NationStates Jolt Archive

A poster on NSG a while ago claimed God (in the case, context indicated the Judeo Christian God, but qualify your answer as you wish) was NOT supernatural.

I claim that God, whether it exists or not, is a concept that posesses the property of being supernatural, whether the concept represents a real thing or not.

It's a mistranslation, he's actually superdisco.

:confused:
How the hell would God NOT be supernatural?
:confused:

Insofar as the Being of God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent entity is not naturally possible, all natural objects being dependent, God must be supernatural.

:confused:
How the hell would God NOT be supernatural?
:confused:

I dunno, dude, I kind of felt the same way, but this thread is meant to touch on the "reasonable person" test of whether I'm crazy thinking that God, even if he's out there, is supernatural.

It's a mistranslation, he's actually superdisco.

There's a sect of Rabbi mystics who believe that a powerful meditative tool is to try to imagine God's "infinitely bright" robe.

Now we know, its a white 3 piece suit with no tie...

now doesnt that depend on your definition of god?

if god IS nature, then is "he" supernatural?

now doesnt that depend on your definition of god?

if god IS nature, then is "he" supernatural?

Of course, each person may define his terms as he sees fit, but using "god" to mean "nature" is a nonstandard definition, and, I believe, not that used by the original argument. The standard philosophical definition appears to be operative, which is, essentially, "an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." Such a being cannot be natural.

now doesnt that depend on your definition of god?

if god IS nature, then is "he" supernatural?

Can he create more nature arbitrarily? Can he change the rules of nature at will?

If he wanted more nature, no nature, or less nature, could he do so?

If he wanted, for whatever reason, to end all nature yet still exist himself, could he?

In theology, the "state of nature" is specifically contrasted to the divine "state of grace", and even if the two overlap, is God limited only to the "state of nature" or does he supervent it by also possessing the "state of grace"?

If God "IS" nature, is he not also more (ostensibly)?

I saw a movie once titled Jesus is Magic, and anything that is used as a movie is automatically true. That's how I know that It's Alive and there's a Black Gestapo somewhere out there.

Ladies & Gentlemen, may I present.....

....GOD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwakjoSs754

I'm not sure what he's saying but you better be sure he gets angry if you don't follow his orders. He's probably speaking in tongues.

Of course, each person may define his terms as he sees fit, but using "god" to mean "nature" is a nonstandard definition, and, I believe, not that used by the original argument. The standard philosophical definition appears to be operative, which is, essentially, "an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." Such a being cannot be natural.
the "standard" judeo-christian definition is of a supernatural being.

if that is the god you are going with, i dont see how he could be anything else.

Can he create more nature arbitrarily? Can he change the rules of nature at will?

If he wanted more nature, no nature, or less nature, could he do so?

If he wanted, for whatever reason, to end all nature yet still exist himself, could he?

In theology, the "state of nature" is specifically contrasted to the divine "state of grace", and even if the two overlap, is God limited only to the "state of nature" or does he supervent it by also possessing the "state of grace"?

If God "IS" nature, is he not also more (ostensibly)?
well no. if god is nature he is nature. he cant change it he IS it.

perhaps the way we are the universe of our internal bacteria.

well no. if god is nature he is nature. he cant change it he IS it.

perhaps the way we are the universe of our internal bacteria.

"He can't change it, he IS it."

He can't change himself? How terribly limited, even if "perfect", a truly badass god could change while preserving perfection, even if he has to fuck with predicate reality to do it.

As for the bacteria, this analogy between prokaryotes and crown eukaryotes really frames God as not nearly as impressive, but its possible, I suppose.

But then God doesn't really seem godly, just sort of big and powerful. Unicron can do that.

now doesnt that depend on your definition of god?

if god IS nature, then is "he" supernatural?
If god is nature, then he's natural. However, if he is also super...

Of course, each person may define his terms as he sees fit, but using "god" to mean "nature" is a nonstandard definition, and, I believe, not that used by the original argument. The standard philosophical definition appears to be operative, which is, essentially, "an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." Such a being cannot be natural.
Excuse me, but the OP specifically told us we could qualify our idea of "god" anyway we liked. With that in mind, I would wonder whose "standard philosophical definition" do you expect us to use? I've heard lots of philosophers and religious types suggest that "god is nature" and, as far as I'm concerned, that makes it a legitimate take on the topic.

A perfect being, by definition, cannot change and remain perfect.

"He can't change it, he IS it."

He can't change himself? How terribly limited, even if "perfect", a truly badass god could change while preserving perfection, even if he has to fuck with predicate reality to do it.

As for the bacteria, this analogy between prokaryotes and crown eukaryotes really frames God as not nearly as impressive, but its possible, I suppose.

But then God doesn't really seem godly, just sort of big and powerful. Unicron can do that.
well if god is NOT supernatural then he must be bound by the laws of nature--otherwise he would be supernatural eh?

we are used to this "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" idea but i dont see that that is what god MUST be.

A poster on NSG a while ago claimed God (in the case, context indicated the Judeo Christian God, but qualify your answer as you wish) was NOT supernatural.

I claim that God, whether it exists or not, is a concept that posesses the property of being supernatural, whether the concept represents a real thing or not.

I agree with you. If it's not supernatural, it's not "God".

In theology, the "state of nature" is specifically contrasted to the divine "state of grace", and even if the two overlap, is God limited only to the "state of nature" or does he supervent it by also possessing the "state of grace"?

You mean "In [some Christian theological texts]", don't you?

well if god is NOT supernatural then he must be bound by the laws of nature--otherwise he would be supernatural eh?

we are used to this "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" idea but i dont see that that is what god MUST be.

Now, there, I'm more on board with you. If we allow for a God that is NOT "supreme allpowerful all knowing being", then yeah, I can see a natural "God" like that, it just seems like a comparatively anemic god concept, although that doesn't make it wrong.

You mean "In [some Christian theological texts]", don't you?

You are correct here, and I am wrong.

My statement is overly broad and should have been more narrowly ascribed.

well if god is NOT supernatural then he must be bound by the laws of nature--otherwise he would be supernatural eh?

we are used to this "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" idea but i dont see that that is what god MUST be.

There is nothing that God "must" be. We can use the term "God" to mean whatever we wish. If, however, we use "God" to mean, say, "the houseplant currently sitting in Joseph Lieberman's bedroom window" we are not addressing the original premise. The original post was of a discussion as to whether God was supernatural or not. Unless the original post's writer cares to clarify an alternate definition, it is logical to assume that "God" in the original context was defined in the philosophically standard manner, "an all-powerful all-knowing and all-benevolent personal being."

A perfect being, by definition, cannot change and remain perfect.

So perfection is one singular state, there cannot be two different concepts that are alike only in that they meet whatever criteria makes for "perfect"?

Perfection sounds very stagnant, but I've never tried it so, I could be wrong.

...but this thread is meant to touch on the "reasonable person" test of whether I'm crazy thinking that God, even if he's out there, is supernatural.

What the heck is that?

There's a sect of Rabbi mystics who believe that a powerful meditative tool is to try to imagine God's "infinitely bright" robe.

Now we know, its a white 3 piece suit with no tie...

Or a bright pearl.

Now, there, I'm more on board with you. If we allow for a God that is NOT "supreme allpowerful all knowing being", then yeah, I can see a natural "God" like that, it just seems like a comparatively anemic god concept, although that doesn't make it wrong.
the concept of an all powerful all knowing and all loving heavenly father is certainly a comforting concept for many.

but i dont see how or why such a being might exist

Well he's definitely not a natural concept or he wouldnt be very Godly would he?

What the heck is that?

The "reasonable person" test, unicorn that it may be, in some professions is applied (or attempted to be applied) as being the "objective test", that is to say, the test applicable to more than one individual person.

Of course, a society full of goobers quickly shreds the whole premise of the "reasonable person" test, and its value typically only lies in trying to clumsily predict what a given person might be typically expected to hold with deference to time, society, mental state, circumstance, etc.

So, yeah, "what the heck is that" kind of does sum it nicely.

now doesnt that depend on your definition of god?

if god IS nature, then is "he" supernatural?

Nature has the nature of "nature", so it isn't God in nature.

Now, there, I'm more on board with you. If we allow for a God that is NOT "supreme allpowerful all knowing being", then yeah, I can see a natural "God" like that, it just seems like a comparatively anemic god concept, although that doesn't make it wrong.
Well, I would think that would depend on what you were looking for when you went god-shopping, so to speak.

If you start out with the expectation that "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" is what a god is, and what a god should be, then if it turns out that the god you meet is something else, you will likely be disappointed.

But if your expectations are different, then your reaction might be, too. For instance, to me, a "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" is useless in my life. What am I supposed to do with such a being? How am I supposed to relate to him/her/it? What, am I supposed to make small talk? To me, personally, the Judeo-Christian God has never been anything but distant, impersonal, uninteresting.

So to you, a "natural" god would be anemic. To me, a "supernatural" god would be irrelevant.

Nature has the nature of "nature", so it isn't God in nature.

Can a person pick "nature" as their god?

But then, I guess you could pick a 72 Chevelle as your god, so its a god as a subject of worship, but does it then become divine in the capacity of sentient miraculous excercise?

The breasts on that stripper I met at Saphire last night are now my gods.

Nature has the nature of "nature", so it isn't God in nature.
But if god is nature, then nature is god and does have god-nature. All you're really saying above is that you don't accept the premise that god is nature.

Well, I would think that would depend on what you were looking for when you went god-shopping, so to speak.

If you start out with the expectation that "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" is what a god is, and what a god should be, then if it turns out that the god you meet is something else, you will likely be disappointed.

But if your expectations are different, then your reaction might be, too. For instance, to me, a "supreme allpowerful all knowing being" is useless in my life. What am I supposed to do with such a being? How am I supposed to relate to him/her/it? What, am I supposed to make small talk? To me, personally, the Judeo-Christian God has never been anything but distant, impersonal, uninteresting.

So to you, a "natural" god would be anemic. To me, a "supernatural" god would be irrelevant.

Yeah, I guess I've been socialized to associate the term God with the Judeo Christian version, but having Christopher Walken, or even a reasonable hallucination thereof, as God, might be cool.

The thing is, a lot of people think there is no "god shopping". I don't agree with them, but their premise is that God just "Is" and that you don't pick him for the job of God, you just worship him or don't. I think that view makes many assumptions, though.

"He can't change it, he IS it."

He can't change himself? How terribly limited, even if "perfect", a truly badass god could change while preserving perfection, even if he has to fuck with predicate reality to do it.

Unless, of course, "change" is also natural, in which case he must change.


A perfect being, by definition, cannot change and remain perfect.

Same.

This thread, like all philosophical discussions, is doomed to fall apart without careful defining of terms prior to debate.
In order to adequately discuss whether or not God is supernatural, we must all agree on what we shall mean when we use the term "God" for the purposes of this discussion.

well if god is NOT supernatural then he must be bound by the laws of nature--otherwise he would be supernatural eh?

Unless the laws of nature are natural, in which case he IS the laws of nature. How do the laws of nature bind themselves?

Unless, of course, "change" is also natural, in which case he must change.

You just said he can't change, or do you now mean some kind of internal change, rather than externally mandated change?

You said he "can't change nature, he IS nature". That implies he can't change himself, but now he does change?

Or does that he mean he changes in accordance with some aggregate change of the things within him (nature?) but does not deliberately or arbitrarily dictate change from without?

If he's bound by the laws of nature (even if that's himself), he's definitely not got the super god mojo.

Yeah, I guess I've been socialized to associate the term God with the Judeo Christian version, but having Christopher Walken, or even a reasonable hallucination thereof, as God, might be cool.

The thing is, a lot of people think there is no "god shopping". I don't agree with them, but their premise is that God just "Is" and that you don't pick him for the job of God, you just worship him or don't. I think that view makes many assumptions, though.
It does, and high on the list is the assumption by the people who think that, that they themselves did not go shopping for a god. Or at least a finite, less impersonal, more interesting, maybe even more "natural"-seeming notion of god that they would enjoy paying attention to. If it were not so, why would there be, at one estimation I heard somewhere (it may have come from http://www.adherents.com/ or some similar site; I saw it long ago), as many as 40,000 Christian sects in the world. And that's not even counting the other two religions that claim to deal with that one god, and all their sects and spin-offs. And of course, not even mentioning all the religions that worship other kinds of "god" beings.

Even people who do not take up another religion, such as the lapsed Catholic who just doesn't think about it or the Baptist-turned-atheist, did some critical thinking about their god at one point or another in their lives and found it lacking enough to drop it, even if they did not look for a replacement.

What, am I supposed to make small talk?

How could something distant, uninteresting, etc. not enjoy small talk? :)

Unless the laws of nature are natural, in which case he IS the laws of nature. How do the laws of nature bind themselves?

The same way any exertion of power can self-moderate.

By being the laws of nature, he cannot break them without violating his own nature, and he is thus bound.

Your premise, "he IS the laws of nature", means that, because something must be what it is, he is thus bound by what he is, the laws of nature.

If God is merely a system of laws, such a thing is bound by its own limits, and problematic even by Godel's (sic?) incompleteness .

But if god is nature, then nature is god and does have god-nature. All you're really saying above is that you don't accept the premise that god is nature.

Just so. Otherwise, we'd call it "nature".

This thread, like all philosophical discussions, is doomed to fall apart without careful defining of terms prior to debate.
In order to adequately discuss whether or not God is supernatural, we must all agree on what we shall mean when we use the term "God" for the purposes of this discussion.
That might help, or it might not. For instance, I decided to chime in, even though I don't believe that there is any such thing as "supernatural." I mean, I don't believe that anything is not natural or is above or beyond nature. So you could define "god" all you like, but then how do you define "natural/supernatural"?

Just so. Otherwise, we'd call it "nature".
People who believe that god is nature, do call it "nature." The two are synonymous to them.

Mea Culpa.

I should've put "Is the Judeo Christian God supernatural by the meaning of Webster's dictionary"?

But then its a boring poll.

I'm sorry, this was my bad.

Unless the laws of nature are natural, in which case he IS the laws of nature. How do the laws of nature bind themselves?
dunno.

im not of that turn of mind but im pretty sure that there are people who are.

How could something distant, uninteresting, etc. not enjoy small talk? :)
Well, since I find such a god uninteresting, I don't really care whether he/she/it would enjoy small talk. I'd be bored as shit making the small talk.

Mea Culpa.

I should've put "Is the Judeo Christian God supernatural by the meaning of Webster's dictionary"?

But then its a boring poll.

I'm sorry, this was my bad.
oh well then

in as plain an english as you are capable of, how did your friend make the case that god is not supernatural?

Mea Culpa.

I should've put "Is the Judeo Christian God supernatural by the meaning of Webster's dictionary"?

But then its a boring poll.

I'm sorry, this was my bad.
Answer: Yes. :)

That might help, or it might not. For instance, I decided to chime in, even though I don't believe that there is any such thing as "supernatural." I mean, I don't believe that anything is not natural or is above or beyond nature. So you could define "god" all you like, but then how do you define "natural/supernatural"?

"Natural" and "Supernatural" have concrete definitions, somewhere along the lines of "natural" meaning existing in and subject to the natural world, and "supernatural" meaning existing not in nor subject to the natural world.

Whether or not one believes in God, one still must have a definition. When the atheist says "I do not believe God exists" there is a concept he refers to with the term "God". As has been shown, the term "God" can and has been employed in many different ways, and to use these various definitions of a single term in an argument is pointless; this is the distinction between philosophy and bullshitting.

Atheist, agnostic or theist, all must agree, prior to debate, on what they will mean when they use the term "God" in order for that debate to have any meaning.

You said he "can't change nature, he IS nature". That implies he can't change himself, but now he does change?

Okay, I've searched far and wide for where I said that and I don't see it.

oh well then

in as plain an english as you are capable of, how did your friend make the case that god is not supernatural?
Hell, his "friend" could have been me, because I once got into a whole thing in some thread or other about whether there is such a thing as "supernatural."

EDIT: Oh, no, wait -- he said it was first said about God, and my argument was about "supernatural" things in general.

oh well then

in as plain an english as you are capable of, how did your friend make the case that god is not supernatural?

There argument was motivated around the premise that "supernatural" implied it didn't exist, as one might say leprechauns or unicorns are supernatural, and that I couldn't prove it didn't exist.

But the substance of their argument is the claim that people have a natural impetus to believe in god, and therefore god is a natural concept.

I kind of felt that whether a belief in god is natural (it might be for all I know) doesn't really speak to whether a god, as an indepedent entity whose existence is not predicated on anyone's belief in him, is supernatural.

Okay, I've searched far and wide for where I said that and I don't see it.
I think Ashmoria first said, maybe, and it was quoted in a response you made to her. Perhaps. We're going awfully fast.

Okay, I've searched far and wide for where I said that and I don't see it.

Did I reply to the wrong person? My bad, I'll go back and look, hang on.

Okay, I've searched far and wide for where I said that and I don't see it.

100% totally my fault, it was Ashmo who said it. I was on the wrong thread within a thread.

I really apologize. :(

"Natural" and "Supernatural" have concrete definitions, somewhere along the lines of "natural" meaning existing in and subject to the natural world, and "supernatural" meaning existing not in nor subject to the natural world.
Yeah, but "supernatural" things cannot be proven to exist at all. So saying you don't believe that there is such a thing as a "supernatural" something is not unreasonable, and does not seek to alter meanings of words.

Whether or not one believes in God, one still must have a definition. When the atheist says "I do not believe God exists" there is a concept he refers to with the term "God". As has been shown, the term "God" can and has been employed in many different ways, and to use these various definitions of a single term in an argument is pointless; this is the distinction between philosophy and bullshitting.

Atheist, agnostic or theist, all must agree, prior to debate, on what they will mean when they use the term "God" in order for that debate to have any meaning.
Haha, good luck with that.

There argument was motivated around the premise that "supernatural" implied it didn't exist, as one might say leprechauns or unicorns are supernatural, and that I couldn't prove it didn't exist.

But the substance of their argument is the claim that people have a natural impetus to believe in god, and therefore god is a natural concept.

I kind of felt that whether a belief in god is natural (it might be for all I know) doesn't really speak to whether a god, as an indepedent entity whose existence is not predicated on anyone's belief in him, is supernatural.
oh so he had supernatural confused with superstition.

its more a problem if his understanding that supernatural is not a pejorative word than that god (judeo-christian) isnt supernatural.

The same way any exertion of power can self-moderate.

And is a self-moderated exertion of power natural?


Your premise, "he IS the laws of nature", means that, because something must be what it is, he is thus bound by what he is, the laws of nature.

If God is merely a system of laws, such a thing is bound by its own limits, and problematic even by Godel's (sic?) incompleteness .

For the record, my premise that "he IS the laws of nature" is in refutation of the post I was responding to. I personally do not think that the laws of nature could bind themselves without inherent dilemma. For one, that would toss our concepts of cause and effect into chaos.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Godel.

"Natural" and "Supernatural" have concrete definitions, somewhere along the lines of "natural" meaning existing in and subject to the natural world, and "supernatural" meaning existing not in nor subject to the natural world.

Under this definition, may a supernatural being choose to enter the "space" of the natural world, manifest within it, while not being subject to its rule?

That is to say, can an supernatural being decide to incarnate on earth, but float around, travel faster than light, see the future (not necessarily control it, just look at it, through prophecy or whatever), etc, can the supernatural being "pop in" to the natural world without being trapped by it?

Yeah, but "supernatural" things cannot be proven to exist at all. So saying you don't believe that there is such a thing as a "supernatural" something is not unreasonable, and does not seek to alter meanings of words.


Haha, good luck with that.

A set may be defined exactly, regardless of whether or not there are any members of that set. One may agree to the definition of "supernatural" and then clarify that he considers this to be an empty set.

As far as the definition of "God" I maintain that the standard philosophical definition of "God," which is the generally accepted meaning of the term, suffices: "An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." Such a definition would allow for reasonable conversation without delving into the mire of, "Well, what if God is ..."

People who believe that god is nature, do call it "nature." The two are synonymous to them.

Then they have a superfluous word. :)

And is a self-moderated exertion of power natural?

I would suppose that depends on whether its a power limited by nature, or a power that can ignore nature (if there is such a thing).

If nature is the only power, or the superlative power, it would have to be, with those assumptions in place.



For the record, my premise that "he IS the laws of nature" is in refutation of the post I was responding to. I personally do not think that the laws of nature could bind themselves without inherent dilemma. For one, that would toss our concepts of cause and effect into chaos.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Godel.

Don't worry, Godel isn't really gospel to anything (gospel in the alliterative sense, not the literal sense).

I guess "bound" in this case would mean "bound to be consistent with themselves", sort of like an ideal system of juris prudence lack paradox, and is bound by the necessity to avoid hypocrisy. (Note, this is the idealized version).

Under this definition, may a supernatural being choose to enter the "space" of the natural world, manifest within it, while not being subject to its rule?

That is to say, can an supernatural being decide to incarnate on earth, but float around, travel faster than light, see the future (not necessarily control it, just look at it, through prophecy or whatever), etc, can the supernatural being "pop in" to the natural world without being trapped by it?

Yes, such a being could, conceivably manifest within the natural world, without thereby being subject to said laws. It could, for instance, exert its will externally, to influence natural events in a particular way.
If such a being were to enter the natural world, however, it would in fact be subject to the natural laws, such as gravity and light speed limitation (assuming c is really the limit).

"Natural" and "Supernatural" have concrete definitions...

I'd dispute that there's anything in the world that has a "concrete definition". We each have our own understanding of terms, our own interpretation of words and concepts, our own grasp of reality...

Yes, such a being could, conceivably manifest within the natural world, without thereby being subject to said laws. It could, for instance, exert its will externally, to influence natural events in a particular way.
If such a being were to enter the natural world, however, it would in fact be subject to the natural laws, such as gravity and light speed limitation (assuming c is really the limit).

So that is to say, if it exerts itself remotely from its "supernatural" throne or whatever, it can preserve its supernatural nature, but if it steps into the natural world, it is subject to a sort of "juristiction" of the natural world, sort of like how the Agents in the Matrix could still miss because of the rules of the world they entered?

I just used a Matrix referenced. I don't think I'm fit to discuss this...

So that is to say, if it exerts itself remotely from its "supernatural" throne or whatever, it can preserve its supernatural nature, but if it steps into the natural world, it is subject to a sort of "juristiction" of the natural world, sort of like how the Agents in the Matrix could still miss because of the rules of the world they entered?

I just used a Matrix referenced. I don't think I'm fit to discuss this...

Exactly.
Given that the Matrix borrowed heavily from Judeo-Christian theology, I think don't think it speaks ill of you.

Under this definition, may a supernatural being choose to enter the "space" of the natural world, manifest within it, while not being subject to its rule?

That is to say, can an supernatural being decide to incarnate on earth, but float around, travel faster than light, see the future (not necessarily control it, just look at it, through prophecy or whatever), etc, can the supernatural being "pop in" to the natural world without being trapped by it?

By my definition: supernatural being is not "a"; it is inhabiting space, it is the space inhabited, it is incarnate on earth, it is the choice to incarnate, and it is the earth; etc. Supernatural being is the all-being.

I realise that probably doesn't contribute to the discussion.

As far as the definition of "God" I maintain that the standard philosophical definition of "God," which is the generally accepted meaning of the term, suffices: "An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." Such a definition would allow for reasonable conversation without delving into the mire of, "Well, what if God is ..."

Oh, golly, hon... there's hardly any "standard" definition in philosophy. There's not even in theology.

A set may be defined exactly, regardless of whether or not there are any members of that set. One may agree to the definition of "supernatural" and then clarify that he considers this to be an empty set.
Yes, you could do that. In fact, you can do that easily with such clearly defined words. However, I think it would make for a rather dry and potentially very short debate, if people were not allowed to bring their own interpretations to the table and put them into play if they fit the parameters of the topic. For instance, I would state ahead of time that I consider the "supernatural" set to be empty. In so doing, I have already made my entire argument -- god is not supernatural because nothing is. And there is precious little for anyone else to hook onto in that. If they disagree with my position that the "supernatural" set is empty then all they can really do with my argument is ignore it.

My point is that some pre-definition is good, but too much will kill debate by closing different viewpoints off into their pre-defined little boxes with relatively little overlap or flexibility.

As far as the definition of "God" I maintain that the standard philosophical definition of "God," which is the generally accepted meaning of the term, suffices: "An omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." Such a definition would allow for reasonable conversation without delving into the mire of, "Well, what if God is ..."
And I think that is a very Judeo-Christian-centric viewpoint that cuts hundreds of millions of people out of the conversation.

If the goal of this conversation is to open a discussion of god-nature and god in nature or god out of nature, then I think we should make the effort to put up with multiple god-concepts, so long as all participants make sure to define their terms for the group.

On the other hand if the goal of this conversation is just to get an answer to a limited question about just one particular god-concept then there's not much mileage in that, in my opinion:

Q: Is the Judeo-Christian God supernatural according to the standard English definition of that word?

A: Yes.

/thread

Then they have a superfluous word. :)
It depends on the context. Synonyms mean the same thing, but sometimes one is better suited to a particular conversation than the other is.

I would suppose that depends on whether its a power limited by nature, or a power that can ignore nature (if there is such a thing).

If nature is the only power, or the superlative power, it would have to be, with those assumptions in place.

And is "self-moderation" limited by nature or ignoring nature? (Think: free will.)

I have one thing to say to this. Rock me sexy Hammurab.

I just used a Matrix referenced. I don't think I'm fit to discuss this...

:) Or perhaps uniquely fit...

I have one thing to say to this. Rock me sexy Hammurab.
I just saw that movie! *falls about in helpless fit of laughter -- again* *keeps humming that tune* *hears Jeremy Irons voice in her head* :D

Yes, you could do that. In fact, you can do that easily with such clearly defined words. However, I think it would make for a rather dry and potentially very short debate, if people were not allowed to bring their own interpretations to the table and put them into play if they fit the parameters of the topic. For instance, I would state ahead of time that I consider the "supernatural" set to be empty. In so doing, I have already made my entire argument -- god is not supernatural because nothing is. And there is precious little for anyone else to hook onto in that. If they disagree with my position that the "supernatural" set is empty then all they can really do with my argument is ignore it.

My point is that some pre-definition is good, but too much will kill debate by closing different viewpoints off into their pre-defined little boxes with relatively little overlap or flexibility.


And I think that is a very Judeo-Christian-centric viewpoint that cuts hundreds of millions of people out of the conversation.

If the goal of this conversation is to open a discussion of god-nature and god in nature or god out of nature, then I think we should make the effort to put up with multiple god-concepts, so long as all participants make sure to define their terms for the group.

On the other hand if the goal of this conversation is just to get an answer to a limited question about just one particular god-concept then there's not much mileage in that, in my opinion:

Q: Is the Judeo-Christian God supernatural according to the standard English definition of that word?

A: Yes.

/thread

Most atheists, who do not accept that the concept of God is instantiated, nevertheless agree that God is supernatural, as most people who do not believe unicorns exist agree they are supernatural.

What movie is it?

Oh, golly, hon... there's hardly any "standard" definition in philosophy. There's not even in theology.

There are in fact standard definitions of God. The particulars are left out of the definition, and added in various interpretations, but several key concepts do form a definition that is accepted in most areas of philosophy. Theology, by contrast, is largely concerned with fattening out the basic definition, and examining the implications of it.

There are in fact standard definitions of God. The particulars are left out of the definition, and added in various interpretations, but several key concepts do form a definition that is accepted in most areas of philosophy. Theology, by contrast, is largely concerned with fattening out the basic definition, and examining the implications of it.

The "particulars" are what make for a standard. If there is no particular way that the plumber should install your toilet, it might just be left to chance.

Most atheists, who do not accept that the concept of God is instantiated, nevertheless agree that God is supernatural, as most people who do not believe unicorns exist agree they are supernatural.
So... having invited me to designate the "supernatural" set as empty, you now propose to cut me out of the conversation on that basis? Because according to what you just said, you are assuming that everyone will assign the label "supernatural" to something or other, either because they believe in "supernatural" things or they call things they don't believe in "supernatural", whereas I just told you that I don't believe that anything is supernatural. It's either natural, or it doesn't exist. That view does not allow me to attach the label "supernatural" to a unicorn just because someone else might.

The "particulars" are what make for a standard. If there is no particular way that the plumber should install your toilet, it might just be left to chance.

The standard is a basis point for discussion. It is what prevents discussions about, say, how God would act in a given situation, from devolving into, "Yeah, but what if God were a big rock in Death Valley?" The standard definitions are what brings a discussion into the realm of a rational discussion.
Take your analogy, for instance. Toilets are largely standardized, and thus the particulars of each installation are largely similar. This is the standard "definition" for how toilets should be installed. There are, however, individual particulars unique to the case, i.e. the amount of turns of the wrench, the placement of the toilet in relation to the rest of the bathroom, special pipes or fittings to reduce flow or prevent decay. All these are added onto the standard definition, to come up with a concept that is specific to the case at hand.
The discipline of philosophy of religion is focused on examining the standard definition, which is generally-agreed to be that which I stated above. The discipline of theology is focused on filling out the definition, and examining its implications. In your example, philosophy is the toilet-installation manual, theology is the plumber who installs it in your bathroom.

So... having invited me to designate the "supernatural" set as empty, you now propose to cut me out of the conversation on that basis? Because according to what you just said, you are assuming that everyone will assign the label "supernatural" to something or other, either because they believe in "supernatural" things or they call things they don't believe in "supernatural", whereas I just told you that I don't believe that anything is supernatural. It's either natural, or it doesn't exist. That view does not allow me to attach the label "supernatural" to a unicorn just because someone else might.

The phrases "God is supernatural" and "The set of all things supernatural is empty" are mutually exclusive. However, if you merely say "The set of all things supernatural is empty of instantiated particulars" then the discussion may continue.

The standard is a basis point for discussion. It is what prevents discussions about, say, how God would act in a given situation, from devolving into, "Yeah, but what if God were a big rock in Death Valley?" The standard definitions are what brings a discussion into the realm of a rational discussion.
Take your analogy, for instance. Toilets are largely standardized, and thus the particulars of each installation are largely similar. This is the standard "definition" for how toilets should be installed. There are, however, individual particulars unique to the case, i.e. the amount of turns of the wrench, the placement of the toilet in relation to the rest of the bathroom, special pipes or fittings to reduce flow or prevent decay. All these are added onto the standard definition, to come up with a concept that is specific to the case at hand.
The discipline of philosophy of religion is focused on examining the standard definition, which is generally-agreed to be that which I stated above. The discipline of theology is focused on filling out the definition, and examining its implications. In your example, philosophy is the toilet-installation manual, theology is the plumber who installs it in your bathroom.
You have not responded to my earlier complaint that your "standard" definition of "god" is too narrow.

However, I do approve of the bolded sentence, above. That made me smile. :D (Though I'm not sure it's an accurate analogy.)

The standard is a basis point for discussion. It is what prevents discussions about, say, how God would act in a given situation, from devolving into, "Yeah, but what if God were a big rock in Death Valley?" The standard definitions are what brings a discussion into the realm of a rational discussion.
Take your analogy, for instance. Toilets are largely standardized, and thus the particulars of each installation are largely similar. This is the standard "definition" for how toilets should be installed. There are, however, individual particulars unique to the case, i.e. the amount of turns of the wrench, the placement of the toilet in relation to the rest of the bathroom, special pipes or fittings to reduce flow or prevent decay. All these are added onto the standard definition, to come up with a concept that is specific to the case at hand.
The discipline of philosophy of religion is focused on examining the standard definition, which is generally-agreed to be that which I stated above. The discipline of theology is focused on filling out the definition, and examining its implications. In your example, philosophy is the toilet-installation manual, theology is the plumber who installs it in your bathroom.

But the particulars for each installation are largely similar because the method is standardized. The standard is those particulars.

The phrases "God is supernatural" and "The set of all things supernatural is empty" are mutually exclusive. However, if you merely say "The set of all things supernatural is empty of instantiated particulars" then the discussion may continue.
A) How may it continue?

B) Merriam-Webster sez "instantiate" means ": to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance <heroes instantiate ideals — W. J. Bennett>" How do you propose to "instantiate" supernatural god-concepts? EDIT: Or natural ones, for that matter?

EDIT2: I reject your suggested possible wording of "The set of all things supernatural is empty of instantiated particulars" on the grounds that my set of the "supernatural" is not a "set of all things" that fall under that rubric. It is a set of nothing and it is empty of anything, instantiated or otherwise.

It isn't narrow when we accept that "God" does not mean "a thing which is worshipped." A Hindu, for instance, could easily debate the existence of God, using the standard definition, merely taking into account that, for the purposes of the debate, the term "God" does not refer to an object of his worship, but to a supposed philosophically defined being. In fact, the philosophical definition of God does not specify or necessitate that the being has any worshippers at all. Whether or not God is worshipped makes no difference according to the philosophical definition.

A) How may it continue?

B) Merriam-Webster sez "instantiate" means ": to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance <heroes instantiate ideals — W. J. Bennett>" How do you propose to "instantiate" supernatural god-concepts?

"God" here would refer to a concept, "An omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." The person would then say that the concept of "God" is not instantiated (that is, the concept has no particular which exists in reality). Given that, he could still debate other qualities which might or might not apply to that concept, without ever once declaring that the concept was instantiated.

The phrases "God is supernatural" and "The set of all things supernatural is empty" are mutually exclusive. However, if you merely say "The set of all things supernatural is empty of instantiated particulars" then the discussion may continue.

Now this I like, as it gives some particulars to the your idea of what "supernatural" is (ones I can identify with).

It isn't narrow when we accept that "God" does not mean "a thing which is worshipped." A Hindu, for instance, could easily debate the existence of God, using the standard definition, merely taking into account that, for the purposes of the debate, the term "God" does not refer to an object of his worship, but to a supposed philosophically defined being. In fact, the philosophical definition of God does not specify or necessitate that the being has any worshippers at all. Whether or not God is worshipped makes no difference according to the philosophical definition.
Speaking of defining terms, I think you need to define which philosophy you are talking about.

EDIT: Also, this would tend to contradict what you said earlier, when you stated that the "standard" definition was (or at least matched) the Judeo-Christian one.

Speaking of defining terms, I think you need to define which philosophy you are talking about.

Philosophy of Religion, a division of Western Philosophy (which is a misnomer, since Eastern Philosophy isn't philosophy at all.)

I reject your suggested possible wording of "The set of all things supernatural is empty of instantiated particulars" on the grounds that my set of the "supernatural" is not a "set of all things" that fall under that rubric. It is a set of nothing and it is empty of anything, instantiated or otherwise.

It is and it isn't: have you read The Principia Discordia (http://principiadiscordia.com/)? :)

More from me tomorrow. Bedtime.

"God" here would refer to a concept, "An omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnibenevolent personal being." The person would then say that the concept of "God" is not instantiated (that is, the concept has no particular which exists in reality). Given that, he could still debate other qualities which might or might not apply to that concept, without ever once declaring that the concept was instantiated.
A) That is the concept of god that I complained was too narrow.

B) This brings us back to my original caveat that such a debate would be dry and short because such a person would merely be arguing about something about which they had devoted little thought because it was completely unrelated to their concepts, and thus they would have little motivation to build deep, interesting arguments or to pursue or defend them well. Having stated my position that, for me, the idea of a supernatural god is a non-starter, I can go on to speak (potentially) meaningfully about qualities that might apply to a natural god, but any comment I might have about a supernatural would be fluff, at best.

And is "self-moderation" limited by nature or ignoring nature? (Think: free will.)

My we say that a being in choosing to self-moderate will naturally heed its own nature, but not necessarily any subordinate nature, which may include what we think of as "nature"?

Or if we continue with the premise that god and nature are mutual subsets and thus equal, you have a god limited by many of the same rules that I am, and he is a "smaller" god in that sense. Not necessarily a bad one, just not as "whoopee super hoo hoo", as Aquinas said.

More from me tomorrow. Bedtime.

Ack. Me too. But I'll miss so much discussion overnight.

Philosophy of Religion, a division of Western Philosophy (which is a misnomer, since Eastern Philosophy isn't philosophy at all.)
There are a lot of philosophies of religion. That sounds like a course title. I'm asking you which philosophy of religion you are using? Which philosopher?

Ack. Me too. But I'll miss so much discussion overnight.
No, you won't, because I (*preen*) am going to bed, too, and you can read it all over breakfast tomorrow anyway. :D

May we say that a being in choosing to self-moderate will naturally heed its own nature, but not necessarily any subordinate nature, which may include what we think of as "nature"?

Can a rock be such a being, in your view?

Can what we think be such a being, in your view?

Or if we continue with the premise that god and nature are mutual subsets and thus equal, you have a god limited by many of the same rules that I am, and he is a "smaller" god in that sense. Not necessarily a bad one, just not as "whoopee super hoo hoo", as Aquinas said.

Are mutual subsets merely equated, or the same thing? I'm not a maths expert. :)

Are you really "limited" by rules, or do you limit yourself by the identification of "rules"?

As the OP, I call a time out so everyone can sleep, otherwise, once the lesions develop on our parietal lobes become infected from lack of sleep, this whole thing will take a turn for the worse...

"Cthulhu is NOT supernatural! He comes from the stars!"

"I didn't fucking SAY Cthulhu, you shit smear, I said the Cthulhu Mythos, a much broader concept!!"

"I'll fucking kill you!"

What, everyone's gone to bed now? Oh well. Guess I'll post to myself. Darned cross-atlantic time-differences.

Firstly, to the point at hand; yes, the definition of God as laid out is overly narrow. No, that doesn't necessarily matter if we're only interested in discussing the consequences of that particular definition, but yes, the consequences of that particular definition are both immediate and conclusive. In addition, the question of whether or not that particular definition is instantiable is also immediately resolveable, by virtue of the inherently self-contradictory nature of omnipotence and the conflict between those properties and the problem of ongoing suffering.

So to adopt that definition is to end the discussion and assert that Atheist assertion of supernatural fiction is the only logical position. The problem is that, surprise surprise, that definition of God is not universally accepted. Some people assert that it's sufficient to refer to God as the "Creator of the Universe", some assert that God is "the Father figure personified as a cosmic entity", some that it is simply "the source of what appears to me to be an otherwise unexplainable phenomenon".

Here's what I think - God is whatever causes an individual's religious conviction. People have some spiritual experience, they are told about it and from that point on they call it God (or a spiritual realm of Gods, or a personification of the ultimate reality, or whatever else, but let's call it God for the sake of shorthand). Those who do not have such an experience only analyse God in as much as it is explained to them by others, whereas those who do seek to better explain the God that they know to exist through simple past experience.

This God need not necessarily be an external figure. It may, for a given individual, be a result of delusion, or simply subconsciously reinterpreting an entirely trivial event. It may, on the other hand, be something outside of natural process altogether. And this is where the interesting discussion starts - is the source of the Idea of God natural or supernatural?

Can he create more nature arbitrarily? Can he change the rules of nature at will?

If he wanted more nature, no nature, or less nature, could he do so?

If he wanted, for whatever reason, to end all nature yet still exist himself, could he?

In theology, the "state of nature" is specifically contrasted to the divine "state of grace", and even if the two overlap, is God limited only to the "state of nature" or does he supervent it by also possessing the "state of grace"?

If God "IS" nature, is he not also more (ostensibly)?

God can be transcendent and immanent, i.e. supernatural and natural. In that respect, the answers would be yes.

A perfect being, by definition, cannot change and remain perfect.

"And yet, it moves"

I should've put "Is the Judeo Christian God supernatural by the meaning of Webster's dictionary"?

Yes. All three of them. But the Father more obviously so than the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Under this definition, may a supernatural being choose to enter the "space" of the natural world, manifest within it, while not being subject to its rule?

That is to say, can an supernatural being decide to incarnate on earth, but float around, travel faster than light, see the future (not necessarily control it, just look at it, through prophecy or whatever), etc, can the supernatural being "pop in" to the natural world without being trapped by it?

In Judeo-Christian myth, the Holy Spirit does exactly that.

What, everyone's gone to bed now? Oh well. Guess I'll post to myself. Darned cross-atlantic time-differences.

Firstly, to the point at hand; yes, the definition of God as laid out is overly narrow. No, that doesn't necessarily matter if we're only interested in discussing the consequences of that particular definition, but yes, the consequences of that particular definition are both immediate and conclusive. In addition, the question of whether or not that particular definition is instantiable is also immediately resolveable, by virtue of the inherently self-contradictory nature of omnipotence and the conflict between those properties and the problem of ongoing suffering.

So to adopt that definition is to end the discussion and assert that Atheist assertion of supernatural fiction is the only logical position. The problem is that, surprise surprise, that definition of God is not universally accepted. Some people assert that it's sufficient to refer to God as the "Creator of the Universe", some assert that God is "the Father figure personified as a cosmic entity", some that it is simply "the source of what appears to me to be an otherwise unexplainable phenomenon".

Here's what I think - God is whatever causes an individual's religious conviction. People have some spiritual experience, they are told about it and from that point on they call it God (or a spiritual realm of Gods, or a personification of the ultimate reality, or whatever else, but let's call it God for the sake of shorthand). Those who do not have such an experience only analyse God in as much as it is explained to them by others, whereas those who do seek to better explain the God that they know to exist through simple past experience.

This God need not necessarily be an external figure. It may, for a given individual, be a result of delusion, or simply subconsciously reinterpreting an entirely trivial event. It may, on the other hand, be something outside of natural process altogether. And this is where the interesting discussion starts - is the source of the Idea of God natural or supernatural?
:hail: Thank you! Yes! ^^This is what I've been on about -- or trying to be with not so much success.

....And this is where the interesting discussion starts - is the source of the Idea of God natural or supernatural?

Then what we need is a method for determining if this source is internal or external.

Then what we need is a method for determining if this source is internal or external.
Yes, and that will either be a source of endless, animated debate, or a brickwall in the path of the discussion.

In truth, I'd be torn between saying that it could be both, or that all ideas of god are internally sourced to the thinker/observer. Here's why:

> If there is an external object/entity that is "god" (by some objective criteria), then it arises both externally, as the object/entity, and internally, as our idea/understanding/interpretation of the object/entity.

> On the other hand, if our idea/understanding/interpretation of the object/entity is what determines our reaction and relationship to it, then is it not possible that the entire question of the external existence of an object/entity becomes moot? If all that matters to how humans live and act is what's inside our heads, then who cares what's outside of our heads? If that is the case, then, by virtue of being moot, the question of an external source for the idea of god becomes irrelevant to a discussion of god, and thus we may as well say, the idea of god has ONLY an internal source, that being our own minds.

That still leaves room for the question of whether the idea is natural, though, but I think it would require an adjustment of our expectations of what "natural" and "supernatural" would be.

A poster on NSG a while ago claimed God (in the case, context indicated the Judeo Christian God, but qualify your answer as you wish) was NOT supernatural.

I claim that God, whether it exists or not, is a concept that posesses the property of being supernatural, whether the concept represents a real thing or not.

If God is the creator of the universe(or the nautural wordl) then how can god be supernatural?

Yes, and that will either be a source of endless, animated debate, or a brickwall in the path of the discussion.

In truth, I'd be torn between saying that it could be both, or that all ideas of god are internally sourced to the thinker/observer. Here's why:

> If there is an external object/entity that is "god" (by some objective criteria), then it arises both externally, as the object/entity, and internally, as our idea/understanding/interpretation of the object/entity.

> On the other hand, if our idea/understanding/interpretation of the object/entity is what determines our reaction and relationship to it, then is it not possible that the entire question of the external existence of an object/entity becomes moot? If all that matters to how humans live and act is what's inside our heads, then who cares what's outside of our heads? If that is the case, then, by virtue of being moot, the question of an external source for the idea of god becomes irrelevant to a discussion of god, and thus we may as well say, the idea of god has ONLY an internal source, that being our own minds.

That still leaves room for the question of whether the idea is natural, though, but I think it would require an adjustment of our expectations of what "natural" and "supernatural" would be.

