this apply for Jesus and Allah as well? You may be better off if you tried to go down the event horizon path with that theory FYI


Also, do you see wind?

[zeemike]

31. To know that you would need to know what gravity is.

Gravity may just be like the wind...we feel it but can't see it and we know it is there....gravity may just be the effects of something more fundamental...and we can call it spirit.
I don't know what Jesus and Mohamid...(Allah is just the Arabic word for god) has to do with this but I am sure they had a better understanding than I do of the nature of spirit and the universe is.
And if one could learn how to control these forces then miracles may be possable....just as they are in the physical world...electricity is an example of controlling forces unseen to make miracles.

[snooper2]

32. did you ever take physics?

AC/DC theory?

[zeemike]

33. Not in school

But I was trained in electronics way back when they were still using vacuum tubes.
And I have always had a keen interest in science of all kinds.

[cleanhippie]

40. Are you implying that gravity is an unkown force?

It seems s if you are saying that no one knows what gravity is. Am I reading you Right?

[zeemike]

42. A force yes and it is known as a force

But no one can explain how it works or why....after all it does not act like other forces that have speed but acts to influence other bodies instantly across vast distances.
So if it is some kind of particle wave it has properties we can't explain.

[snooper2]

50. Um, that's part of basic physics class... F = G Ma Mb / r2

[zeemike]

51. And that formula explains to you what?

How the force of gravity is felt across the universe apparently instantly?

[darkstar3]

52. Where are you getting this "instantly".

It really reads like an assumption and oversimplification on your part. I'd like to see where it came from.

[zeemike]

53. Well it is....it has to be.

How would it stay together if it took time for the effects of gravity to be felt across a large distance....it takes light some 8 minutes to make it just from our sun...and we think that light is the fastest matter right?
No, I think there is another force at work and we just don't understand it...

[darkstar3]

54. Well, there's part of your problem.

Light isn't a force. You're comparing apples to bananas.

Forces don't "travel" in the same way particles or waves do. Forces have a range of effect, and usually the closer you are to the originator of a force, the more effect that force has on you. When it comes to the forces of gravitation, just like magnetic forces, there are explanations in higher-level physics that show exactly why these forces form and why they conform to the mathematical models we use to predict them. The unfortunate thing is that these explanations require enough knowledge of atomic physics and quantum mechanics to put the understanding of them far above the level of the layman.

Of course if you don't have the knowledge or the desire to acquire it, you can always claim that some mysterious being juggles the planets carefully to keep them exactly in line. You can also ask "fucking magnets, how do they work?!"

[zeemike]

55. Then can you explain it to me?

I would like to know how this force works...
Not theory now but facts that are demonstrable in science....does this sound like they know what it is?

Gravity and quantum mechanics Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity
In the decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.<16> It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.<17><18> This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,<16> where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory,<19> or more currently M-theory, and, on the other hand, it may be a background independent theory such as loop quantum gravity or causal dynamical triangulation.

Now I am not here to argue against science....my position is that we don't know the extent of reality because we have limits to our preceptions....namely what we can see hear feel and smell....and this may not be all the senses necessary to perceive the totality of our existence in this world.

[darkstar3]

64. So with the word "may" you leave enough wiggle room for whatever god you like.

In point of fact, no, I cannot explain the concepts of gravitation and magnetic force to you in detail here in this forum, for the following reasons:

1. I am not a physics teacher.
2. The concepts at hand require several hours of interactive lecture including visual aids in order to properly deliver.
3. You lack the requisite knowledge to sit in that course, failing as you do to understand the simple difference between light and force.
4. You don't really want to know, anyway. If you did, you wouldn't expect someone to distill several college courses' worth of knowledge into a political discussion forum post. You would take the references to the fields of study that you have been given and spend the necessary months or years of your time investigating them to the satiation of your curiosity.

Just because we don't know everything about reality doesn't mean that our knowledge as a species is constrained by what you know personally, nor does it mean that something supernatural must or even could exist.

