Physical implies having being made of something.
But that does not imply the converse. The converse is that being "made of something" implies being a material object - which is what you think.
It seems you are not a Platonist. But Platonists exist :)
Here's an article on mathematical Platonism.
Independent of us? Are we not all a part of existence itself? What exactly is independent, mathematically or otherwise of existence? We are all subsets of existence itself, and products of. We are all made of what existence itself is made of.. Existence is a Universal Set of All Sets. Hence could you explain for me something in which is separate from Existence?
This is irrelevant if you think this deals with Plato or not, as I am going by the actual definitions of the words being used and what they actually mean.
Platonism is the idea that abstractions exist. If you wish to understand the idea of what it means for God to "exist", you need to understand the philosophy around the concept of existence. You are trying to walk in deep waters, as if they were a shallow stream.
For example, the article on mathematical Platonism that I linked to, mentions "epistemological access" involved in something "existing".
If the existence of something is undecidable by us, can it actually exist?
That would make existence a relative concept. For example, another universe would be physical and real to the beings who inhabit that universe. But it would be unknowable to us. For us, it would not exist. For the beings in that universe, it would exist.
The existence of God is in that category, so far as I can tell. Nobody can prove if there is or isn't a God.
So perhaps you could say that God doesn't exist so far as we're concerned.
A lot of people want to trivialize and dismiss philosophical questions - like the meaning of something "existing". But they are real and difficult questions.
At that point you are dealing with appeals to ignorance.. The point I made regarding materiality and immateriality is a dichotomy just as is Existence vs Non-existence. This is irrelevant to Plato, or mathematical abstractions as either is subject to these dichotomies. You can however argue the possibility of X being existent even if we can't decide or verify it.. However again, there is limits to that such as immateriality to which is literally impossible by definition. Hence self-refutations do not require further contemplation as they are false by their very premises.. As in self refuted..
To the point, there can only ever be a physical existence simply because nothing cannot by definition be an existing person, place, object, substance, or thing. It's a descriptive word that at best is a place card for the absences of something else in which you are inferring to.. Such as
:There is nothing in my coffee cup.
Well, nothing is a place card for the coffee that is not in the cup while you can never actually or literally have nothing in the cup. Proper use of terms is important when addressing such issues so one does not confuse themselves.. Thus abstractions separate from us, if existent, will be relative within the Universal Set (Existence).. Likewise there maybe hundreds or billions of Universes within Existence relative to us, but they would all be subsets of Existence as Existence is the totality of all that exists by definition to which is the totality of "Where"... Essentially there isn't any place of where outside of existence, or anything else for that matter. This is why I am asking you to clarify by what you mean in terms of "separate from us".. Even Platos Mathematics is subject to this issue, and the specific dichotomies outlined.
So you can contemplate whether abstractions exist beyond the concept or idea, but I would argue one must show they do to be taken seriously in my opinion. It's fun to fantasize, or come up with ideas ect, but unfortunately for some, they end up as self-refutations or logical fallacies by their own premises while others lay open for debate. And unfortunately immateriality is a self-refuting concept by definition.
So for something to Exist, it must be in and of existence as we all are. It must be made of what existence is made of, and be subject to the rules (whatever those are) of existence.
In any case, what I was talking about was the meaning of "existence" in the question "does God exist?"
What do we mean by God "existing"?
I am not talking about the obvious physical existence of the "God-concept" in someone's brain. That is an atheistic concept of "God".
But rather, what is meant by God "existing" when religious people claim that God exists?
The God that exists according to religious people, has to interact with the world in some way. Either by creating the world, or by interacting with religious people.
The religious person's "God" is claimed to be perceived by them, although perhaps only indirectly.
So it's claimed that human beings possess a "spiritual sense" that enables them to perceive a spiritual reality - similarly to how our regular senses perceive physical reality.
This is what is meant by the claim that God "exists".
Religious people may not feel they're directly perceiving God - but rather, just perceiving the effects that God has on the world.
See my post above.. Religious people see that as immateriality, this to which is a self-refuting concept. Hence their idea of GOD would be impossible and thus a logical fallacy.. Regardless, you can ask them to describe this "spiritual reality" without physical descriptors such as color, dimensional values, or how they interact ect.. You will quickly learn that they are constructs, like a one eye green monster, from the physical reality in abstract. Can they describe or express anything without physically doing so, or in a realm made of nothing as they would suggest. It is quite clear to me that such concepts are entirely of their own imagination or concepts they have chosen to believe based on a number of factors including being raised and taught to.. Most of which is purely blind faith. It's really a self delusion to which they attribute things to as it is often the case. One example is a doctor saving someone's life while the believer in question thanks his or her god, or crediting his or her god vs the actual person who saved their lives.
Or a more recent example is the woman who ran over a motorcyclist because she believed god told her to let him take the wheel, and then the motorcyclist crediting the very same god for saving his life.. You can only shake your head at this knowing they are both quite delusional.. O.o
There is no need for personal attacks.. We can respect each other and address the merits of an argument without doing so. :/ I see no need to attack her personally, or make it personal. This doesn't add any value or encourage meaningful discourse. :/
If a GOD is all present, then I may ask where do I exist? I would then also be GOD, and Existence itself as GOD if God is argued as "Omnipresent".. Hence again nullifying the concept into being meaningless. Next, if GOD is all knowing, then god would know me to the point of actually and literally being me and everything else. Thus again back to square one..
Worse still, and like the existential paradox, you have the opinion paradox in which also makes it all or nothing as you take the concept to its furthest extremes. Essentially the concept is nothing more than a concept of opinion and title of opinion to where either their are no gods at all, or that everything and everyone could be labeled and considered a god or GODs.. It's still moot, and essentially meaningless.
Besides, what else other than Existence itself can be "all knowing", "Omnipresent", and "all powerful"...? Is existence not the totality of all that exists as defined? So at that point, why bother with the concept?
It gets even more ridiculous for existence to worship another part of itself as GOD, and then punish another part of itself for not. It's incoherent, nonsensical, pointless, and would be the most impressive case of self delusion and Narcissism.. Again I say the concept collapses logically and entirely.
People make up fictional characters; mental models of non-existent people. Matter in our brains is rearranged to encode information about our models. This matter exists. Remove the part of the brain in which the encoded matter is found & that model is gone. Its physical manifestation has been destroyed. If this physical manifestation did not exist we could not destroy it.
Religion occurs when people misinterpret their mental model as something existing outside themselves. Nonetheless the mental model has a matter component which must exist for the model to exist. In this sense, & this sense only, can any god or goddess be said to exist in the physical world.
Therefore: If someone believes in a god there is a 100% chance that the brain matter encoding this model exists.
Good point,I would like to add that the problem with idea even if it encoded in mind it have to be consistent with deeds, if someone agree with god as idea then he have to act as god is real or else he will suffer the inconsistency.
“To understand why consistency is so powerful a motive, it is important to recognize that in most circumstances consistency is valued and adaptive. Inconsistency is commonly thought to be an undesirable personality trait. The person whose beliefs, words, and deeds don’t match may be seen as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or even mentally ill. On the other side, a high degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength. It is at the heart of logic, rationality, stability, and honesty.”
Emerson quote from “Self-Reliance” “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen, and philosophers, and divines.”