• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If a god or creator exists...is it supernatural?

Ikari said:
If it exists outside the realm of nature, beyond the limits of physics and the laws of the universe as we know it, and has no direct measurements; it is likely best categorized as supernatural.
Click to expand...

Correct.

But if it doesn't...it is not.

And since we do not know what the limits of physics and what exactly are "the laws of the universe"...we really cannot determine what "exists" outside of them. In fact, if it EXISTS at all...it is existing within the laws of physics and the "laws of the universe."

Right?
 
Well, let's see:
For the adjective:
1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Since it is "or" and not "and" then a god probably exists outside of scientific understanding (as it currently stands). Thus, technically, supernatural.
Despite science's hubris of thinking it understands nature completely (or is that scientists?) that is why I say the or matters. The "laws of nature" is a bit to oblique.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is limited to the now known laws of physics, which we have learned, from past human history, is subject to change without notice. ;)
Click to expand...

Well gee, if you are gonna move the goal posts to what is now known...

We don't know if the law of physics allows for flying warthogs with the face of Sandra Bullock, do we...?

SMH
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is (what I consider) a major glitch in discussions about gods or creators…which has to do with the notion that any god or creator…MUST be supernatural.

As I see it, if there is a god or a creator…it would be a part of nature, albeit a part of nature about which we humans do not currently have knowledge.

There may be many things in nature (things that are natural) that we humans simply do not know about. In fact, it is almost certain that there are. Ultimately, that is the object of science…to investigate and discover what is going on here…to unearth those facets of nature that we currently do not know.

So…when discussing the notion of possible gods or creators in a philosophical context…I suggest we not assign any god or creator to the realm of “supernatural.” We should instead allow, that if a god or creator exists, it is a part of nature.

Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-magic-2.png


Its possible that any deity follows yet unknown scientific laws.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I think I am not doing that, OS, but we'll see as the conversation moves along.

One comment: You said, "...the step before creation, or beginning for our universe..."

I prefer to think of what you are calling "our universe" as "what we humans consider to be the universe." It may not be "our universe" and it may not be "THE universe"...but it surely is what most humans consider to be the universe.

Me...I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

Ok, well let me propose this line of thinking to you. And for the purposes of this conversation consider "part of nature" and our universe as synonymous.

What if something exists that we cannot define in terms of our universe (thus within our knowledge confines,) but it still can cross into our universe with and without being subject to the "laws" of our universe at its will?

In terms of philosophy there are three categories in this discussion I am asking you to consider. What we know, what we do not know, and what we do not even know we do not know. We might decide on the first category in terms of science (systems of process) thus come up with natural laws. We might speculate on the second item and create theory (starting point of systems of science) or belief (conclusion of most religions) that satisfies at least a beginning explanation for the possibilities. Humanity has a long history of doing this, many times over. The third category though creates the most complication in terms of philosophy to talk about. It is just outside of knowledge and even speculation, but potentially can be right on the cusp of discovery.

Your OP argument tries to take what we assume from belief and make it within a confine of explanation from systems of process. For something to be "natural" in our context means the ability to define some basic laws about it.

Your exact OP argument... "As I see it, if there is a god or a creator…it would be a part of nature, albeit a part of nature about which we humans do not currently have knowledge."

That presents some problems about the relationship of universe as we know it to the concept of deity. The former suggests that process where we can categorize it, apply what we know and predict certain things. No matter if we are talking about life or energy, we have something we can apply to it in understanding. The concept of deity though by definition includes another idea we have applied to what we do not understand (i.e., what we do not know but summed up with a system of belief.) In this case, the idea of a supreme being or "supernatural" being. No matter which you choose we are talking about a condition not subject to what we assume of our natural laws.

I am proposing a third option, the ability to cross between our natural laws and the deity position of no longer being subject to them. Perhaps to the point of not being subject to either time or energy as we understand them. But even my speculation means what we do not know, I still cannot speak to what we do not even know we do not know. Nor can you. Which leaves me with the conclusion that you are categorizing a subject from systems of belief into confines of systems of process. To further ask you to explore belief and science, we have no real evidence that "a God or creator" falls into either one.

What if the newer Quantum Science models are accurate and there is no real beginning, the application of infinite time... thus no creator, and nothing to categorize in terms you are trying to?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Ok, well let me propose this line of thinking to you. And for the purposes of this conversation consider "part of nature" and our universe as synonymous.

