^^^

Deep Sight:

^^^ Read again please. I said I have animosity towards SUGGESTIONS from a theist that God is in a physical body in heaven.

The suggestion is just crazy and i REPEAT that i have strong animosity towards it.

I dont know you Viaro, and have no reason to have a personal problem with you.

I read it, and I have observed that you actually have animosity towards theists for what you cannot agree with them on issues which your fundamentalist deism cannot accept. You have used invectives directly on people in this thread, that tells me that you are expressing animosity towards those who you vilify.

@Marlbron: I have not only given my own answer to the puzzling matter on #1, but I have continued to discuss #2 and #3. You may want to read my last 3 or so posts on this thread.

@Deep Sight: Abeg go and sit down! Which herd mentality?  There is no Christian that I know we have never disagreed on NL, whether as InesQor or mavenbox (okay maybe nuclearboy and aletheia are two that I can't remember disagreeing with so far).

Myself and viaro do not agree on every matter, for instance some of my views about the experience of Eden, and my controversial views of inclusivism of some non-Christians the Body of Christ, are just two that I can recall now. For matters that are CLEAR from the scriptures, you will do well to see that we only agree because we are truthful to the source from which we present our information.

The thing is that we are always honest enough to tell ourselves what we believe without misconstruing the evidence, EVEN when we disagree. You on the other hand, are notorious for lying through your very essence of being by deliberately misconstruing evidence.

How will an honest discussion EVER be had with you in this case, when you keep shifting goal posts and changing the information?  

viaro:

^^^
I read it, and I have observed that you actually have animosity towards theists for what you cannot agree with them on issues which your fundamentalist deism cannot accept. You have used invectives directly on people in this thread, that tells me that you are expressing animosity towards those who you vilify.

Yes, I have been quite expressive in this thread I must admit.

But I directed my expressions against what I saw as unspeakable statements.

Anyhow, you are yourself the master of invectives, and for my part if i have been scathing, I am sorry to all and sundry unreservedly.

Inesqor/ Viaro –

Consider this.

God is a self-existent being existing beyond all concepts of time and space.

A Self-Existent entity exists in and of itself.

For this reason God is very well understood to be immaterial – that is – he is not a physical material being.

This is enshrined thoroughly in most religions and is supported by any discerning philosophical ontology of God.

For this reason it is absolutely inconceivable regardless of anything written in any ancient text – that the uncaused Cause should be conceived as existing within a physical human body in a realm already said to be intangible.

This really amazes and amuses me. What is intangibility?

How can we coherently insist that a physical material tangible human body is existing in a realm that is intangible?

Is that not a severe contradiction in terms?

And this is the issue also on the existence of spiritiual realms.

Viaro you doubtless agree that such realms are immaterial in nature.

How then could material things be there?

That's a contrdiction, no?

Marlbron:

The whole point of joining the religion thread is for us to learn from each other in many ways. Sometimes you win some and loose some, but I am not happy about the slanging match between Viaro and Deepsight. Can we call a truce and focus on the discussions?

I entered this thread to discuss; and I made clear that if DeepSight was not ready to discuss, then I did not wish to pursue these banters of insolence with him (see post #56). If he had let it at that, there would be no need of his "attributing" his unfounded lies to me or anyone for statements I NEVER EVER made - and for which I requested that he quote me directly. Truce is good; but how is a truce managed or achieved with a deep.liar running errands up and down this thread?

Marlbron:

Both of you offer great contributions from your different perspectives, but I have an issue when people develop animosity towards each other from their laptops or desktops, when they hardly know each other. You both have overflogged your points, so lets move on, shall we? , And by the way, no winner, no looser!

Go back and see: who has been asking that we "move on" in this thread?

We are moving on. . . please see and revert objectively on my last two posts. . .

By the way just in case I missed it - can you refresh me on what your response was to Noetic's quote of Jesus in stating that no man had gone to heaven?

Thanks.

@Deep sight:

Can you explain how you understand that spiritually material beings like angels can appear on physically material planes like earth, but the vice-versa i.e. physically material beings in a spiritually material plane, is impossible?

Deep Sight:

Yes, I have been quite expressive in this thread I must admit.

But I directed my expressions against what I saw as unspeakable statements.

Anyhow, you are yourself the master of invectives, and for my part if i have been scathing, I am sorry to all and sundry unreservedly.

'Quite expressive' . . ?? Oh c'mon man - you have been expressly expressing your lies up and down. Didn't you notice? The one thing that has come out again is your inability to own up to your lies - that is just so hideous!

InesQor:

@Deep sight:

Can you explain how you understand that spiritually material beings like angels can appear on physically material planes like earth, but the vice-versa i.e. physically material beings in a spiritually material plane, is impossible?

That;s because the physical is like a vessel for the intangible.

The Physical cannot "enter" the intangible because the very definition of intangibility means that there is no "space" in the physical sense whereat a physical thing may "enter" into intangibility.

That is why we have to shed our physical bodies at death to enter the spiritual realm.

Makes sense?

I had also said these earlier in the thread -

1. A physical body is a three dimensional entity that has a spatial construct and thus can only dwell within space and time: spiritual realms such as “heaven” are said to exist beyond space and time and as such a body with a spatial construct cannot conceivably be compatible with such a realm.

2. Physical bodies are material and tangible and as such it is inconceivable that they could “enter” into a realm said to be intangible.

3. Physical bodies CANNOT survive outside the atmospheric conditions that make their continued existence possible: thus a physical body runs on blood, which is fuelled by oxygen which the physical body must breathe - and energized by material food. Since it is inconceivable that such things as oxygen and material food exist in intangibility (wow, are we even discussing this?) - then I directly posit that a physical body cannot survive in an intangible spiritual realm.

4. A physical body cannot function in a spiritual realm: viz – every single function of a physical body is tied to, and works based on the physics of its physical environment: thus the eyes could not see save for physical light waves in the physical world, the physical ears could not hear, save for physical sound waves in the physical world: the skin could have no sense of touch in an intangible realm, and lets not even contemplate the requirement to eject waste (defecate) in intangibility! You see, this is downright comical.

Deep Sight:

Inesqor/ Viaro –

Consider this.

God is a self-existent being existing beyond all concepts of time and space.

A Self-Existent entity exists in and of itself.

For this reason God is very well understood to be immaterial – that is – he is not a physical material being.

This is enshrined thoroughly in most religions and is supported by any discerning philosophical ontology of God.

For this reason it is absolutely inconceivable regardless of anything written in any ancient text – that the uncaused Cause should be conceived as existing within a physical human body in a realm already said to be intangible.

Dude, I will reserve that quote as appears there - nothing edited. I know why I'm saying this, because sometime soon we shall see how you are actually plotting a skewed graph about the very issues you wish to discuss.

Deep Sight:

This really amazes and amuses me. What is intangibility?

I guess that is the question you have to answer yourself, since you proposed an ontology and existential approach that has been your own plank of operation. I'm interested in your answer; and should you skip it, I would then ask it of you again.

Deep Sight:

How can we coherently insist that a physical material tangible human body is existing in a realm that is intangible?

Is that not a severe contradiction in terms?

There is a lot that is wrong with your tautology. Please explain your terms and keep it simple.

BROTHERS! WHY DO YOU KEEP AGUEING OVER SUCH A SMALL MATTER AS THIS? THE WORD OF THE LORD IS CLEAR ABOUT THIS, {FLESH & BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD: I CORRINTIANS 15:50-58} AS FOR THE CASE OF ENOCH AND ELIJAH, THEY WHERE TRANSFORMED FROM AN EARTHLY BODY TO A GLORIFIED, FROM A CORRUPTIBLE BODY TO AN INCORRUPTIBLE BODY JUST AS IT WAS STATED IN THE BOOK OF CORINTHIANS 15:50-58. PLEASE READ THIS SCRIPTURE FOR FURTHER CLERIFICATION,

Viaro -

Well since you ask for a definition of "intangible" I lift from the Encarta Online Dictionary -

Intangible - (Adj) Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen.

^^^ Address the contradiction?

Deep Sight:

I had also said these earlier in the thread -

Please don't jump trails - it really does not matter now what you are reposting from what you said earlier.