Any observation of anything, whether it be internal or external, will be biased by our own internal paradigms. So, I agree that any ideas of god must arise from either a mixture of internal and external sources, or solely internal ones.

I think it is more of a mixture of the two, but the second option would still be consistent with my experience. In terms of the functions that god provides in our lives, both are valid.

But if we could determine that our ideas of god stem from an external source, then we would know it was the first option.

Would it be necessary for god to be natural (at least partially) in order for this to happen? I think it would depend on whatever criteria we use to determine the internality or externality of the source.

Any observation of anything, whether it be internal or external, will be biased by our own internal paradigms. So, I agree that any ideas of god must arise from either a mixture of internal and external sources, or solely internal ones.

I think it is more of a mixture of the two, but the second option would still be consistent with my experience. In terms of the functions that god provides in our lives, both are valid.

But if we could determine that our ideas of god stem from an external source, then we would know it was the first option.
Yes, true. I just wonder if it would matter, and if so, in what way or to what extent.

Would it be necessary for god to be natural (at least partially) in order for this to happen? I think it would depend on whatever criteria we use to determine the internality or externality of the source.
Well, considering my opinion about "natural" versus "supernatural," I would not be able to answer that fully. To my way of thinking, regardless of what one's god-concept is or what it stems from, it is, by virtue of its mere existence (even if only as a thought), natural.

Even if one wanted to argue that "god" is somehow outside of nature, the idea of god held by a person cannot be, because it is the product of a mind, which is a natural feature of a being that exists in nature (the person holding the idea).

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

If God is the creator of the universe(or the nautural wordl) then how can god be supernatural?

Precisely because he can (in concept, at least) create a universe, a natural world, he is therefore, if he exists, above and beyond mere nature and is thus by definition supernatural.

Supernatural, adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if your God has none of these properties, he isn't a deity, cannot excercise divine power, and is not miraculous.

In the Judeo-Christian sense he is. What with turning people into salt, mooning and wrestling, impregnating a virgin (and then still calling her a virgin; even Zeus was not that political!), and perpetual fascination with the Jews.

Precisely because he can (in concept, at least) create a universe, a natural world, he is therefore, if he exists, above and beyond mere nature and is thus by definition supernatural.

Supernatural, adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if your God has none of these properties, he isn't a deity, cannot excercise divine power, and is not miraculous.
unless god IS that universe. he is not outside of it, he IS it. then he is utterly and completely natural. perhaps the very definition of natural.

in the beginning was god (and the word but leave john out of it). god created the universe and everything in it.

out of what?

out of himself as that is the only thing that existed.

you and i, the rocks and trees, the earth, the moon and everything else that exists are made of "god" just as scientifically we are made of bits of the big bang.

can "god" change the laws of nature? i dunno but he doesnt seem to be inclined to do so since the rules were set in the first fraction of a second after the big bang some billions of years ago. although there is the occasional unexplainable thing that we call a miracle that might be some evidence of it.

Precisely because he can (in concept, at least) create a universe, a natural world, he is therefore, if he exists, above and beyond mere nature and is thus by definition supernatural.

Supernatural, adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if your God has none of these properties, he isn't a deity, cannot excercise divine power, and is not miraculous.

All of this may mean something to me if we had a diffinitive list what is natural, and what is not. I would say that everything that exists does so naturaly though wouldn't you.

Well, considering my opinion about "natural" versus "supernatural," I would not be able to answer that fully. To my way of thinking, regardless of what one's god-concept is or what it stems from, it is, by virtue of its mere existence (even if only as a thought), natural.

Even if one wanted to argue that "god" is somehow outside of nature, the idea of god held by a person cannot be, because it is the product of a mind, which is a natural feature of a being that exists in nature (the person holding the idea).

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

Exactly. The idea is purely natural, or existing in our concensual reality. So, if god wanted to inspire it, and was supernatural, outside of reality, would god haveto somehow manifest in our natural reality before inspiring the idea of god in us?

unless god IS that universe. he is not outside of it, he IS it. then he is utterly and completely natural. perhaps the very definition of natural.

in the beginning was god (and the word but leave john out of it). god created the universe and everything in it.

out of what?

out of himself as that is the only thing that existed.

you and i, the rocks and trees, the earth, the moon and everything else that exists are made of "god" just as scientifically we are made of bits of the big bang.

can "god" change the laws of nature? i dunno but he doesnt seem to be inclined to do so since the rules were set in the first fraction of a second after the big bang some billions of years ago. although there is the occasional unexplainable thing that we call a miracle that might be some evidence of it.

If he can't change the laws of nature, he's not divine or miraculous as the word is divined.

If he can, he is supernatural, as the word is defined.

If we, and our sin, are made out of God, he contains and is made partially of sin, and if he doesn't, not everything is made out of God.

If God "IS" the universe and nothing more, he is far less impressive, and as the word is defined, he is not "divine" or "miraculous". Low end god.

All of this may mean something to me if we had a diffinitive list what is natural, and what is not. I would say that everything that exists does so naturaly though wouldn't you.

If everything that exists does so naturally and not through a power greater than nature, then there is nothing "divine", "miraculous" or that is a "diety" as the words are defined above.

Again, the "supernatural", as defined in the dictionary, includes anything that is "divine", "miraculous", or "relating to a diety".

So, if your God is not supernatural, he is not, by definition, a diety. Low end god.

God is not supernatural in the sense that he (they) is (are) a psychological and sociological phenomenon.

I dunno, dude, I kind of felt the same way, but this thread is meant to touch on the "reasonable person" test of whether I'm crazy thinking that God, even if he's out there, is supernatural.

*sigh*
I M OU22III.
*UnSighZZZ*
:(
ByeZ
:(

He is supernatural. He is also superserious.

Exactly. The idea is purely natural, or existing in our concensual reality. So, if god wanted to inspire it, and was supernatural, outside of reality, would god haveto somehow manifest in our natural reality before inspiring the idea of god in us?
A) To answer according to my own viewpoint: God is not "supernatural", so it's not an issue.

B) To thought-play with your hypothetical: IF there were such a thing as the "supernatural," I don't know, I'd have to think about it. There are a number of options. Off the top of my head:

1) Yes, he would, IF it is impossible for a mind that exists within natural reality to perceive anything that exists within supernatural reality.

However, that would mean that the barrier between "natural" and "supernatural" is so total and absolute that the "natural" cannot ever be aware of the "supernatural." In practical terms, then, would that not be equivalent to the "supernatural" not existing at all, from the perspective of the "natural"?

And if the god had to manifest in natural reality in order to be perceived, then, at least for the time he was perceivable, he would be a natural entity. So then we would say that the idea of god is natural and is inspired by a natural external object/entity, wouldn't we? Not a natural idea inspired by a supernatural object/entity, because he wasn't supernatural when he inspired it.

2) No, he would not, IF it is possible for the natural to be aware of the supernatural. If the natural can perceive the supernatural, then a supernatural god would not have to change his nature or form of manifestation in order to inspire an idea of god in a human mind, which, by virtue of being an human idea, would itself be natural, not supernatural.

However, you could say that the supernatural god IS changing his manifestation to a natural one in order to be understood by humans, if you consider the idea of him to be a manifestation of him. (I know that's a very loose use of the word "manifestation", but...) The supernatural god manifests in the natural form of the idea of god in human minds. The only difference with scenario #1 is that this time, the god does not have to change before being perceived/thought of. The perception/thought IS the change.

Second however, if the natural can perceive the supernatural (presumably with its natural senses and brains), then what is it about the supernatural that makes it different from the natural? Does this bring us back to my real viewpoint that there is no such thing as "supernatural"?

Precisely because he can (in concept, at least) create a universe, a natural world, he is therefore, if he exists, above and beyond mere nature and is thus by definition supernatural.

Supernatural, adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if your God has none of these properties, he isn't a deity, cannot excercise divine power, and is not miraculous.
I question the proper application to this conversation of definitions 3, 4, and 5 on the grounds that they are based on a more narrow usage in relation strictly to religion.

Definitions 1 and 2 seem to be more generic and referring to the core concept of the word, whereas 3 - 5 are religion-specific. If we are to discuss the validity of the concept of supernatural itself, then it seems to me we should decide whether we want "supernatural" to be a word that has a specifically religious connotation or a word that refers to a state of being or a condition of existence in general.

However, I would point out that if you opt for the religious connotation, then you have killed your own thread, because then the only possible answer to the OP question is "Yes", and you have provided that answer yourself.

All of this may mean something to me if we had a diffinitive list what is natural, and what is not. I would say that everything that exists does so naturaly though wouldn't you.

Cher exists...

Precisely because he can (in concept, at least) create a universe, a natural world, he is therefore, if he exists, above and beyond mere nature and is thus by definition supernatural.

Supernatural, adjective

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if your God has none of these properties, he isn't a deity, cannot excercise divine power, and is not miraculous.
Not necessarily. The god Thoth, for example, as god of wisdom, is often referred to as "The Self-Creating." It is, of course, an allegorical description (wisdom creates wisdom; get it?; anyway...). The point is that, if we pretend the description is literal for a moment, there is no suggestion that the god of wisdom exists outside of wisdom. Wisdom is what he IS, not something he produces. It is a continuously self-creating whole, unto itself. Wisdom is wisdom. It is not a product of a superwisdom entity.

Isn't it conceivable that a god that created the universe, which humans call "nature," out of himself is also a continuously self-creating (and self-consuming) whole and IS the thing he is known for creating? Nature is what the god IS, not something he made external of himself. In creating the universe, he is manifesting himself. So if the creator and the creation are the same thing, what does that make the universe? Natural or supernatural? What does that make the god? Natural or supernatural?

I question the proper application to this conversation of definitions 3, 4, and 5 on the grounds that they are based on a more narrow usage in relation strictly to religion.

Definitions 1 and 2 seem to be more generic and referring to the core concept of the word, whereas 3 - 5 are religion-specific. If we are to discuss the validity of the concept of supernatural itself, then it seems to me we should decide whether we want "supernatural" to be a word that has a specifically religious connotation or a word that refers to a state of being or a condition of existence in general.

However, I would point out that if you opt for the religious connotation, then you have killed your own thread, because then the only possible answer to the OP question is "Yes", and you have provided that answer yourself.

Yeah, I think I already killed it a little bit when I sort of after-the-fact attached it to "the judeo christian god in the dictionary sense of supernatural", I think there's a lot more wiggle room with defs 1 and 2.

If he can't change the laws of nature, he's not divine or miraculous as the word is divined.

If he can, he is supernatural, as the word is defined.

If we, and our sin, are made out of God, he contains and is made partially of sin, and if he doesn't, not everything is made out of God.

If God "IS" the universe and nothing more, he is far less impressive, and as the word is defined, he is not "divine" or "miraculous". Low end god.
Sin just fucks up everything. Sin was a stupid idea from the start, imo. Frankly, I have my doubts about its origins.

If everything that exists does so naturally and not through a power greater than nature, then there is nothing "divine", "miraculous" or that is a "diety" as the words are defined above.

Again, the "supernatural", as defined in the dictionary, includes anything that is "divine", "miraculous", or "relating to a diety".

So, if your God is not supernatural, he is not, by definition, a diety. Low end god.
What would you consider "miraculous"?

Personally, I don't consider anything "miraculous." If a god appeared as a column of fire and parted the Red Sea so I could get where I needed to go, to me that would be an entirely natural and possible event, since obviously, it happened in the natural world. I would be overwhelming grateful to the god for going to so much trouble on my behalf, but "miracle"? It's just the sort of thing gods do.

So, to you, what would constitute a "miracle" and why do you consider it inherently not natural?

Not necessarily. The god Thoth, for example, as god of wisdom, is often referred to as "The Self-Creating." It is, of course, an allegorical description (wisdom creates wisdom; get it?; anyway...). The point is that, if we pretend the description is literal for a moment, there is no suggestion that the god of wisdom exists outside of wisdom. Wisdom is what he IS, not something he produces. It is a continuously self-creating whole, unto itself. Wisdom is wisdom. It is not a product of a superwisdom entity.

Are we looking only at definitions 1 and 2? Because I maintain that by 3-5, that is to say, supernatural means "of or relating to a diety, divine, or miraculous", if something is a "God == Diety", then its supernatural by 3-5.

By 1-2, I think you could swing what you're describing.


Isn't it conceivable that a god that created the universe, which humans call "nature," out of himself is also a continuously self-creating (and self-consuming) whole and IS the thing he is known for creating? Nature is what the god IS, not something he made external of himself. In creating the universe, he is manifesting himself. So if the creator and the creation are the same thing, what does that make the universe? Natural or supernatural? What does that make the god? Natural or supernatural?

It makes him no greater than nature, subject to nature as all things are subject to their inherent characteristics, and that seems like a really low end god compared to the one in defs 3-5.

If there are imperfections (a sort of arbitrary term) in nature, if there is greed or death or weakness or failure in nature, and all nature is part of God, then he/it has all these things.

If the weakness and failure is part of our (or whoever's) failings separate from God, then there is something separate from God and he is not all of nature.

Still seems like a low end god.

He is supernatural. He is also superserious.

REM references for the....win?

If he can't change the laws of nature, he's not divine or miraculous as the word is divined.

If he can, he is supernatural, as the word is defined.

If we, and our sin, are made out of God, he contains and is made partially of sin, and if he doesn't, not everything is made out of God.

If God "IS" the universe and nothing more, he is far less impressive, and as the word is defined, he is not "divine" or "miraculous". Low end god.
gee isnt that kind of like the guy living in a shack saying that the rich man's mansion isnt as nice as it could be?

who are you to say that its not enough? you cant do it. you dont know the constraints. to be "god" does he have to be able to to utterly anything at any time no matter how he set up the system that he is working in?

What would you consider "miraculous"?

Personally, I don't consider anything "miraculous." If a god appeared as a column of fire and parted the Red Sea so I could get where I needed to go, to me that would be an entirely natural and possible event, since obviously, it happened in the natural world. I would be overwhelming grateful to the god for going to so much trouble on my behalf, but "miracle"? It's just the sort of thing gods do.

So, to you, what would constitute a "miracle" and why do you consider it inherently not natural?

I consider it "supernatural" by the dictionary definition. But again, you've pointed out that if we go by defs 3-5, it sort of just settles the question by only using those.

If nature has observable (although not provably universal, I suppose) laws, a miracle is when some divine thing can change or violate those rules for its own reasons. Breaking or bending the laws of nature for divine purposes. Again, though, the foot of this is rooted in defs 3-5.

By 1-2, it seems that the currently unmodeled part of nature could do stuff we just don't have a premise for yet, it would just be the "part of nature we don't have the goods on", so not really "supernatural", but again, that's a pretty low end god.

gee isnt that kind of like the guy living in a shack saying that the rich man's mansion isnt as nice as it could be?

who are you to say that its not enough? you cant do it. you dont know the constraints. to be "god" does he have to be able to to utterly anything at any time no matter how he set up the system that he is working in?

The guy in the shack isn't claiming to be perfect, divine, or a diety. If the guy in the mansion is, a mansion doesn't cut it.

If god has any constraints, again, low end god.

And yep. Things like having to set up a system and work within it are boundaries people have to live with. If a God can't do better, he's low end.

Sin just fucks up everything. Sin was a stupid idea from the start, imo. Frankly, I have my doubts about its origins.

Yeah...would a God who mandates that some things are sin have to be somehow separate from at least some of nature, and thus be supernatural?

Yeah...would a God who mandates that some things are sin have to be somehow separate from at least some of nature, and thus be supernatural?

Nah, he could just be an asshole.

But I am FAR from convinced that it was a god who came up that crap.

The guy in the shack isn't claiming to be perfect, divine, or a diety. If the guy in the mansion is, a mansion doesn't cut it.

If god has any constraints, again, low end god.

And yep. Things like having to set up a system and work within it are boundaries people have to live with. If a God can't do better, he's low end.
who are you to say what is PERFECT? or that perfect as we might define it is necessary?

god has obviously NOT made this world perfect. he has not done everything that he theoretically could have done in that regard. does that make him unable to do it? does that make him not god?

I consider it "supernatural" by the dictionary definition. But again, you've pointed out that if we go by defs 3-5, it sort of just settles the question by only using those.

If nature has observable (although not provably universal, I suppose) laws, a miracle is when some divine thing can change or violate those rules for its own reasons. Breaking or bending the laws of nature for divine purposes. Again, though, the foot of this is rooted in defs 3-5.

By 1-2, it seems that the currently unmodeled part of nature could do stuff we just don't have a premise for yet, it would just be the "part of nature we don't have the goods on", so not really "supernatural", but again, that's a pretty low end god.

Are we looking only at definitions 1 and 2? Because I maintain that by 3-5, that is to say, supernatural means "of or relating to a diety, divine, or miraculous", if something is a "God == Diety", then its supernatural by 3-5.

By 1-2, I think you could swing what you're describing.



It makes him no greater than nature, subject to nature as all things are subject to their inherent characteristics, and that seems like a really low end god compared to the one in defs 3-5.

If there are imperfections (a sort of arbitrary term) in nature, if there is greed or death or weakness or failure in nature, and all nature is part of God, then he/it has all these things.

If the weakness and failure is part of our (or whoever's) failings separate from God, then there is something separate from God and he is not all of nature.

Still seems like a low end god.
I don't understand this obsession with high-end/low-end gods. What are you doing, comparison shopping? Trying to get more for your money?

Why does the god have to be "greater than nature"?

A god has been posited that IS nature. For some people, that would raise the profile of nature, but for you, it seems to lower the profile of the god instead. Why is that?

If god is nature, then nature is divine, nature is miraculous, according to definitions 3, 4, and 5 of "supernatural."* Why would that not be enough for you?

Another way to put this: Why do you persist in trying to discount the power of a god that manifests in a form you can comprehend? It almost seems as if you are saying that, if YOU can comprehend him, then he's not worth comprehending.


*EDIT: Except, of course, that it wouldn't be supernatural.

What happened to the multi-quote buttons? I had to copy and paste to combine those two quotes in my last post.

The guy in the shack isn't claiming to be perfect, divine, or a diety. If the guy in the mansion is, a mansion doesn't cut it.

If god has any constraints, again, low end god.

And yep. Things like having to set up a system and work within it are boundaries people have to live with. If a God can't do better, he's low end.
A mansion doesn't cut what? Just what does the guy in the mansion (the god) owe to the guy in the shack (you (rhetorical)) that he has to meet shack-boy's preconceived expectations about how rich is rich enough (how divine is divine enough)?

who are you to say what is PERFECT? or that perfect as we might define it is necessary?

god has obviously NOT made this world perfect. he has not done everything that he theoretically could have done in that regard. does that make him unable to do it? does that make him not god?

Even if your god is real, the premise is that he gave me the right to decide what my requirements are to worship something. So "who am I" is myself, and any God that doesn't consider that enough to decide what I want from a claim of "perfect" is a low end God.

If he made the world at all, if he decided, arbitrarily, what the rules of nature would be, if he can break, reverse, or alter them at will, then he is above and beyond them, and thus is "supernatural", whether he's real or not.

If he just "is" nature, then he is also all the watery green duckshit, and a god that wants for perfect and total obedience needs to be able to meet a reasonable definition of perfect.

Even if God made the world perfect and somebody else fucked it up, that would mean there is part of nature apart from God, so god by being more powerful than that segment is still "supernatural".

So, god is either supernatural (more powerful than nature, divine, miraculous, a diety, as defined in the dictionary) or he's a low end god.

I don't understand this obsession with high-end/low-end gods. What are you doing, comparison shopping? Trying to get more for your money?

Why does the god have to be "greater than nature"?

A god has been posited that IS nature. For some people, that would raise the profile of nature, but for you, it seems to lower the profile of the god instead. Why is that?

The god that "IS" nature, and nothing more, and excludes the premise of sin, seems okay, its just sort of a hippy god, doesn't have all the dressing of the big pissy god who can make twenty other completely different "natures" if he wants to. But if he's just nature, and not anything more, he's thus bound and limited.


If god is nature, then nature is divine, nature is miraculous, according to definitions 3, 4, and 5 of "supernatural." Why would that not be enough for you?

So, by the interpretation, nature is supernatural, and god is nature, so god is supernatural. So its still a "yes", isn't it?


Another way to put this: Why do you persist in trying to discount the power of a god that manifests in a form you can comprehend? It almost seems as if you are saying that, if YOU can comprehend him, then he's not worth comprehending.

Well, yeah, he needs to be unimaginably beyond me (which the totality of nature could be, of course), but if I can comprehend any real part of him, too much of him is on my level. If something wants total obedience and worship, its gotta have the full monty of being above and beyond anything I can think of, including nature. Then I'll back the pony. Its a tough standard, but I find it commeasurate with the demand for total worship.

Even if your god is real, the premise is that he gave me the right to decide what my requirements are to worship something. So "who am I" is myself, and any God that doesn't consider that enough to decide what I want from a claim of "perfect" is a low end God.

If he made the world at all, if he decided, arbitrarily, what the rules of nature would be, if he can break, reverse, or alter them at will, then he is above and beyond them, and thus is "supernatural", whether he's real or not.

If he just "is" nature, then he is also all the watery green duckshit, and a god that wants for perfect and total obedience needs to be able to meet a reasonable definition of perfect.

Even if God made the world perfect and somebody else fucked it up, that would mean there is part of nature apart from God, so god by being more powerful than that segment is still "supernatural".

So, god is either supernatural (more powerful than nature, divine, miraculous, a diety, as defined in the dictionary) or he's a low end god.
no

that doesnt make sense

either god does things the way *I* think he should or he is shit.

no.

you seem too concerned with sin.

jesus took care of sin.

Even if your god is real, the premise is that he gave me the right to decide what my requirements are to worship something. So "who am I" is myself, and any God that doesn't consider that enough to decide what I want from a claim of "perfect" is a low end God.

If he made the world at all, if he decided, arbitrarily, what the rules of nature would be, if he can break, reverse, or alter them at will, then he is above and beyond them, and thus is "supernatural", whether he's real or not.

If he just "is" nature, then he is also all the watery green duckshit, and a god that wants for perfect and total obedience needs to be able to meet a reasonable definition of perfect.

