If God exists, what is it about his essence that makes him supernatural?
October 24, 2012 at 7:31 am
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2012 at 8:03 am by Edwardo Piet.)
If God exists why is he supernatural?
Are theists merely defining him that way? "If he's God he must be supernatural otherwise he's not God."
Do they mean that he's not non-natural, he's natural but he's a special 'super' part of nature because he created the rest of it? After all, why say he's not part of nature, can't they simply say he's the best part of it, being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and responsible for the rest of it?
Do theists believe he's supernatural because he's divine? Well why can't nature be divine? Can't he be naturally divine? Is "divine" being defined as non-natural, is that why? Can't anything be divine if it's part of nature? If not, why not?
Do theists believe he's supernatural because he's immaterial and non-physical? If so then what about the possibility of the the non-physical, immaterial world and the afterlife being all part of God's plan, a plan that's in his nature and it's just as common as the rest of the world (or possibly even more common)? If non-physicality is "natural" in the sense of "common" (it 'occurs naturally', it's not unusual), although that doesn't imply that it's also "natural" in the sense of "part of nature" (that would be to commit the equivocation fallacy), what exactly is stopping non-physicality from being "natural" in both senses? Why isn't it worthy of the label "natural"? That's what I'm questioning. Why aren't the non-physical and immaterial side of things natural too? And hence, why isn't non-physical and immaterial "God" also natural? Who's to say that God and the rest of the non-physical world is not part of nature? He, and it, might just be merely a very different part of nature.
Thoughts?
Are theists merely defining him that way? "If he's God he must be supernatural otherwise he's not God."
Do they mean that he's not non-natural, he's natural but he's a special 'super' part of nature because he created the rest of it? After all, why say he's not part of nature, can't they simply say he's the best part of it, being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and responsible for the rest of it?
Do theists believe he's supernatural because he's divine? Well why can't nature be divine? Can't he be naturally divine? Is "divine" being defined as non-natural, is that why? Can't anything be divine if it's part of nature? If not, why not?
Do theists believe he's supernatural because he's immaterial and non-physical? If so then what about the possibility of the the non-physical, immaterial world and the afterlife being all part of God's plan, a plan that's in his nature and it's just as common as the rest of the world (or possibly even more common)? If non-physicality is "natural" in the sense of "common" (it 'occurs naturally', it's not unusual), although that doesn't imply that it's also "natural" in the sense of "part of nature" (that would be to commit the equivocation fallacy), what exactly is stopping non-physicality from being "natural" in both senses? Why isn't it worthy of the label "natural"? That's what I'm questioning. Why aren't the non-physical and immaterial side of things natural too? And hence, why isn't non-physical and immaterial "God" also natural? Who's to say that God and the rest of the non-physical world is not part of nature? He, and it, might just be merely a very different part of nature.
Thoughts?