Deep Sight:
You see, this is downright comical.

If you want to discuss, please keep your invectives to yourself. We would like to deal with issues - free from all such tendencies that degenerate into unpleasant exchanges.

Deep Sight:

That;s because the physical is like a vessel for the intangible.

The Physical cannot "enter" the intangible because the very definition of intangibility means that there is no "space" in the physical sense whereat a physical thing may "enter" into intangibility.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. HOW do you know that the physical cannot enter the intangible? And how do you know that the intangible means there is no "space" in the physical sense?

It seems to me that you're jumping into hasting conclusions that are personal to you and have absolutely no foundation ontologically or existentially. Please demonstarte to us HOW you know anything about those conclusions in your statement above.

Deep Sight:
That is why we have to shed our physical bodies at death to enter the spiritual realm.

Makes sense?

No, it does not make any sense - as explained above and waiting for your answers to those two questions.

Viaro - See the definition of "Intangible" above.

Gotta zap for now.

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

Well since you ask for a definition of "intangible" I lift from the Encarta Online Dictionary -

Intangible - (Adj) Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen.

That's okay - I could also lift definitions here and there; but what sense would it make for your tautologies? The point is that I observe you've been using that (and other) word(s) very loosely, which is why it has become needful for you to give us a working reference for what you mean.

For instance, other sources on 'intangible' say:

(a)  'incapable of being perceived by the senses especially the sense of touch' -
(Concise English Dictionary)

(b)  'that exists but that is difficult to describe, understand or measure:
The old building had an intangible air of sadness about it
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

From these two examples, it is obvious that people use the term 'intangible' quite loosely and also in specific reference.

The issue, however, is what you make of the concept of 'spiritual realm' viz-a-viz your notion of 'intangible'. The direct opposite of that term ('intangible') would therefore be 'tangible'. Hence, if we understand the 'tangible' to be corporeal; we would understand the 'intangible' in your instance to be 'incorporeal', no? I ask this for confirmation only, since I don't want to risk misconstruing what you're on about.

Yes, I am aware of that.

The sense in which it has been used in this thread is obvious enough - and I clarified already and do so again -

By Intangible I refer to the non-physical.

As opposed to physical matter.

Carry on?

Deep Sight:

As opposed to physical matter.

Hang on, these tautologies are not helping. It's far easier and coherent to say simply 'matter', for it is common knowledge that "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made" (wikipedia) - unless, of course, you want to tell us about 'non-physical matter' that you may know about.

The distinction is quite necessary; it's either you're dealing with 'matter' in the sense that it refers to what is termed 'physical'; or you want to deal with the antithesis, which some might conceptualise as 'non-physical' - in which case they are thinking of "non-matter".

I beg your indulgence, DeepSight - does that distinction resonate with you?

Just to be clear: do you acknowledge and accept the distinction as applicable in your views?

___________

If the distinction resonates with you and is applicable to your discourses, then I might ask by this:

Deep Sight:

By Intangible I refer to the non-physical.

. . . so, would it be wrong to understand your 'non-physical' to be indicative of 'non-matter'?

I think its simple enough to say that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Surely we can proceed on that.

Note that not even the finest forms of matter, such as light particles, waves, etc are exempt: they all qualify as part of the physical world and are observable in physics. They are not spiritual, but physical.

Carry on.

Deep Sight:

I think its simple enough to say that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Okay.

Deep Sight:

Note that not even the finest forms of matter, such as light particles, waves, etc are exempt: they all qualify as part of the physical world and are observable in physics. They are not spiritual, but physical.

Hang on. On what basis are you distinguishing between 'physical' and 'spiritual'? If you say qualify any entity or phenomenon as 'physical' on the basis of being 'observable in physics', does that which is not observable in physics therefore fall into the categorization of 'spiritual'?

The reason I ask this is that your reference is not clear at all. That was why I asked you to please make your point as regards the distinctions I presented between your 'physical' (ie., matter) and 'non-physical' (ie. non-matter) - how do you stand in that reference?

^^ Infact, DeepSight, following my rejoinder above, I'd be interested in what you understand as 'physical'.