Even if God made the world perfect and somebody else fucked it up, that would mean there is part of nature apart from God, so god by being more powerful than that segment is still "supernatural".

So, god is either supernatural (more powerful than nature, divine, miraculous, a diety, as defined in the dictionary) or he's a low end god.
Wait, didn't you just say the guy in the shack WASN'T claiming to be perfect? I guess he doesn't feel the need to be perfect in order to claim the right to bark orders at a god who supposedly created the whole universe. Heh, that's a pretty small shack for such a big ego.

Oh, but wait, that's okay, he can bark orders and criticism at the god who created, maintains and will destroy the universe and still be an imperfect natural being because pride is a sin -- one of the deadly ones, I believe -- and, thus, is one of his imperfections.

Hm... maybe sin wasn't such a dumb idea, after all, if its used in the right context.

A mansion doesn't cut what? Just what does the guy in the mansion (the god) owe to the guy in the shack (you (rhetorical)) that he has to meet shack-boy's preconceived expectations about how rich is rich enough (how divine is divine enough)?

If the guy in the mansion is demanding worship (and the nature god might not, in which case it can be whatever it wants without bothering me) then he "owes" me the right to decide if he's met by requirements for me to freely choose to worship.

The other poster referenced that I was like a guy in a shack claiming the guy's mansion wasn't good enough. I was explaining that the guy in the shack has no pretension to divinity, so he has no standard to meet. The guy in the mansion, if he wants to advertise as god, needs something better than a mansion.

So, basically, as shack-boy, if the guy wants to live in the mansion, great, but if he wants to be the subject of unilateral and complete worship, then, yes, he must meet my expectations of divinity.

If he doesn't want worship, that's cool, then.

no

that doesnt make sense

either god does things the way *I* think he should or he is shit.

no.

The duck shit thing was in response to the premise that god is all of nature.

For a divine as per definition god, if he is NOT supernatural, i.e., if he can't control nature, raise people from the dead, travel faster than light, and do other miraculous things, then he's a low end god. Not shit, just low end.

I'd be more impressed with a god that IS supernatural, that can dictate the laws of nature, make a whole new universe out of nothing if he's so inclined, etc. A god who can't is anemic.

If the guy in the mansion is demanding worship (and the nature god might not, in which case it can be whatever it wants without bothering me) then he "owes" me the right to decide if he's met by requirements for me to freely choose to worship.

The other poster referenced that I was like a guy in a shack claiming the guy's mansion wasn't good enough. I was explaining that the guy in the shack has no pretension to divinity, so he has no standard to meet. The guy in the mansion, if he wants to advertise as god, needs something better than a mansion.

So, basically, as shack-boy, if the guy wants to live in the mansion, great, but if he wants to be the subject of unilateral and complete worship, then, yes, he must meet my expectations of divinity.

If he doesn't want worship, that's cool, then.
a god who IS nature doesnt require worship.

but people might enjoy the act.

The god that "IS" nature, and nothing more, and excludes the premise of sin, seems okay, its just sort of a hippy god, doesn't have all the dressing of the big pissy god who can make twenty other completely different "natures" if he wants to. But if he's just nature, and not anything more, he's thus bound and limited.
More assumptions on your part. Why do you assume that a god that is nature, is only one form of nature? If there are 20 different natures, aren't they all nature and, thus, all the god?

So, by the interpretation, nature is supernatural, and god is nature, so god is supernatural. So its still a "yes", isn't it?
No, because like matter and anti-matter the two concepts of natural and supernatural would cancel each other out. Either both words would disappear and be replaced by something else, like "god-ness" or "existence" or "reality", or they'd have to fight to the death. When words fight for supremacy, especially in English, the shorter one tends to win.

Well, yeah, he needs to be unimaginably beyond me (which the totality of nature could be, of course), but if I can comprehend any real part of him, too much of him is on my level. If something wants total obedience and worship, its gotta have the full monty of being above and beyond anything I can think of, including nature. Then I'll back the pony. Its a tough standard, but I find it commeasurate with the demand for total worship.
Why do you have such an expectation?

What's wrong with it being on your level?

You do realize, that if god is on your level, that means you are on god's level, right? I still don't understand why you perceive this as bringing a god down, instead of lifting you up.

The duck shit thing was in response to the premise that god is all of nature.

For a divine as per definition god, if he is NOT supernatural, i.e., if he can't control nature, raise people from the dead, travel faster than light, and do other miraculous things, then he's a low end god. Not shit, just low end.

I'd be more impressed with a god that IS supernatural, that can dictate the laws of nature, make a whole new universe out of nothing if he's so inclined, etc. A god who can't is anemic.
ya but maybe god IS a "low end" god. at least for us. at least for this universe.

maybe NEXT time "god" throws the dice in a big bang event the outcome will be vastly different and more "perfect". who knows? we wont be there (or we will be but not in this consciousness)

Wait, didn't you just say the guy in the shack WASN'T claiming to be perfect? I guess he doesn't feel the need to be perfect in order to claim the right to bark orders at a god who supposedly created the whole universe. Heh, that's a pretty small shack for such a big ego.

This is a bit of a distortion, Mur. I never "barked orders", I simply said I have a criteria for what is divine enough for me to worship. Barking orders would be "God, do this", whereas I'm saying "If God can't do this, I won't worship him".


Oh, but wait, that's okay, he can bark orders and criticism at the god who created, maintains and will destroy the universe and still be an imperfect natural being because pride is a sin -- one of the deadly ones, I believe -- and, thus, is one of his imperfections.

Hm... maybe sin wasn't such a dumb idea, after all, if its used in the right context.

Again, I didn't bark orders, I set a standard, and a god who can't withstand criticism is, again, pretty low end.

But if your idea of god is "an imperfect, natural being", that doesn't seem like so much a god, but just a really big and powerful dude. Could be the case, but is not very Goddish.

a god who IS nature doesnt require worship.

but people might enjoy the act.

So, in this model of god, the god does not demand worship? Then he doesn't have to meet my standard, he can be a "god" if he wants, and if he isn't going to take a swing at me for not worshipping him, that seems fair.

a god who IS nature doesnt require worship.

but people might enjoy the act.
Especially as it often involves picnics and going to the beach.

Especially as it often involves picnics and going to the beach.
the beach is a great place to visit god.

The duck shit thing was in response to the premise that god is all of nature.

For a divine as per definition god, if he is NOT supernatural, i.e., if he can't control nature, raise people from the dead, travel faster than light, and do other miraculous things, then he's a low end god. Not shit, just low end.

I'd be more impressed with a god that IS supernatural, that can dictate the laws of nature, make a whole new universe out of nothing if he's so inclined, etc. A god who can't is anemic.
I feel that your approach to your thread topic is not entirely honest. I'm starting to think that you entered it not with an open mind, ready to fully explore conceptual options, but rather with a closed and narrow preconception of exactly what kind of a god you wanted to talk about, what kind of a nature you wanted him to have, and in full commitment to definitions 3, 4, and 5 of "supernatural."

If that is the case, then I really don't see how much more there is to discuss. As we have already established, with those criteria, the only possible answer is "Yes, under those criteria, that god is supernatural." And I would think you'd be satisfied with that answer, since you seem adamant that you would not accept any god that was different.

But if that is the case, then what I don't understand is why you opened the topic at all? I mean, if you really have no willingness to entertain other options at all.

So, in this model of god, the god does not demand worship? Then he doesn't have to meet my standard, he can be a "god" if he wants, and if he isn't going to take a swing at me for not worshipping him, that seems fair.
its hard to keep with the idea of a judeo-christian god but im trying hard to keep with it within my non-christian interpretation of how such a god fits with the reality of the universe.

no i dont see that god "requires" any "worship" from us in order to enjoy the perks of the afterlife. (obviously worship doesnt get you any special dispensations from the normal sufferings of life)

but as i said above, the interaction with the divine that is implied in worship (when done right) is a deeply satsifying human experience.

More assumptions on your part. Why do you assume that a god that is nature, is only one form of nature? If there are 20 different natures, aren't they all nature and, thus, all the god?

I said "completely different" natures, but to be more clear, if a God can't create or make something that is apart from its own nature, if it can't break the big conservations rules, even the deepest ontological ones, then he isn't omnipotent, so he's ungoddish in that regard.

If a god wants total worship, it needs to be able to do that kind of thing. If it can't, then it might not be supernatural, but its also not packing the big god mojo.


No, because like matter and anti-matter the two concepts of natural and supernatural would cancel each other out. Either both words would disappear and be replaced by something else, like "god-ness" or "existence" or "reality", or they'd have to fight to the death. When words fight for supremacy, especially in English, the shorter one tends to win.


Mur, you were the one that crossed the term "natural" with definitions 3 through 5 for "supernatural". You edited a note at the bottom but you never addressed that YOU claimed that nature was divine, divine was supernatural, and then brought about the matter/anti-matter annhilation.

The words don't have to fight, they just have to be applied consistent with their definitions.


Why do you have such an expectation?

What's wrong with it being on your level?

You do realize, that if god is on your level, that means you are on god's level, right? I still don't understand why you perceive this as bringing a god down, instead of lifting you up.

Because then, EVERYTHING in nature is god...its no longer special, meaningful, extraodrinary...its, by definition, typical, banal, ordinary, mediocre, because everything has a bit of it.

If a god wants worship, it needs something I can't get anywhere else, be greater than everything else.

I don't want to be on Gods level because if there is nothing above god, and I'm on god's level, there is nothing above me, and nothing worth worshipping. That is, a priori, a low end god.

pft, say something funny

I feel that your approach to your thread topic is not entirely honest. I'm starting to think that you entered it not with an open mind, ready to fully explore conceptual options, but rather with a closed and narrow preconception of exactly what kind of a god you wanted to talk about, what kind of a nature you wanted him to have, and in full commitment to definitions 3, 4, and 5 of "supernatural."

If that is the case, then I really don't see how much more there is to discuss. As we have already established, with those criteria, the only possible answer is "Yes, under those criteria, that god is supernatural." And I would think you'd be satisfied with that answer, since you seem adamant that you would not accept any god that was different.

But if that is the case, then what I don't understand is why you opened the topic at all? I mean, if you really have no willingness to entertain other options at all.


I wanted to confirm if, as generally held, the underlined part was sound. Someone had suggested it was not.

If you want to expand it, sure, but now you're on to a god that's not very goddy to me, although it could well be the real case.

The nature god thing you're describing is very plausible, its just not an impressive god to me. If you want to feel "lifted up" to gods level by the interpretation, great...I want a god not on the same level with me. Yours, as you describe it, might certainly be real, but it doesn't have the supergodjuice I'm looking for.

This is a bit of a distortion, Mur. I never "barked orders", I simply said I have a criteria for what is divine enough for me to worship. Barking orders would be "God, do this", whereas I'm saying "If God can't do this, I won't worship him".



Again, I didn't bark orders, I set a standard, and a god who can't withstand criticism is, again, pretty low end.
I was using hyperbole in a teasing manner.

But if your idea of god is "an imperfect, natural being", that doesn't seem like so much a god, but just a really big and powerful dude. Could be the case, but is not very Goddish.
Point of clarification: I never said that nature was imperfect or that a natural being would be imperfect.

I used "imperfect" only in reference to our rhetorical man-in-the-shack with his prideful expectations of what a god has to do or be to impress him, I used it only in relation to your usage of it, and I was being sarcastic.

My own view is that nature IS perfect and, thus, so are all natural events and beings, including gods. Therefore, there would be nothing imperfect about a natural god.

its hard to keep with the idea of a judeo-christian god but im trying hard to keep with it within my non-christian interpretation of how such a god fits with the reality of the universe.

no i dont see that god "requires" any "worship" from us in order to enjoy the perks of the afterlife. (obviously worship doesnt get you any special dispensations from the normal sufferings of life)

but as i said above, the interaction with the divine that is implied in worship (when done right) is a deeply satsifying human experience.

I can buy into all sorts of non-christian gods that might not be supernatural, but then they seem more like just demi-gods, or the all inclusive nature god that shares my "level", whether I'm on its or its on mine.

They just aren't very Goddy. They're very possibly the only god things that might be, for all I know, but they don't have the whoopy above-and-beyond-nature quality of a supernatural god.

I was using hyperbole in a teasing manner.


Point of clarification: I never said that nature was imperfect or that a natural being would be imperfect.

I used "imperfect" only in reference to our rhetorical man-in-the-shack with his prideful expectations of what a god has to do or be to impress him, I used it only in relation to your usage of it, and I was being sarcastic.

My own view is that nature IS perfect and, thus, so are all natural events and beings, including gods. Therefore, there would be nothing imperfect about a natural god.

So I'm getting this clearly, "nature IS perfect, and, thus, so are all natural events and beings, including gods."

So, you're perfect, I'm perfect, everything is perfect? (I'm not saying this is impossible if we play with the "perfect" word enough to get there, I'm just wanting to make sure of what you're saying.)

Well, if I'm as perfect as all gods, and all gods are equal in perfection to a supporating syphyllis (sic?) sore, then...well...

I'm sorry, dude, I swear I'm not trying to get on your nerves, but I just have to say: that's one low end god.

I can buy into all sorts of non-christian gods that might not be supernatural, but then they seem more like just demi-gods, or the all inclusive nature god that shares my "level", whether I'm on its or its on mine.

They just aren't very Goddy. They're very possibly the only god things that might be, for all I know, but they don't have the whoopy above-and-beyond-nature quality of a supernatural god.
then you cant possibly believe in the judeo christian god either eh? because he hasnt given us any kind of perfection (and since he COULD but chooses not to he is some kind of sadist bastard who fails as god-the-father)

are you sure you arent setting this up as a way to prove that you are right to be an atheist?

then you cant possibly believe in the judeo christian god either eh? because he hasnt given us any kind of perfection (and since he COULD but chooses not to he is some kind of sadist bastard who fails as god-the-father)

are you sure you arent setting this up as a way to prove that you are right to be an atheist?

But that's the thing: I don't personally believe in the judeo christian god, but he COULD be real, but if he is, he's supernatural by definition.

Similarly, your non-christian version of god could TOTALLY be the correct model, he's just not a big enough "god" for me.

So, instead of being an atheist, I'd be some sort of EDIT abstainer EDIT or something, or just one who believes in the possibility of the nature-god thing, but just doesn't see it fit to worship.

The word "God" has certain job requirements to me; I'm not saying your god isn't the god, but what your describing isn't a really Divine Miraculous Diety thing by the definitions, so I wouldn't hold it as my god.

But that's the thing: I don't personally believe in the judeo christian god, but he COULD be real, but if he is, he's supernatural by definition.

Similarly, your non-christian version of god could TOTALLY be the correct model, he's just not a big enough "god" for me.

So, instead of being an atheist, I'd be some sort of EDIT abstainer EDIT or something, or just one who believes in the possibility of the nature-god thing, but just doesn't see it fit to worship.

The word "God" has certain job requirements to me; I'm not saying your god isn't the god, but what your describing isn't a really Divine Miraculous Diety thing by the definitions, so I wouldn't hold it as my god.
but darlin' either god exists or he doesnt. either he is the way ive described him or he isnt.

what we BELIEVE has nothing to do with it.

if what ive put forth (sorta) describes god (i feel that our agnostic brothers are right in that should god exist we cant know the full truth about him) then that IS the god that you would worship should you ever do anything that might be called worship.

I have to go write a paper.

I'm sorry if I wasn't as compelled by the nature god thing as you guys might've liked. I do think its possible, its just kind of a very..."on the same level as me" god, which would be fine, but I wouldn't worship anything on the same level as me.

Catch you guys later.

If the nature god sends a...I dunno, a tree angel or something, to me, I'll try to at least hear it out.

Maybe it already did, that plant in my room does help keep me alive...

have you started law school?

but darlin' either god exists or he doesnt. either he is the way ive described him or he isnt.

I never at any time said otherwise. I simply said that IF god was this or that THEN I would react this way or that.


what we BELIEVE has nothing to do with it.

I agree and never said otherwise. In fact, what I actually wrote was:

"I don't personally believe in the judeo christian god, but he COULD be real, but if he is, he's supernatural by definition."

So, what in that could possibly mean that I think belief affects the existence of a god? It CLEARLY shows that I don't hold belief to impact existence.


if what ive put forth (sorta) describes god (i feel that our agnostic brothers are right in that should god exist we cant know the full truth about him) then that IS the god that you would worship should you ever do anything that might be called worship.

So, one cannot worship a false god or a non-existant god? All worship goes to your concept of god, even when that worship is sourced from those who worship something totally different?

Just like I can send a letter to a non-existant address and think it went somewhere if it gets lost, people can worship something that isn't there.

Now YOUR god might be there, and many might worship it, but others might choose to believe in and worship something different, even if that something doesn't exist.

writing a paper ALREADY in law school? what can they possibly have you write about? What do you think of when you hear the name "learned hand"?

have you started law school?

Yeah, but I anticipate to withdraw sometime next semester. I'm going to try to join the French Foreign Legion.

Yeah, but I anticipate to withdraw sometime next semester. I'm going to try to join the French Foreign Legion.

I think you have to be french for that.

I said "completely different" natures,
Nature is nature. Any nature that is a nature is still nature, even if it is "completely different" from all other natures. If god is nature, then why would he not be all natures?

but to be more clear, if a God can't create or make something that is apart from its own nature, if it can't break the big conservations rules, even the deepest ontological ones, then he isn't omnipotent, so he's ungoddish in that regard.
Now you're moving your goalposts, I think. You keep putting more and more demands on this god, more hoops you'd like him to jump through. Why do you assume that your limited human consciousness already knows the limits of what is possible within a god's "own nature"? Because you'd have to know that to know if something he did was "apart" from that nature, wouldn't you?

Let's construct an example: In the Bible, the God of Abraham is said to have parted the Red Sea to aid the Hebrews' escape from Egypt, while he also guarded their rear by appearing as a column of fire to stop Pharaoh's army from catching up with them. For the sake of discussion, let's assume for the moment that that really happened. Okay? Now most people describe that as a miracle. Can we agree that that event would qualify as a miracle of God? If so, then we can proceed. (I'm going to proceed, but if you don't agree, then don't bother to follow up.)

Okay, now let's step out of the Bible and pretend for a moment that the God of Abraham is this "god-is-nature" deity we are talking about. So, you've got a god that IS all of nature, and you are caught between the Red Sea and a pursuing army that wants to kill you, and this god (for some unknown reason) decides to help you out and, using completely natural processes (whether you understand them or not), causes the Red Sea to part or withdraw from your path while simultaneously causing a tornado of fire to block the path of the pursuing army. (By the way, I would point out that shallow seas can appear to withdraw dramatically for many reasons, and in open seas, tsunamis can cause such extreme low tides that the sea seems to vanish; also fire can form massive columns, just ask any firefighter who has fought forest or brush fires.)

Is it apart from the god's nature or within the god's nature? Is it a miracle or an ordinary event? Is it impressive or unimpressive?

My point is, anything any entity does is done within its own nature, so the expectation that a god must do something outside its own nature to be miraculous is just unrealistic. Miracles (if such a word has any meaning) IS the nature of a god, by your own criteria, so why do you expect the god to act outside its own nature?

If a god wants total worship, it needs to be able to do that kind of thing. If it can't, then it might not be supernatural, but its also not packing the big god mojo.
Like I've said before, this is based solely on assumptions and egotism. Also, it is an entirely arbitrary expectation. I'm losing my motivation to spend more time dealing with it, especially as it is so inflexible.

Mur, you were the one that crossed the term "natural" with definitions 3 through 5 for "supernatural". You edited a note at the bottom but you never addressed that YOU claimed that nature was divine, divine was supernatural, and then brought about the matter/anti-matter annhilation.
I know that. I was merely mentioning that, even if you wanted to use those definitions, the god would still be godlike by those criteria.

The words don't have to fight, they just have to be applied consistent with their definitions.
But under the conditions we were discussing, one of the words would become meaningless. Either everything would be natural and nothing supernatural, or vice versa. And I was trying to say that the choice of which would survive might as well be completely random or made for convenience, hence I suggested the shorter word would win out, just because it takes less time to type.

Because then, EVERYTHING in nature is god...its no longer special, meaningful, extraodrinary...its, by definition, typical, banal, ordinary, mediocre, because everything has a bit of it.
Again, you are assuming that there is something inherently "low-end" or "low-rent" or otherwise undesirable about the world. Why is that?

If a god wants worship, it needs something I can't get anywhere else, be greater than everything else.
But what will you do if it turns out there isn't anything else? I mean, how would that make you feel about life and why?

I don't want to be on Gods level because if there is nothing above god, and I'm on god's level, there is nothing above me, and nothing worth worshipping. That is, a priori, a low end god.
Yet again, why does it make it a low-end god, instead of a high-end you?

writing a paper ALREADY in law school? what can they possibly have you write about? What do you think of when you hear the name "learned hand"?

Its kind of a first run on an "internal memo" where, instead of open advocacy, we try to advise a faux senior partner whether a particular case is a good bet.

We've been given very very very rudimentary tools to pursue it, and a relatively narrow allowance of approach (its a fake statute in a fake town).

Its kind of a first run on an "internal memo" where, instead of open advocacy, we try to advise a faux senior partner whether a particular case is a good bet.

We've been given very very very rudimentary tools to pursue it, and a relatively narrow allowance of approach (its a fake statute in a fake town).

oh god those were so much fun, and frustratingly annoying at the time. Though one of those things that comes easier with time and practice. I wrote two of them....today.

I'll take a look at it, if you'd like. By the way, it's Friday and you're doing a paper? Dude, 1L is scary but not THAT scary.

oh god those were so much fun, and frustratingly annoying at the time. Though one of those things that comes easier with time and practice. I wrote two of them....today.

I'll take a look at it, if you'd like. By the way, it's Friday and you're doing a paper? Dude, 1L is scary but not THAT scary.

Friend of mine's in the same boat, writing a brief for a fake case (amusingly, it's a medical case and many of the character names are lifted from House).

I never at any time said otherwise. I simply said that IF god was this or that THEN I would react this way or that.



