What Prohibits God From Being Natural?

[Rhythmcs]

The answer to the opq that we're being presented with is that god can't be natural because it doesn't work for some argument that someone wishes to employ. Poor god, always being lead around by the nose, lowly human worms telling him what he can and cant be, based on convenience to disingenuous arguments entirely unrelated to anyone's actual beliefs.

[epronovost]

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.

I did, here it is again. 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.

If causality belongs to the metaphysical layer of reality, it applies to physics because metaphysics is a more foundational (lower) level of description.

You are applying it in reverse. Physics is a more foundational level of description of things while metaphysics deal with how physics is perceived at a foundational in human perception and thought. Metaphysics is the discipline that studies how we fundamentally perceive and interpret the laws of physics and the material world/nature, but physics deal with the foundation of what is and is not existing materially/what is nature itself. Causality is such a thing. It's a principle of physics with application in philosophy and logic hence it's includion in metaphysics.

[Rahn127]

Nothing prohibits the change of any fictional characters properties or powers or lack thereof.

If any religion wants to create a naturalistic god, they can. Nothing stopping them.

Creating a god by definition is quite easy, compared to actually observing a real entity and discovering all of its properties.

For instance a godly lobster has the power to change the entire universe into water. I didn't didn't discover this godly lobster, nor did I discover its power to alter the universe. I defined the godly lobster as having this ability or power.

A real lobster we can weigh and observe its behavior and discover what it likes to eat and any other aspects of its real existence.
The godly lobster only exists as a mental creation that I made and that I defined as having certain powers.

So, to sum things up, there is no reason why a god can't be a naturalistic god.
It's still going to be fictional either way, but it can be a naturalistic fiction.

[Cavebear]

Nothing prohibits the change of any fictional characters properties or powers or lack thereof.

If any religion wants to create a naturalistic god, they can. Nothing stopping them.

Creating a god by definition is quite easy, compared to actually observing a real entity and discovering all of its properties.

For instance a godly lobster has the power to change the entire universe into water. I didn't didn't discover this godly lobster, nor did I discover its power to alter the universe. I defined the godly lobster as having this ability or power.

A real lobster we can weigh and observe its behavior and discover what it likes to eat and any other aspects of its real existence.
The godly lobster only exists as a mental creation that I made and that I defined as having certain powers.

So, to sum things up, there is no reason why a god can't be a naturalistic god.
It's still going to be fictional either way, but it can be a naturalistic fiction.

"God" (any god) cannot be natural. If a deity created "nature", it cannot be part of it as it is separate (and beyond) its creation. Any supposed deity (deity-wanna-be?) that is part of nature is subservient to nature and is therefore not really a deity.

At least, you did say "naturalistic fiction". I can go with that.

[SteveII]

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.

I did, here it is again. 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're just repeating yourself, not explaining anything. Why does "begins to exist" not apply to the Big Bang/Inflationary model or any of the multiverse theories --the two most popular models of cosmologists today?

If causality belongs to the metaphysical layer of reality, it applies to physics because metaphysics is a more foundational (lower) level of description.

You are applying it in reverse. Physics is a more foundational level of description of things while metaphysics deal with how physics is perceived at a foundational in human perception and thought. Metaphysics is the discipline that studies how we fundamentally perceive and interpret the laws of physics and the material world/nature, but physics deal with the foundation of what is and is not existing materially/what is nature itself. Causality is such a thing. It's a principle of physics with application in philosophy and logic hence it's includion in metaphysics.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Not for the first time, you are confusing epistemology (how we come to know something) with ontology (what is true or real). You think because we prove things like causation from observing then it is physics not a metaphysical principle. But that's how we discover metaphysical principles! We recognize that causation is a "first principle" from observation. Take 'ideas' for example. Ideas cause effects every single moment of the day billions of time over. You get hung up with your scientism tendencies and rarely see the bigger picture.

[Rhythmcs]

It's never occurred to some people that the first principles of their logical systems are contingent. That "before" and thus "began" is meaningless outside of the assumption or existence of space-time. So too are notions like being, knowing, substance, cause, and identity. Hell, some of those are looking a bit shaky even -within- space-time.

[Dānu]

It's because theists need to one-up other people. Thus if other people have nature, they have to have "super" nature.

[Rhythmcs]

Yeah, I mean, a dry answer to the question is just some factoid about the historical development of a religious community.

Even the nuts know this - I won't link it, but you can find an article on biologos by john wheaton explaining how silly the whole thing is as a theological or philosophical matter.

When we make distinctions between natural and supernatural activity in Scripture, not only do we push our modern categories into the Bible, but we also limit God’s action.

Contemporary christians in the us are very likely to believe that there is a "science-of-miracles". That is to say that yeah, sure, the events aren't ordinary - but god presumably used the levers of this natural world to effect change in the natural world. That if we could look under the hood, our incredulity in the face of the miraculous would seem silly. This belief stands in opposition to an accident of history - the supernatural as authority enhancer. Thus, in the course of trying to defend their historical doctrine they can easily miscommunicate their genuine beliefs.

[epronovost]

You're just repeating yourself, not explaining anything. Why does "begins to exist" not apply to the Big Bang/Inflationary model or any of the multiverse theories --the two most popular models of cosmologists today?

It does apply, just not a complete literal sense since the Big Bang/inflationary model is not really about some sort of creation ex nihilo model. It explains the expension of spacetime. Since, as we get closer to the said Big Bang moment physics breaks down and time gets wonky talking about it as a literal begining would be incorrect since as you get closer in time in inflation, the more the very concept of time starts to break down and becomes muddy. Then of course there is the fact there is a massive uncertainty about what was happening during the Big Bang instead of right after it.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Not for the first time, you are confusing epistemology (how we come to know something) with ontology (what is true or real). You think because we prove things like causation from observing then it is physics not a metaphysical principle. But that's how we discover metaphysical principles! We recognize that causation is a "first principle" from observation. Take 'ideas' for example. Ideas cause effects every single moment of the day billions of time over. You get hung up with your scientism tendencies and rarely see the bigger picture.

You do know that idea happen in the physical universe. Idea is what we call the creative product of human cerebral activity. They occupy a place in spacetime. Since "idea" is a conceptual category they do not exist in an on themselves physically, but they are just are in spacetime and under the laws of nature. Ideas are also a product of the observable universe since you need electromagnetism, biochemistry, spacetime and a whole bunch of things to have ideas. Ideas are human constructs and humans live in the observable universe and cannot exist outside of it.

[Dānu]

"I think that's an even better question because we still don't know the answer to the question, 'Did the universe begin?'"

[SteveII]

You're just repeating yourself, not explaining anything. Why does "begins to exist" not apply to the Big Bang/Inflationary model or any of the multiverse theories --the two most popular models of cosmologists today?

It does apply, just not a complete literal sense since the Big Bang/inflationary model is not really about some sort of creation ex nihilo model. It explains the expension of spacetime. Since, as we get closer to the said Big Bang moment physics breaks down and time gets wonky talking about it as a literal begining would be incorrect since as you get closer in time in inflation, the more the very concept of time starts to break down and becomes muddy. Then of course there is the fact there is a massive uncertainty about what was happening during the Big Bang instead of right after it.

What does ex nihilo have to do with anything?

Sean Carroll in Danu's video spent over 9 minutes discussing which models have a beginning and which don't. It seems I understand the concept of "begins to exists" just fine.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Not for the first time, you are confusing epistemology (how we come to know something) with ontology (what is true or real). You think because we prove things like causation from observing then it is physics not a metaphysical principle. But that's how we discover metaphysical principles! We recognize that causation is a "first principle" from observation. Take 'ideas' for example. Ideas cause effects every single moment of the day billions of time over. You get hung up with your scientism tendencies and rarely see the bigger picture.

You do know that idea happen in the physical universe. Idea is what we call the creative product of human cerebral activity. They occupy a place in spacetime. Since "idea" is a conceptual category they do not exist in an on themselves physically, but they are just are in spacetime and under the laws of nature. Ideas are also a product of the observable universe since you need electromagnetism, biochemistry, spacetime and a whole bunch of things to have ideas. Ideas are human constructs and humans live in the observable universe and cannot exist outside of it.

Back to the video, clearly every cosmologist thinks that causation is a feature of reality even as they create new physical models to make sense of it. One of two things is happening: 1) Your metaphysical view of reality is one that requires an eternal universe. You literally can't be open to the idea of most of the current cosmological models. Or 2) you define everything that every existed anywhere as the universe--a view that conflicts with everything in that video. Which is it (or is there a third)?

[epronovost]

It seems I understand the concept of "begins to exists" just fine.

So we do agree when we he says that nobody knows if the universe began; that there is a beginning of a sort, but that the idea that there is a first moment is actually completely unknown. it's suggested by some and denied by others. All that we know for sure at the moment is that universe was fundamentally different than now in the distant past, that it was much more dense and much more hot and that it expended from that state and continues to do so at the moment. Is that a beginning? Is that cyclical? Is that a first moment? Nobody knows for sure at the moment.

Back to the video, clearly every cosmologist thinks that causation is a feature of reality even as they create new physical models to make sense of it.  One of two things is happening: 1) Your metaphysical view of reality is one that requires an eternal universe. You literally can't be open to the idea of most of the current cosmological models. Or 2) you define everything that every existed anywhere as the universe--a view that conflicts with everything in that video. Which is it (or is there a third)?

There is a third; the answer is I don't fucking knows if the universe is eternal in a way or another or not. Nobody knows if spacetime was always a thing or not. Nobody knows if there is a multiverse in which there could be multiple layers of spacetime and causality distinct from one another or not. There is strong evidence for a Big Bang, but none so far about what exactly happen at that point and what it could have come from if it even come from something in the first place.

Can we thus say the universe has a beginning. In a broad symbolic way, yes this is a perfectly acceptable language to speak of how the universe as it can be observed now got to its current state from a much more dense and hotter state, but it doesn't mean this is actually a beginning as in a first moment.

[SteveII]

It seems I understand the concept of "begins to exists" just fine.

So we do agree when we he says that nobody knows if the universe began; that there is a beginning of a sort, but that the idea that there is a first moment is actually completely unknown. it's suggested by some and denied by others. All that we know for sure at the moment is that universe was fundamentally different than now in the distant past, that it was much more dense and much more hot and that it expended from that state and continues to do so at the moment. Is that a beginning? Is that cyclical? Is that a first moment? Nobody knows for sure at the moment.

Back to the video, clearly every cosmologist thinks that causation is a feature of reality even as they create new physical models to make sense of it.  One of two things is happening: 1) Your metaphysical view of reality is one that requires an eternal universe. You literally can't be open to the idea of most of the current cosmological models. Or 2) you define everything that every existed anywhere as the universe--a view that conflicts with everything in that video. Which is it (or is there a third)?

There is a third; the answer is I don't fucking knows if the universe is eternal in a way or another or not. Nobody knows if spacetime was always a thing or not. Nobody knows if there is a multiverse in which there could be multiple layers of spacetime and causality distinct from one another or not. There is strong evidence for a Big Bang, but none so far about what exactly happen at that point and what it could have come from if it even come from something in the first place.

Can we thus say the universe has a beginning. In a broad symbolic way, yes this is a perfectly acceptable language to speak of how the universe as it can be observed now got to its current state from a much more dense and hotter state, but it doesn't mean this is actually a beginning as in a first moment.

Okay, then we can say if the universe began (in any fashion), it is contingent. And related, the principle of causality exists outside the universe.

[Rhythmcs]

Outside the universe, yet another nonstarter.

[epronovost]

So we do agree when we he says that nobody knows if the universe began; that there is a beginning of a sort, but that the idea that there is a first moment is actually completely unknown. it's suggested by some and denied by others. All that we know for sure at the moment is that universe was fundamentally different than now in the distant past, that it was much more dense and much more hot and that it expended from that state and continues to do so at the moment. Is that a beginning? Is that cyclical? Is that a first moment? Nobody knows for sure at the moment.



There is a third; the answer is I don't fucking knows if the universe is eternal in a way or another or not. Nobody knows if spacetime was always a thing or not. Nobody knows if there is a multiverse in which there could be multiple layers of spacetime and causality distinct from one another or not. There is strong evidence for a Big Bang, but none so far about what exactly happen at that point and what it could have come from if it even come from something in the first place.

Can we thus say the universe has a beginning. In a broad symbolic way, yes this is a perfectly acceptable language to speak of how the universe as it can be observed now got to its current state from a much more dense and hotter state, but it doesn't mean this is actually a beginning as in a first moment.

Okay, then we can say if the universe began (in any fashion), it is contingent. And related, the principle of causality exists outside the universe.

No we can't. If the universe began (in a fashion) it might very well be eternal and what actually began is not so much spacetime, matter or any other of the main forces that animate it, but the arrangements of matter and spacetime we are familiar with. We absolutely cannot say causality exists outside the universe in such a situation.

[Dānu]

So we do agree when we he says that nobody knows if the universe began; that there is a beginning of a sort, but that the idea that there is a first moment is actually completely unknown. it's suggested by some and denied by others. All that we know for sure at the moment is that universe was fundamentally different than now in the distant past, that it was much more dense and much more hot and that it expended from that state and continues to do so at the moment. Is that a beginning? Is that cyclical? Is that a first moment? Nobody knows for sure at the moment.



There is a third; the answer is I don't fucking knows if the universe is eternal in a way or another or not. Nobody knows if spacetime was always a thing or not. Nobody knows if there is a multiverse in which there could be multiple layers of spacetime and causality distinct from one another or not. There is strong evidence for a Big Bang, but none so far about what exactly happen at that point and what it could have come from if it even come from something in the first place.

Can we thus say the universe has a beginning. In a broad symbolic way, yes this is a perfectly acceptable language to speak of how the universe as it can be observed now got to its current state from a much more dense and hotter state, but it doesn't mean this is actually a beginning as in a first moment.

Okay, then we can say if the universe began (in any fashion), it is contingent. And related, the principle of causality exists outside the universe.

By your own argument, what you believe existed outside the universe does not obey any law of causality. Isn't this inconsistent?

[SteveII]

Okay, then we can say if the universe began (in any fashion), it is contingent. And related, the principle of causality exists outside the universe.

By your own argument, what you believe existed outside the universe does not obey any law of causality.  Isn't this inconsistent?

Do you mean God? No. That's where the concept of necessary does all the work for me. It seems you have to have at least one necessarily existing thing. To avoid the problems that an infinite number of causes/effects can't have happened (because we could never get to today) you need something timeless to be that necessarily existing thing and material things cannot be timeless. A timeless thing that then causes something would have to have some sort of intentionality.

You can see how the concept of God can check all the boxes for explanatory scope. But hey, the atheist can just posit a brute fact--that's pretty satisfying too!

[Dānu]

By your own argument, what you believe existed outside the universe does not obey any law of causality.  Isn't this inconsistent?

Do you mean God? No. That's where the concept of necessary does all the work for me. It seems you have to have at least one necessarily existing thing. To avoid the problems that an infinite number of causes/effects can't have happened (because we could never get to today) you need something timeless to be that necessarily existing thing and material things cannot be timeless. A timeless thing that then causes something would have to have some sort of intentionality.

You can see how the concept of God can check all the boxes for explanatory scope. But hey, the atheist can just posit a brute fact--that's pretty satisfying too!  

I'm talking strictly about causality here. What outside the universe follows the supposed causality you postulated if God doesn't? It seems you have a metaphysical principle of causality that doesn't apply to anything. That's basically a non-principle.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

So we do agree when we he says that nobody knows if the universe began; that there is a beginning of a sort, but that the idea that there is a first moment is actually completely unknown. it's suggested by some and denied by others. All that we know for sure at the moment is that universe was fundamentally different than now in the distant past, that it was much more dense and much more hot and that it expended from that state and continues to do so at the moment. Is that a beginning? Is that cyclical? Is that a first moment? Nobody knows for sure at the moment.



There is a third; the answer is I don't fucking knows if the universe is eternal in a way or another or not. Nobody knows if spacetime was always a thing or not. Nobody knows if there is a multiverse in which there could be multiple layers of spacetime and causality distinct from one another or not. There is strong evidence for a Big Bang, but none so far about what exactly happen at that point and what it could have come from if it even come from something in the first place.

Can we thus say the universe has a beginning. In a broad symbolic way, yes this is a perfectly acceptable language to speak of how the universe as it can be observed now got to its current state from a much more dense and hotter state, but it doesn't mean this is actually a beginning as in a first moment.

Okay, then we can say if the universe began (in any fashion), it is contingent. And related, the principle of causality exists outside the universe.

And, another swing and a miss for yet another strike-out.

Steve, you're really fucking bad at science. Please, just stop. It's getting embarrassing to watch.

[SteveII]

Do you mean God? No. That's where the concept of necessary does all the work for me. It seems you have to have at least one necessarily existing thing. To avoid the problems that an infinite number of causes/effects can't have happened (because we could never get to today) you need something timeless to be that necessarily existing thing and material things cannot be timeless. A timeless thing that then causes something would have to have some sort of intentionality.

You can see how the concept of God can check all the boxes for explanatory scope. But hey, the atheist can just posit a brute fact--that's pretty satisfying too!  

I'm talking strictly about causality here.  What outside the universe follows the supposed causality you postulated if God doesn't?  It seems you have a metaphysical principle of causality that doesn't apply to anything.  That's basically a non-principle.

It was claimed that causality is a principle only applicable to those things inside the universe. It would seem after your video that it is best understood as a property of reality (so metaphysical) and should not be thought of as a function of our particular laws of physics. IDK, maybe God created the spiritual beings before the universe. At least I have to tools to discuss such possibilities.

[Rhythmcs]

"Before" the what, again?

[brewerb]

Do you mean God? No. That's where the concept of necessary does all the work for me. It seems you have to have at least one necessarily existing thing. To avoid the problems that an infinite number of causes/effects can't have happened (because we could never get to today) you need something timeless to be that necessarily existing thing and material things cannot be timeless. A timeless thing that then causes something would have to have some sort of intentionality.

You can see how the concept of God can check all the boxes for explanatory scope. But hey, the atheist can just posit a brute fact--that's pretty satisfying too!  

Complete assertion and conjecture.

[SYZ]

...Do you mean God? No. That's where the concept of necessary does all the work for me. It seems you have to have at least one necessarily existing thing. To avoid the problems that an infinite number of causes/effects can't have happened (because we could never get to today) you need something timeless to be that necessarily existing thing and material things cannot be timeless. A timeless thing that then causes something would have to have some sort of intentionality.

You can see how the concept of God can check all the boxes for explanatory scope. But hey, the atheist can just posit a brute fact--that's pretty satisfying too!  

I appreciate the time you've taken to explain your view of
religion, beliefs, and the universe etc.

But... when you try and include pseudo-scientific reasoning
or evidence including cognitive bias and belief-dependent
realism then you come unglued.

You're utilising a religion-anchored mindset in an attempt to
argue the empirical sciences.  In effect you're attempting to
negate well-known, observable, and replicable scientific
theorems with unproven hypotheses and guesses of your own
which you reckon may contradict scientific reason—or offer
better solutions to all the universal (as in space-time etc) questions.

[Deesse23]

To avoid the problems that an infinite number of causes/effects can't have happened (because we could never get to today)

...and Steve demonstrates again that he has no idea about stuff like infinities, or is dishonest, because it has already been explained to him that this is not necessarily (no pun intended) true, numerous times. I put 10€ on the latter.

[Mathilda]

"Before" the what, again?

"Before" time existed.

Ooh look, an even bigger can of worms labelled "What is time?" Let's open it!