What if something exists that we cannot define in terms of our universe (thus within our knowledge confines,) but it still can cross into our universe with and without being subject to the "laws" of our universe at its will?

In terms of philosophy there are three categories in this discussion I am asking you to consider. What we know, what we do not know, and what we do not even know we do not know. We might decide on the first category in terms of science (systems of process) thus come up with natural laws. We might speculate on the second item and create theory (starting point of systems of science) or belief (conclusion of most religions) that satisfies at least a beginning explanation for the possibilities. Humanity has a long history of doing this, many times over. The third category though creates the most complication in terms of philosophy to talk about. It is just outside of knowledge and even speculation, but potentially can be right on the cusp of discovery.

Your OP argument tries to take what we assume from belief and make it within a confine of explanation from systems of process. For something to be "natural" in our context means the ability to define some basic laws about it.

Your exact OP argument... "As I see it, if there is a god or a creator…it would be a part of nature, albeit a part of nature about which we humans do not currently have knowledge."

That presents some problems about the relationship of universe as we know it to the concept of deity. The former suggests that process where we can categorize it, apply what we know and predict certain things. No matter if we are talking about life or energy, we have something we can apply to it in understanding. The concept of deity though by definition includes another idea we have applied to what we do not understand (i.e., what we do not know but summed up with a system of belief.) In this case, the idea of a supreme being or "supernatural" being. No matter which you choose we are talking about a condition not subject to what we assume of our natural laws.

I am proposing a third option, the ability to cross between our natural laws and the deity position of no longer being subject to them. Perhaps to the point of not being subject to either time or energy as we understand them. But even my speculation means what we do not know, I still cannot speak to what we do not even know we do not know. Nor can you. Which leaves me with the conclusion that you are categorizing a subject from systems of belief into confines of systems of process. To further ask you to explore belief and science, we have no real evidence that "a God or creator" falls into either one.

What if the newer Quantum Science models are accurate and there is no real beginning, the application of infinite time... thus no creator, and nothing to categorize in terms you are trying to?
Click to expand...

I have to digest this further to actually respond, OS...but I must say that your last line hits home more than my fast skimming of the rest.

The true nature of the REALITY of existence MAY be that whatever actually is the universe (multiverse) MAY be infinite and eternal.

No beginning...no end to time, space, or anything else.

Fact is, we humans may be a species on a nondescript planet circling a nondescript sun in a nondescript galaxy in a nondescript area of a megaverse of which this thing we call "the universe" is but a quantum particle.

One of the reasons I use the term "god or creator" rather than deity...is that each time I light the woodburning stove (which I will do in a few minutes)...I may be "creating" all sorts of universes.

I'll try to get back tonight, but definitely sometime tomorrow.

Thanks for playing. Thank you all for doing so. Interesting discussion.
 
In a nutshell what I have found being in the sciences is that reality is much more fascinating and mind boggling that talk of a god or some creator.

Cosmology, Quantum mechanics, etc. are hard to wrap our limited brains around. The natural reality that we discover more of each year is more bizarre than the supernatural. Using the supernatural almost becomes a cop out instead of embracing the weirdness of existence.
 
Iamjesus said:
In a nutshell what I have found being in the sciences is that reality is much more fascinating and mind boggling that talk of a god or some creator.

Cosmology, Quantum mechanics, etc. are hard to wrap our limited brains around. The natural reality that we discover more of each year is more bizarre than the supernatural. Using the supernatural almost becomes a cop out instead of embracing the weirdness of existence.
Click to expand...

This is actually in reply to what you said here...and a further reply to what OrphanSlug said above.

One of the things we all should recognize is: We do not know if what we call "the universe" was created (in some way) or was not created.

Science suggests that a Big Bang occurred 13+ billion years ago...and what we call "the universe" came into existence. The evidence for that seems compelling and science is continuing to investigate to confirm as best as possible that happening.

BUT...and this is a big BUT there is absolutely no way to know if that Big Bang was the result of a creation event or not. It may not have been. BUT it may have been.

If it was the result of a creation event...it may have been an accidental creation. Lighting the wood-burning stove last night MAY have accidentally created billions of "microverses." Each of us may be creators of microverses every day of our lives. And creatures may live out what to them seems long lives on planets circling suns in those microverses.

And of course, this universe of ours MAY be the intentional creation of some "thing."

We simply do not know.