You make reference to the 'physical' as that which may tend to being 'observable in physics' - in which case, we should not forget your assertion that, 'that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter'. What exactly are your criteria for the 'physical'/'matter', since you're projecting 'physics' into these issues?

Viaro, I don't know where you are going with these.

I would have thought that my words were simple and clear enough.

I hope you are not trying to lead me into a whirlpool of endless definitions: because you asked me to define "intangible" - and I did.

Now you are asking me to define "physical."

The definition of "physical" is well known to you, so please lets make progress and not start definition games.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

Viaro, I don't know where you are going with these.

I would have thought that my words were simple and clear enough.

I hope you are not trying to lead me into a whirlpool of endless definitions: because you asked me to define "intangible" - and I did.

Now you are asking me to define "physical."

The definition of "physical" is well known to you, so please lets make progress and not start definition games.

Thanks.

I am not leading you into definition games. I also stated my reasons why I needed you to be clear - because you are using terms very loosely and articulating absolutely nothing; for which I gave examples. You acknowledged that you are aware of the loose use of these terms, and rather than proceed along such lines, I needed to be clear from you. Is that not acceptable, and why?

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not? Within the matrix of whatever ontology you may wish to apply you terms, please be clear and articulate so we don't go back and forth unnecessary.

If you are not going to be distinct, I don't see what use there is in attending you further.

viaro:

I am not leading you into definition games. I also stated my reasons why I needed you to be clear - because you are using terms very loosely and articulating absolutely nothing; for which I gave examples. You acknowledged that you are aware of the loose use of these terms, and rather than proceed along such lines, I needed to be clear from you. Is that not acceptable, and why?

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not? Within the matrix of whatever ontology you may wish to apply you terms, please be clear and articulate so we don't go back and forth unnecessary.

If you are not going to be distinct, I don't see what use there is in attending you further.

Well it seems to me you are looking for a way to dodge the very simple questions I raised.

I defined "Intangible"

I defined matter by saying that I refer to that which is physical.

What more would you have me say?

If it will help let me add that which wikipedia says - "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made."

I hope we can proceed on that.

Deep Sight:

Well it seems to me you are looking for a way to dodge the very simple questions I raised.

I defined "Intangible"

I defined matter by saying that I refer to that which is physical.

What more would you have me say?

If it will help let me add that which wikipedia says - "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made."

I hope we can proceed on that.

DeepSight, what have you said about "non-matter"?

I asked you a question on that - why are you evading it yet and hastily concluding I was dodging anything in yours?

If you don't want to discuss, please say so - and I will yet leave you.

Wow. You are really drawing this diversion out aren't you?

Your question -

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not?

My answer -

. . . . that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Thus in this context what is not physical is not material - because by "physical," we refer to matter, material things, the material world.

Its simple enough Viaro.

^^^ You know very well that the term "non-matter" has a specific scientific definition and has nothing to do with this discourse, so please lets stay with the issues.

Deep Sight:

Wow. You are really drawing this diversion out aren't you?

Please answer the question - that's all. I'm asking for the umpteenth time to keep to issues and keep it simple, rather than irrelevant remarks - unless you want again to descend into ramblings and . . . you know.

Deep Sight:

Your question -

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not?

My answer -

. . . . that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Thus in this context what is not physical is not material - because by "physical," we refer to matter, material things, the material world.

Its simple enough Viaro.

Why did it take you sooo long to answer a simple question, DeepSight?

Your ontology is deeply flawed - and I showed why already:

1.   Your terms are loosely applied.

2.   I requested you to be articulate by distinguishing between what you meant by 'physical matter' and 'non-physical'.

3.   I went on to outline them and asked if what I had distinguished resonated with you; but you kept emphasising the 'physical' and evaded the question of 'non-physical' viz "non-matter".

4.   I had anticpated you on that, which was why I noted earlier: "unless, of course, you want to tell us about 'non-physical matter' that you may know about". Did you answer to that? Or what am I to make from your dodging that question?

5.  You refer to BOTH 'physical matter' AND 'non-physical' and all I requested was that you be AWARE that while your terms are loosely applied, there are "specific reference" types to these things - and all I wanted from you was to be specific.

6.  Why be specific? because when you consider examples of 'non-matter', your definition of "intangible" because meaningless here.

7.  Now please consider why your responses have been quite out of place and simply untenable. If you don't like to, there's no quarrel there - because I cannot "carry on" or proceed on terms which are loosely applied in your views.

Deep Sight:

^^^ You know very well that the term "non-matter" has a specific scientific definition and has nothing to do with this discourse, so please lets stay with the issues.

I know that 'non-matter' has a specific definition (scientific nonetheless, yes) - and when you mentioned "physics", you seemed to be asking for the same scientific applications to the same issues we are discussing. Do you want to throw science out altogether, or you are feeling it won't help you at all?

This was why I pointed out this:

viaro:

Hang on, these tautologies are not helping. It's far easier and coherent to say simply 'matter', for it is common knowledge that "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made" (wikipedia) - unless, of course, you want to tell us about 'non-physical matter' that you may know about.

viaro:

. . . so, would it be wrong to understand your 'non-physical' to be indicative of 'non-matter'?

If then you're complaining about "non-matter", please give me examples to reference your "non-physical", since you highlighted what could be observed in PHYSICS.

Thanks.

Since you don't get it, let me show the reason why I have been asking you to be articulate.

1. You lifted this definition -

Deep Sight:

Well since you ask for a definition of "intangible" I lift from the Encarta Online Dictionary -

Intangible - (Adj) Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen.

2. That definition assumes that 'intangible' includes such qualities as "non-material", and the hyphen ( - ) seems to serve as an "explanation" to 'non-material', viz: 'lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen'.


3. If anything, it seems that the definition is telling us that 'non-material' is defined by that which is not able to be touched or seen - and there are loads of things we know that qualify as being "not able to be touched or seen", and yet are NOT 'spiritual'.

4. Do you want examples?

(a) Can you "touch or see" gravity?

(b) Is gravity material or 'non-material'?

(c) Is gravity therefore tangible or intangible?

5. Please try and answer these questions - they may help you see why I have concerns that your terms are loosely applied and are spiralling into tautologies that are not helpful.

Viaro - To clarify for the third party reader –

Matter comprises physical things.

When energy acts on physical things there can be physical movement or reactions of varied kinds and this may result in phenomena which may be classed as non-matter.

Such as -

• Wind can be felt on your skin and you can see the wind move branches of trees. But wind itself it not matter. It is the movement of air, which itself is matter.

• Electricity is similar. You can see the result of electricity at work - a light bulb lighting up for example and you can feel electricity  as an electric shock. But electricity is just the the movement/flow of an electric charge - it is not matter itself. It is the movement of matter (electrons).

• Sound is the result of air movement against your eardrum and not matter itself.

• Your shadow

• Gravity.

• A flame or fire can also pose difficulties. The smoke that rises up from the fire or flame contains vaporized gases and small particles and therefore contains matter. But the fire and flame themselves, the light and heat emitted, are energy, not matter.

(The above list is sourced from wiki-answers).

Now in all of this we have to state very clearly that ALL these things are the direct results of the effect of one physical agent or the other.
Thus, your shadow is non-matter and it is NOT a physical thing – however it COULD NOT EXIST, AND EXISTS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF PHYSICAL THINGS. DITTO WITH WIND.

We need to be very clear that none of this has anything to do with this thread for the simple reason that the things classed as “non-matter” are results of the interaction of physical things.

On the contrary what we refer to as the reverse of ALL physical things and physical phenomena – including ALL phenomena observable through the interaction of physical things is the intangible spiritual – which is why this thread is titled – “Physical bodies dwelling in spiritual realms.”

So since the spiritual-physical dichotomy is what is at issue here, non-matter is a non-issue and has nothing to do with this thread as non-matter is still the result of interactions or properties of physical (material) things.

Conclusively let me make it clear that in direct answer to your question, what I refer to as non-physical is NOT non-matter because non-matter still obtains within the physical universe, and is the result of physical interactions or properties of other physical things.

What I do refer to as non-physical is the intangible spiritual or metaphysical.

I hope that is clear enough.

CAN WE PROCEED NOW?