Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people believe that God is purely supernatural and transcends time and space. If that's the case, then how does God intervene in or affect the natural world as pretty much all religious scripture claims? Also, how does a supernatural God answer human prayers?
On the other hand, if God exists in the time and space of the natural world, then God must be subject to natural laws and scientific scrutiny. So, how do we detect evidence of God's signature and activities in the natural world?
The distinction between supernatural and natural used to be significant. But that has changed in the past few decades, and there really is no distinction any more.
Naturalism, or materialism, used to mean that one believed "the only thing that exists is matter, and all energy is the result of interaction between matter." To believe in the supernatural was to believe that there were things other then matter in existence, and/or forces other then the interaction between matter in existence.
But then one day the scientific community began discovering things other than matter. That is, things that are not made of atoms..... Bosons, leptons, quirks, for example.
At this point the proper thing to do would have been to concede that there was such a thing as the supernatural. But instead, the scientific community simply changed the definition of natural to include those things as well. The definition of natural was changed to something like "Everything that can be observed in the universe."
That was fine until we discovered darkmatter and dark energy - which together account for 95% of the stuff in the universe. These are things that we can not observe, but are only aware of their existence because of their effect on other things. If anything would fit the classical definition of supernatural, it would be things that we can not observe but that we know exist.
So did the scientific community finally admit that the supernatural exists? Not a chance. They once again changed the definition of natural to included anything that might exist in the observable universe - which is almost unlimiting, and which makes the word "natural" nearly worthless.
That definition seems pretty safe, right? How would we find discover the existence of something that is not observable in the universe?
Enter the multiverse. As scientist now begin to accept the possibility of other dimensions of the universe, we now realize that the above definition of "natural" is soon set to change to include anything in this universe or others that is thought to exist.
Thus, the word "natural" doesn't mean very much anymore. It now means anything that might exist in this universe or any other.
Given the above, I don't know how much sense it makes to ask if a "God" were part of this natural world of if he was supernatural. Because even if he were made of energy and substances that weren't matter, and lived primarily in a universe other then our own, scientist would still claim the word natural includes him if he were ever proven to exist.
The word natural now simply means, as a practical matter, things we think might exist. It doesn't mean much more than that.
Yehezkel Kauffman wrote a very influential work that discussed just such an issue in comparison to polytheistic systems. He posited that in polytheistic systems, a meta-divine realm existed which the gods came from and were beholden to and could not over-ride; in contrast to that, he suggested that in a monotheistic system the meta-divine realm is behold to God, and God is outside of that realm. Check out this link for a quick excerpt from an excellent scholar's rundown on the idea: Kaufmann 2 - Paganism & Metadivine Realm - YouTube
I can't speak for the pictures that the poster has thrown in the video heh heh! Keep in mind, that the lecturer is speaking of Kauffman's ideas (perhaps it's better to click on the previous little section - I dunno).
I don't agree with much of Kauffman's ideas - but they are interesting, and have been influential in many areas.
Personally, I like the idea of Spinoza's God - that he MUST be part of existence absolutely, even if that means he IS existence.
The distinction between supernatural and natural used to be significant. But that has changed in the past few decades, and there really is no distinction any more.
Naturalism, or materialism, used to mean that one believed "the only thing that exists is matter, and all energy is the result of interaction between matter." To believe in the supernatural was to believe that there were things other then matter in existence, and/or forces other then the interaction between matter in existence.
But then one day the scientific community began discovering things other than matter. That is, things that are not made of atoms..... Bosons, leptons, quirks, for example.
At this point the proper thing to do would have been to concede that there was such a thing as the supernatural. But instead, the scientific community simply changed the definition of natural to include those things as well. The definition of natural was changed to something like "Everything that can be observed in the universe."
That was fine until we discovered darkmatter and dark energy - which together account for 95% of the stuff in the universe. These are things that we can not observe, but are only aware of their existence because of their effect on other things. If anything would fit the classical definition of supernatural, it would be things that we can not observe but that we know exist.
So did the scientific community finally admit that the supernatural exists? Not a chance. They once again changed the definition of natural to included anything that might exist in the observable universe - which is almost unlimiting, and which makes the word "natural" nearly worthless.
That definition seems pretty safe, right? How would we find discover the existence of something that is not observable in the universe?
Enter the multiverse. As scientist now begin to accept the possibility of other dimensions of the universe, we now realize that the above definition of "natural" is soon set to change to include anything in this universe or others that is thought to exist.
Thus, the word "natural" doesn't mean very much anymore. It now means anything that might exist in this universe or any other.
Given the above, I don't know how much sense it makes to ask if a "God" were part of this natural world of if he was supernatural. Because even if he were made of energy and substances that weren't matter, and lived primarily in a universe other then our own, scientist would still claim the word natural includes him if he were ever proven to exist.
The word natural now simply means, as a practical matter, things we think might exist. It doesn't mean much more than that.
I agree with most of your assessment. As science has discovered more and more about nature, the supernatural has been effectively pushed farther and farther away.
Basically, I'm defining the natural world as everything that can be studied using the scientific method. If something can be detected, tested and verified, then it's part of the natural world. That would include a hypothetical multiverse if it exists.
Anything that is beyond scientific scrutiny would be in the supernatural realm. I'm assuming this includes God. However, I'm trying to understand how people think a supernatural God interacts with the natural world in which we live.
I agree with most of your assessment. As science has discovered more and more about nature, the supernatural has been effectively pushed farther and farther away.
Basically, I'm defining the natural world as everything that can be studied using the scientific method. If something can be detected, tested and verified, then it's part of the natural world. That would include a hypothetical multiverse if it exists.
Anything that is beyond scientific scrutiny would be in the supernatural realm. I'm assuming this includes God. However, I'm trying to understand how people think a supernatural God interacts with the natural world in which we live.
As per the above, your questioned could be restated:
............
Do you think God could ever be detected, tested and verified,
or
Do you think God could never be detected, tested and verified.
............
Traditional Christian doctrine would say that God has been detected in the past, and at some point in the future will be detected, tested and verified again.
I would think that would make him natural, given your definition of natural. (Assuming he exists at all.)
I would further assume that a theist would say that, like other things that might exist in the multiverse, just because we don't detect him today, that doesn't mean he is undetectable and therefore supernatural by your definition.
But again, I find the distinction between the natural and supernatural arbitrary and useless, and so I think the only question is if he is real.
The distinction between supernatural and natural used to be significant. But that has changed in the past few decades, and there really is no distinction any more.
Naturalism, or materialism, used to mean that one believed "the only thing that exists is matter, and all energy is the result of interaction between matter." To believe in the supernatural was to believe that there were things other then matter in existence, and/or forces other then the interaction between matter in existence.
But then one day the scientific community began discovering things other than matter. That is, things that are not made of atoms..... Bosons, leptons, quirks, for example.
At this point the proper thing to do would have been to concede that there was such a thing as the supernatural. But instead, the scientific community simply changed the definition of natural to include those things as well. The definition of natural was changed to something like "Everything that can be observed in the universe."
That was fine until we discovered darkmatter and dark energy - which together account for 95% of the stuff in the universe. These are things that we can not observe, but are only aware of their existence because of their effect on other things. If anything would fit the classical definition of supernatural, it would be things that we can not observe but that we know exist.
So did the scientific community finally admit that the supernatural exists? Not a chance. They once again changed the definition of natural to included anything that might exist in the observable universe - which is almost unlimiting, and which makes the word "natural" nearly worthless.
That definition seems pretty safe, right? How would we find discover the existence of something that is not observable in the universe?
Enter the multiverse. As scientist now begin to accept the possibility of other dimensions of the universe, we now realize that the above definition of "natural" is soon set to change to include anything in this universe or others that is thought to exist.
Thus, the word "natural" doesn't mean very much anymore. It now means anything that might exist in this universe or any other.
Given the above, I don't know how much sense it makes to ask if a "God" were part of this natural world of if he was supernatural. Because even if he were made of energy and substances that weren't matter, and lived primarily in a universe other then our own, scientist would still claim the word natural includes him if he were ever proven to exist.
The word natural now simply means, as a practical matter, things we think might exist. It doesn't mean much more than that.
Some people believe that God is purely supernatural and transcends time and space. If that's the case, then how does God intervene in or affect the natural world as pretty much all religious scripture claims? Also, how does a supernatural God answer human prayers?
On the other hand, if God exists in the time and space of the natural world, then God must be subject to natural laws and scientific scrutiny. So, how do we detect evidence of God's signature and activities in the natural world?
My first question to you, whose god are you talking about?.... The god of Christianity, the god of Judaism, or the god of Islam ?..... Some of us don't believe in any of those particular god's.
The distinction between supernatural and natural used to be significant. But that has changed in the past few decades, and there really is no distinction any more.
Naturalism, or materialism, used to mean that one believed "the only thing that exists is matter, and all energy is the result of interaction between matter." To believe in the supernatural was to believe that there were things other then matter in existence, and/or forces other then the interaction between matter in existence.
But then one day the scientific community began discovering things other than matter. That is, things that are not made of atoms..... Bosons, leptons, quirks, for example.
At this point the proper thing to do would have been to concede that there was such a thing as the supernatural. But instead, the scientific community simply changed the definition of natural to include those things as well. The definition of natural was changed to something like "Everything that can be observed in the universe."
That was fine until we discovered darkmatter and dark energy - which together account for 95% of the stuff in the universe. These are things that we can not observe, but are only aware of their existence because of their effect on other things. If anything would fit the classical definition of supernatural, it would be things that we can not observe but that we know exist.
So did the scientific community finally admit that the supernatural exists? Not a chance. They once again changed the definition of natural to included anything that might exist in the observable universe - which is almost unlimiting, and which makes the word "natural" nearly worthless.
That definition seems pretty safe, right? How would we find discover the existence of something that is not observable in the universe?
Enter the multiverse. As scientist now begin to accept the possibility of other dimensions of the universe, we now realize that the above definition of "natural" is soon set to change to include anything in this universe or others that is thought to exist.
Thus, the word "natural" doesn't mean very much anymore. It now means anything that might exist in this universe or any other.
Given the above, I don't know how much sense it makes to ask if a "God" were part of this natural world of if he was supernatural. Because even if he were made of energy and substances that weren't matter, and lived primarily in a universe other then our own, scientist would still claim the word natural includes him if he were ever proven to exist.
The word natural now simply means, as a practical matter, things we think might exist. It doesn't mean much more than that.
Ah Box . . . you have nailed it in an excellent summary of the nonsense fo any distinction between natural and supernatural. Bottom line: There is no such thing as supernatural. Well done, my friend . . well done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
