What Prohibits God From Being Natural?

[Cavebear]

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.

I will break from my decision to just pay no attention to you because of your bullying and insults, because you quoted me and I got an alert about it...

I said "it" (singular) for a reason. For most people, their current deity is the first and only. In polytheistic religions, I am certainly aware that "origins" of those deities go back further. Usually to some mating of deities that are mostly "concepts", like Sky and Earth. Or immense turtles or mats of grass heaped with dirt. And those are as if there was nothing but "The Earth" in the universe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I said "it" (singular) for a reason.

You wrote "any god of any religion". If that isn't what you meant, you shouldn't have written that.

If being corrected is "bullying" I'd suggest you get things right and you'll be "bullied" less.

[SYZ]

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.

If you're going to ask the question Steve—as you did—why can't gods be
a part of nature, then it's your task firstly to let us know what your definition
of "God" is, and what your definition of "nature" is.

I'm happy with this definition of "nature":  Nature is an inherent character or
constitution, particularly of the ecosphere or the universe as a whole. In this
general sense nature refers to the laws, elements and phenomena of the
physical world, including life.  

And the ecosphere is a planetary contained ecological system. In a global
ecosystem, the various forms of energy and matter that constitute a given
planet interact on a continual basis.

The universe is all of space and time and their contents. It comprises all of
existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant,
and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form,
from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.

I have no definition of God or gods—other than as mythical, fantastical paranormal
entities that have never been shown by any scientific observation to exist in any
real, natural world.

I'd also be interested to see how you would set about proving that the mythical
unicorn does not exist in any real world.  But I'm betting you won't be able to.

[Cavebear]

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.

If you're going to ask the question Steve—as you did—why can't gods be
a part of nature, then it's your task firstly to let us know what your definition
of "God" is, and what your definition of "nature" is.

I'm happy with this definition of "nature":  Nature is an inherent character or
constitution, particularly of the ecosphere or the universe as a whole. In this
general sense nature refers to the laws, elements and phenomena of the
physical world, including life.  

And the ecosphere is a planetary contained ecological system. In a global
ecosystem, the various forms of energy and matter that constitute a given
planet interact on a continual basis.

The universe is all of space and time and their contents. It comprises all of
existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant,
and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form,
from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.

I have no definition of God or gods—other than as mythical, fantastical paranormal
entities that have never been shown by any scientific observation to exist in any
real, natural world.

I'd also be interested to see how you would set about proving that the mythical
unicorn does not exist in any real world.  But I'm betting you won't be able to.

Among many things, I am in agreement about "I have no definition of God or gods—other than as mythical, fantastical paranormal
entities that have never been shown by any scientific observation to exist in any
real, natural world".

[Rhythmcs]

A sufficiently inclusive definition might be something along the lines of "the object of religious veneration".

They might not all be like the abrahamic god, but most of the other personal and intervening gods aren't like the abrahamic god either. They can also include things which we, because of cultural contamination and dominion, don't even perceive as gods.

Otherwise, the question resolves into "why can't a god be anything other than a particular variant of the the christian god?" - which answers itself. They demonstrably can be and have been, and have overwhelmingly been, other-than. Hell, most of the christians in the us right now worship something other-than, according to them. The focus of religious veneration described in new magic book is no longer satisfying even to the ingroup - and they've been turning towards natural gods and gods of nature to fill that gap.

[Dānu]

A sufficiently inclusive definition might be something along the lines of "the object of religious veneration".  

They might not all be like the abrahamic god, but most of the other personal and intervening gods aren't like the abrahamic god either.  They can also include things which we, because of cultural contamination and dominion, don't even perceive as gods.

Otherwise, the question resolves into "why can't a god be anything other than a particular variant of the the christian god?" - which answers itself.  They demonstrably can be and have been, and have overwhelmingly been, other-than.  Hell, most of the christians in the us right now worship something other-than, according to them.  The focus of religious veneration described in new magic book is no longer satisfying even to the ingroup - and they've been turning towards natural gods and gods of nature to fill that gap.

