Skip to main content

Does God Have Parts?

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

Does god have parts? Yes, that sounds like a silly question, but let me explain, and I’m just sort of thinking out loud here, a kind of thought experiment.

I recently saw a “Through the Wormhole” TV episode titled, “Is There a Creator,” where one scientist suggested that maybe the universe is a computer simulation because it does look a lot like it. As we have learned about the universe, there appears to be a minimum size to everything, matter, energy, and, it’s hypothesized, even time. That is, modern theory suggests there is a smallest possible unit of matter (quark?), energy (photon?), and time (Planck unit), and all things in the universe a built up from these. Interestingly, computers work much the same way, with pixels, bytes, and clock time.

So, I wondered - assuming for the moment that a god exists - if everything in the Universe (which is not itself a tiny thing) is apparently built up from tiny things, is god himself a tiny thing, or does god also have parts, or is he just one large, undifferentiated “substance?”

It seems to be widely agreed these days that god is not constructed of matter, but is rather some sort of energy or spirit. Well, if god is pure energy, how could he think? It’s pretty hard to imagine pure energy as having desires and intentions. That doesn’t seem to work at all.

So, what if god is “spirit?” Well, spirit gets very hard to define. According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the only meaning for “spirit” that appears relevant is, “a supernatural being or essence.” Now we have the added difficulty of this odd term, “supernatural.” We will return to this problem in a moment, but first let’s see what the bible says about whether god has parts.

To begin with, Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created mankind in his own image.” Now, just what “in his own image” means, has been debated for thousands of years, but it certainly seems to suggest that the author thought god had a body of some sort. Also in Genesis, there is this (Gen 3:8 NIV): “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?””

If Adam and Eve “heard the sound” of god as he was walking, then the author obviously assumed that god had legs (unless he walked on his hands), as there is no other way to walk. Then, god “called” to them, which implies that he had a voice box. What I’m getting at here is that according to the bible, god was assumed to have body parts.

There are other passages in the bible which would appear to support this assumption. For example (Exodus 33:20-23): “And he said, ‘Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. . . And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.’ ” (Actually, I believe this is pretty good evidence that these primitive writers of ancient times made this stuff up. Their idea of a god was likely just a very, very big man with magical powers, rather than some sort of spirit).

Of course, being the bible, there are some inconsistencies. In Exodus 33:11, we read, "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.” Yet, just nine versus later we read, “ ’But,’ he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’ ” Obviously, both of these verses cannot be true, but that’s not relevant to the matter at hand since both verses assert that god has a face.

The bible also claims that many people saw god, though it’s unclear whether they saw his face or his backside (Exodus 24:9-10): “Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel.”

So, according to the bible, god has body parts. Now, since he supposedly got the idea to create a universe, and then carried it out, then he must be able to think. All thinking things that we have discovered have brains. Now, brains have neurons and the more neurons the more complex thoughts those brains have. For example, a frog has a bigger (better – more neurons) brain than a fly, and a dog has a bigger (better) brain than a frog. Interestingly, computer processors are also built up from pieces called transistors, and, generally, the more pieces, the faster the computer and the greater the memory. So, in all the cases we know of involving thought or computation, many pieces (or parts) are involved, and the more the better.

We are left at this point to ponder, if god is not made up of pieces, but is just one piece, then how does he think? And yet, how could he be made of pieces, since that implies that the pieces existed independently before they came to be arranged in a god . . . so who or what made the pieces and arranged them into a god? A meta-god maybe?

Some theologians, when presented with the evidence that a god such as the one described in the bible doesn’t make a lot of sense, have retreated to claiming god is merely a symbol (Karen Armstrong), or a “ground of being” which somehow supports the existence of everything else (David B. Hart), or some other fuzzy kind of entity. These ideas are clearly just inventions, however, flights of imagination, without any evidence whatsoever. At the very least, such a god is not the god of the bible and it wouldn’t know that people worship or pray to it, anyway. Such a god would be irrelevant to our lives.

I’m not suggesting that I’ve proven anything here. I’m merely saying that I haven’t been able to imagine any god concept that makes any sense. Maybe you will be luckier. But whatever you come up with, you should keep in mind that it’s merely a theory, unless you can provide testable evidence. And nothing in the bible can qualify as evidence because it’s entirely hearsay and cannot be used to prove something in it any more than the “The Wizard of Oz” story can be used to prove the existence of the wizard.

Of course, a standard theological objection to my line of reasoning is that god is a “spirit” and so shouldn’t be expected to be put together like matter or function like matter. But this conception has problems too. If god is pure spirit, then how does it interact with the material world? A ghost is a spirit (they say), but could a ghost catch a ball? Wouldn’t it go right through the ghost? If this god is pure spirit and can’t interact with the material world, then it is non-detectable and irrelevant, and therefore is not a god by any reasonable definition. But, if this spirit does interact with the material world (as all believers would insist), then you have the problem of HOW it interacts with the material world (think of the ghost). And, if it interacts with the material world despite this problem, then it should be detectable through its actions on the things of our world. It might be invisible perhaps, like gravity, but still detectable. Or, consider dark matter and dark energy. Physicists have no idea what either of these things actually is, but they have proven their existence beyond a shadow of a doubt through their interactions with the known material world. If the universe has an active and involved ruler, shouldn’t it be obvious by now, shouldn’t there be some clear evidence somewhere of its interactions with the things of this world which science could detect?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “supernatural” does not appear anywhere before the mid-15th century. Let’s go back to that definition of “spirit” as “a supernatural being or essence.” Believers will tell you that we can’t see god because he exists in a supernatural realm. Well, as we have seen, at least some of the bible’s authors would disagree as they described him taking walks in the Garden of Eden, hiding his face from Moses, and appearing to 70 of the elders of Israel. And remember that Moses went up a mountain to get the Ten Commandments tablets from god.

In fact, there is very good evidence that, to the authors of the bible, god exists in the natural world and that is how all those people interacted with him. In fact, it appears that the very concept of a supernatural realm didn’t even exist when the scriptures were being written. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “supernatural” does not appear anywhere before the mid-15th century. Could it be that as man explored more and more of the world, climbed the mountains above the clouds, looked into the mouths of volcanoes, sailed the seas, and mapped more and more of the world, they still couldn’t find god and so they invented another world for him to exist in, the supernatural world? What an ingenious “solution!” If you can’t prove the existence of god, then claim he exists in a realm that you can’t prove exists. Doesn’t it seem that god is getting rather distant in all this?

Notice that I suggested that man “invented” the supernatural. That is because no such realm has ever been detected, and no one has ever produced a testable (falsifiable) theory of it. It’s another case of the “god of the gaps.” As science continually shrinks the space available for god to act or to exist in, believers invent another escape route rather than face what’s staring them in the face.

No, of course I haven’t actually proven anything here, but shouldn’t we be asking why it is that whenever we think more deeply on the matter of the existence of god, we turn up more and more difficult problems? And now, after thousands of years of looking for “him,” there is still no tangible, testable evidence that there is a god interacting with our world, whether of one piece or many, whether of matter or spirit, whether of face or backside or hemorrhoids.


Popular posts from this blog

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi