What Prohibits God From Being Natural?

[airportkid]

God is always depicted as outside nature, supernatural.  But why?  It would make a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature not yet understood, not claim it can't be a dimension of nature.  To credibly make that claim would require complete knowledge of nature, something not actually achievable.  If such a thing as a god exists, it's just a facet of nature not yet understood.

So what drives the need to make a god beyond nature?

[rocinantexyz]

In my experience, the word natural is a weasel word.

[Rhythmcs]

It could make more sense to regard nature itself with the awe and reverence we misplace when we interpret some aspect of nature as being some part of some god.

Thing is, the idea of a god beyond nature isn't about making sense, it's about making claims to authority.

[pattylt]

To the OP question, because then god wouldn’t be all the omnis. Nature, understood or not, is messy and often cruel. The biggest reason is that everything that is living in nature dies and rots. A supernatural god allows one to believe that there’s some other life available after death. At least the idea of reincarnation in a naturalistic religion is somewhat true as we are all composted and reutilized by nature.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thing is, the idea of a god beyond nature isn't about making sense, it's about making claims to authority.

^^^

This. Once god is supernatural, cain't no one question your claims.

[brewerb]

There are plenty of people that believe in nature/natural gods.

Why do you think insurance companies came up with 'act of god'?

[mordant]

So what drives the need to make a god beyond nature?

The need to make their fabulist claims non-substantiatable. That way, they can claim anything they want.

[Minimalist]

"God's" biggest problem is the lunatic ramblings of his fan club.

[Aliza]

"God's" biggest problem is the lunatic ramblings of his fan club.

Credit where credit is due, Min.

[Inkubus]

God is always depicted as outside nature, supernatural.  But why?  It would make a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature not yet understood,

That's the very definition of 'supernatural'*

not claim it can't be a dimension of nature.  To credibly make that claim would require complete knowledge of nature, something not actually achievable.  If such a thing as a god exists, it's just a facet of nature not yet understood.

So what drives the need to make a god beyond nature?

The resurrection of a three day old purifying corpse? There is no aspect of nature, understood or not, that can achieve this.

* your dictionary may vary.

[no one]

It's been said before, to put godiboi outside of time, space, and all things logically recognizable, protects godiboi and the incoherent drivel of its mindless legions of sheep, from any, and all things logical. The irreproachable pedestal of godiboi and its heinous acts remains intact behind the forcefield of "outside the constraints of hooman understanding."

Ain't magic grand?

[Inkubus]

There are plenty of people that believe in nature/natural gods.

But this is not the god of Christianity, neither is the god in the op. This is the god of new-age airheads.

This is the Christian 'God'. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

846 pages. 2,865 paragraphs 211,500 words.

This is the space cadet 'god'. https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showt...d&t=148606

God is Life
God is change
God is gravity
God is love
God is oxygen
God is matter
God is space
God is pure energy and light.
God is everything and nothing.

This is why definitions are important. If you want to talk god, then state up front which one.

[brewerb]

There are plenty of people that believe in nature/natural gods.

But this is not the god of Christianity, neither is the god in the op. This is the god of new-age airheads.

Wrong.

The title of the thread is "What Prohibits God From Being Natural?". My response was pointing out 'nothing' prohibits it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_deities

You're a bit of a fuck wad at times.

[Deesse23]

God is always depicted as outside nature, supernatural.  But why?  It would make a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature not yet understood, not claim it can't be a dimension of nature.  To credibly make that claim would require complete knowledge of nature, something not actually achievable.  If such a thing as a god exists, it's just a facet of nature not yet understood.

So what drives the need to make a god beyond nature?

No more "no evidence needed"
No more special pleading

[Rhythmcs]

Nature god is not interchangeable with natural god is not interchangeable with a god of nature.

In the first, some supernatural force is the lord of the forest. In the second some natural (but still significantly anthropomorphized) force is the avatar of the forest. In the third there is only the forest.

The god of new age airheads tends to be no god at all. New age religion and atheism correlate. It's a safer bet that your wiccan friend is an atheist than a theist, for example. When talking abouts gods they often have the second category in mind, but when thinking about the world as they perceive it, the third.

[brewerb]

To claim any 'thing' as a god is just silly. If it floats someones boat OK by me but I'll not validate it.

[Rhythmcs]

Secular pagans and spiritual naturalists are likely to feel a similar way. Keep in mind the distinctions I'm talking about are functionalist distinctions. People who believe in natural gods and gods of nature are unlikely to express belief in gods per se. They are making the claim that some part of nature, or nature as a whole, handles all of the real content traditionally misattributed to theistic gods, nature gods.

[brewerb]

Using god as a metaphor is common but I rarely use it, unless I'm cursing.

[SteveII]

God is always depicted as outside nature, supernatural.  But why?  It would make a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature not yet understood, not claim it can't be a dimension of nature.  To credibly make that claim would require complete knowledge of nature, something not actually achievable.  If such a thing as a god exists, it's just a facet of nature not yet understood.

So what drives the need to make a god beyond nature?

How do you define 'nature'?

[SYZ]

...
So what drives the need to make a god beyond nature?

Simply because there is no empirical evidence supporting
the notion of gods existing in nature.

[Inkubus]

But this is not the god of Christianity, neither is the god in the op. This is the god of new-age airheads.

Wrong.

The title of the thread is "What Prohibits God From Being Natural?". My response was pointing out 'nothing' prohibits it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_deities

You're a bit of a fuck wad at times.

And you should try reading for comprehension.
The god of the op is an extant god, the thousand gods in the Wiki article are all mythical gods. Which they emphasized 42 times to be precise.

But if it helps:

The god of new-age airheads, mystics, Shamans, romantics, Tarot readers, tree huggers and ignorant tribes people.

[airportkid]

How do you define 'nature'?

Theists persistently insist their god is supernatural and that its effects are supernatural.  The actually pertinent question isn't how I define nature, it's how the theists refer to it such that they keep claiming their god is above it, or outside it, or unconstrained by it.  What does "supernatural" mean to a theist?

Additionally, is the most culturally prominent envisioning of a deity something inaccessible to scientific method to discern, and if so, how could anyone be able to know that?

[Rhythmcs]

They're changing their minds about that. New age beliefs and with them natural gods and gods of nature are capturing more and more of the christian demographic, according to their own self reporting.

I think the question for the survival of christianity in the us is how quickly it can become syncretic to environmentally motivated seekers. Not what prohibits god from being natural, but how/whether they can rationalize a way for the christian god to be natural.

[SteveII]

How do you define 'nature'?

Theists persistently insist their god is supernatural and that its effects are supernatural.  The actually pertinent question isn't how I define nature, it's how the theists refer to it such that they keep claiming their god is above it, or outside it, or unconstrained by it.  What does "supernatural" mean to a theist?

Additionally, is the most culturally prominent envisioning of a deity something inaccessible to scientific method to discern, and if so, how could anyone be able to know that?

You used the term 'nature' six times in you OP and inquired why God could not be part of it. You must have a concept in mind. What do you mean by 'nature'?

[Dānu]

Theists persistently insist their god is supernatural and that its effects are supernatural.  The actually pertinent question isn't how I define nature, it's how the theists refer to it such that they keep claiming their god is above it, or outside it, or unconstrained by it.  What does "supernatural" mean to a theist?

Additionally, is the most culturally prominent envisioning of a deity something inaccessible to scientific method to discern, and if so, how could anyone be able to know that?

You used the term 'nature' six times in you OP and inquired why God could not be part of it. You must have a concept in mind. What do you mean by 'nature'?