RE: If God exists, what is it about his essence that makes him supernatural?
October 24, 2012 at 8:21 am
(This post was last modified: October 24, 2012 at 8:29 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 24, 2012 at 8:03 am)chipan Wrote: 1. Present in or produced by nature
-well, according to the bible, God created nature, nature did not create him.
So he's not natural in the sense he wasn't produced by nature, but he is at least partly natural in the sense that he's present in nature if you at least define him as being omnipresent.
Quote:2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature
-this really concerns the environment so it's not relevant.
Well I would think that anything of, relating to, or concerning nature would be anything that is part of the natural world. Would you agree with that? So I ask, why is God not part of the natural world? How do you know he isn't part of it that produced the rest of it? Maybe he was the original part of the natural world? Maybe he is the "super" in the sense of "great" part that produced the rest.
Quote:3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
-according to the bible, he does not always conform to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
Okay, so defined in that way, he is not natural in that sense.
Quote:4.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
Quote:7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
-i don't see how God has stood as a representation of life or nature. i only see how he is the creator of it. i guess in a vague way you could say he represents it because he created it, though i doubt this is the point you are making.
I didn't exactly make that point, although I may have alluded to it. I didn't say he represented nature, I said he might be the original "super" part of nature and therefore, while being super, also being natural. I guess if that was the case and he represented himself he would therefore represent the part of nature that is himself, and therefore also be natural in that sense too.
Quote:[...]either you are saying God is a natural being who dwells in a world or dimension beyond ours, which i wouldn't argue with;[...]
Quote:[...]the fact that he created nature automatically means he supersedes nature.
What I'm questioning is why theists, in my experience at least, tend to prefer the second of the two directly above interpretations quoted over the first. Why say he's non-natural and above nature rather than say he's natural and above the rest of nature?