Inclusive, but perhaps not accurate. Definitions are dictated by usage, and the most common usages emphasize specific traits. Additionally, many that once would have been termed gods, are only historically referred to as such.

[Rhythmcs]

I agree that if the question is really only about a specific variant of a particular god, the thing that will determine common usage at a given point and place in time - then there's no need to include the rest of the god content in our world either past or present. In the case of christ and contemporary christians, though, it still seems significant - as there are large numbers of self professed christians who believe in christ as nature god, christ as natural god, and christ as nature. Individually, collectively, in this or that combination. It's a question they've been asking themselves, and a christian religion that could be made concordant with the inherent naturalism of our contemporary world would be at a huge advantage. That was the product that creationism sought to provide, as an example. Where god no longer whipped two people up from clay with magic. He was a geneticist.

[atheist_walks_in]

If gods of any kind exist, they are by definition natural. It is entirely possible that our conception of the natural world is still massively incomplete. "Supernatural" either means "magical," in which case we've ceased rational conversation, or it means the vast parts of the natural world we do not yet understand. In the latter case, science has slowly expanded "nature" to encompass things we once thought were impossible. Rational people in 1600 had no way to clearly define dragons as "fantasy" and airplanes as "science."

[SteveII]

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.

Fine, you prefer not do lay any groundwork to a better understanding of complicated concepts, so I will simply point out your errors as succinctly as possible: God, if he exists, definitionally, exists necessarily. The physical world you conceive of as "nature" does not exist necessarily (therefore it exists contingently). To recognize this does not "require complete knowledge of nature". Simply by definition, a necessary entity cannot be a component of a contingent reality. So no, it does not make "a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature". Not at all. You are making a category error.

[SteveII]

If gods of any kind exist, they are by definition natural. It is entirely possible that our conception of the natural world is still massively incomplete. "Supernatural" either means "magical," in which case we've ceased rational conversation, or it means the vast parts of the natural world we do not yet understand. In the latter case, science has slowly expanded "nature" to encompass things we once thought were impossible. Rational people in 1600 had no way to clearly define dragons as "fantasy" and airplanes as "science."

That is all nonsense as well. See my reply just above.

[SYZ]

...That is all nonsense as well. See my reply just above.

I have to note Steve that you ignored my little test...

I'd also be interested to see how you would set about proving that the mythical
unicorn does not exist in any real world.  But I'm betting you won't be able to.

Theists all too often expect atheists to prove that God
doesn't exist, so I thought I'd turn the tables a little.

[Rhythmcs]

Fine, you prefer not do lay any groundwork to a better understanding of complicated concepts, so I will simply point out your errors as succinctly as possible: God, if he exists, definitionally, exists necessarily. The physical world you conceive of as "nature" does not exist necessarily (therefore it exists contingently). To recognize this does not "require complete knowledge of nature". Simply by definition, a necessary entity cannot be a component of a contingent reality. So no, it does not make "a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature".  Not at all. You are making a category error.

Does it?  It's only because of your theological demands that you insist as much.  What the rest of us are talking about, when we talk about nature, exists necesarrily.

It is, literally, another word for "everything" - thus other people's confusion.  What does it mean to be outside of everything?  Does that even make sense?

Nature is however things are. If there were gods then gods would be natural - more and more, christians believe as much as well. You likely believe as much yourself..though..for purely cultural reasons, you would never agree to that categorization.

Its super easy to tell the difference. Do you think god uttered a cantrip, or do you think god did genetics? When you pull the petulant "show me first" shit are you angling for a god that cannot employ natural mechanics and still be a god....or a god that did......and still is a god? I suspect that it's the latter. I think that...underneath it all, you agree with this criticism, and are one of us, rather than one of "Them". That you don't object because of the content, rather, you object solely because of the association.

