Originally Posted by Saeros
If a table rots, and breaks down into its basic components, is it still a table? if the brain decomposes, is it still capable of producing conscious experience? is it still a brain? If god can break down, just like the brain and the table, would he still be an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, ultimately benevolent god? How can god be bound by the laws of physics that he supposedly created?
Yea, i agree. It would be difficult to imagine something that isn't in some way based on my prior experience of the world, even more so to describe it. My point was that just because i've seen chocolate, trees, candy, and fruit, and i have the concept of a utopia, it doesn't mean that my concept of rivers of flowing candy, and chocolate fruit growing in trees, has any actualization in any physical reality. In the same way, just because I can imagine an anthropomorphic god who has all of the power, and knowledge, and is absolutely good, and is everywhere (even though such a physical god would have to have a finite form); all of the things that people typically value, it doesn't mean that he exists.
You make it a case of personal identity, but that really isn't what I was going for when I spoke of that. I meant more to supplement your statement regarding degradation with the clarification that there is no eventual loss of physical material (withholding mention of theories surrounding black holes and universal expansion), which may be obvious, but could provide interesting grounds to go about describing what exactly the existence of a physical god would be.
Everything else I agree with, and I would like to even reiterate further the apparent contradiction a physical god presents. I like to read the question you posed at the end of the first paragraph as "How can one be what one created?" as I find it presents the same general inquisition in a comically mystifying way. It reminds me of the classic contradiction "Can an all powerful god create a stone that he cannot lift?", which intrinsically represents the same problem with an all-powerful god being physical as your proposition.
I think the simplest way to resolve the problem is to declare god's existence only in the physical world impossible, but it is perhaps hasty. if he were to be physical and still retain his O3 attributes, as mentioned, it would entail that he be not constrained by physical "rules" it would seem. But if you take a moment to look at the dynamic between "rules" and the universe, you realize that it is not the rules that define the universe, but the universe that defines the rules. In this sense, the "rules" of physicality are nothing more than conceptions by means of inductive reasoning, the lack of justification for which has already been uprooted by Hume. It does not seem logically incorrect, or implausible to imagine a physical manifestation that represents the "master cause" in the chain of events we experience in a deterministic life. By this I mean there is a divine physicality somewhere in reality from which all subsequent physical interactions in the universe follow.
I am not a big fan of non-physical as a property, and I think the whole idea is strange. As I said earlier, no conceptions are based outside of reality so it makes the grounds for proposing "some thing" exists outside of the physical world quite rocky. I find that you can at least represent the means by which a non-physical world was conceptualized by a simple X + Y = Z relation in that X is reality, Z is infinity, and Y is the conception of non-physical as infinity minus reality, but even if you find grounds to justify the conception, it still seems silly to make propositions about "things" that are there.
I personally have no investment in this thread's topic, but it is certainly enjoyable to ponder.