But whichever it is, IF IT WAS CREATED...AND IF THERE IS A CREATOR (OR CREATORS)...they seem, at least to me to be a part of what exists...which, in my opinion, makes them a part of nature.

I recognize that intelligent people may disagree with that...and their take may be a lot closer to the mark than mine.
 
Iamjesus said:
In a nutshell what I have found being in the sciences is that reality is much more fascinating and mind boggling that talk of a god or some creator.

Cosmology, Quantum mechanics, etc. are hard to wrap our limited brains around. The natural reality that we discover more of each year is more bizarre than the supernatural. Using the supernatural almost becomes a cop out instead of embracing the weirdness of existence.
Click to expand...

Who needs science fiction, when science reality is far more bizarre and interesting.
There is a famous quote attributed to J.B. Haldane, goes like "The universe is not only stranger than we understand, it's stranger than we CAN understand."

But if you can handle that, then there's certainly room for entertaining the concept of a creator.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I suggest we not assign any god or creator to the realm of “supernatural.” We should instead allow, that if a god or creator exists, it is a part of nature.Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

Yes, the answer is that your argument is an example of equivocation.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Click to expand...

The generally accepted definition of in our case, the Christian God, is one who by definition has supernatural qualities.
Let's look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence
Click to expand...

Vs Frank:
We should instead allow, that if a god or creator exists, it is a part of nature.
Click to expand...
 
Iamjesus said:
In a nutshell what I have found being in the sciences is that reality is much more fascinating and mind boggling that talk of a god or some creator.

Cosmology, Quantum mechanics, etc. are hard to wrap our limited brains around. The natural reality that we discover more of each year is more bizarre than the supernatural. Using the supernatural almost becomes a cop out instead of embracing the weirdness of existence.
Click to expand...
This is actually kind of refreshing. Supernatural is still just things not understood by (current) science. You could call the origin of the mystery "pops into existence" particles supernatural in the most technical sense.

Manny said:
Who needs science fiction, when science reality is far more bizarre and interesting.
There is a famous quote attributed to J.B. Haldane, goes like "The universe is not only stranger than we understand, it's stranger than we CAN understand."

But if you can handle that, then there's certainly room for entertaining the concept of a creator.
Click to expand...
:2wave: I do! I do! Sorry. I love my fictions.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Shakespeare's Hamlet
 
depends what you mean by "supernatural" and "natural"
 
Mach said:
Yes, the answer is that your argument is an example of equivocation.



The generally accepted definition of in our case, the Christian God, is one who by definition has supernatural qualities.
Let's look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God


Vs Frank:
Click to expand...

If a thing exists...it is a part of nature.

Whether you like it or not...if a god or a creator exists...it is a part of nature.
 
Frank Apisa said:
If a thing exists...it is a part of nature.

Whether you like it or not...if a god or a creator exists...it is a part of nature.
Click to expand...
Well you didn't touch what I said, that being part of something means being a subset of the greater whole. I don't think we should call God a 'subset' of something.

But of course... it depends on what you mean by god, as it always does!
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is (what I consider) a major glitch in discussions about gods or creators…which has to do with the notion that any god or creator…MUST be supernatural.

As I see it, if there is a god or a creator…it would be a part of nature, albeit a part of nature about which we humans do not currently have knowledge.

There may be many things in nature (things that are natural) that we humans simply do not know about. In fact, it is almost certain that there are. Ultimately, that is the object of science…to investigate and discover what is going on here…to unearth those facets of nature that we currently do not know.

So…when discussing the notion of possible gods or creators in a philosophical context…I suggest we not assign any god or creator to the realm of “supernatural.” We should instead allow, that if a god or creator exists, it is a part of nature.

Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't a creator be outside of His creation?

Can we say something that's part of nature, its creator? I don't think so.
Just think of an artist, or an architect, or a writer, as an example. Think of the creator as an architect - he plans how he'll build a house (universe).
 
Last edited:
The concept of infinity is hard to grasp. If you believe in a creator, you believe in infinity. If you, like I do believe that space has always existed, and that we are one of many universes (multiverses) to exist in what has always been space, you also believe in infinity. What Christians can't get past is this notion that the universe was created by the big bang, but the big bang had to be created somehow. I would argue (and so do many physicists) that the universe is but one of many multiverses to exist in a place outside of our universe in another area called "space" that has existed for infinity.