For the rest of us, entertain, for just a second, that steve is a person who agrees with us, but just doesn't know how to do so within the framework of his valued superstitions. Would if he could, and will certainly make claims as-such...hell, has made many claims as-such. It's not even surprising. He was raised in the same culture that we were. The chief struggle for him and his god is to be able to say that his god is -not- wholly opposite scientific or rational understanding, as though that were godmaking.

[airportkid]

First of all, thank you SteveII for finally answering the question, albeit gift-wrapped in petulance.  But it is a fair answer.

So, some points:

God, if he exists, definitionally, exists necessarily.

"Necessary" by definition is itself a contingent concept.  Something makes something necessary, nothing is necessary absent being made necessary.  What makes a god necessary?  The god itself making itself necessary?  That doesn't work.

It's interesting your use of the phrase "if he exists", which concedes other possibilities than a god to explain or account for nature.

And just because a god is "defined" to be "necessary" (unilaterally, not unanimously) does not make it so; such definition is nothing more than an arbitrary claim with neither evidence nor non-sophistic reasoning to substantiate it.

"nature" does not exist necessarily (therefore it exists contingently).

"Nature" is not a contingent concept.  Nature is, in the common vernacular, all that there is.  Nature is not contingent on something beyond it; it excludes anything beyond it.

So your applications of "necessary" and "contingent" are backward.  God isn't necessary, it's contingent on arbitrary definition; nature isn't contingent, it just is.

I think some theists believe a god is necessary to keep all the sub-atomic particles glued together, that absent a god, the universe would evaporate into nothing.  Nothing anywhere in physics even hints that something like that is necessary; so far the continued belief in a god seems only to be a notion borne out of desperation to keep a god concept alive while the relentlessly increasing fund of knowledge of nature keeps evaporating all the reasons to keep a god.

[SteveII]

...That is all nonsense as well. See my reply just above.

I have to note Steve that you ignored my little test...

I'd also be interested to see how you would set about proving that the mythical
unicorn does not exist in any real world.  But I'm betting you won't be able to.

Theists all too often expect atheists to prove that God
doesn't exist, so I thought I'd turn the tables a little.

At least I took you off ignore--it seems you might be willing to civilly discuss things. I wanted to watch for something I wanted to respond to.

[Inkubus]

Fine, you prefer not do lay any groundwork to a better understanding of complicated concepts, so I will simply point out your errors as succinctly as possible: God, if he exists, definitionally, exists necessarily. The physical world you conceive of as "nature" does not exist necessarily (therefore it exists contingently). To recognize this does not "require complete knowledge of nature". Simply by definition, a necessary entity cannot be a component of a contingent reality. So no, it does not make "a lot more sense to regard god as an aspect of nature".  Not at all. You are making a category error.

[mordant]

A sufficiently inclusive definition might be something along the lines of "the object of religious veneration".

Atheistic or god-optional religions like Buddhism and Taoism do not venerate a deity. I don't know that veneration of anything is even a necessary ingredient for a religion. Worship is common, but not universal. And the object of worship is commonly one or more deities, but not necessarily. And you have to account for some religious persuasions venerating things besides (or in addition to) gods. The veneration of Mary, or statues, or saints, in Catholicism comes to mind. So "THE object of religious veneration", as if there can only be one, is a phrase that assumes too much, both about the number of objects and the meaning of "venerate".

Religion is as slippery to define as is a deity. The best I can do is to call religion "a system of metaphysics, with attendant rituals and customs and practices designed to initiate followers into some form of esoteric knowledge". But I'm not even attempting to come up with a similar definition of gods (generically) because gods and how they are viewed and the characteristics they are claimed to have are all over the map, from little more than slightly glorified (or even just dead) humans (see: ancestor worship, animism) to the omni-max deity of the Abrahamic faiths. And that doesn't even cover demigods and demiurges and various glorified or elevated humans and so forth.

[Rhythmcs]

You're thinking of veneration in the terms of church speak. I'm using it as you'd find it in sociology or anthropology. Many buddhists simply are theists or deists (in the us...theyre largely christian, lol), but those that aren't would still have a recognizable (functionalist) god in...well..still the buddha, or the buddha consciousness. Even within churchspeak those examples you mention are proper subsects. Some religious communities do organize themselves around marion imagery and precepts. Protestants have opinions on that, which shows that they're not exactly the same religion - no matter how well they clump together for purposes of evading taxes and capturing legislatures.

Slightly glorified or dead humans and abrahamic omnimax and demigods and demiurges are all theistic gods. Just one of the many kinds. The "the" there isn't significant in the way you're thinking. The object of religious veneration could be anything, or any constellation of things. Consider my definition of gods alongside durkheims definition of religion. A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. A god, then, is whatever thing or imagery or concept that they organize that around, insomuch as they do.

For religious humanism, that's just people. Not gods at all as we would understand them if only one variant of the christian god actually qualifies as a god. Nothing supernatural. For religious environmentalism, it's the trees (or the sea turtles, or the whales) - not people, not personal, not intervening - nothing like theistic gods but entirely identical in function. There are also, ofc, people who believe that nature is a god, and a theistic god too, in that they believe that nature is both personal and intervening. I also think that the whole subject, more than just one type of god or one idea about how many there could be, is broad and diverse. That's where inclusive definitions allow us to highlight the similarities between those things in that diverse field without engaging in the religious adherents endless sniping and posturing and ideological arguments.

If a community worshiped the hawk, would the hawk not be their god? Or do we have to give deference to judeo-christian concepts explicitly when trying to discuss this matter on an atheist forum?

[Deesse23]

God, if he exists, definitionally, exists necessarily.

Iow: "I can define x into existence".

Unfortunately thats not how things work. First, one needs to demonstrate that the definition is "correct" and contains no contradictions n stuff. Then: "If god is possible in one world he is possible in every world. Since he is necessary in one world, he is necessary in all worlds". Shit like that. The problem being here is that Steve needs to DEMONSTRATE this possibility, that his pet god is ACTUALLY possible (not like: "i make up shit, and you cant prove its impossible, therefore it is possible.....and necessary, and exists, in fact". Nope that shit wont work.....or it would work for many other things/gods/fairies/unicorns/garage-dragons.

But pearls and swine. Steve got me on ignore, and wouldnt admit he is profoundly ignorant about basics of logic anyway. He never has and never will.

[SteveII]

First of all, thank you SteveII for finally answering the question, albeit gift-wrapped in petulance.  But it is a fair answer.

So, some points:

God, if he exists, definitionally, exists necessarily.

"Necessary" by definition is itself a contingent concept.  Something makes something necessary, nothing is necessary absent being made necessary.  What makes a god necessary?  The god itself making itself necessary?  That doesn't work.

It's interesting your use of the phrase "if he exists", which concedes other possibilities than a god to explain or account for nature.

And just because a god is "defined" to be "necessary" (unilaterally, not unanimously) does not make it so; such definition is nothing more than an arbitrary claim with neither evidence nor non-sophistic reasoning to substantiate it.

The phrase "if he exists" was meant to skip the circular thinking you employ above that accompanies most such replies. You ask me why God is conceived as supernatural and then believe that explaining that I just created a definition is some sort of good point in your favor. Your question requires you to grant for the sake of the discussion the concept of God in general and because you asked me, the God of Christianity in particular.

If God exists, he exists necessarily. If he exists, it wasn't possible for him not to have existed. It should be quite obvious: it is an all or nothing thing. That is what 'necessary' means in this context. If you take a moment and think about it, it is not a hard concept.

"nature" does not exist necessarily (therefore it exists contingently).