I agree and never said otherwise. In fact, what I actually wrote was:

"I don't personally believe in the judeo christian god, but he COULD be real, but if he is, he's supernatural by definition."

So, what in that could possibly mean that I think belief affects the existence of a god? It CLEARLY shows that I don't hold belief to impact existence.



So, one cannot worship a false god or a non-existant god? All worship goes to your concept of god, even when that worship is sourced from those who worship something totally different?

Just like I can send a letter to a non-existant address and think it went somewhere if it gets lost, people can worship something that isn't there.

Now YOUR god might be there, and many might worship it, but others might choose to believe in and worship something different, even if that something doesn't exist.
noo if there is only one god then all people worship that god.


some ideas need to be "tried on" the way you might try on a dress at the store. you can look at it and think that it will never fit right but you dont know until you try it on.

im not a philosopher or theologian. i cant even follow a philosophical argument. without your co-operation i cant possibly put forth my theory on what a real god would be like in the real world.

So I'm getting this clearly, "nature IS perfect, and, thus, so are all natural events and beings, including gods."

So, you're perfect, I'm perfect, everything is perfect? (I'm not saying this is impossible if we play with the "perfect" word enough to get there, I'm just wanting to make sure of what you're saying.)
Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Well, if I'm as perfect as all gods, and all gods are equal in perfection to a supporating syphyllis (sic?) sore, then...well...

I'm sorry, dude, I swear I'm not trying to get on your nerves, but I just have to say: that's one low end god.
Well, you should find yourself a perfect therapist then and work on your perfectly low self-esteem to try to adjust it to a different point of perfection.

If you want to. I don't think you need to. As badly as you seem to think of yourself, I see you as the perfect you. Just as you have always been the perfect you, in all your stages of life development, and just as you will continue to be perfect no matter what you do or become throughout the rest of your life, until you die, when you'll be perfectly dead.

When I say life and the world are perfect, I include ALL the parts and conditions of them.

But that's the thing: I don't personally believe in the judeo christian god, but he COULD be real, but if he is, he's supernatural by definition.

Similarly, your non-christian version of god could TOTALLY be the correct model, he's just not a big enough "god" for me.

So, instead of being an atheist, I'd be some sort of EDIT abstainer EDIT or something, or just one who believes in the possibility of the nature-god thing, but just doesn't see it fit to worship.

The word "God" has certain job requirements to me; I'm not saying your god isn't the god, but what your describing isn't a really Divine Miraculous Diety thing by the definitions, so I wouldn't hold it as my god.
Why don't you do what millions of other people have done and just invent the god you want?

Why don't you do what millions of other people have done and just invent the god you want?

because then he might kill me and stick me in the trunk of a car sitting on top of the ice on a frozen lake.

Yeah, but I anticipate to withdraw sometime next semester. I'm going to try to join the French Foreign Legion.
stick with it. you can always fail the bar exam if you need to.

good luck. i think you would make a fine lawyer.

Friend of mine's in the same boat, writing a brief for a fake case (amusingly, it's a medical case and many of the character names are lifted from House).

law professors are weird. My old torts prof once wrote an entire final exam in Star Wars theme

writing a paper ALREADY in law school? what can they possibly have you write about? What do you think of when you hear the name "learned hand"?
Everytime I hear it, I think I wish it was mine. I love that name. If it were mine, imagine how I could redefine the term "punch line".

Nature is nature. Any nature that is a nature is still nature, even if it is "completely different" from all other natures. If god is nature, then why would he not be all natures?

Because if he can't make a nature that's not part of him, he's got a limit. He could be real, but he's got a limit.


Now you're moving your goalposts, I think. You keep putting more and more demands on this god, more hoops you'd like him to jump through.

For me to worship him, not to consider that he/it might be real.


Why do you assume that your limited human consciousness already knows the limits of what is possible within a god's "own nature"? Because you'd have to know that to know if something he did was "apart" from that nature, wouldn't you?

If we're talking about it in concept, if a god can't go beyond its own nature, its limited to the same things the rest of us are. And if it wants benefit of the doubt for its properties that are beyond my "human consciousness", then I guess he's not as much on "my level" as was previously claimed.


Let's construct an example: In the Bible, the God of Abraham is said to have parted the Red Sea to aid the Hebrews' escape from Egypt, while he also guarded their rear by appearing as a column of fire to stop Pharaoh's army from catching up with them. For the sake of discussion, let's assume for the moment that that really happened. Okay? Now most people describe that as a miracle. Can we agree that that event would qualify as a miracle of God? If so, then we can proceed. (I'm going to proceed, but if you don't agree, then don't bother to follow up.)

Okay, now let's step out of the Bible and pretend for a moment that the God of Abraham is this "god-is-nature" deity we are talking about. So, you've got a god that IS all of nature, and you are caught between the Red Sea and a pursuing army that wants to kill you, and this god (for some unknown reason) decides to help you out and, using completely natural processes (whether you understand them or not), causes the Red Sea to part or withdraw from your path while simultaneously causing a tornado of fire to block the path of the pursuing army. (By the way, I would point out that shallow seas can appear to withdraw dramatically for many reasons, and in open seas, tsunamis can cause such extreme low tides that the sea seems to vanish; also fire can form massive columns, just ask any firefighter who has fought forest or brush fires.)

Is it apart from the god's nature or within the god's nature? Is it a miracle or an ordinary event? Is it impressive or unimpressive?

If god had to use natural means to do it, he's just a tool user like the rest of us primates. Not very godly.



My point is, anything any entity does is done within its own nature, so the expectation that a god must do something outside its own nature to be miraculous is just unrealistic. Miracles (if such a word has any meaning) IS the nature of a god, by your own criteria, so why do you expect the god to act outside its own nature?

Its not unrealistic, its the dictionary. Miraculous == supernatural. If we want to go more with defs 1-2, you can wiggle it, but you claimed you could do it with 3-5.


Like I've said before, this is based solely on assumptions and egotism. Also, it is an entirely arbitrary expectation. I'm losing my motivation to spend more time dealing with it, especially as it is so inflexible.


I know that. I was merely mentioning that, even if you wanted to use those definitions, the god would still be godlike by those criteria.


But under the conditions we were discussing, one of the words would become meaningless. Either everything would be natural and nothing supernatural, or vice versa. And I was trying to say that the choice of which would survive might as well be completely random or made for convenience, hence I suggested the shorter word would win out, just because it takes less time to type.

That's like saying if you want an integer to be both even and odd, you can just call it odd because it takes less time to type.

A word doesn't have to describe something that exists to be meaningful. Even if god is solely natural and not supernatural, he is then "natural", not some sort of collision of both in which supernatural is truncated.

Supernatural == miraculous, divine, diety, by the dictionary. If you don't prefer long words, that's fine, and practical even, but to now decide that god is "natural" and "not supernatural" but still "miraculous" is not consistent with the 3-5 defs.

A contradiction of terms doesn't resolve itself by just picking the shorter word and saying QED. It means one of the terms doesn't apply. Its either natural or supernatural, and since supernatural==miraculous (the only inflexibility here is one of the dictionary, if we want to exclude defs 3-5, you can again wiggle it), you can't have both.



Again, you are assuming that there is something inherently "low-end" or "low-rent" or otherwise undesirable about the world. Why is that?


But what will you do if it turns out there isn't anything else? I mean, how would that make you feel about life and why?


Yet again, why does it make it a low-end god, instead of a high-end you?

Think reference frames. There is no final one, but a "high end me" that is equal to all things which are all perfect, nothing is higher, (by what you've said), and if nothing is higher, that's a self-evident let down.

oh god those were so much fun, and frustratingly annoying at the time. Though one of those things that comes easier with time and practice. I wrote two of them....today.

I'll take a look at it, if you'd like. By the way, it's Friday and you're doing a paper? Dude, 1L is scary but not THAT scary.

I have to work tomorrow, I teach the LSAT for Kaplan. And I was at Sapphyre until 7:30 am this morning, so I got nothing one today.

Thanks for your well wishes. You and the Cat are one of the reasons I discount the premise that all lawyers suck.

Why don't you do what millions of other people have done and just invent the god you want?

I don't think believing in a god makes it real.

Otherwise, I would diefy Christopher Walken and being compiling scripture.

I'll see if I can check your other posts later. Good (whatever time of day it is where you are), but I guess it might already be a perfect day/night/afternoon, so it won't get any better.

I have to work tomorrow, I teach the LSAT for Kaplan. And I was at Sapphyre until 7:30 am this morning, so I got nothing one today.

Sapphyre? Don't know it, am I supposed to?

Thanks for your well wishes. You and the Cat are one of the reasons I discount the premise that all lawyers suck.

It'll change...

because then he might kill me and stick me in the trunk of a car sitting on top of the ice on a frozen lake.

Relax. I think you've outgrown that "god." :tongue:

Off-topic: I'm not going to give any spoilers, but you know that character is a real legend, right? When my mom was a little girl, her half-German grandmother used to scare her with stories that if she was bad, he would come and take all her toys away. I had never heard that name outside of German-descent New Yorkers before I read that book. Blew me away. Like memories of home.

stick with it. you can always fail the bar exam if you need to.

good luck. i think you would make a fine lawyer.

That's kind of you.

For the record, your god thing isn't something I'm claiming is false. Just not very goddy for me. Have a cool night, or whatever it is wherever you are.

I don't think believing in a god makes it real.

Otherwise, I would diefy Christopher Walken and being compiling scripture.

I'll see if I can check your other posts later. Good (whatever time of day it is where you are), but I guess it might already be a perfect day/night/afternoon, so it won't get any better.
Who said anything about believing in it? You could create the next Scientology. You believe in getting rich, don't you? Does that make money not real? I don't think so.

That's kind of you.

For the record, your god thing isn't something I'm claiming is false. Just not very goddy for me. Have a cool night, or whatever it is wherever you are.
when you get time to think about something other than babies and law you should broaden your ideas on godishness.

Because if he can't make a nature that's not part of him, he's got a limit. He could be real, but he's got a limit.



For me to worship him, not to consider that he/it might be real.



If we're talking about it in concept, if a god can't go beyond its own nature, its limited to the same things the rest of us are. And if it wants benefit of the doubt for its properties that are beyond my "human consciousness", then I guess he's not as much on "my level" as was previously claimed.



If god had to use natural means to do it, he's just a tool user like the rest of us primates. Not very godly.




Its not unrealistic, its the dictionary. Miraculous == supernatural. If we want to go more with defs 1-2, you can wiggle it, but you claimed you could do it with 3-5.



That's like saying if you want an integer to be both even and odd, you can just call it odd because it takes less time to type.

A word doesn't have to describe something that exists to be meaningful. Even if god is solely natural and not supernatural, he is then "natural", not some sort of collision of both in which supernatural is truncated.

Supernatural == miraculous, divine, diety, by the dictionary. If you don't prefer long words, that's fine, and practical even, but to now decide that god is "natural" and "not supernatural" but still "miraculous" is not consistent with the 3-5 defs.

A contradiction of terms doesn't resolve itself by just picking the shorter word and saying QED. It means one of the terms doesn't apply. Its either natural or supernatural, and since supernatural==miraculous (the only inflexibility here is one of the dictionary, if we want to exclude defs 3-5, you can again wiggle it), you can't have both.




Think reference frames. There is no final one, but a "high end me" that is equal to all things which are all perfect, nothing is higher, (by what you've said), and if nothing is higher, that's a self-evident let down.
Basically, all of the above boils down to telling me that I've been wasting my time discussing this with you.

In the above, you rescind some of the defined terms allowances you made earlier. You also answer responses to your points with mere repetitions of those points, which indicates to me that you are not interested in address in what I said. You also ignore points that I made earlier in order to repeat points that I already addressed, which also indicates a lack of interest in my arguments on your part. This leads me to believe that I was correct when I said earlier that you already have a preset idea of the answer to your own question and you are not really interested in exploring alternatives, even as a thought exercise.

In any event -- good luck with your paper-thingy. Stick with the law as long as you can. The world is going to need more lawyers in the coming years.

I was supposed to be writing notes on the functional differences between a shamanist magic system and a ceremonial "Lovecraftian" style magic system, and instead, I spent my evening on this nonsense.* Sigh.


* (irony intended)

law professors are weird. My old torts prof once wrote an entire final exam in Star Wars theme

Hehe. Now that sounds interesting.

Mock trial proceeding:

*lawyer stands* Objection, Your Honor. Defense is leading the witness.

Judge: I've allowed you enough leeway with this line of questioning. Cut it out.

Defense lawyer: I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

In any event -- good luck with your paper-thingy. Stick with the law as long as you can. The world is going to need more lawyers in the coming years.

I was supposed to be writing notes on the functional differences between a shamanist magic system and a ceremonial "Lovecraftian" style magic system, and instead, I spent my evening on this nonsense.* Sigh.


* (irony intended)

Lovecraftian as in people in hooded cloaks of malign intent performing rituals mumbled in arcane tongues with curious components derived from places long lost and forgotten, and others that should have remained so?

Edit: Err, sorry. Got a little carried away, there :D

There are a lot of philosophies of religion. That sounds like a course title. I'm asking you which philosophy of religion you are using? Which philosopher?

Philosophy of Religion is a sub-discipline, in which many philosophers debate. It is like Philosophy of Knowledge, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Ethics, etc. The definitions of Philosophy of Religion are not confined to one philosopher, but are used by all philosophers arguing within the subject.

What, everyone's gone to bed now? Oh well. Guess I'll post to myself. Darned cross-atlantic time-differences.

Firstly, to the point at hand; yes, the definition of God as laid out is overly narrow. No, that doesn't necessarily matter if we're only interested in discussing the consequences of that particular definition, but yes, the consequences of that particular definition are both immediate and conclusive. In addition, the question of whether or not that particular definition is instantiable is also immediately resolveable, by virtue of the inherently self-contradictory nature of omnipotence and the conflict between those properties and the problem of ongoing suffering.

So to adopt that definition is to end the discussion and assert that Atheist assertion of supernatural fiction is the only logical position. The problem is that, surprise surprise, that definition of God is not universally accepted. Some people assert that it's sufficient to refer to God as the "Creator of the Universe", some assert that God is "the Father figure personified as a cosmic entity", some that it is simply "the source of what appears to me to be an otherwise unexplainable phenomenon".

Here's what I think - God is whatever causes an individual's religious conviction. People have some spiritual experience, they are told about it and from that point on they call it God (or a spiritual realm of Gods, or a personification of the ultimate reality, or whatever else, but let's call it God for the sake of shorthand). Those who do not have such an experience only analyse God in as much as it is explained to them by others, whereas those who do seek to better explain the God that they know to exist through simple past experience.

This God need not necessarily be an external figure. It may, for a given individual, be a result of delusion, or simply subconsciously reinterpreting an entirely trivial event. It may, on the other hand, be something outside of natural process altogether. And this is where the interesting discussion starts - is the source of the Idea of God natural or supernatural?

The Problem of Evil, as a logical contradiction, was resolved by Alvin Plantinga a good while ago. It remains an argument from likelihood, but an omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent being and evil in the world are not mutually exclusive. Thus, God as defined is instantiable. Nor is omnipotence itself contradictory: omnipotence means "For any logically possible action x, an omnipotent being is capable of directly performing x." Thus, atheism is not the only remaining option.

Philosophy of Religion is a sub-discipline, in which many philosophers debate. It is like Philosophy of Knowledge, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Ethics, etc. The definitions of Philosophy of Religion are not confined to one philosopher, but are used by all philosophers arguing within the subject.
That does not actually answer my question. Any part of it, but skip it. Do you have a source other than yourself for what those commonly accepted definitions are?

Lovecraftian as in people in hooded cloaks of malign intent performing rituals mumbled in arcane tongues with curious components derived from places long lost and forgotten, and others that should have remained so?

Edit: Err, sorry. Got a little carried away, there :D
Of course. What other kind of Lovecraftian magic is there? ;)

Hehe. Now that sounds interesting.

Mock trial proceeding:

*lawyer stands* Objection, Your Honor. Defense is leading the witness.

Judge: I've allowed you enough leeway with this line of questioning. Cut it out.

Defense lawyer: I find your lack of faith...disturbing.

Laughed, Poli did. :D

Pantheistic solipsism ftw.

That does not actually answer my question. Any part of it, but skip it. Do you have a source other than yourself for what those commonly accepted definitions are?

The entire body of Philosophy of Religion since Rene Descartes, with few exceptions, has used this definition.

The entire body of Philosophy of Religion since Rene Descartes, with few exceptions, has used this definition.
Another non-answer. Don't you have a reference for these commonly accepted definitions that came with your course materials?

I'm sorry if I wasn't as compelled by the nature god thing as you guys might've liked. I do think its possible, its just kind of a very..."on the same level as me" god, which would be fine, but I wouldn't worship anything on the same level as me.

Are you natural? (If yes..) Then the nature-god isn't "on the same level" as you. It is you, and you it.

Edit: And me. And him. And her. And Christopher Walken.

when you get time to think about something other than babies and law you should broaden your ideas on godishness.

This is the basically the same thing I'm getting from Mur:

Because I acknowledge that your view might conceivably be correct, but I find it uncompelling, I'm the "inflexible" one. Because I don't believe as you do, I'm automatically the one that needs broadening.

You've both evidenced the same evangelical zeal as christians I know.

Are you natural? (If yes..) Then the nature-god isn't "on the same level" as you. It is you, and you it.

Edit: And me. And him. And her. And Christopher Walken.

If its me, then its by definition nothing more, and thus on the same level.

I have no interest in worshipping myself. I'd have gone into personal injury law if that was my inclination.

Basically, all of the above boils down to telling me that I've been wasting my time discussing this with you.

If thats all you see and can respond to, then yes, you're wasting your time.


In the above, you rescind some of the defined terms allowances you made earlier.

No, if you'd looked at it, I specifically said "If you go by defs 1 and 2, you can wiggle it". But if you'll recall, YOU then turned around and claimed it could still be done under 3-5, and the only way you can "address" the total contradiction of claiming that the natural is miraculous which is defined as supernatural...is by picking the one with fewer letters.

If somebody claims something has two exclusive properties, saying so and then keeping the one with shorter spelling doesn't address the contradiction.


You also answer responses to your points with mere repetitions of those points, which indicates to me that you are not interested in address in what I said. You also ignore points that I made earlier in order to repeat points that I already addressed, which also indicates a lack of interest in my arguments on your part. This leads me to believe that I was correct when I said earlier that you already have a preset idea of the answer to your own question and you are not really interested in exploring alternatives, even as a thought exercise.

So, because I don't agree that your points really address my points, I'm just repeating myself. I've gone back and looked, and you've simply repeated your assertions, and when I don't buy them, you've ignored my given reasons.

That I don't agree with your arguments is not a lack of interest. Consider that I've flat out said "Your version of god might be the correct one, but it has limits", the ones you yourself have stipulated to. Yet if I dare find it uncompelling (no more uncompelling then you find my view, notice), then I'm the one who is "narrow" and "inflexible".

You talk about being "open", but you've proven just as committed to your own "present idea", the precise one you came in with. I've at least looked at yours and can acknowledge it might be true and works for you, you've made no similar concessions.

You talk about others ignoring points, but you've done a lot of "boiling down" to what you want to hear yourself. Your remind me a great deal of evangelical christians, and I honestly thought the less doctrinally rigid spiritual views weren't so like that.

EDIT: If your thought excercise was "What if God is nature (but also miraculous which is defined as supernatural but we'll ignore that because the word natural has fewer letters, or we can go with defs 1 and 2, which lets us wiggle it) and everything is perfect and part of god?"

Well, I addressed that: If all beings are perfect, including me and gods, then the gods are no more perfect then I, and I don't worship myself or anything that isn't greater than myself. You call that "egotism", but an unwillingness to worship myself and things that are only as "perfect" as myself is the opposite.

Just because I don't buy into your view doesn't mean I haven't considered it. Anyone looking back at this thread can see I've spent a lot more time considering the implications of your view then you have another.

This is the basically the same thing I'm getting from Mur:

Because I acknowledge that your view might conceivably be correct, but I find it uncompelling, I'm the "inflexible" one. Because I don't believe as you do, I'm automatically the one that needs broadening.

You've both evidenced the same evangelical zeal as christians I know.
no its because i dont think you have given the idea a full chance. that you havent tried it on to see if it fits.

you, living in the shack, pass by the rich man's house and dis it from the curb--"thats low rent" without ever having gone inside.

not that you have to, its just an idea. but you seem to be insisting that "god" has to be "THIS" and since it cant be "THIS" you are a non believer without realizing that there are many other ways that god might be that you might find that you could believe in. or that there are other theological approaches to the idea of god that might PLEASE you even if you will never believe in them.

i am an atheist. my all-too literal mind insists that if its not true and verifiable then i cant believe in it. that leaves out all things supernatural. that doesnt mean that i cant enjoy thinking about god issues and trying to figure out how such things might work if they were true.

This is the basically the same thing I'm getting from Mur:

Because I acknowledge that your view might conceivably be correct, but I find it uncompelling, I'm the "inflexible" one. Because I don't believe as you do, I'm automatically the one that needs broadening.

You've both evidenced the same evangelical zeal as christians I know.
Another assumption. What's with you, lately?

Here's your mistake: Ashmoria and I are NOT trying to get you to agree with us. We are just trying to get you to explore an idea. As Ash said earlier, "try the idea on to see if it fits/works at all, like trying on different shirts." All you have done is looked at the shirt and said, "No, it doesn't work for me," without even trying it on. I mean, you have barely even tried to play with this notion; you have only thrown the same a priori and highly subjective objections at it from word-one.

I have been treating this entire thread as a thought-exercise. I have made it clear, repeatedly, that I do not believe the word "supernatural" has any practical meaning whatsoever (except as a literary or movie genre category). EDIT: I guess I should also make it clear now that this god-as-nature concept we have been talking about is NOT in any way related to my belief system and is NOT the concept I personally hold to. Nevertheless, I have made an effort to explore how a god-concept could work if it were supernatural accepting the premise for the sake of discussion that there is such a thing.

You seem unwilling to temporarily accept any assumptions or premises for the sake of discussion. You seem instead to be just shutting down discussion.

EDIT: And in reference to your longer response to me, above, which I saw after posting this: I have wanted you only to consider whether the viewpoint outlined in the god-as-nature concept would be applicable as an answer to the OP question. An answer, not the answer. You have made no effort at all to apply it to the OP question. Instead, you have applied it to yourself, as if I have been trying to evangelize to you. Is it my fault, that you decided to apply my arguments in a way they were not created for? No, it is not. And as for who is being closed-minded here -- I am not the one who uses belittling words like "anemic" and "low-end" to dismiss other people's ideas, and I am not the one who refuses even to test out other people's ideas just because I don't personally like them. Finally, in re how you say you have addressed my arguments -- I have asked you follow-up questions asking you to explain why you think this way, to explain your reasoning behind your statements, and you have ignored every one of those questions. To me, that seems like just another way to shut a person out of the conversation.

no its because i dont think you have given the idea a full chance. that you havent tried it on to see if it fits.

you, living in the shack, pass by the rich man's house and dis it from the curb--"thats low rent" without ever having gone inside.

not that you have to, its just an idea. but you seem to be insisting that "god" has to be "THIS" and since it cant be "THIS" you are a non believer without realizing that there are many other ways that god might be that you might find that you could believe in. or that there are other theological approaches to the idea of god that might PLEASE you even if you will never believe in them.

i am an atheist. my all-too literal mind insists that if its not true and verifiable then i cant believe in it. that leaves out all things supernatural. that doesnt mean that i cant enjoy thinking about god issues and trying to figure out how such things might work if they were true.

Why do you assume I haven't tried them on? One doesn't have to wear a shirt very long to see if it fits.

Whether I "could" believe in it is a product of what you have set down; I've considered and rejected it for the reasons given. I don't need to wear the shirt for two hours to see if it fits.

Another assumption. What's with you, lately?

I didn't assume it, you evinced it by your own belittling words like "egotism" for anybody who tries on a shirt and doesn't like it.


Here's your mistake: Ashmoria and I are NOT trying to get you to agree with us. We are just trying to get you to explore an idea. As Ash said earlier, "try the idea on to see if it fits/works at all, like trying on different shirts." All you have done is looked at the shirt and said, "No, it doesn't work for me," without even trying it on. I mean, you have barely even tried to play with this notion; you have only thrown the same a priori and highly subjective objections at it from word-one.

I have been treating this entire thread as a thought-exercise. I have made it clear, repeatedly, that I do not believe the word "supernatural" has any practical meaning whatsoever (except as a literary or movie genre category). EDIT: I guess I should also make it clear now that this god-as-nature concept we have been talking about is NOT in any way related to my belief system and is NOT the concept I personally hold to. Nevertheless, I have made an effort to explore how a god-concept could work if it were supernatural accepting the premise for the sake of discussion that there is such a thing.

You seem unwilling to temporarily accept any assumptions or premises for the sake of discussion. You seem instead to be just shutting down discussion.

EDIT: And in reference to your longer response to me, above, which I saw after posting this: I have wanted you only to consider whether the viewpoint outlined in the god-as-nature concept would be applicable as an answer to the OP question. An answer, not the answer. You have made no effort at all to apply it to the OP question. Instead, you have applied it to yourself, as if I have been trying to evangelize to you. Is it my fault, that you decided to apply my arguments in a way they were not created for? No, it is not. And as for who is being closed-minded here -- I am not the one who uses belittling words like "anemic" and "low-end" to dismiss other people's ideas, and I am not the one who refuses even to test out other people's ideas just because I don't personally like them. Finally, in re how you say you have addressed my arguments -- I have asked you follow-up questions asking you to explain why you think this way, to explain your reasoning behind your statements, and you have ignored every one of those questions. To me, that seems like just another way to shut a person out of the conversation.

So, you ignored the half dozen times when I essentially said that you could swing that kind of "non-supernatural god", but that god would be thus by that appelate limited.

Your own argument was "all things are perfect, people as perfect as gods, you go UP to gods level, not him down to yours" and I responded with "well then god is, by your premise, not greater than me, is me, could totally exist as such, but I don't worship me or things not greater than me."

So, I repeatedly addressed your questions. I explored the idea repeatedly; just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you, doesn't mean I didn't do the excercise. That's your assumption.

I didn't assume it, you evinced it by your own belittling words like "egotism" for anybody who tries on a shirt and doesn't like it.


So, you ignored the half dozen times when I essentially said that you could swing that kind of "non-supernatural god", but that god would be thus by that appelate limited.
Those were not answers to my "why" questions.

Your own argument was "all things are perfect, people as perfect as gods, you go UP to gods level, not him down to yours" and I responded with "well then god is, by your premise, not greater than me, is me, could totally exist as such, but I don't worship me or things not greater than me."

So, I repeatedly addressed your questions. I explored the idea repeatedly; just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you, doesn't mean I didn't do the excercise. That's your assumption.
You and I are obviously reading every sentence in this conversation with entirely different meanings. Clearly it is impossible for us to proceed.

If its me, then its by definition nothing more, and thus on the same level.

"Same level" implies two things are subject.

I have no interest in worshipping myself.

But you do it so well, even in this thread alone. :D
(No offense intended, just irony.)

I claim that God, whether it exists or not, is a concept that posesses the property of being supernatural, whether the concept represents a real thing or not.

For me, asking whether something is natural or supernatural is asking whether it exists or not. Everything I believe to exist could be considered natural.

I think the definition of 'nature' is meaningless for this kind of discussion, thus the question is not applicable.

Those were not answers to my "why" questions.


You and I are obviously reading every sentence in this conversation with entirely different meanings. Clearly it is impossible for us to proceed.

You have to know "why" a god that we're presupposing as non-supernatural is thus limited to being unable to do supernatural things? If you assign properties to a thing, you can't then ignore the consequences.

I've used your exact words and taken your claims as, for the sake of discussion, true. Each premise you've put forward combines with the others to have consequences:


I. All things are "perfect", gods along with people (your premise for thought excercise)

(This has the consequence that gods are not greater, or as you put it, they are not on a "different level" than people.)

II. Gods are not supernatural. (Again, your premise for thought excercise)

By 3-5, which you claimed you could make work, this means that they are not "of or relating to a diety".

Even if we go by 1 and 2, they are limited to only what is natural, which you claimed can be "miraculous", but then we're back to defs 3-5, which you avoid by the maneuver "the word with less letters solves the contradiction", as if I could claim that the number 4 was both even and odd, I could do so and just call it odd because odd has three letters.

So, by your meanings, God is perfect, so am I, so he's not greater than me, and even if we only consider your interpretation (your version of "flexible") that I am thus brought "up" to him and not him "down" to me, it still means he is not greater and there is nothing above either of us.

I do not worship things that are not greater than myself and why? Because worship is, by definition, adoration of a diety or something greater than yourself.

These readings and meanings are consistent and include "why".

"Same level" implies two things are subject.

Not really. One thing by definition is on the same level with itself. Being on different levels implies two things.


But you do it so well, even in this thread alone. :D
(No offense intended, just irony.)

Hmm...so, because I don't put myself on a equal level with some god (except for the thought excercise, which had deductive results as already detailed)

because I don't consider myself as perfect as some god (except as above)

because I don't imply that disagreeing with me means the other person needs therapy (as others here have),

then I'm guilty of self worship? Because I have and apply criteria for what I will worship?

When I allowed for the top two above for purposes of thought excercise, those things led to outcomes, the predicates of which I have detailed. So self worship is having a standard of what I will bow down to, which explicity excludes myself?

Irony, for sure.

You have to know "why" a god that we're presupposing as non-supernatural is thus limited to being unable to do supernatural things? If you assign properties to a thing, you can't then ignore the consequences.
No, that is not what I was asking "why" about.

What I want to know is why you refuse to consider, as part of the foundation of the god-as-nature concept, the idea that nature, which includes you, can be perfect. I mean, consider it even as a fiction.

I understand that such an idea is not part of your personal viewpoint, but I have been asking you just to consider it as a premise related to this particular god-concept and to judge accordingly whether the god-concept in question would answer the OP question.

The OP question is, "Is God Natural or Supernatural?" It has come about during general conversation among severall posters that a related question has arisen: "Does God have to be supernatural to be god, or can it be natural and be god?"

Now, the god-as-nature concept attempts to answer both questions thusly: "A natural entity can be a god, and, therefore, such a god would be natural."

Ashmoria and I both have provided descriptions of how such a god could exist and be understood that would answer questions about what is "godlike" about a nature god, or how can a nature god be limitless, etc. As far as I can see, our construct is logically sound. But rather than accept our premises for the sake of discussion and explore the concept on its own merits to see if it falls apart and where, you have simple rejected the concept because the premises do not match your personal viewpoint.

My "why" questions were trying to get you to tell me more about your thinking so that I could figure out why you were so adamant about rejecting the proposed concept the way you were, and see if I could figure out where the disconnect between us was happening and whether it is possible to get past it.

<I snipped the rest of your explanation because there is nothing grossly wrong in it, but it is not the point I was trying to get at and I cannot even try to answer the objections in it until I understand better where you are coming from.>

I do not worship things that are not greater than myself and why? Because worship is, by definition, adoration of a diety or something greater than yourself.
I have not been asking you to worship anything. I have only been asking you to consider an answer to your OP question.

These readings and meanings are consistent and include "why".
Yes, but they are not what the "why" was about.

No, that is not what I was asking "why" about.

What I want to know is why you refuse to consider, as part of the foundation of the god-as-nature concept, the idea that nature, which includes you, can be perfect. I mean, consider it even as a fiction.

I understand that such an idea is not part of your personal viewpoint, but I have been asking you just to consider it as a premise related to this particular god-concept and to judge accordingly whether the god-concept in question would answer the OP question.

So, again, the several times I said "So there could be such a "perfect" nature god, it could and may exist, but as a corollary, it is still ascribed the property of being natural and is thus limited by the property of being unable to do, by your given defintion, supernatural things, only things that could seem supernatural but if the god is not supernatural, it cannot do supernatural things, and as a consequence, it may well be real, I just wouldn't chose to worship, you don't see that directly and repeatedly considered the premise as given?

Again, just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you doesn't mean I didn't consider it.



The OP question is, "Is God Natural or Supernatural?" It has come about during general conversation among severall posters that a related question has arisen: "Does God have to be supernatural to be god, or can it be natural and be god?"

Now, the god-as-nature concept attempts to answer both questions thusly: "A natural entity can be a god, and, therefore, such a god would be natural."

Yes, if you go back and actually look at what I have written, I have said several times that such a god could be modeled, and even be the case, but since it is natural by your direct specific premise it has all the limitations of a natural thing. It cannot do supernatural things. It may still be a god (a very limited god), and it may exist, but if you keep telling me that I'm refusing to consider the concept, please consider that I'm simply asking you to be consistent with the concept.


Ashmoria and I both have provided descriptions of how such a god could exist and be understood that would answer questions about what is "godlike" about a nature god, or how can a nature god be limitless, etc. As far as I can see, our construct is logically sound. But rather than accept our premises for the sake of discussion and explore the concept on its own merits to see if it falls apart and where, you have simple rejected the concept because the premises do not match your personal viewpoint.

I did exactly that. Where it falls apart is that a natural being is limited by being natural. It is thus not, by the dictionary defs 3-5 that you claimed would still work, "miraculous", "divine", or "of or relating to a diety".

Even if we ignore that you claimed that and only do defs 1-2, you are essentially claiming "I ascribe the god 'property A', but will not agree that it thus has the limits associated with having 'property A'". It is not my personal viewpoint impeding your claim; its your stated, specific constraints, that the god be natural. That is, by definition, a limit that the god can't do supernatural things, only really cool things that would look supernatural. That's not the same thing.


My "why" questions were trying to get you to tell me more about your thinking so that I could figure out why you were so adamant about rejecting the proposed concept the way you were, and see if I could figure out where the disconnect between us was happening and whether it is possible to get past it.

I have not been asking you to worship anything. I have only been asking you to consider an answer to your OP question.

The answer, given several times that you ignored is: "Such a 'god' could exist and may even be the case, but by being natural, it has substantial boundaries, and your claiming that 'using the shorter word resolves contradictions' doesn't address those boundaries."


Yes, but they are not what the "why" was about.

Here's the why: Even if we go solely with your constraints and interpretations (your version of me being "flexible"), we are left with the following of YOUR premises:

I. God is natural, and not supernatural.

A. By defs 3-5 of the word, this god is thus not miraculous, divine, or a diety. This is not a personal viewpoint, its a priori definition that predates me.
B. By defs 1-2, the god is limited to the natural world, cannot exert power beyond it. This is not a personal viewpoint, its the definition of the word.

II. God is perfect, nature is perfect, everything in nature is perfect, including me and everything else.

A. Thus, God is not greater than me. Even if we go solely by your reference frame that this "brings me up, not god down", myself and god are still, by your premise, on the same level, as all things are one the same level as themselves. Such a god could well exist, but it is on the same level as me, is no more or less perfect than me. This is not personal viewpoint, it is natural consequence of the premise that you put forward.


Thus, as I've said repeatedly in this thread, having for the sake of discussion adopted each premise you've given and even let you dictate how I must interpret the percumbent reference frames, going totally by how you described things, what you are left is with a god that is:

A. "Perfect and natural" but either not divine/miraculous/diety [3-5], or else limited to the natural world and unable to exert [U]super[U]lative power over it [1-2]. This covers all five definitions, and in either case, leaves one with a definitely limited god.

B. A god that is no more "perfect" or godly than I am. And of course, I'm told that I'M the one being the egotist if I'm unimpressed by that.

Again, because you've ignored it for days, such a god could totally exist and be the case, but deductively, it has exactly the limits that are a result of the properties that you've given it. It is thus a limited god, but could certainly be the case. I've said that here, and before several times.

Mur, I let you tailor the shirt, and I have just detailed, with clear application of YOUR chosen properties for this god, why this shirt doesn't fit.

Not really. One thing by definition is on the same level with itself. Being on different levels implies two things.

To reiterate: what is on a level with you, then?

Hmm...so, because I don't put myself on a equal level with some god (except for the thought excercise, which had deductive results as already detailed)

because I don't consider myself as perfect as some god (except as above)

because I don't imply that disagreeing with me means the other person needs therapy (as others here have),

then I'm guilty of self worship? Because I have and apply criteria for what I will worship?

When I allowed for the top two above for purposes of thought excercise, those things led to outcomes, the predicates of which I have detailed. So self worship is having a standard of what I will bow down to, which explicity excludes myself?

Irony, for sure.

You misunderstand. You impose a singluar definition, only by which you will accept a thing as "god"; you actually stated that any god who does not match this defintiion isn't "goddy" enough for you; and you expect something from god, like that you should be able to worship him according to your criteria. All of that is self-worship --it is you holding "you" before "god", before anything.

But that's neither here nor there.

To reiterate: what is on a level with you, then?


That I can prove, only myself. I suspect that most humans are on a level with me, and perhaps some above.


You misunderstand. You impose a singluar definition, only by which you will accept a thing as "god"; you actually stated that any god who does not match this defintiion isn't "goddy" enough for you; and you expect something from god, like that you should be able to worship him according to your criteria. All of that is self-worship --it is you holding "you" before "god", before anything.

But that's neither here nor there.

It is here:

The one thing that any God, any thing in fact, OWES to all else, is to let all else choose what it will worship. Even the concept of the Judeo Christian god allows one at least the option (with draconian consequences, but at least the option) of choosing not to worship it.

Any God that does not at least allow the universe to choose what to worship, to set its own criteria, and a deeply cherished right, the right to worship what and how I want, at will, then it is a failed God in the most definitive sense. I allow others to worship as they will; if God can't allow the same from others, it is mere tyrant, an excercise in vulgar power, and little else.

Now, you've labeled having a criteria as to what you will worship to be "self-worship".

But what is the alternative to having a criteria of what to worship? Having no criteria of what to worship. What kind of god respects or even accepts that unthinking worship (remember, if you think about it and choose, you are applying a criteria, which you claimed was "self-worship)?

The claims you make must be proportionate to the standard you are prepared to meet. Even humans can usually cope with that. If god can't, it deserves no worship.

And by what Ashmo has claimed, "any worship" I do is inherently to this nature god thing, so by her premise, even IF I were "self-worshipping", but that logic I'd worshipping it anyway.

By Mur's claim, I'm already part of God, its perfect, but no moreso than I, so even IF I were "self-worshipping", I'd be worshipping something as perfect as this nature-god thing. Now, he's not asking me to worship, he's asking me to consider, which I did above.

And if I were to dare to actually go by my own claim, refraining from worshipping one thing does not mean I worship myself; it simply means I excercise choice that dares to include (gasp) considered criteria. If a nature god or any other god can't cope with that, it has no more worship coming than anything else.

So, again, the several times I said <etc>
This the last thing I'm going to say to you about this subject:

1) I understand what you are saying.

2) It misses the point of what I am saying.

3) I have explained my point to you several times. You keep missing it. I conclude that you are not going to see it, no matter how I explain it.

4) I have told you what questions I would like you to answer for me. You insist that you have answered them. I explain how your comments did not answer them. You repeat the same comments and yell at me. I conclude that the only answers you have to give me are not the ones I'm looking for. Therefore there is no point in asking you these questions.

5) My conclusion in re the thread in general is this:

A) You posted the OP question with an answer in mind that you were hoping to receive, but you did not tell us that.

B) People like me and Ashmoria and some others entered with the idea that the OP was meant to open general debate on a general topic, and we began floating various ideas.

C) They were not the ideas you wanted to hear and you decided to judge them according to unspoken criteria you had in your head but which were different from the parameters of the OP question.

D) You began to attack and reject ideas that did not fit your unspoken criteria.

E) I, for one, attempted to defend my idea based on the criteria of the OP question. When I realized that you were using different criteria, I tried to bring you around to the OP question.

F) That seems to have made you angry. You in turn made me angry.

G) I now realize that you have no intention of addressing ideas according to the OP question, and I know that I have no interest in what you personally consider "goddy."

H) Therefore, I quit.

You can take umbrage at my manners all you like. Yours are no better. You have been at least as insulting and condescending towards me as you say I have been towards you. You can think I'm being as thickheaded as you like. You have done no better. In fact, I maintain that you have made even less of an effort to understand me than I have you. You can accuse me of being closed-minded all you like. I am not the one who has done nothing but throw the same rejections at the person I'm talking to over and over regardless of everything they say, ignored points, and refused to answer questions.

I suggested a couple of possible answers to your OP question, which to me seem to have a sound logical structure. They are in the thread. If there is anyone who wants to judge them on their own merits in the context of the OP question and find flaws in them, I will be happy to read such critiques. But I'm done fighting with you. It is not enjoyable.

Oh, and one last thing:
<snip>

Again, because you've ignored it for days, such a god could totally exist and be the case, but deductively, it has exactly the limits that are a result of the properties that you've given it. It is thus a limited god, but could certainly be the case. I've said that here, and before several times.

<snip>
I have not "ignored it for days". I told you specifically that NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO THINK ANYTHING WE ARE SAYING COULD BE REAL OR COULD BE THE CASE. That means that you saying it is BESIDE THE POINT.

I don't know why I just bothered to type that. I know you're not going to get it. But I just am sick of being told how I failed to address points that were never a part of the thread to begin with, but only existed inside your head. Gods, it's like arguing with I guy I used to date. Until I dumped him.

This the last thing I'm going to say to you about this subject:

1) I understand what you are saying.

2) It misses the point of what I am saying.

3) I have explained my point to you several times. You keep missing it. I conclude that you are not going to see it, no matter how I explain it.

4) I have told you what questions I would like you to answer for me. You insist that you have answered them. I explain how your comments did not answer them. You repeat the same comments and yell at me. I conclude that the only answers you have to give me are not the ones I'm looking for. Therefore there is no point in asking you these questions.

Read the bolded part carefully. It very much is who you are.


5) My conclusion in re the thread in general is this:

A) You posted the OP question with an answer in mind that you were hoping to receive, but you did not tell us that.

B) People like me and Ashmoria and some others entered with the idea that the OP was meant to open general debate on a general topic, and we began floating various ideas.

C) They were not the ideas you wanted to hear and you decided to judge them according to unspoken criteria you had in your head but which were different from the parameters of the OP question.

D) You began to attack and reject ideas that did not fit your unspoken criteria.

E) I, for one, attempted to defend my idea based on the criteria of the OP question. When I realized that you were using different criteria, I tried to bring you around to the OP question.

F) That seems to have made you angry. You in turn made me angry.

G) I now realize that you have no intention of addressing ideas according to the OP question, and I know that I have no interest in what you personally consider "goddy."

You didn't understand the OP question, then. It simply said, "Is God supernatural", and you've presented a God that is "natural", but is thus then limited as I've described. Its "goddyness" is thus precisely central to the OP question.


H) Therefore, I quit.

You can take umbrage at my manners all you like. Yours are no better. You have been at least as insulting and condescending towards me as you say I have been towards you. You can think I'm being as thickheaded as you like. You have done no better. In fact, I maintain that you have made even less of an effort to understand me than I have you. You can accuse me of being closed-minded all you like. I am not the one who has done nothing but throw the same rejections at the person I'm talking to over and over regardless of everything they say, ignored points, and refused to answer questions.

I have, in detail and enumerated, addressed the points having to do with the god thing you wanted to discuss.


I suggested a couple of possible answers to your OP question, which to me seem to have a sound logical structure. They are in the thread. If there is anyone who wants to judge them on their own merits in the context of the OP question and find flaws in them, I will be happy to read such critiques. But I'm done fighting with you. It is not enjoyable.

If your discourse is limited to what you find enjoyable, and further limited by you needing to recieve the answers that you "want", it explains a great deal about you.

I challenge you to show me one question of yours that I did not answer.

And if you were referring to these:


Again, you are assuming that there is something inherently "low-end" or "low-rent" or otherwise undesirable about the world. Why is that?

But what will you do if it turns out there isn't anything else? I mean, how would that make you feel about life and why?

Yet again, why does it make it a low-end god, instead of a high-end you?

Note in the underlined post, you do take issue with whether or not the premise is the case, despite your claims to being unconcerned with that.

I answered them within a few posts of when they were originally posited, but I'll answer again in different form:

The world, whether in and of itself or by some nature god, if it is limited to being natural and cannot surpass that, is by definition, low end. It cannot, by your ascribed properties, do better. You placed the premise that it be natural and thus not supernatural; it is thus "low rent" in that it can't do supernatural things, only try to use natural processes to appear nifty. That's why its "low end".

If there isn't anything else, that's very possible, and it doesn't make me "feel" anything particular intense. A low end world, with or without a nature god, is less super duper by not having a supernatural god, that's how I feel about it. But exploring an idea on the merits of how it "pleases" you, or how it makes you "feel" is something you've advocated. It explains more about you.

As to "Why does it make a low end god instead of a high end you?", I addressed that specfically twice. If we take your interpretation as the only available one (Muryavets version of being "open minded"), then even if I am raised up, it still leads to limits of god that have been described. But since by your own specific declared model, all things are equally perfect together, they are on the same level, and to say "its high, not low" contradicts your principal premise.

Oh, and one last thing:

I have not "ignored it for days". I told you specifically that NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO THINK ANYTHING WE ARE SAYING COULD BE REAL OR COULD BE THE CASE. That means that you saying it is BESIDE THE POINT.

Your exact words were this:

But what will you do if it turns out there isn't anything else?

If you're going to yell after accusing me of yelling, at least try to yell something not demonstrably false.


I don't know why I just bothered to type that. I know you're not going to get it. But I just am sick of being told how I failed to address points that were never a part of the thread to begin with, but only existed inside your head.

The thread was: "Is God supernatural?". My points related to the consequences of the proposed divinity (i.e. goddyness) of the god model that you described. How can the "goddyness" of the model you proposed NOT be directly relevant to the question "Is God supernatural?" Even if you are presenting an alternative, you can't escape the consequences of the alternative that you raised.

Mur, if you propose a model of a natural god, you must be prepared to withstand at least rudimentary analysis of that model, since you put it forward.

Every point I made was a response to a property YOU gave to the god that were were discussing, and were thus utterly pervasive to the very nature of the thread


Gods, it's like arguing with I guy I used to date. Until I dumped him.

Compare the cogency of what I wrote above to what you just said. Others might.

That I can prove, only myself. I suspect that most humans are on a level with me, and perhaps some above.



It is here:

The one thing that any God, any thing in fact, OWES to all else, is to let all else choose what it will worship. Even the concept of the Judeo Christian god allows one at least the option (with draconian consequences, but at least the option) of choosing not to worship it.

Any God that does not at least allow the universe to choose what to worship, to set its own criteria, and a deeply cherished right, the right to worship what and how I want, at will, then it is a failed God in the most definitive sense. I allow others to worship as they will; if God can't allow the same from others, it is mere tyrant, an excercise in vulgar power, and little else.

Now, you've labeled having a criteria as to what you will worship to be "self-worship".

Yes (sorta). And that's not a bad thing, just an ironic one.

But what is the alternative to having a criteria of what to worship? Having no criteria of what to worship. What kind of god respects or even accepts that unthinking worship (remember, if you think about it and choose, you are applying a criteria, which you claimed was "self-worship)?

If God is separate from you, you have something to worship, by whatever unique criteria we each will have. If, as you say, you are on a level with yourself, you've something to worship (figuratively holding your self apart from yourself). If, however, you and God are one, the you-God is worship itself; is the choice to worship itself; is the criteria of worship; is literally everything.

And by what Ashmo has claimed, "any worship" I do is inherently to this nature god thing, so by her premise, even IF I were "self-worshipping", but that logic I'd worshipping it anyway.

Ash has the right of it.

Compare the cogency of what I wrote above to what you just said. Others might.
Let them.

Is there a part of "I'm done arguing with you" that you did not understand? Kindly direct all further comments to other posters, please. I will not be answering you on this topic again.

Oh, and you're new sig is elegant and sexy, but I wonder why you picked it? I hope it's not in the hope of having something you think is obvious to throw up to me and ridicule me with constantly.

Let them.

Is there a part of "I'm done arguing with you" that you did not understand? Kindly direct all further comments to other posters, please. I will not be answering you on this topic again.

Oh, but you still were permitted to direct comments at me as you just did? You can respond to me, direct things toward me, and I can't respond back or direct a reply? No, Muravyets, anything you post can be replied to. You can say "Muravyets is done", but you can't credibly say "Muravyets is done and you may not reply to his/her final edict!"

You get to decide when you are done arguing or responding with me (although you don't seem to stick by it). What you don't get to do is tell me what or to whom I may direct my comments.
If you aren't going to respond, that's your business, but the fact that you think its reasonable to tell someone not to respond to your "final" comments explains even more about you.

You wrote some things, and it is not within your power to prevent me from responding to them, as unable as you are to cope with those responses. You being done with your comments on this matter means you are (ostensibly) done commenting, not me, and since you decided to say some things on your way out, I'm within my rights to respond to them whether you can deal with the response or not.

The one who makes a big show of "I quit" and walks away doesn't get to dictate the last word unless they are prepared to continue to respond.


Oh, and you're new sig is elegant and sexy, but I wonder why you picked it? I hope it's not in the hope of having something you think is obvious to throw up to me and ridicule me with constantly.

It reveals a lot about a common mentality on nationstates.

If God is separate from you, you have something to worship, by whatever unique criteria we each will have. If, as you say, you are on a level with yourself, you've something to worship (figuratively holding your self apart from yourself). If, however, you and God are one, the you-God is worship itself; is the choice to worship itself; is the criteria of worship; is literally everything.


If "I and God are one", your derisive accusation of self-worship is inevitable, and thus meaningless as a choice.

Also, being on "a level with yourself" does not "figuratively hold yourself apart from yourself". 2 = 2, on the same level, which is nowhere near the same as claimg 2 != 2.

Holding yourself on a level with yourself is consistent with a sameness of self, rather than holding one "apart" from oneself.

This fashionable pseudo-deep "you and god are one" premise would be much more credible (and explorable) if it preserved even basic compatibility with its own given tenets.

If "I and God are one", your derisive accusation of self-worship is inevitable, and thus meaningless as a choice.

It wasn't derisive. :)

It wasn't derisive. :)

Anyone can go back and see where you said it and how, and make up their own mind; saying "oh, and this is just meant as irony" can be attached to anything, but it doesn't alter the intrinsic nature of the premise.

But notice, even if we remove "derisive" it remains that:

If "I and God are one", your accusation of self-worship is inevitable, and thus meaningless as a choice.

If God is separate from you, you have something to worship, by whatever unique criteria we each will have. If, as you say, you are on a level with yourself, you've something to worship (figuratively holding your self apart from yourself). If, however, you and God are one, the you-God is worship itself; is the choice to worship itself; is the criteria of worship; is literally everything.

You seem to contradict yourself again. You ascribed the property of "self worship" to me as a natural result of having criteria and declared it "ironic", yet by what you yourself say here, we each have a criteria, so the property, by your claim, would be universal and thus by definition not very ironic.

It has also been claimed that me having criteria to worship is me being "egoist", in need of therapy for low self esteem, and Ashmo claimed that having such a criteria was not acceptable, yet you have agreed with her but now claim that we each have a criteria.

Again, I can abide a bit of nebulousness in your premise, but in many places you completely contradict yourself, and that's when you don't just ignore entire areas where your premise has been illustrated as untennable.

EDIT: Separate note, real life calls, I'll try to get back later, I'm not ignoring you. Take care.

Oh, but you still were permitted to direct comments at me as you just did? You can respond to me, direct things toward me, and I can't respond back or direct a reply? No, Muravyets, anything you post can be replied to. You can say "Muravyets is done", but you can't credibly say "Muravyets is done and you may not reply to his/her final edict!"

You get to decide when you are done arguing or responding with me (although you don't seem to stick by it). What you don't get to do is tell me what or to whom I may direct my comments.
If you aren't going to respond, that's your business, but the fact that you think its reasonable to tell someone not to respond to your "final" comments explains even more about you.

You wrote some things, and it is not within your power to prevent me from responding to them, as unable as you are to cope with those responses. You being done with your comments on this matter means you are (ostensibly) done commenting, not me, and since you decided to say some things on your way out, I'm within my rights to respond to them whether you can deal with the response or not.

The one who makes a big show of "I quit" and walks away doesn't get to dictate the last word unless they are prepared to continue to respond.


It reveals a lot about a common mentality on nationstates.
As you have more than amply proven, I cannot stop you from replying to anything you like. But why does that mean that I have to keep arguing a topic if I don't want to? Because you say so? Because you're not bored with typing the same words over and over?

As of this post, you have made your entire argument with me personal, having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. I suggest that you are the one being officious and domineering here, or trying to be. I'm the one trying to avoid conflict by abandoning an argument. You are the one trying to escalate it.

Your personal attacks against me are borderline flames. So is your use of that particular line in that manner for your signature. I make this post only to ask you in writing to let it go, and to establish a history, in case you decide to continue these personal verbal attacks.

As of this response, you will not receive any more responses from me.

As you have more than amply proven, I cannot stop you from replying to anything you like. But why does that mean that I have to keep arguing a topic if I don't want to? Because you say so? Because you're not bored with typing the same words over and over?

When did I ever say you HAVE to respond? I only said that if you can't, you don't get the last word.

You've said several times you weren't going to argue it further, and I said that's fine, just don't tell me that I can't respond.


As of this post, you have made your entire argument with me personal, having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.

You were the one who tried to close out comparing me to a boyfriend you dumped. That's clearly a bit more personal and a bit less on topic.

If a "personal" escalation consists of me pointing out that I had and have every right to respond to any of your many "final" posts, thats an unfair constraint on myself.

The fact is, all I did with "that" post is point out that if you direct something to me as your final statement, I can respond to it. That was a direct response to you trying to limit what I could respond to; thus, it addresses a topic (me limiting my responses) that you broached. To now call it off topic after you raised it is problematic, to say the least.


I suggest that you are the one being officious and domineering here, or trying to be. I'm the one trying to avoid conflict by abandoning an argument. You are the one trying to escalate it.

Posting something, which I responded to, then you tell me not to respond, is not abandoning the argument. If you truly want to "abandon the argument", do what you already claimed you would do: stop posting.

I can continue to post, and each time I have, it has been no more than a response to something you've said, and certainly no more "personal" than your "oh, you're like a guy I dated, I dumped him" line.


Your personal attacks against me are borderline flames. So is your use of that particular line in that manner for your signature. I make this post only to ask you in writing to let it go, and to establish a history, in case you decide to continue these personal verbal attacks.

What verbal attacks? In my reply to your first "last" post, in your "one last thing", on topic, you said (or rather screamed):

I told you specifically that NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO THINK ANYTHING WE ARE SAYING COULD BE REAL OR COULD BE THE CASE. That means that you saying it is BESIDE THE POINT.

So, I just pointed out that you had previously said:

But what will you do if it turns out there isn't anything else?

wherein you clearly explicitly ask me to consider if that were the case. Just because you wanted YOUR post to be the end of it doesn't mean I can't respond. These "personal attacks" consist of no more than me pointing that out.


As of this response, you will not receive any more responses from me.

Yes, you've said that before.

But anyone can see that each response I've made has been a quoted response to something you've said to me. Thus, I've addressed you no more than you've addressed me.

As for whether its on-topic, I repeatedly addressed the idea of a "natural god" using bounds you set, and when you didn't like the out come, you just told me in all caps how that's "beside the point", when its the precise point of the intent of the thread.

As to the sig, its something you said. This is an open forum, with no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are that bothered by what you yourself said, its possible the mods will order me to remove it, but the fact that you needed that done still says something.

:confused:
How the hell would God NOT be supernatural?
:confused:

By existing within our universe without violating any natural laws. By being... yknow... a real thing.

By existing within our universe without violating any natural laws. By being... yknow... a real thing.

But if it has the power or the option to violate natural laws, or even decide what natural laws will be, maintain them, etc, then it is supernatural, even if its real.

Notice, the word "supernatural" doesn't mean "unreal" or "non-existant"

It means (from the dictionary):

Supernatural

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.


So, if God isn't supernatural, then it is not a deity, not divine, and not miraculous.

If we ignore the last 3 definitions, it still results that if God isn't supernatural, it can't go beyond natural forces. It is thus limited by those natural forces and is, in that sense, a limited god, a priori.

Doesn't mean that isn't the case, but having a god specifically delineated as "not supernatural" has consequences, as per the meaning of the word above.

EDIT: Now, if you're committed to the premise that the only things that CAN exist must exist constrained by the natural world, the supernatural would describe only non-existant things, but some models say that there can be the natural world and those things contained, and a world beyond that which is powerful or self-evident enough to exist outside natural limit and still exist.

But even with those constraints, a "real" god that is not supernatural is thus limited to natural boundaries and by natural forces, which makes it more of just a big super spiffy thing, but if it can't go beyond natural forces (the definition of a miracle) then it isn't miraculous. If it can do cool things that seem miraculous, but are still done by natural method, they just seem miraculous, they aren't by definition. That's a limited god, although it may be the "real" one, conceivably.

God exists outside of nature and is not bound by the laws of nature. That's pretty conclusively supernatural.

God exists outside of nature and is not bound by the laws of nature. That's pretty conclusively supernatural.
Is your statement referring only to the Judeo-Christian god? If so, I'd be curious how you know this about that god. Do you base it solely on the assertions of that theology, accepting their premise as an axiom? Or is there some other reason -- perhaps some personal experience, or some reasoning about the nature of god and nature, something along those lines?

I would agree that the Judeo-Christian god-concept is pretty clearly meant to be supernatural. I just would be curious to hear the reasoning behind it.

On the other hand, if you are asserting this as applicable to all god-concepts ("God" being a generic term then), then why do you think this? Because several people have outlined god-concepts (not necessarily meant to be anything like the Judeo-Christian concept) that are natural but still fall within divinity-concepts.* I would be interested to hear a fair critique of those god-concepts -- if that's what you meant.

(*Yes, I know the OP disagrees with me, but whatever.)

God exists outside of nature and is not bound by the laws of nature. That's pretty conclusively supernatural.

So, in the dictionary, "God" is listed as:

God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

5. A very handsome man.

6. A powerful ruler or despot.


So, the last three make for a particularly unimpressive God, the 2nd and 3rd are supernatural, a priori.

So, that leaves us with an omipotent originator of the universe.

Now, if something is omnipotent (or even miraculous, which is by defintion, supernatural unless its just a natural effect masquerading as a miracle), then it can, by definition do the following (or anything):

1. Identify a natural law.

2. And then break, make, change, suspend, or ignore it.

So by being omnipotent, it is thus able to beyond the normal course of nature; differing from the natural.

It is thus still supernatural by the predicates applied.

Now, can you model a god that can't identify and then break a natural law? Sure, but then its no longer omnipotent, and doesn't fit any of the other definitions either. So, what you're left with is a god that can't meet the definitions of a god.

Personally, I think either could exist, whether its a supernatural god that is not limited by natural law, or a natural god that is limited by natural law.

The second one is just, by the very premise of assigning it the property "not supernatural", limited to nature. Doesn't make it false or unreasonable, just limited.

The biblical God is supernatural, because he both:
1.can violate the laws of nature (the physical world), by working a miracle
2.determines (or determined at the act of creation) said laws of nature

So he is OUTSIDE the bounds of nature, and hierarchically ABOVE the bounds of nature. Which in latin can be translated as being placed supra naturā (supra, comparative superior, superlative supremus).

The biblical God is supernatural, because he both:
1.can violate the laws of nature (the physical world), by working a miracle
2.determines (or determined at the act of creation) said laws of nature

So he is OUTSIDE the bounds of nature, and hierarchically ABOVE the bounds of nature. Which in latin can be translated as being placed supra naturā (supra, comparative superior, superlative supremus).

I'll buy that.

I'm not saying you can't have a "natural" god, but such god would then not be above the bounds of nature. It could still be very powerful and do cool things, but it is less "miraculous*", "divine" or "diefic" (in defs 3-5 of the dictionary for "supernatural) then a "supernatural" god.

(Miracles are sometimes defined as either "supernatural" or "preternatural", but are thus beyond natural scope and limit, a priori).

A) To answer according to my own viewpoint: God is not "supernatural", so it's not an issue.
...

Second however, if the natural can perceive the supernatural (presumably with its natural senses and brains), then what is it about the supernatural that makes it different from the natural? Does this bring us back to my real viewpoint that there is no such thing as "supernatural"?

I agree with your viewpoint, personally, but...

I think it's possible that the natural can communicate with the supernatural, while still being a very separate thing. An analogy would be the relationship between your mind and your fingers. Your mind is a non-corporeal thing, yet it still is able to communicate your intention to your fingers that type the words we read, a totally physical thing.

I agree with your viewpoint, personally, but...

I think it's possible that the natural can communicate with the supernatural, while still being a very separate thing. An analogy would be the relationship between your mind and your fingers. Your mind is a non-corporeal thing, yet it still is able to communicate your intention to your fingers that type the words we read, a totally physical thing.
That's an interesting way to view it. If I understand it right, it creates an idea of the natural and supernatural co-existing and interacting in a rather profoundly necessary way, which does make sense to me.

However, this still does not tell me what is different about the supernatural versus the natural that makes them two separate things.

In the analogy, you draw a distinction between the mind being incorporeal and the fingers being physical, but you still acknowledge that, in their practical, interactive function, they are parts of a unified whole. So if both mind and fingers are part of A PERSON, is there any meaning beyond a trivial descriptive detail in saying that the mind is different from the fingers? To me, it would seem then that we may as well make different state-of-existence categories for all our other organs and faculties, too, as they are all parts of the one that is US, but different from each other.

I guess I'm looking at the context of that "totally physical thing" you mentioned above. If both mind and body are ME, does it matter that they are different from each other?

Similarly, if supernatural and natural are interactive parts of a whole, what matters more -- the parts or the whole? To me, it is the whole that matters most when we are defining existence and reality. Because of this, my thoughts will ALWAYS merge the concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" into each other. I just can't help it, because whenever I look at them, all I see is one whole, one thing, the same thing. Just as, whether I am considering my mind or my hand, I am still thinking about ME, so too, whether I am considering physical objects/entities or spiritual objects/entities, I am still thinking about that which exists, and existence is a unifying matrix, the whole that connects all the parts and makes them practically, functionally the same as each other. Just as my hand and my mind are equally parts of me, so gods and humans and other things are all equally parts of, manifestations of universal existence.

I'm not trying to challenge your argument with this. I'm just trying to explain my thought process in order to explain why your perfectly good analogy doesn't quite address the question for me personally.

My way of thinking causes distinctions like "natural" and "supernatural" to become meaningless. The only reason I use the word "natural" at all is because the need to communicate demands that I pick a word, and although it is not perhaps the ideal label to express what I mean, "natural" tends to come down as the most efficient label available to me.

However, if I could find some practical, functionally necessary, and non-arbitrary-seeming distinctions between what people call "natural" things and "supernatural" things, then I could figure out a way to use the word "supernatural" in this context that would not seem fake to me.

The OP poster tried to get me to accept the definition of "supernatural" as being tied to "divine, miraculous, having to do with deities, etc." but as I said to him, that distinction seems arbitrary to me -- a rule that is imposed without any practical or functional necessity to it.

Because if he can't make a nature that's not part of him, he's got a limit. He could be real, but he's got a limit.

For me to worship him, not to consider that he/it might be real.

If we're talking about it in concept, if a god can't go beyond its own nature, its limited to the same things the rest of us are. And if it wants benefit of the doubt for its properties that are beyond my "human consciousness", then I guess he's not as much on "my level" as was previously claimed.

If god had to use natural means to do it, he's just a tool user like the rest of us primates. Not very godly.

Its not unrealistic, its the dictionary. Miraculous == supernatural. If we want to go more with defs 1-2, you can wiggle it, but you claimed you could do it with 3-5.

That's like saying if you want an integer to be both even and odd, you can just call it odd because it takes less time to type.

A word doesn't have to describe something that exists to be meaningful. Even if god is solely natural and not supernatural, he is then "natural", not some sort of collision of both in which supernatural is truncated.

Supernatural == miraculous, divine, diety, by the dictionary. If you don't prefer long words, that's fine, and practical even, but to now decide that god is "natural" and "not supernatural" but still "miraculous" is not consistent with the 3-5 defs.

A contradiction of terms doesn't resolve itself by just picking the shorter word and saying QED. It means one of the terms doesn't apply. Its either natural or supernatural, and since supernatural==miraculous (the only inflexibility here is one of the dictionary, if we want to exclude defs 3-5, you can again wiggle it), you can't have both.

Think reference frames. There is no final one, but a "high end me" that is equal to all things which are all perfect, nothing is higher, (by what you've said), and if nothing is higher, that's a self-evident let down.

All models of god have limits, even the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god of the monotheists. That god is either limited by those factors that are necessarily associated with those attributes, or is limited in that it can not manifest in our universe without disregarding logic. So, if you want to worship a being that has no limits, you would have to exist in a universe that has no logic. Sorry.

Now, a god of nature (immanent) who works through secondary causes (natural processes and not miracles) is not limited solely to that role. God could be both immanent in the world and transcendently beyond it at the same time. She could work miracles, or simply choose not to. Experience suggests that god either willfully avoids miraculous manifestations, or that god is incapable of such a feat. EDIT: What I was trying to say was that a god of nature need not be limited to nature itself, even if he is nature and nature is him. One model has the natural universe as god's body and the information of the universe as god's mind. So, the body would not be able to make miracles happen and do all the supernatural things you require of a god, while the spirit of god, which we can imagine as a transcendental aspect of god, would be able to accomplish those miracles. Such a model would explain why god does not miraculously manifest as the divine every time she wants to do something; it would be easier for her to use her body to manipulate physical reality than it would be for her to use her other faculties. It has the added bonus of not defying the laws of physics, which ensures a stable and orderly universe in which we can evolve.

We do know that there is evil, death, suffering and chance in the world, which are impossible to reconcile logically with such an all powerful god.

So, we could envision a god that limits his own powers so that humans can experience free will, and the necessary effects of such a thing, like evil, chance and suffering, are an indirect product of god's gift to us: our free lives.

Not very traditional or Christian, I know, but such a god is not the Christian god and doesn't give a fig if you worship it or not.

You are using the definition of supernatural wrong. Supernatural can mean "miraculous, divine, diety," but that does not mean that "miraculous, divine, diety," must then mean 'supernatural". Going to church is activity related to a deity, but it is decidedly not supernatural. So, unless you can prove otherwise, I don't see why we can't have things that are natural and miraculous, divine and deific. An immanent god would be an example. Within the Judeo-Christian paradigm, we have other examples of things considere to be both natural and divine, such as holy relics.

Which is higher, your arm or your morality? I ask this because you seem to have a hierarchy. Is my arm low end and my morality high end? Or are they both low end and my whole self is high end? Please elaborate.

All models of god have limits,

yes, all models do.

the Only Real God does not.


:rolleyes:

I claim that God, whether it exists or not, is a concept that posesses the property of being supernatural, whether the concept represents a real thing or not.


Real God is not a concept...not even one that "represents a real thing".

there are concepts that possess the property of being "supernatural"---although which those are depends on what you priorly understand nature to include; however, Real God is not among them, since Real God is not a concept.


neither is Real God "a real thing", which can be represented. Real God is Reality, Itself---but Real God is not an object (or "thing"), of any kind.

Reality Itself---the Only Real God---is the Un-conditional Condition (or Intrinsic Subject) of all conditions (or apparent objects).


but---if not a concept, or a 'real thing' (which can be represented)---is (Real) God, nonetheless, 'supernatural'?


if;

we may agree that:

Real God is Existence Itself, the Intrinsically (or non-apparent, but Self-Evident and Self-Existing) Prior Condition of all apparent conditions (or objects);

and, if we may likewise agree that:

the Intrinsically (or non-apparent, but Self-Evident and Self-Existing) Prior Condition of all apparent conditions (or objects) is 'Senior' to---or "Super" in apparent relation to---all apparent conditions;

and, if may also agree that:

"nature" is nothing more than the total happening of apparent conditions (or objects)---whether or not it is anything less;

then;

we may also agree that:


(Real) God Is Super-natural!



i would further add:

The Only Real God Is The Very Self-Nature of nature, itself.

All models of god have limits, even the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god of the monotheists. That god is either limited by those factors that are necessarily associated with those attributes, or is limited in that it can not manifest in our universe without disregarding logic. So, if you want to worship a being that has no limits, you would have to exist in a universe that has no logic. Sorry.

Now, a god of nature (immanent) who works through secondary causes (natural processes and not miracles) is not limited solely to that role. God could be both immanent in the world and transcendently beyond it at the same time. She could work miracles, or simply choose not to. Experience suggests that god either willfully avoids miraculous manifestations, or that god is incapable of such a feat. EDIT: What I was trying to say was that a god of nature need not be limited to nature itself, even if he is nature and nature is him. One model has the natural universe as god's body and the information of the universe as god's mind. So, the body would not be able to make miracles happen and do all the supernatural things you require of a god, while the spirit of god, which we can imagine as a transcendental aspect of god, would be able to accomplish those miracles. Such a model would explain why god does not miraculously manifest as the divine every time she wants to do something; it would be easier for her to use her body to manipulate physical reality than it would be for her to use her other faculties. It has the added bonus of not defying the laws of physics, which ensures a stable and orderly universe in which we can evolve.

We do know that there is evil, death, suffering and chance in the world, which are impossible to reconcile logically with such an all powerful god.

So, we could envision a god that limits his own powers so that humans can experience free will, and the necessary effects of such a thing, like evil, chance and suffering, are an indirect product of god's gift to us: our free lives.

Not very traditional or Christian, I know, but such a god is not the Christian god and doesn't give a fig if you worship it or not.

You are using the definition of supernatural wrong. Supernatural can mean "miraculous, divine, diety," but that does not mean that "miraculous, divine, diety," must then mean 'supernatural". Going to church is activity related to a deity, but it is decidedly not supernatural. So, unless you can prove otherwise, I don't see why we can't have things that are natural and miraculous, divine and deific. An immanent god would be an example. Within the Judeo-Christian paradigm, we have other examples of things considere to be both natural and divine, such as holy relics.

Which is higher, your arm or your morality? I ask this because you seem to have a hierarchy. Is my arm low end and my morality high end? Or are they both low end and my whole self is high end? Please elaborate.

Even if we exclude the dictionary definition of supernatural as including the divine, miraculous, etc, and go with your premise that there are other ways to arrive at the miraculous than the supernatural way (if I'm following you), the problem is this:

I looked up miracle and it includes the property of preternatural, which includes the property of "above and beyond nature", so even if we start wit "miracle", we still end up outside nature, a priori. Now, can you play with and redefine the words somehow more progressively to wiggle what you want? Sure, but then, you can anything is anything, and it just infinite degrees of kevin bacon.

As to the high end/low end, my arm and my morality are both low end because they are limited by nature; conversely, a model of a "supernatural" god is higher (in this regard, its not the only axis on which to measure things)
because it is not, by definition of the word "supernatural", limited to nature. A "non-supernatural" god is. It might be real, and very cool, but its not got the supernatural mojo, so on that axis, its nudged a bit down. Could be real still, but its not supernatural, and is thus bound by nature.

A "supernatural" god, if there is or were such a thing, isn't thus bound.

Now, some people feel "supernatural" is meaningless, but just because it describes something that may not exist, that doens't make it meaningless. Its possible that leprechauns or unicorns or certain kinds of particles may not exist, but we still have terms to describe them. Even the term "unreal" has a meaning, even though the things it describes don't exist.

So, all I'm saying is, you could very well have a "non-supernatural" god. He/she/it/they/us/all just doesn't have the properties of being "super" to nature, and the reason it doesn't is that's how its proponents defined it.

That's an interesting way to view it. If I understand it right, it creates an idea of the natural and supernatural co-existing and interacting in a rather profoundly necessary way, which does make sense to me.

...

The OP poster tried to get me to accept the definition of "supernatural" as being tied to "divine, miraculous, having to do with deities, etc." but as I said to him, that distinction seems arbitrary to me -- a rule that is imposed without any practical or functional necessity to it.

Well, if we define the supernatural as 'that which explicitly defies natural laws', we immediately run into the problem that god does not seem to do supernatural things in reality. So, I make the assumption that god is either natural and limited to natural laws such as cause and effect, or god chooses not to manifest supernaturally. So, if god has a supernatural aspect that is actually important, it is not functioning in the role that our ancient legislating friend would demand of god.

But the analogy I offered earlier has more to offer. The mind moves the hand to do what it wants. The mind wants to communicate some trivial theological tidbit across the net to some other mind, so the mind wills the hand to type. Information and will flows from the non-corporeal to the corporeal. However, information and will do not just flow one way, but also can flow the other way: if the hand feels pain, the mind is willed into feeling and reacting.

If we see this as a model for god's nature (the hand) and his supernature (the mind), we could envision a similar relationship. God's spirit impels the body (that which we call nature) towards whatever goals god has, while at the same time, god's body is reacting and feeding information to the mind as to what is going on in this corporeal existence.

In such a model, we see that god acts as an integrated whole just as we do. As we have parts of ourselves that each fulfill a role in our actions and reaction, so does god. You are correct that the whole is more important, but each part is also important insofar that each different part plays a different role in realising our agenda. So I disagree with you when you say that the whole makes the parts practically and functionally the same as each other. In my view, the variety of the parts is an essential aspect of the whole. You couldn't have the latter without the former.

Mind you, there is still no reason for god to behave in a supernatural manner. I can't help you with that. I can't find a practical, functional and inarbitrary reason for god to be parting oceans and turning regretful women into columns of condiments.

Well, if we define the supernatural as 'that which explicitly defies natural laws', we immediately run into the problem that god does not seem to do supernatural things in reality. So, I make the assumption that god is either natural and limited to natural laws such as cause and effect, or god chooses not to manifest supernaturally. So, if god has a supernatural aspect that is actually important, it is not functioning in the role that our ancient legislating friend would demand of god.


thats relates to what i was talking about. if we look at the actual world instead of the world described in the bible or by religious speakers we find no miracles.

when was the last time someone rose from the dead, walked on water, or made 5 fish feed 1000 people? those are just stories.

we can see from the real world that if god exists he does NOT do miracles in a supernatural fashion. he does not interact with us in a supernatural fashion. all there is is the natural universe that he set up in a specific rule driven manner.

if god MUST be supernatural then there is no god. or at least no god that has anything to do with us today.

Even if we exclude the dictionary definition of supernatural as including the divine, miraculous, etc, and go with your premise that there are other ways to arrive at the miraculous than the supernatural way (if I'm following you), the problem is this:

...

So, all I'm saying is, you could very well have a "non-supernatural" god. He/she/it/they/us/all just doesn't have the properties of being "super" to nature, and the reason it doesn't is that's how its proponents defined it.

Yes. If you define miracle that way. I am not going to debate word definitions with you.

It does not change the fact that something could be divine or deific (or even miraculous by other definitions) and not be supernatural.

Nor does it change the fact that a nature god need not be limited to the natural. Perhaps the natural god simply prefers to act in ways that exclude the supernatural, despite being capable of acting in a supernatural capacity.

By the way, how is your morality limited by nature? That is not intuitive, and requires some elaboration.

Yes. If you define miracle that way. I am not going to debate word definitions with you.

Fair enough. I'm going by dictionary defintions that I looked up. If you want to go with others, you can wiggle what you're saying, just as you could wiggle anything by changing the definition.


It does not change the fact that something could be divine or deific (or even miraculous by other definitions) and not be supernatural.

As long as those "other definitions" are departures from the dictionary. You can choose whatever definition you want, and arrive at whatever conclusions you want using those defintions. Your conclusions are then of similarly arbitrary character, but not necessarily incorrect.



Nor does it change the fact that a nature god need not be limited to the natural. Perhaps the natural god simply prefers to act in ways that exclude the supernatural, despite being capable of acting in a supernatural capacity.


As long as it has the ability, even if it chooses not to excercise it, its capacity to do go beyond nature, even if voluntarily restrained, gives it supernatural option, and the option to do or not do something is the premise of the excercise of power.

Again, you can depart from dictionary definitions to make it otherwise.



By the way, how is your morality limited by nature? That is not intuitive, and requires some elaboration.

My morality, no matter how I compose it or excercise it, does not permit me to break natural law. That limit makes it non-supernatural.

To help me see where you're coming from, provide an example where one, by making a moral choice or exhibiting moral characteristic, can thus break or supercede natural law?

yes, all models do.

the Only Real God does not.


:rolleyes:

That's original. "There is only One Real God, and Reality-Humanity gets to dictate its properties".

As long as those "other definitions" are departures from the dictionary. You can choose whatever definition you want, and arrive at whatever conclusions you want using those defintions. Your conclusions are then of similarly arbitrary character, but not necessarily incorrect.

If we're going to play the definition game, I suggest you provide definitions of deity and divine that clearly define them as being exclusively supernatural, or at least clarify to what extent being supernatural is necessarily an aspect thereof. Feel free to use something more comprehensive than Merriam Websters.

My morality, no matter how I compose it or excercise it, does not permit me to break natural law. That limit makes it non-supernatural.

To help me see where you're coming from, provide an example where one, by making a moral choice or exhibiting moral characteristic, can thus break or supercede natural law?

I see. I was under the impression that morality and natural law had nothing to do with each other. But you are correct in that I cannot use morality to defy physical law, unless we claim that things like empathy and compassion are faster than light or use zero energy, which you can claim in a way, but we would be wandering off into semantics again.

If we're going to play the definition game, I suggest you provide definitions of deity and divine that clearly define them as being exclusively supernatural, or at least clarify to what extent being supernatural is necessarily an aspect thereof. Feel free to use something more comprehensive than Merriam Websters.

But thats my point. Merriam Websters is how I'm using the words. If you want to use other definitions, you can arrive at other conclusions, and as I already said, those conclusions are not necessarily incorrect.

I've posted the definitions that I"m using (** I'll post one that addresses the "clearly defined as being exclusively" below **), and I don't consider the dictionary to be a bad source. As a source, it says anything of or related to a diety or a miracle, it falls under "supernatural". If you want to use another source, you can, and again, that doesn't make your conclusions wrong, just different conclusions from different definitions.

So, something "more comprehensive" than the dictionary allows for all sort of stretching and reconstituting of definitions, and by allowing that, you can assert almost anything.

At least I'm not trying to use Wiki, which gives "Deity" as a "postulated preternatural or supernatural being" (note preternatural includes going beyond nature), which would be open and shut.

Going beyond the dictionary would be like saying "Well, let's say 'even' integers aren't just of the form 2k where k is an element of the integers, lets say they include pi." Well, you can do that and then say "By my definition, pi is even". There may be mathematics that do that, and they wouldn't be wrong, just different.

So again, all I'm claiming is that, by dictionary definition, my conclusions are sounds. By your definitions, I'm sure yours are very sound, and may even describe actuality, conceivably.


I see. I was under the impression that morality and natural law had nothing to do with each other. But you are correct in that I cannot use morality to defy physical law, unless we claim that things like empathy and compassion are faster than light or use zero energy, which you can claim in a way, but we would be wandering off into semantics again.

But what you call semantics is merely a reasonably coherent set of definitions that this kind of discussion honestly necessitates. You've disclosed that you have different definitions, and I'm sure they justify your conclusions given those definitions.

I'm using the dictionary definition, not just of "supernatural", but of "miracle", and "god". My conclusions are consistent with those definitions. What I arrive at is not better or more "true" than yours, its just consistent with the dictionary. That is a source that, by its very role in language, serves to provide some approach to shared meaning. If you want to go by a different set of definitions, I believe you can certainly arrive at what you're saying.

To empthatize, I have to have some input of the other's emotion or situation; that information has to travel by some means. If there is some "supernatural" way to gain perspective or enjoinment with the emotions of another, I at this time have no access to it, albeit that doesn't make it impossible, but it is then, by definition, supernatural.


**God:
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot."**

So, unless we're really claiming that the context here is that the thing is good looking, a tyrant, or just anything that people are willing to follow (and if that's your idea of the divine, you can claim that and for your purposes you aren't wrong, just using a different context), then we're left with supernatural and/or omnipotent (which includes, by the ability to anything, to break the rules of nature).

Well, if we define the supernatural as 'that which explicitly defies natural laws', we immediately run into the problem that god does not seem to do supernatural things in reality. So, I make the assumption that god is either natural and limited to natural laws such as cause and effect, or god chooses not to manifest supernaturally. So, if god has a supernatural aspect that is actually important, it is not functioning in the role that our ancient legislating friend would demand of god.

But the analogy I offered earlier has more to offer. The mind moves the hand to do what it wants. The mind wants to communicate some trivial theological tidbit across the net to some other mind, so the mind wills the hand to type. Information and will flows from the non-corporeal to the corporeal. However, information and will do not just flow one way, but also can flow the other way: if the hand feels pain, the mind is willed into feeling and reacting.

If we see this as a model for god's nature (the hand) and his supernature (the mind), we could envision a similar relationship. God's spirit impels the body (that which we call nature) towards whatever goals god has, while at the same time, god's body is reacting and feeding information to the mind as to what is going on in this corporeal existence.

In such a model, we see that god acts as an integrated whole just as we do. As we have parts of ourselves that each fulfill a role in our actions and reaction, so does god. You are correct that the whole is more important, but each part is also important insofar that each different part plays a different role in realising our agenda. So I disagree with you when you say that the whole makes the parts practically and functionally the same as each other. In my view, the variety of the parts is an essential aspect of the whole. You couldn't have the latter without the former.
Excellent points, all. If I was forced to use the word "supernatural" to describe whatever differences there may be between god(s) and other aspects of existence, this is certainly the meaning I would ascribe to it.

(How's that for a statement of agreement, eh? Grudging enough? ;))

Mind you, there is still no reason for god to behave in a supernatural manner. I can't help you with that. I can't find a practical, functional and inarbitrary reason for god to be parting oceans and turning regretful women into columns of condiments.
It's not that I think a god doing those things would be arbitrary or lack practical functionality. It is that I do not see any practical, functional and inarbitrary reason for us to call such events "supernatural" if, indeed, such things really happened. That's what I mean -- that even the event of a god manifesting before my very eyes and doing something that I have never seen occur before is not, in and of itself, enough for me to say I am witnessing a violation of the laws of nature. What the fuck do I know of the laws of nature? Who am I to declare that what is happening before my natural eyes, right here in the natural universe, is not a natural occurrence. Unusual, yes, no doubt. But not natural? That would be based on just too big an assumption for me -- the assumption that we know the limits of nature. Nobody in the world knows the limits of nature to be able to declare what lies beyond them.

So my argument has never been about limiting what a god can or can't do in this world we live in. It has always been about whether dividing things up into "natural" and "supernatural" categories is a reasonable and realistic thing to do -- about anything, including god(s).

thats relates to what i was talking about. if we look at the actual world instead of the world described in the bible or by religious speakers we find no miracles.

when was the last time someone rose from the dead, walked on water, or made 5 fish feed 1000 people? those are just stories.

we can see from the real world that if god exists he does NOT do miracles in a supernatural fashion. he does not interact with us in a supernatural fashion. all there is is the natural universe that he set up in a specific rule driven manner.

if god MUST be supernatural then there is no god. or at least no god that has anything to do with us today.
Yes, they are just stories. But I suggest that IF such things did really happen, then they would not be supernatural. They would be happening within the context of nature. To me, the natural assumption then would be that they are natural events, possible within nature. On account of they happened within nature.

So if I had been there for the parting of the Red Sea or the loaves and fishes thing or the raising of Lazarus -- and they really actually happened -- my thought would not have been "The hecksters!!?? He's violating the laws of nature!! Wow! That's impressive!" My thought would have been, "Freaking catfish!! I didn't know that was possible!! Wow! That's impressive!"

But thats my point. Merriam Websters is how I'm using the words. If you want to use other definitions, you can arrive at other conclusions, and as I already said, those conclusions are not necessarily incorrect.

...

So, unless we're really claiming that the context here is that the thing is good looking, a tyrant, or just anything that people are willing to follow (and if that's your idea of the divine, you can claim that and for your purposes you aren't wrong, just using a different context), then we're left with supernatural and/or omnipotent (which includes, by the ability to anything, to break the rules of nature).

Okay. I think we're just deciding to use different definitions of many words. Whatever.

I do not define the divine, deities, miracles, or god to be exclusively supernatural. I am not sure the supernatural even exists. If it does, I believe it would most likely exist in the manner I discussed with Murayvets.

I will tell you why I chose my screen name. It's actually the meaning of my first kid's name when you look it up in those stupid dictionaries about the meaning of names. But of course, it is also more than that. When you sit and think of the odds that this particular human being is going to come into your life, the odds of that particular combination of chromosomes, the odds of me deciding to breed with just that person, the odds of our families creating us parents, the odds of our families surviving all those war torn years we call our past, even before we learnt how to use our hands and minds to make tools, the odds of a planet being able to sustain life, a galaxy moving at just the right speed for planets and stars to form, a universe capable of even making elements.

It took all those things to make my child. The odds of all those things happening just the way they did are so minute as to be mindboggling. We'd have better luck finding the same grain of sand in the Sahara three or four times. Yet it happened. My child is here. It is completely natural, despite the fact that it is almost impossible.

I call that a miracle. You may not.

Excellent points, all. If I was forced to use the word "supernatural" to describe whatever differences there may be between god(s) and other aspects of existence, this is certainly the meaning I would ascribe to it.

(How's that for a statement of agreement, eh? Grudging enough? ;))


It's not that I think a god doing those things would be arbitrary or lack practical functionality. It is that I do not see any practical, functional and inarbitrary reason for us to call such events "supernatural" if, indeed, such things really happened. That's what I mean -- that even the event of a god manifesting before my very eyes and doing something that I have never seen occur before is not, in and of itself, enough for me to say I am witnessing a violation of the laws of nature. What the fuck do I know of the laws of nature? Who am I to declare that what is happening before my natural eyes, right here in the natural universe, is not a natural occurrence. Unusual, yes, no doubt. But not natural? That would be based on just too big an assumption for me -- the assumption that we know the limits of nature. Nobody in the world knows the limits of nature to be able to declare what lies beyond them.

So my argument has never been about limiting what a god can or can't do in this world we live in. It has always been about whether dividing things up into "natural" and "supernatural" categories is a reasonable and realistic thing to do -- about anything, including god(s).

I'll see your agreement and go you one better. I also agree that there is no reason to regard such activity as supernatural. As Scully said to Mulder once, "nothing acts outside of nature, we just think they do," or something like that.

That's original. "There is only One Real God, and Reality-Humanity gets to dictate its properties".

i wasn't "dictating" anything to anyone, Hammurab, and i think that you know it.

i was simply stating my own understanding about the nature of the Divine, and in a way---no less---that i would follow up with greater argument in my very next post, to the effect of answering the OP's question (or what i thought that it had probably actually meant).

to elaborate a bit on what i was communicating in that first post:


Real God Is Absolutely Unlimited.

Only Real God Is Absolutely Unlimited.

No model of anything---even a "model of God"---is unlimited.

Every model of anything is limited, and is not, itself, Really God.

Therefore, the Truth about 'God' will not be disclosed by any mere model.


i'm simply expressing what i think to be true about God, for Real---no less or more so than anyone else here, many (or all) of whom are arguing from their own (inspected or uninspected, provable or unprovable) premises about the nature of the Divine.

for you to even suggest---much less actually say, outright---than i am doing anything other than that is transparently both utterly nasty and completely fallacious.

when i see how much thought and work you put into your other posts on this thread---and then see how perfunctory, snide, and dishonest you were in your response to my post---i can't help but wonder if there is something that you don't like about my post that you're not admitting to us---and maybe not to yourself; are you threatened by something about my expression of my understanding about the nature of the Divine?


whatever the "real" reason---you just engaged in absurdly gross mis-characterization of my communication, to the effect of leveling an ad hominem attack against me.

oh, yeah---"that's original". :rolleyes: