God and nature

Ficciones

Active member
If nature is whatever isn't designed and executed by an intelligent agent, then for the Christian, nothing about the so-called natural world is actually natural, because it's all the product of intelligent design and execution. It's all "creation".

So what is natural, by this definition of nature? Perversely, God Himself, who, as the personification of the ultimate, cannot be the product of design and execution.

God's nature represents the most crucial aspects of reality - necessary eternal being and order. These attributes cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution because intelligent design and execution are presupposed by them.

If the most crucial aspects of reality cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution, then why postulate an intelligent designer executing anything? Why not cut out the middle-man and see reality as the unfolding of nature's... nature?

Instead of God's nature, why not simply speak of nature? And thereby we naturalize God.
 

Ficciones

Active member
These attributes cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution because intelligent design and execution are presupposed by them.
Grammatical error: I meant to write, intelligent design and execution presuppose them, not are presupposed by them.
 
If nature is whatever isn't designed and executed by an intelligent agent, then for the Christian, nothing about the so-called natural world is actually natural, because it's all the product of intelligent design and execution. It's all "creation".

So what is natural, by this definition of nature? Perversely, God Himself, who, as the personification of the ultimate, cannot be the product of design and execution.

God's nature represents the most crucial aspects of reality - necessary eternal being and order. These attributes cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution because intelligent design and execution are presupposed by them.

If the most crucial aspects of reality cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution, then why postulate an intelligent designer executing anything? Why not cut out the middle-man and see reality as the unfolding of nature's... nature?

Instead of God's nature, why not simply speak of nature? And thereby we naturalize God.
I like this. I like to say that by definition anything we deem 'supernatural' is unknown. The moment it becomes known then it is just science. We thought lightning was supernatural and came from a god. Once we figured out the supernatural thing called lightning it became known and part of the natural - it became part of electromagnetism.

Likewise, you can believe anything natural is from god. My Catholic friends all believe in evolution. They do not think it contradicts God. They think it is just us figuring out what God did.

People can believe anything is the result of the supernatural since they do not require proof to believe in the supernatural. If we had proof it would not be supernatural - it would be natural :)

If we ever did prove that God is real then that would become science too. If we had evidence of Angels then the study of that evidence would become a documented, tested, branch of science.

Man that would be cool.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
If nature is whatever isn't designed and executed by an intelligent agent, then for the Christian, nothing about the so-called natural world is actually natural, because it's all the product of intelligent design and execution. It's all "creation".

So what is natural, by this definition of nature? Perversely, God Himself, who, as the personification of the ultimate, cannot be the product of design and execution.

God's nature represents the most crucial aspects of reality - necessary eternal being and order. These attributes cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution because intelligent design and execution are presupposed by them.

If the most crucial aspects of reality cannot be the products of intelligent design and execution, then why postulate an intelligent designer executing anything? Why not cut out the middle-man and see reality as the unfolding of nature's... nature?

Instead of God's nature, why not simply speak of nature? And thereby we naturalize God.
First you need to show that this God character exists.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I like this. I like to say that by definition anything we deem 'supernatural' is unknown. The moment it becomes known then it is just science. We thought lightning was supernatural and came from a god. Once we figured out the supernatural thing called lightning it became known and part of the natural - it became part of electromagnetism.

Likewise, you can believe anything natural is from god. My Catholic friends all believe in evolution. They do not think it contradicts God. They think it is just us figuring out what God did.

People can believe anything is the result of the supernatural since they do not require proof to believe in the supernatural. If we had proof it would not be supernatural - it would be natural :)

If we ever did prove that God is real then that would become science too. If we had evidence of Angels then the study of that evidence would become a documented, tested, branch of science.

Man that would be cool.
Have you read His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman? Your post reminded me of this trilogy, which gives a very different take on angels.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Have you read His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman? Your post reminded me of this trilogy, which gives a very different take on angels.
I got sucked into the Netflix series of the same name, and was intrigued. Sadly, I got hooked just as Season 1 ended, and I haven't been able to catch up since then...
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I got sucked into the Netflix series of the same name, and was intrigued. Sadly, I got hooked just as Season 1 ended, and I haven't been able to catch up since then...
There is a BBC series currently running, series 2. I'm not sure if that is the same as Netflix. It's pretty close to the books, but inevitably a lot is left out. Suffice to say the His Dark Materials trilogy, and The Book of Dust trilogy are comparable to Lord of the Rings or the later Harry Potter books. I doubt that they would be recommended by conservative Christians such as we find here. Which is another point in their favour.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I have not. I really liked Narnia and everyone said this is like an atheist version of Narnia. Its on my list :)
It's vastly better than Narnia. Nor would I say that it is atheistic. The trappings of religion are present and real... and malevolent. Get it for Christmas!
 
Top