If God exists, what is it about his essence that makes him supernatural?

[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?

[chi pan]

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 nature, can't you 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 and immaterial world and the afterlife are all part of God's plan that's in his nature and it's just as common as the rest of the world (or possibly even more common), it's a world merely undetected by mortals, why isn't the non-physical and immaterial side of things natural too? And hence, why isn't non-physical and immaterial "God" also natural?

He may be "super" in the sense of "great" and he may be natural, but what makes him supernatural in the sense of not just "above" nature but also separate to it, beyond it and non-natural?

Thoughts?

it certainly depends on how you define nature. lets go through some definitions.
nature-
1. Present in or produced by nature
-well, according to the bible, God created nature, nature did not create him.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature
-this really concerns the environment so it's not relevant.
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.
4.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
-probably not the definition you meant for any of these.
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.
8. Expected and accepted: "In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love" (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
-again, probably not what you are considering.

so i don't exactly see what you are trying to express. either you are saying God is a natural being who dwells in a world or dimension beyond ours, which i wouldn't argue with; or you are saying he is nature, sort of representing pantheism. short answer, being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent presents an unlimited quality. there is no infinite quality of anything natural, so this makes him supernatural. also, the fact that he created nature automatically means he supersedes nature.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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.

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.

4.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.

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.

[...]either you are saying God is a natural being who dwells in a world or dimension beyond ours, which i wouldn't argue with;[...]

[...]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?

[Tobie]

Seeming as the common belief is that god created the universe from an external viewpoint, it would stand to reason that they believe it is extrauniversal. Also, if god and the heavens were natural and existed, because of how obsessed the gods are with humans, they would probably be observable.

[Shell B]

Hey, DvF!!!

I would have to assume that God is natural if he exists. Everything is natural. Nature is everything, right?

[Minimalist]

That's a mighty big IF in the OP.

[Jackalope]

I'll take "He works in mysterious ways" for $200, Alex.

[IATIA]

I had attempted to argue this point with a theist once, of course to no avail. My assertion was, "What could be more natural than god?".

[Rayaan]

To me, the "supernatural" attribute of God basically means that He is completely different from what we experience or see in the physical/natural world, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether He is physical or non-physical nor if He's a person, entity, mind, an information field, an intelligent system, or whatever. This may also carry the implication that we can never prove God's existence through empirical methods because He is not confined by the the natural laws of the universe that we are aware of (hence "supernatural").

Welcome back, DvF.

[Edwardo Piet]

Good answer(s), but what I wonder is, what's stopping him from being 'completely different from the rest of the natural world' as opposed to 'completely different from the natural world'?

Also, how do you know he isn't part of the natural laws and order himself: since he created them, if ever he "breaks" them he's not really breaking them perhaps, but rather he's temporalily transforming them since he's the part of nature responsible for the rest of it, so he can do that.

Finally, just because he isn't a part of nature that can be detected, that doesn't mean he isn't natural. He can't be part of the natural sciences but that doesn't stop him from being part of nature philosophically speaking.

And thanks for the welcomes Shell B and Rayaan.