[zeemike]

67. And the same could be said for you

I can't explain the fastness and complexities of a spiritual cosmos to you because I don't have the time here or the experience of a teacher to do it....you can't expect me to condense thousands of years of knowledge of mysticism into some little post now can you....besides you don't want to know it...you have already made up your mind that there is noting their but some fools on the corner trying to convert you.
And no matter how many times I get into these conversations it always winds up the same....someone telling me I am stupid because I don't believe in a Darwinistic universe where the only thing that is real is matter....and if science can't measure it it does not exist.
Yes Atheism can be just as intolerant as any religion.

[darkstar3]

69. Oh boy...

Firstly, I never called you stupid.

Secondly, the phrase you're looking for is "belief in mysticism", not "knowledge of mysticism." A lot of people get belief and knowledge confused.

Thirdly, I never claimed that "if science can't measure it it does not exist." That, along with the preceding claim of "a Darwinistic universe where the only thing that is real is matter" constitutes a straw man on your part. Skeptics and scientists understand that the universe is made of more than simple matter, which is why you hear about things like energy, anti-matter, black holes, white holes, and more. Also, skeptics and scientists are not in the habit of issuing blanket statements about the nonexistence of things, which is why Russel's Teapot is such a great explanation of the skeptic's POV.

Fourth and finally, rejection of unproven mysticism, direct and unabashed questioning of the logic and reasoning behind mysticism, and references to items that you can further educate yourself on, these things do not constitute intolerance. If you want examples of intolerance, try being a non-Christian in the rural south.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. General relativity says the 'speed of gravity' is the speed of light

and observations have shown it to be within that range:

What is the Speed of Gravity?

Or would it continue to move in its planetary for some time, and perhaps suffer some more interesting effects? Believe it or not, this is one of the most severe differences between Newton's old school theory of gravity and Einstein's General Relativity. According to Newton, you have two masses separated by a distance, and that determines the force. You take one of those masses away, and the force instantly goes away. End of story.
...
The predictions from Einstein's theory of gravity are incredibly sensitive to the speed of light, so much so that even from the first binary pulsar system, PSR 1913+16 (or the Hulse-Taylor binary), we have constrained the speed of gravity to be equal to the speed of light with an error of less than 1%!

While we'd love to be able to detect these gravitational waves directly, rather than make an indirect measurement, we're likely going to have to wait until close to 2030. Why? We'll need to have LISA up and running, where it's capable of detecting a system like this and directly measuring the speed of gravitational radiation.

But until then, indirect measurements of very rare pulsar systems like this give us the tightest constraints, and tell us that the speed of gravity is between 2.993 x 108 and 3.003 x 108 meters per second, which is an amazing confirmation of general relativity and a terrible difficulty for alternative theories of gravity! (Sorry, Newton!) And now you know not only what the speed of gravity is, but where to look to figure it out!

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/what_is_the_speed_of_gravity.php

[zeemike]

59. Dose not sound like much the way it is said.

I mean what does " we have constrained the speed of gravity" mean....and "While we'd love to be able to detect these gravitational waves directly" means they are just acting on theory not actual measurements.
But no matter...and I hope you find gravity waves and measure their speed....but that does not answer many of the more profound questions about the nature of reality....and therefore I have reason to think that there is much more to it than we know...and maybe more than we can know.
And largely the certainty of how we feel about it has to do with whether we believe in spirit or not...those not will tend to think that science has it all figured out and there is no spiritual at all....and there is only matter and space....and the other side that believes it is all spiritual and believes nothing of the sciences because they fear that they will be proven wrong.
Then there are the third way that says it is all possable....and they are not liked by the first two because they will not take sides....I am the latter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Nevertheless, you now know that the effects of gravity do not travel at infinite speed, after all

so that part of your knowledge is now cleared up.

"that does not answer many of the more profound questions about the nature of reality....and therefore I have reason to think that there is much more to it than we know...and maybe more than we can know."

No, that's a non sequitur. Answering one question for you does not mean you "have reason to think that there is much more to it than we know". Perhaps you need to apply logic more carefully in future.

[zeemike]

68. Well thank you my teacher

Now I know that although they can't measure it they think it does have speed....and what they think must be right because I have such a small brain I can't possibly think for myself much less question scientific theory.
Non sequitur?...because my conclusion is that the questions have not been answered?...I fail to see the logic in that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. It's a non sequitur because what followed your 'therefore' is not connected with what preceded it

I told you one specific thing (that the speed of gravity is not infinite, as you had been incorrectly claiming), and you then said that doesn't answer all your questions, and that you 'therefore had reason' to think there's a lot more to things than we know. No, that does not follow; when I correct you on one point you were getting wrong, that in no way implies that none of your other questions or doubts are unanswerable by anyone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. It's the electromagnetic force that binds rocks together

That is, it binds together molecules and ions, the atoms that make up molecules, and it binds electrons in atoms and ions.

If you're talking about the force that bind nuclei together, it's the strong nuclear force. And yes, the particles that mediate that force are called gluons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. What frequencies of energy are you talking about?

That is, both the lower frequency/ies that you think we know about for matter already, and the higher frequencies? Is this something in the Vedas?

[RZM]

5. I think sometimes 'ether' is the term used n/t

[ZombieHorde]

21. I thought protoplasm was the material. Why would Ghostbusters lie to us? nt

[damntexdem]

6. If something is made up of matter, it can presumably be studied, and is natural.

So it would be natural, not supernatural.

Are there supernatural things? I'm an agnostic and don't know. But those who speak of supernatural things generally claim, by inference if not directly, that they are not made up of matter.

Or to be flippant: what does it matter?

[MineralMan]

8. Most believe they're immaterial.

There are multiple meanings of that word. They all apply.

[snooper2]

9. how can something not be made up of matter?

that's the question..

You are reading this..electrons are firing in your brain..matter

[MineralMan]

14. They don't exist, in the first place.

Definition of IMMATERIAL

1
: not consisting of matter : incorporeal
2
: of no substantial consequence : unimportant

[snooper2]

15. When you said "most", I thought you meant most believers

if you meant "most" people, then I'm still confused because the vast majority of humans believe in some form of a diety.

[MineralMan]

16. I meant most people. Believers think they're incorporeal.

Non-believers think they're unimportant.

Immaterial is the correct word, and I said exactly what I meant to say. Thanks for reading.

[snooper2]

19. so being incorporeal means not having form/body

still doesn't answer the basic question-

does god consist of matter

[MineralMan]

20. Uh, gods consist of nothing. They don't exist at all.

I thought I already said that. Of course, you can examine my signature line to see that it doesn't matter what I say.

[northoftheborder]

10. agree with 1 & 4

[snooper2]

12. in that they make no sense- "matter, but not as we know it"

really...

So even the folks at CERN haven't thought if it?


Is there even a single theoretical physicist who has come up with a theory?

[Goblinmonger]

11. Is Jay Gatsby made up of matter? n/t

[snooper2]

13. yes, but he is made up of 98.76% leptons

[pokerfan]

17. I believe they're made up of wishful thinking

[chaplainM]

18. Grey matter. DEFECTIVE grey matter. n/t

[Iggo]

28. In as much as print on a page and paint on a canvas is matter, I suppose.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. I don't know - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Why does the pink unicorn that lives on the dark side of the moon fart pixie dust?

[snooper2]

37. how many atoms does it take to make an angel?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

43. Your question is as ridiculous as both of mine

All 3 should be rejected as ridiculous, as should your question in the OP. To answer any of those questions, one must make assumptions that are not based on reality.

[snooper2]

44. If one is religous or a believer I think they would be pretty core questions

This is the religion forum isn't it?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

47. Just because it's the religion forum doesn't mean

That I won't point out when something's ridiculous.

[dimbear]

35. Gospel of John 1:1 gives a hint.

God is evidently made of a word. We don't know which word, whether it was like the Hollywood sign (matter) or like some mantra, curse or evocation (not matter).

[onager]

36. God must be matter, since Moses saw his butt.

Exodus 33:20-23

[lovefreedomfairness]

38. Nobody Knows

One arguement that I also hear is that religion & spirituality is not even rational by athiests - who may say such things dont even exist but . .

I think your question is another way of asking what it all means, why, etc

here's my take, and a rational one

we cant answer any of it, if we dont know how we arrived here.

To me if you believe in the Big Bang you might as well believe in God - because the big bang sounds just as irrational
- I mean are you going to tell me that out of nothing something just willed itself and bang here we are
and how there's no beginning but there is for us,

I mean how can something come from absolutely nothing and if did it came from something how did that then come here and etc

will all the stars eventually burn out and again how did that matter get there in the first place and if it was always here wouldnt everything just burn out a long time ago far far away

So if we dont know how we got here how do we really know what we are anyways - I mean we should try to deduct the best we can and use our imagination but if we dont know how we got here than we really may be misunderstanding all the things we think we know in the first place - I mean just one discovery can change all of archeology concensus overnight and so can so many other things yet to be discovered or invented - to me it would be irrational to discount God or anything and assume the Big Bang or other Quantum theories are all correct however I do find them interesting and think we should continue to try

Again if matter came from nothing than do we really know what it is and what it will become later, and is there even really a difference

I dont know if they are made up of matter but I do think it matters

[trotsky]

39. Something comes from nothing all the time in this universe.

Google "vacuum energy."

The argument from ignorance is no argument.

[lovefreedomfairness]

46. Its all relative

theoretically energy can come and go in an isolated vacuum that is surrounded by other stuff
(linked / borrowed); but could it appear - when there is absolutely nothing (no other universes & etc)
and perhaps it's always been.

Intersting stuff. Although the popular quote "The argument from ignorance is no argument." is a nice quote,
you using it in this post as a reply seems to imply I had made an arguement lacking knowledge or education,
though maybe I read it incorrectly, my feelings arent hurt, and at least you give a google topic to research;
however that reaction seems to come from nothing, so it's rather appropriate for you to believe that other
things also come from nothing as well, and it did for a while and kind of like a virtual particle disappear
just as quick, and also didnt really come from nothing they borrow, they "indirectly" come from
nothing which is actually something and are dependant on other factors which also exist.

And I am not claiming that things cant come from nothing either! I titled it "nobody knows",
BTW I find quantum theory interesting and fractal geometry etc., to me ignorance is to "ignore"
history, and at this time in our history to be so sure. But maybe I had some of that attitude in my post as well,
and also being human myself I know it can temporarily feel good to not only imply someone else is ignorant while
implying you have the answers at the same time.

[trotsky]

49. Argument from ignorance is the name of a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You should really familiarize yourself with the various common logical fallacies so you don't use them in a discussion to try and make a point - or make false accusations, like someone is calling you ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

41. the trouble I've seen.....

There seems to be a lot of speculation and contradiction in your post, along with a couple of old apologetic arguments.
But welcome to DU, I look forward to seeing more of your posts.

[lovefreedomfairness]

45. RE

yes cleanhippie there is speculation, contradiction and old apologetic arguements . . .

and thanks for your response, but of course I have 1 in return.

As far as the concept of an "apologetic" arguement - I understand, and it may feel that way to me subconsciously as well; but it is an unanswered arguement, no matter what it's called, and one to remember - when we think we know enough to start celebrating how much we do know. One sustained constant so far in our documented history that I find compelling is that learning never ends and some new equation or principle or whatever can completely start a new branch of learning like quantum physics or even religion and that we forget things and dont see the forrest past the trees. I guess I was trying to just point out in a friendly manner that just calling something an apologetic arguement doesnt seem to recognize the arguement; but is doing the same thing in principle as the so called apologists themselves and is in itself an apologetic statement.
I am not an apologist and have no stake in either arguement except the truth and dont claim I know for sure; on the other hand an apologist is someone that doesnt want to hear the arguements because they have something do lose other than the truth and calling someone an apologist to me seems like you care to have something to lose and care about if other people think like you do.

As far as condradictions - sure and I dont think thats a bad thing necessarily always. Maybe the answer to some of these mysteries is that they are contradictions, and that we may live in a contradictory universe.

Which then brings me to address speculation - thats the whole point of this kind of conversation - it all starts and begins with a speculation or hypothesis


- I am not against the scientific method BTW, I am for it and thats my whole point. Also maybe there's part of me that wants to find laws that support free will with no limits and etc, whether that's in a material sense or spiritual. To me maybe there's a contradiction which is believing that we will ultimately learn that none of it matters - because if it doesn't than why does it matter to us in the first place - and if we are programmed that way (or evolved to believe things matter) or if it doesnt matter because there's unlimited quantum possibilities or that we are just matter & have no soul - then I would say it matters even more because than we will eventually (through understanding our limits) create the spirituality in the future that we once didnt believe in anyways.

If there are unlimited quantum strings or possible existences (including ones with spirits) than enough of them will contradict some other ones, would they all have the same constraints, is there good and evil at that point (where everything is possible with unlimited outcomes) or maybe those are all possibilities and are just as real as we are & not just choices, and just how real are we; I believe I am real - which is the question that I was addressing in this topic in the 1st place - energy supposedly is matter in a different state so I would say I hypothosize (not to play scientist but because my life has a stake in it) that we do have something beyond our bodies and laws that we live by whether scientific or moral which we can see the results but not equations literally floating in space and moral laws that we see the results but not the words in our heads. Whether we really are spirits or not we probably want to be and if we do than maybe if not now we will eventually be anyways (or future generations) however wanting that in itself is the type of spirit that can deserve to be. Whether that individual soul though can live beyond?, sure there may be more arguements that it can't than that it can at present however to the main point, those premises cant answer and are dependant on things we dont know at the core; that doesnt mean we shouldnt make the most out of each day and live each day like it was our last though; it appears at first impression to me like believing we are all alone in this universe is kind of like believing life as we know it is all that it is, irrational. We might not be able to see things but we can see effects. What I observe are religionists that believe someone or something or the great God Universe has already figured it out and modern mainstream scientists that want to figure it all out - that both want to live forever (am I correct in saying that would be an end goal?) and maybe scientists dont like believing irrationally because that will stunt us from figuring it all out. I do consider the possibility that I am irrational also thats why I titled my response "nobody knows". So in summary I do believe in "fairy tales" (Ill just call it that before you do) but in the mean time I dont see that as as any reason to not keep trying and I hope we keep trying to learn the truth.

[cleanhippie]

48. Well, good luck with that.

[Silent3]

58. You can look at the fragments of a building...

...and tell that the most likely thing to have happened is that a bomb went off. You don't have to know where the bomb came from, or why anyone would put it in the building, or exactly what type of bomb it was to be able to reach the determination that the most likely cause for the pattern of fragments, scorch marks, etc., is a bomb.

The Big Bang is much the same thing. We can look at the distribution of galaxies, observer the patterns and degree of red shift, see the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc., and determine that the evidence strongly points to a moment in the past when all matter and energy was bound up in a single small point that suddenly expanded.

What's "just as irrational" as a belief in God about following the evidence like that? That the Big Bang theory doesn't answer every question you can think of to ask about it, that it doesn't solve all of your ultimate questions about how it would have happened and why, is a false dilemma.

Nor does the fact that the Big Bang doesn't answer everything make saying "God did it!" a better response than simply admitting that we don't know all of the answers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. To most Christians, gods are made of substance

That's why the Nicene Creed says Jesus is 'of one substance with the Father'. And to Catholics, once the priest has said the correct words, that substance is what you hold in your hand, although it may look like a wafer.

[robotamadeus]

66. The Spirit Molecule

Ive got a good book called DMT The Spirit Molecule.  People
have hyper real experiences with this where they see spirits
that they truly beleive are real and made of matter.

[_ed_]

71. I'm too busy counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin

to answer your question.

[Paradoxical]

72. Intelligence must exist in a medium.

For us, the medium is the energy of the Universe.

More specifically, we exist in the 3rd dimension.

[Deep13]

73. Collect a sample, analyze it and find out.

Huh? Oh. Until you can demonstrate that they actually exist, aren't you putting the cart before the horse?

[DeadEyeDyck]

74. are ideas made up of matter? do they exist?

[GoneOffShore]

75. Depends on what you're defining as "matter".

Soul is James Brown.

"God" is a job description.

Spirits are distilled.