• 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?

Frank Apisa

Frank Apisa

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
14,102
Reaction score
3,919
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?
 
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...

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.
 
Thank you for this first response, BH.


beefheart said:
If you ascribe actions upon this god, that violate the laws of physics, then, it is supernatural.
Click to expand...

Are we sure humans know all the "laws of physics?"

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


Are you suggesting that everything that is not supernatural...is now "on display?"




Obviously both those questions should logically be answered in the negative.

There may be "laws of physics" that defy what we humans consider to be "the laws of physics."

There may be "universe" that are way beyond what we humans consider to be "the universe."

There may be things (THERE ARE THINGS) that are not "on display" (or at least not available to our senses) that ARE a part of nature.

Right?
 
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...

There is a problem with this 'violate the laws of physics'. The so called 'laws of physics' are descriptive, no prohibitive. If something happens, then it can be described, and therefore it not supernatural. There is only the natural that is not defined accurately enough.
 
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...

That is limited to the now known laws of physics, which we have learned, from past human history, is subject to change without notice. ;)
 
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...

I think that when most people say god they are assuming that this god made the natural world, thus making him outside of the natural world, thus making him supernatural.

1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
Click to expand...

Supernatural is a word that is essentially made up to define things that are things that we have no evidence for. If we were to discover god sitting behind a tree tomorrow and got to study it and understand it fully, it would no longer really be super natural.

But I think the discussion gets more interesting when we consider why does the creator or god have to be a being at all? Why can't it just be some kind of completely natural "force" such as gravity or the like. I see absolutely no reason to think that a being is necasary in any way and in reality until there is evidence to support that conclusion, it really just adds baggage to the discussion that isn't required.
 
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...

I believe that a God could be simply beyond our current understanding. That perhaps begs the question. Would God be religious?
 
DaveFagan said:
I believe that a God could be simply beyond our current understanding. That perhaps begs the question. Would God be religious?
Click to expand...

If God is omniscient, and knows all the actions he'll ever take, would he have free will?
 
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...

Good question

Like everything else, things come down to semantics...definitions. What is 'nature', etc.

The key word for me is 'if'. Anything can follow 'if'. If unicorns exist are they horses? If I find the end of the rainbow, do I get a pot of gold? If god exists...

All imagination. All speculation upon zero evidence. We can discuss the 'if' questions forever. And then add another 'and if' at the end of that one.
 
Interesting that Ramoss and tt…both picked up on that “laws of physics” thing that Beefheart raised.

Argument which invoke “the laws of physics” always suffer from that liability.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I think that when most people say god they are assuming that this god made the natural world, thus making him outside of the natural world, thus making him supernatural.
Click to expand...

I think that also. I am making a case for NOT doing that.

If there is a god or a creator...it is a part of nature. It may be a part we do not understand, but it is a part of it.
 
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...
My thoughts are, if God exists as conventionally described then it is not part of nature but rather, nature is part of it.
Hence, "super" natural.
 
DaveFagan said:
I believe that a God could be simply beyond our current understanding. That perhaps begs the question. Would God be religious?
Click to expand...

A god...or a creator...almost certain would be beyond our current understanding.

I'd like to take this time to mention: I think we humans tend to suppose that we are the end-all of "knowing" and "understanding" things.

We MAY be all that exists of an intelligent nature.

We MAY be to the universe what an amoeba is to our solar system.
 
Iamjesus said:
Good question

Like everything else, things come down to semantics...definitions. What is 'nature', etc.

The key word for me is 'if'. Anything can follow 'if'. If unicorns exist are they horses? If I find the end of the rainbow, do I get a pot of gold? If god exists...

All imagination. All speculation upon zero evidence. We can discuss the 'if' questions forever. And then add another 'and if' at the end of that one.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but "discussing it" is more fun than doing a Sudoku or a Crossword. Which is why I do it...and why I suppose you and the others here do it. ;)
 
Frank Apisa said:
I think that also. I am making a case for NOT doing that.

If there is a god or a creator...it is a part of nature. It may be a part we do not understand, but it is a part of it.
Click to expand...

By definition, if the creator made the natural world, then it's supernatural. We have to better define super natural. If you mean supernatural to be "it can't be defined or explained at all" then you have a point.
 
There isn't some kind of metaphysical object called "natural" that something either is or isn't. Natural and supernatural are just words we use to describe something in order to help us communicate with each other about it. In as much as the term supernatural is useful to you in communicating about the god you propose, go ahead and use that term. When it stops being useful, stop using it. Ultimately, the point of words is to help us explain things to others. If you've gone beyond just calling the creator "supernatural" and have described it in greater depth, then whether the word "supernatural" was part of the language you used in describing it is largely irrelevant.
 
roughdraft274 said:
By definition, if the creator made the natural world, then it's supernatural.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why? What we call "the natural world" would simply be a part of THE NATURAL WORLD. If there is a god or a creator...is certainly is part of the "natural world"...and it that god or creator then "created" something...that "something" would be part of the natural world also.

We have to better define super natural. If you mean supernatural to be "it can't be defined or explained at all" then you have a point.
Click to expand...

If "supernatural" means something outside of nature...then everything that is a part of nature is NOT supernatural. If there is a god or creator...it exists within nature...even though we really are incapable of understanding or knowing about it.

Or at least, that is the way it seems to me.
 
CrabCake said:
There isn't some kind of metaphysical object called "natural" that something either is or isn't. Natural and supernatural are just words we use to describe something in order to help us communicate with each other about it. In as much as the term supernatural is useful to you in communicating about the god you propose, go ahead and use that term. When it stops being useful, stop using it. Ultimately, the point of words is to help us explain things to others. If you've gone beyond just calling the creator "supernatural" and have described it in greater depth, then whether the word "supernatural" was part of the language you used in describing it is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I agree.

In fact, if you read the OP...you will see that I am suggesting that "in the context of a philosophical discussion of the possibility of a god or creator"...we should not assign the possible "god or creator" to the realm of "supernatural."
 
Frank Apisa said:
I'm not sure why? What we call "the natural world" would simply be a part of THE NATURAL WORLD. If there is a god or a creator...is certainly is part of the "natural world"...and it that god or creator then "created" something...that "something" would be part of the natural world also.



If "supernatural" means something outside of nature...then everything that is a part of nature is NOT supernatural. If there is a god or creator...it exists within nature...even though we really are incapable of understanding or knowing about it.

Or at least, that is the way it seems to me.
Click to expand...

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".
 
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...

Why does it really have to be one or the other?

In pure philosophical terms, any sense of "creator" has open meaning. It may not even encompass the normal thoughts behind the term "God or Gods," and could be as simple as thought without the physical or "physical law" confines we associate with this universe. Think, consciousness without physical presence. An active theory in certain Quantum Sciences.

To suggest existence, in the natural expression of the term, also suggests presence here in some defined way (as in outside of just conceptual thought, or belief in, etc.)

From my chair you are trying to put a confine on a notion about the step before creation, or beginning for our universe, without having any direct information or proof of that step. I am not convinced it has to be supernatural or has to be natural. There could be a third category that has no associative confines we place on nature, thus have a way to even qualify what is above nature... or supernatural.
 
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...

I did not disagree with you earlier...and I am not doing so here.

I tend to treat dictionary "definitions" with a grain of salt when dealing with a philosophical discussion. Dictionaries tell us how a word is USUALLY used...and I am fine with that. But there are times where I see (and others see) a reason not to accept the USUALLY used definition...particularly in philosophical discussions. (The words "believe" "belief" "agnostic" "atheist" are a few where I tend to veer off the norm.)

As long as the reason (and alternate usage) is explained, there shouldn't be a problem.

It seems to me that a reasonable case can be made (I am trying to make it) that if a thing exists...it IS part of nature. If science ever discovers for certain that the strings of string theory exist...THEY ARE A PART OF NATURE. If the elements of dark matter and dark energy are ever identified unquestionably by science, they will be (and always have been) A PART OF NATURE.

If a god or creator exists...it (or they) are a part of nature no matter what.

Just an interesting topic for discussion. Nothing earth shattering here...for now. Although...

...if the conversation moves on to the question of "is there a creator?"...it could have impact.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Why does it really have to be one or the other?

In pure philosophical terms, any sense of "creator" has open meaning. It may not even encompass the normal thoughts behind the term "God or Gods," and could be as simple as thought without the physical or "physical law" confines we associate with this universe. Think, consciousness without physical presence. An active theory in certain Quantum Sciences.

To suggest existence, in the natural expression of the term, also suggests presence here in some defined way (as in outside of just conceptual thought, or belief in, etc.)

From my chair you are trying to put a confine on a notion about the step before creation, or beginning for our universe, without having any direct information or proof of that step. I am not convinced it has to be supernatural or has to be natural. There could be a third category that has no associative confines we place on nature, thus have a way to even qualify what is above nature... or supernatural.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
At the risk of indulging your semantic argument:

If this deity is not restricted by the laws of physics, then it is by definition "supernatural."

If this deity is not discoverable by utilizing the principles of physics, then it is by definition "supernatural."


There may be many things in nature (things that are natural) that we humans simply do not know about.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between discovering a new species of bacteria, and the claim that all of reality was created by a conscious entity.


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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but... pass.

Even if we did accept your terms, we still need a way to distinguish between that which is physical, and that which is not. As long as people claim that deities can operate in violation of the laws of physics, all you'd be doing is replacing the term "supernatural" with something else.
 
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.
 
Visbek said:
At the risk of indulging your semantic argument:

If this deity is not restricted by the laws of physics, then it is by definition "supernatural."
Click to expand...

As I see it, anything that "IS" is a part of nature. I prefer to use "god or creator" to deity. As for the "laws of physics"...since I cannot know them...I cannot know what anything is or is not restricted by them.

If this deity is not discoverable by utilizing the principles of physics, then it is by definition "supernatural."
Click to expand...

As I see it, anything that "IS" is a part of nature.

The fact that humans think they can or cannot discover something...has no impact on whether or not it exists.



There's a difference between discovering a new species of bacteria, and the claim that all of reality was created by a conscious entity.
Click to expand...

Yup.


Sorry, but... pass.

Even if we did accept your terms, we still need a way to distinguish between that which is physical, and that which is not. As long as people claim that deities can operate in violation of the laws of physics, all you'd be doing is replacing the term "supernatural" with something else.
Click to expand...

If you feel that way...do not accept "my terms."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom