What Prohibits God From Being Natural?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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'?

You're the theist -- why don't we start with you defining your god?

[brewerb]

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.

Thanks for defining what 'gods' are and are not, You're so smrt.

[airportkid]

You used the term 'nature' six times in you OP and inquired why God could not be part of it.

That is a misrepresentation of my OP.  I did NOT ask why can't a god be part of nature; in fact, my OP suggests if a god has any reality it most likely would be a part of nature.  What the OP asks is why do theists insist their god is supernatural, and by using the word supernatural, infer their god is NOT part of nature.  If theists contend their god IS nature, then why keep using the word supernatural?  What do theists mean by "supernatural" and why is it so important that their god be "supernatural"?

[Inkubus]

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.

Thanks for defining what 'gods' are and are not, You're so smrt.

Au contraire my petulant friend didn't you just do exactly that?

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

[SteveII]

You used the term 'nature' six times in you OP and inquired why God could not be part of it.

That is a misrepresentation of my OP.  I did NOT ask why can't a god be part of nature; in fact, my OP suggests if a god has any reality it most likely would be a part of nature.  What the OP asks is why do theists insist their god is supernatural, and by using the word supernatural, infer their god is NOT part of nature.  If theists contend their god IS nature, then why keep using the word supernatural?  What do theists mean by "supernatural" and why is it so important that their god be "supernatural"?

I am not being difficult. This is an important step to answer your question which you probably didn't even realize is a complicated question that will involve invoking plenty of metaphysical concepts (the nature of reality). I have had long discussions with people on this topic only to realize after spilling a lot of ink that when we used the word 'nature' we were not talking about the same thing at all. I have learned my lesson. I will not try to define supernatural until we can establish what 'natural' is.

What do you mean by 'nature'? Is it only material things? everything within the universe? only physical forces? what about time? principles like cause and effect? did it always exist? I don't care if you use a definition from the internet--just settle one one that you think is correct.

[Dānu]

That is a misrepresentation of my OP.  I did NOT ask why can't a god be part of nature; in fact, my OP suggests if a god has any reality it most likely would be a part of nature.  What the OP asks is why do theists insist their god is supernatural, and by using the word supernatural, infer their god is NOT part of nature.  If theists contend their god IS nature, then why keep using the word supernatural?  What do theists mean by "supernatural" and why is it so important that their god be "supernatural"?

I am not being difficult. This is an important step to answer your question which you probably didn't even realize is a complicated question that will involve invoking plenty of metaphysical concepts (the nature of reality).  I have had long discussions with people on this topic only to realize after spilling a lot of ink that when we used the word 'nature' we were not talking about the same thing at all. I have learned my lesson. I will not try to define supernatural until we can establish what 'natural' is.

What do you mean by 'nature'? Is it only material things? everything within the universe? only physical forces? what about time?  principles like cause and effect? did it always exist? I don't care if you use a definition from the internet--just settle one one that you think is correct.

Well, if you've had many conversations about it, you should be able to state what you mean by natural. Since supernatural is typically defined negatively, that should suffice.

[SteveII]

I am not being difficult. This is an important step to answer your question which you probably didn't even realize is a complicated question that will involve invoking plenty of metaphysical concepts (the nature of reality).  I have had long discussions with people on this topic only to realize after spilling a lot of ink that when we used the word 'nature' we were not talking about the same thing at all. I have learned my lesson. I will not try to define supernatural until we can establish what 'natural' is.

What do you mean by 'nature'? Is it only material things? everything within the universe? only physical forces? what about time?  principles like cause and effect? did it always exist? I don't care if you use a definition from the internet--just settle one one that you think is correct.

Well, if you've had many conversations about it, you should be able to state what you mean by natural.  Since supernatural is typically defined negatively, that should suffice.

Do you mind--I am trying to develop a discussion here

I find if someone is invested in it, I enjoy it more, I can identify where I have not made a point clear, have more time to think, and have a chance for substantially more nuance.

[pattylt]

Quote: I can identify where I have not made a point clear, have more time to think, and have a chance for substantially more nuance.

Shouldn’t we also be given that ability?

[SteveII]

Quote:   I can identify where I have not made a point clear, have more time to think, and have a chance for substantially more nuance.

Shouldn’t we also be given that ability?

What do you think I have done that indicates that I do not want clear points and thoughtful answers in return?

[Dānu]

[Dānu]

Well, if you've had many conversations about it, you should be able to state what you mean by natural.  Since supernatural is typically defined negatively, that should suffice.

Do you mind--I am trying to develop a discussion here  

I find if someone is invested in it, I enjoy it more, I can identify where I have not made a point clear, have more time to think, and have a chance for substantially more nuance.

With all due respect, the question was why do theists think what they do. As such, the views of an atheist aren't probative; yours are.

[brewerb]

Thanks for defining what 'gods' are and are not, You're so smrt.

Au contraire my petulant friend didn't you just do exactly that?

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

That's quite the pedantic stretch. Doesn't make you correct.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Well, if you've had many conversations about it, you should be able to state what you mean by natural.  Since supernatural is typically defined negatively, that should suffice.

Do you mind--I am trying to develop a discussion here  

I find if someone is invested in it, I enjoy it more, I can identify where I have not made a point clear, have more time to think, and have a chance for substantially more nuance.

You've never struck me as being particularly introspective. Especially when you simply regurgitate the same bullshit with slightly different phrasing. It's still bullshit, even if you don't recognize it as such.

[pattylt]

Quote:   I can identify where I have not made a point clear, have more time to think, and have a chance for substantially more nuance.

Shouldn’t we also be given that ability?

What do you think I have done that indicates that I do not want clear points and thoughtful answers in return?

Because you’re play the game of “you go first”.  You were asked a clear question and refused to answer until we do.

[brewerb]

What do you think I have done that indicates that I do not want clear points and thoughtful answers in return?

Because you’re play the game of “you go first”.  You were asked a clear question and refused to answer until we do.

Immediately thought of SNL 'Point/Counter Point'.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What do you think I have done that indicates that I do not want clear points and thoughtful answers in return?

Because you’re play the game of “you go first”.  You were asked a clear question and refused to answer until we do.

I earlier asked him to define "god" in this context, he still hasn't done that. He's probably had me n ignore for a while already, but hey, that tells me how much he's interested in clear points and thoughtful answers in itself.

[airportkid]

I am not being difficult.

That is exactly how you come across here.  You misrepresent my OP, and persistently resist answering a simple, direct question.

This is an important step to answer your question which you probably didn't even realize is a complicated question ... I will not try to define supernatural until we can establish what 'natural' is.

Stop playing silly games.  What I think natural means in no way influences or informs what you already construe it to mean.  What I think natural means is irrelevant in the context of my OP.  It's up to you to clarify what you mean, since it's your frame of mind being asked about, not mine.

Why do you as a theist, and theists generally, feel it necessary to describe your god and its effects as supernatural?  That is not a complicated question.

[Deesse23]

I will not try to define supernatural until we can establish what 'natural' is.

Is your god natural? Supernatural? Refusing to define either, equals refusing to define your god, you dishonest fuck.

[brewerb]

Steve won't change, he's on a mission from god.

[mordant]

You used the term 'nature' six times in you OP and inquired why God could not be part of it.

That is a misrepresentation of my OP.  I did NOT ask why can't a god be part of nature; in fact, my OP suggests if a god has any reality it most likely would be a part of nature.  What the OP asks is why do theists insist their god is supernatural, and by using the word supernatural, infer their god is NOT part of nature.  If theists contend their god IS nature, then why keep using the word supernatural?  What do theists mean by "supernatural" and why is it so important that their god be "supernatural"?

As it was taught to me as a Christian fundamentalist, god is all powerful, which means non-dependent on anything or anyone, therefore inherently must be outside of or above nature as he has always existed and nature is a thing he created. Rather schizophrenically, in my view, we also believed that god intervenes in nature when he wishes to, which I'd say would then make him part of nature, else he could have no effect upon it.

The other utility of god being outside / above / beyond the natural world is it renders him unexaminable. If you can't produce god for an interview or photo shoot then you can make any claim about him your heart desires and no one can contest it. But then Christians need at least a few claims of the miraculous so they need god's intervention, so it's a bit of a conundrum for them.

[Rhythmcs]

The miraculous and mysterious has been described and defined by christian belief as those things which violate natural order and rational explication. If it's not non-natural or non-sense, it can't be divine..and I know how this sounds to our ears..but to the people who came up with it, it was proof that god was, well..a god. The general idea being that these things that are in this sense impossible-but-still-true vouched for the competence or ability, and thus authority, of said god.

By the medieval period it had started to sound fishy even to the christian scholars, and the only reason we even attempt to address such beliefs in any rational framework whatsoever is down to their project to give christian belief what was then believed, by them, to be a more credible overlay of rational thought.

Really think about that. The folks at the top looked at their own religion..and thought... "this needs to be much more like the pagan's shit!"

[Mathilda]

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

The laws of Thermodynamics.

[Cavebear]

Religiously, God (any god of any religion) is outside of Nature. It created Nature. Atheistically, god is a fiction created by humans (within Nature) to explain natural events (unexplainable at the time). So the question is always "which came first?". To me, it is always humans. To the theists, it is always their god.

To me, Nature came first and life evolved within it. We are what we are by adapting to conditions of Nature. Every living creature and plant is adapted (in its own way) to Nature (and only to here on Earth). Other creatures may have adapted to different conditions of Nature elsewhere, but we don't know.

I am pretty well convinced that theists all think all life and human morals were directly caused by god. They have told us that often enough, LOL! But I think all the religious texts merely reflect evolution and the accumulated experience of humans living in increasingly complex societies that were then written into religious texts as caused by their gods.

Some people might consider that a "chicken&egg" question. No, that is genetically settled. The first chicken had to be a blend of 2 "not quite chickens". If someone actually found "the first true chicken" (laughably unlikely), neither of its parents were.

So that relates to which came first, humans or a god. I'm comfortable with "humans".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Religiously, God (any god of any religion) is outside of Nature.  It created Nature.  

Inaccurate. Polytheistic religions usually have one creator god, and other gods who are gods of this or that portion of nature but haven't created nature.

[Inkubus]

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

The laws of Thermodynamics.

We have a winner.