"Nature" is not a contingent concept.  Nature is, in the common vernacular, all that there is.  Nature is not contingent on something beyond it; it excludes anything beyond it.

So your applications of "necessary" and "contingent" are backward.  God isn't necessary, it's contingent on arbitrary definition; nature isn't contingent, it just is.

I think some theists believe a god is necessary to keep all the sub-atomic particles glued together, that absent a god, the universe would evaporate into nothing.  Nothing anywhere in physics even hints that something like that is necessary; so far the continued belief in a god seems only to be a notion borne out of desperation to keep a god concept alive while the relentlessly increasing fund of knowledge of nature keeps evaporating all the reasons to keep a god.

And here is why I asked you to define 'nature.'  The first problem is your definition is question begging. Your not-so-hidden premise is that Naturalism is true and then conclude nature is all there is.

The second problem is that the current scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist. That would mean the universe exists contingently. If 'nature' is all of reality, then you have to include whatever existed before the universe in you definition. The problem with that is that we have no clue (and almost certainly could never know) what preceded the universe.  No one uses the term 'nature' for that reality unless one is attempting to defend a question-begging definition of 'nature.'

Your last paragraph is nothing but an atheist opining on concepts he thinks he has a grasp on. First, if God exists, he is responsible for everything else existing. Do you really think that an examination of physics is the right level to get our data about such things? Second, absolutely nothing in science suggests that God does not exist. You are employing a backwards God of the Gaps argument.

[epronovost]

The second problem is that the current scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist.

That would be incorrect or at least a too wide vulgarization of the concept of the Big Bang inflation. 

That would mean the universe exists contingently.

That's a fallacy of composition. You cannot use an attribute of the observable universe outside of the observable universe. It would be like saying before time; this is non sense since a marker of temporality cannot exist outside of time. You cannot use causality to explain the universe since causality is an attribute of the observable universe.

[Deesse23]

The second problem is that the current scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist.

[/quote]
Wrong, again.

Current models* suggest that time breaks down at planck time, and nothing shows that the universe (its current representation) "started to exist" after time began. Looking back to this point the universe existed "forever" as in "for all of time", since" before time is meaningless.


* albeit, relativity and quantum theory diverge here, and thus at least one of them must be wrong or incomplete, maybe even both. Still they are both better that Steves ignorance and misrepresentations.


But lets grant, for fun, that the univese "started to exist": So what? That make Steves assertions still BS and doesnt improve his "defining god into existence" attempts any less futile. Everybody could make up tons of shit* and then posit its "necessary" to exist.

This is intellectually lazy and dishonest, like (almost) everything from Steves direction.


* shit that causes universes to exist

[SYZ]

I have to note Steve that you ignored my little test...


Theists all too often expect atheists to prove that God
doesn't exist, so I thought I'd turn the tables a little.

At least I took you off ignore--it seems you might be willing to civilly discuss things. I wanted to watch for something I wanted to respond to.

Well, ultimately, I don't really care if you have me on 'ignore' or not.
If putting people on your ignore list gives you a little stroke of your
ego, so be it LOL.

Can I take it now that you're unable to prove that the mythical unicorn
doesn't and never has existed?  This raises the obvious question of why
you choose to believe in the existence of a mythical God.

How can you believe in one thing that exhibits absolutely zero empirical
evidence for its purported existence (God), but in the same breath
not a different one (unicorns)?

   Your logic is corrupt.       

[SteveII]

The second problem is that the current scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist.

That would be incorrect or at least a too wide vulgarization of the concept of the Big Bang inflation. 

The best actual information we have is that the universe began to exist. Models postulating anything else are not based on things we know to be true and each have their own difficulties they have not overcome. So be careful hanging you metaphysical hat on such things because it smacks of "I need the universe to be past-eternal" not "there are good reasons to think the universe is past-eternal."

That would mean the universe exists contingently.

That's a fallacy of composition. You cannot use an attribute of the observable universe outside of the observable universe. It would be like saying before time; this is non sense since a marker of temporality cannot exist outside of time. You cannot use causality to explain the universe since causality is an attribute of the observable universe.

Yes I can because I understand that metaphysics should not be confused with physics (a category error). You conflate time (which you most certainly think is a function of physics) with the notion of causality--easily fixed by using the right phrase: 'prior to.' Of course we can say "prior to the universe" because if the universe began (the current scientific consensus), there certainly was a reality that existed "prior to the universe". Do you realize that your view precludes any thoughts on multiverses and universe-generating realities--you literally eliminate even the concept with a misapplication of metaphysics.

Further, thinking that "causality is an attribute of the observable universe" is an assertion you can't possibly defend, In fact, I think it is kind of question-begging because it starts by asserting that causality is inherently tied to observability and uses that assumption to conclude that any non-observable causality is not real or does not exist without explanation.

It is absolutely the case that if the universe began to exist, it exists contingently. Part of contingent means that the state of affairs could have been otherwise. Obviously if the universe began to exist, there existed at least one other state of affairs where it did not. Ergo, contingent.

[epronovost]

The best actual information we have is that the universe began to exist.

You can keep repeating it, but it's still a too wide vulgarizations. I don't think your comprehension of the models of physics like the Big Bang and inflation theory is good enough. Perhapse you should brush up on them. You are confusing the map with the territory on numerous occasion like when you use the term "began to exist" which is really more like a vulgarization and illustration of the phenonemon of the universe in a literal way as if the model was the reality which it is not.

Yes I can because I understand that metaphysics should not be confused with physics (a category error).

Causality is not a notion of metaphysics alone. It's first and foremost a notion in physics which was extrapolated to metaphysics since metaphysics is the study of fundamental elements of physics as they pertain to human's perception of the universe.

causality is an attribute of the observable universe" is an assertion you can't possibly defend.

You are aware that causality is a law in physics do you? Saying that causality is an attribute of the observable universe is as easy to defend as the fact that matter or gravity are attribute of the observable universe or any other law of physics really. To say that causality is an attribute of the of the observable universable one only need to demonstrate that there is such a thing as an event affecting or producing another which and then boom you have causality as an attribute of the universe.

[SteveII]

The best actual information we have is that the universe began to exist.

You can keep repeating it, but it's still a too wide vulgarizations. I don't think your comprehension of the models of physics like the Big Bang and inflation theory is good enough. Perhapse you should brush up on them. You are confusing the map with the territory on numerous occasion like when you use the term "began to exist" which is really more like a vulgarization and illustration of the phenonemon of the universe in a literal way as if the model was the reality which it is not.

You are welcome to provide an example where my characterization is wrong and I will show were you misapplied or assumed metaphysical concepts and commitments.

Yes I can because I understand that metaphysics should not be confused with physics (a category error).

Causality is not a notion of metaphysics alone. It's first and foremost a notion in physics which was extrapolated to metaphysics since metaphysics is the study of fundamental elements of physics as they pertain to human's perception of the universe.

causality is an attribute of the observable universe" is an assertion you can't possibly defend.

You are aware that causality is a law in physics do you? Saying that causality is an attribute of the observable universe is as easy to defend as the fact that matter or gravity are attribute of the observable universe or any other law of physics really. To say that causality is an attribute of the of the observable universable one only need to demonstrate that there is such a thing as an event affecting or producing another which and then boom you have causality as an attribute of the universe.

Then you misunderstand the relationship between metaphysics and physics. If causality belongs to the metaphysical layer of reality, it applies to physics because metaphysics is a more foundational (lower) level of description. In other words, physics is illustrating a metaphysical concept (many in fact). There is not a separate notion of causality.

This is what enables even the concept of the multiverse or a universe-generating reality. This is how Lawrence Krause proposes a quantum field that gave rise to the observable universe.