Both theists and atheists believe in infinity, because "God" is infinite as well as the atheist position of space being infinite.
 
If we're defining god as a part of nature, then we can use god as a descriptor for the big bang. The point of god is to be outside of nature.
 
Or to expand further when dealing with human nature, we understand most scientific studies, everything from nature to astrology to have a finite beginning and end. We can quantify just about everything, and we do. The Earth has a beginning and end. The universe has a beginning and end. Life has a beginning and end. We also understand that everything that exists within existence is a part of nature.

So when speaking of God, this being either has to have a beginning and end, or God is infinite and always has and always will be. Or, God is supernatural and exists outside of nature.

If you can accept that God is infinity, then the rules of time, beginning and end don't apply to God.

If you accept that God has a beginning and an end, then you must postulate what came before God to give life to God.

If you believe God to be supernatural, then the burden of proof lies on you to define what and how supernatural is. No such proof exists outside of the Holy Texts, which were written by man. I can much more easily accept the theory that God is an infinite being than I can that he exists outside the boundaries of nature.

I think most theists accept that God is either infinity, or supernatural.



As a non-theist, you can easily turn the argument of infinity around and say that the universe, or what space the universe occupies can just as easily be infinite. I would say science points to the idea that our universe is but one of many. And I would say this space is infinite, and always has and always will be.
 
spud_meister said:
If we're defining god as a part of nature, then we can use god as a descriptor for the big bang. The point of god is to be outside of nature.
Click to expand...

I don't believe "outside of nature" exists. Science can neither prove nor disprove this. But because it is not within nature, it is impossible to study. For both theists and non-theists. The difference is, theists take to word the writings of Holy Scripts, written by man thousands of years ago. Non-theists quantify nature by the sciences.
 
And where God and religion falls apart for me and what ultimately caused me to reject this idea of the supernatural, is that the Bible from the very first pages goes against everything we have discovered about nature. As these inconsistencies with reality start to pile up, the Bible lost all credibility for me. So at least when examining the concept of the supernatural from a religious perspective (not spiritual, as spiritualists don't adhere to religion) there is nothing to back it up. Many theists of many religions who don't adhere to fundamentalism have reconciled these inconsistencies to nature by writing them off as allegorical and metaphorical in nature, such as the Catholic Church. But the writers did not intend for these stories to be allegorical or metaphorical, they are written literally.
 
beefheart said:
If you ascribe actions upon this god, that violate the laws of physics, then, it is supernatural.

It is supernatural, lets see it on display so we can investigate it.
Click to expand...

Existence itself is part of nature, therefore if a God violates humans understanding of the laws of physics, that means the laws of physics are wrong, not nature.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I think you are misunderstanding me. If we are incapable of understanding something, then that by some definitions, is the definition of super natural. Remember I copied the definition of super natural and number one was outside of the visible or known universe. Meaning if we can't see the creator or understand him, then he is by that definition super natural.

Therefor the only real discussion here is "what is your definition of god and what is your definition of super natural".
Click to expand...

All things which exist are natural. Super natural is a concept that does not exist. If one defies the laws of physics, as God supposedly does, then the laws of physics are wrong. Therefore, God either exists within nature, or God doesn't exist at all.
 
akrunner88 said:
All things which exist are natural. Super natural is a concept that does not exist. If one defies the laws of physics, as God supposedly does, then the laws of physics are wrong. Therefore, God either exists within nature, or God doesn't exist at all.
Click to expand...

Scientists claim that there are "places" where the laws of physics break down, such as black hole singularities. Also if you follow philosophical arguments involving quantum mechanics, it implies that reality at the most fundamental level is irrational and unknowable. This is by its very nature, not by human misunderstanding.

Therefore we know nothing.
 
akrunner88 said:
Existence itself is part of nature, therefore if a God violates humans understanding of the laws of physics, that means the laws of physics are wrong, not nature.
Click to expand...

That is, if you assume there is a god.
 
Manny said:
Scientists claim that there are "places" where the laws of physics break down, such as black hole singularities. Also if you follow philosophical arguments involving quantum mechanics, it implies that reality at the most fundamental level is irrational and unknowable. This is by its very nature, not by human misunderstanding.

Therefore we know nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your last statement, but would add that science is the act of studying the unknown.

I actually have no problem with the concept of "God" on paper, my issue with God boils down to religion, which are entirely distinct from one another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom