Are putative god(s) supernatural?

[JimC]

In another thread, I was castigated by Seth for asserting that, in debating the god issue, atheists quite reasonably use one of the descriptors of various gods as postulated by their believers, i.e. that their god was supernatural (or had supernatural properties). By supernatural, I mean that he/she/it can do things, or cause things to happen, that clearly do not obey any natural law applying to the rest of the universe; miracles, in the Judeo-Christian sense, would be examples. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of current religions and their adherents believe in a supernatural god.

This brings up some interesting questions:

1. Is it logically possible for an entity who would, in most other respects, fit the god definition, to be non-supernatural?

2. As a possible example of #1, consider an immensely powerful and intelligent alien, perhaps from another universe, who understands the deep physics of the universe to a level well beyond our current knowledge. Just as many aspects of our current technology seem to disobey "natural" laws to a Cro-Magnon, its actions would to us. Some have speculated about the possibility of such a being (presumably acting from another, larger universe) actually "creating" our universe, or at least running it as a super-simulation on a vast computer...

However, such a being is scarcely likely to fit all the other descriptors of the various gods imagined by various tribes of our past, nor would it be likely to exhibit the properties of the modern version of a personal, caring god; no more than a lab scientists cares about the individual bacteria in her petri dish...

[pErvinalia]

Yes.

[cronus]

[rainbow]

In another thread, I was castigated by Seth for asserting that, in debating the god issue, atheists quite reasonably use one of the descriptors of various gods as postulated by their believers, i.e. that their god was supernatural (or had supernatural properties). By supernatural, I mean that he/she/it can do things, or cause things to happen, that clearly do not obey any natural law applying to the rest of the universe; miracles, in the Judeo-Christian sense, would be examples. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of current religions and their adherents believe in a supernatural god.

This brings up some interesting questions:

1. Is it logically possible for an entity who would, in most other respects, fit the god definition, to be non-supernatural?

2. As a possible example of #1, consider an immensely powerful and intelligent alien, perhaps from another universe, who understands the deep physics of the universe to a level well beyond our current knowledge. Just as many aspects of our current technology seem to disobey "natural" laws to a Cro-Magnon, its actions would to us. Some have speculated about the possibility of such a being (presumably acting from another, larger universe) actually "creating" our universe, or at least running it as a super-simulation on a vast computer...

However, such a being is scarcely likely to fit all the other descriptors of the various gods imagined by various tribes of our past, nor would it be likely to exhibit the properties of the modern version of a personal, caring god; no more than a lab scientists cares about the individual bacteria in her petri dish...

Obviously the Creator would have made those natural laws, and it follows that they can change them at will.
Therefore no.

[JimC]

In another thread, I was castigated by Seth for asserting that, in debating the god issue, atheists quite reasonably use one of the descriptors of various gods as postulated by their believers, i.e. that their god was supernatural (or had supernatural properties). By supernatural, I mean that he/she/it can do things, or cause things to happen, that clearly do not obey any natural law applying to the rest of the universe; miracles, in the Judeo-Christian sense, would be examples. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of current religions and their adherents believe in a supernatural god.

This brings up some interesting questions:

1. Is it logically possible for an entity who would, in most other respects, fit the god definition, to be non-supernatural?

2. As a possible example of #1, consider an immensely powerful and intelligent alien, perhaps from another universe, who understands the deep physics of the universe to a level well beyond our current knowledge. Just as many aspects of our current technology seem to disobey "natural" laws to a Cro-Magnon, its actions would to us. Some have speculated about the possibility of such a being (presumably acting from another, larger universe) actually "creating" our universe, or at least running it as a super-simulation on a vast computer...

However, such a being is scarcely likely to fit all the other descriptors of the various gods imagined by various tribes of our past, nor would it be likely to exhibit the properties of the modern version of a personal, caring god; no more than a lab scientists cares about the individual bacteria in her petri dish...

Obviously the Creator would have made those natural laws, and it follows that they can change them at will.
Therefore no.

Humans have an irrational but understandable tendency to think that everything needs a creator (which can include a mother to be born from). Such primitive notions were understandable before a true appreciation of the nature of our universe.

Now, they are mere babble from our childhood.

[rainbow]

In another thread, I was castigated by Seth for asserting that, in debating the god issue, atheists quite reasonably use one of the descriptors of various gods as postulated by their believers, i.e. that their god was supernatural (or had supernatural properties). By supernatural, I mean that he/she/it can do things, or cause things to happen, that clearly do not obey any natural law applying to the rest of the universe; miracles, in the Judeo-Christian sense, would be examples. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of current religions and their adherents believe in a supernatural god.

This brings up some interesting questions:

1. Is it logically possible for an entity who would, in most other respects, fit the god definition, to be non-supernatural?

2. As a possible example of #1, consider an immensely powerful and intelligent alien, perhaps from another universe, who understands the deep physics of the universe to a level well beyond our current knowledge. Just as many aspects of our current technology seem to disobey "natural" laws to a Cro-Magnon, its actions would to us. Some have speculated about the possibility of such a being (presumably acting from another, larger universe) actually "creating" our universe, or at least running it as a super-simulation on a vast computer...

However, such a being is scarcely likely to fit all the other descriptors of the various gods imagined by various tribes of our past, nor would it be likely to exhibit the properties of the modern version of a personal, caring god; no more than a lab scientists cares about the individual bacteria in her petri dish...

Obviously the Creator would have made those natural laws, and it follows that they can change them at will.
Therefore no.

Humans have an irrational but understandable tendency to think that everything needs a creator (which can include a mother to be born from). Such primitive notions were understandable before a true appreciation of the nature of our universe.

Now, they are mere babble from our childhood.

On the other hand understanding cause and effect is quite useful.

Did the Universe come to exist without a cause?

[Svartalf]

"cause and effect" do not imply a sentient agency

[Svartalf]

In another thread, I was castigated by Seth for asserting that, in debating the god issue, atheists quite reasonably use one of the descriptors of various gods as postulated by their believers, i.e. that their god was supernatural (or had supernatural properties). By supernatural, I mean that he/she/it can do things, or cause things to happen, that clearly do not obey any natural law applying to the rest of the universe; miracles, in the Judeo-Christian sense, would be examples. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of current religions and their adherents believe in a supernatural god.

This brings up some interesting questions:

1. Is it logically possible for an entity who would, in most other respects, fit the god definition, to be non-supernatural?

2. As a possible example of #1, consider an immensely powerful and intelligent alien, perhaps from another universe, who understands the deep physics of the universe to a level well beyond our current knowledge. Just as many aspects of our current technology seem to disobey "natural" laws to a Cro-Magnon, its actions would to us. Some have speculated about the possibility of such a being (presumably acting from another, larger universe) actually "creating" our universe, or at least running it as a super-simulation on a vast computer...

However, such a being is scarcely likely to fit all the other descriptors of the various gods imagined by various tribes of our past, nor would it be likely to exhibit the properties of the modern version of a personal, caring god; no more than a lab scientists cares about the individual bacteria in her petri dish...

Obviously the Creator would have made those natural laws, and it follows that they can change them at will.
Therefore no.

IF there is a being that can, at will, set and change the laws of nature, that being is clearly superior and beyond such laws, and so clearly supernatural in the truest sense

[rainbow]

"cause and effect" do not imply a sentient agency

Mebbe.
What other agency could it be, and then how would we define 'sentient'?

[Svartalf]

I'd define sentient as self aware and able to act with a will, as opposed to the complete impersonal application of laws of nature, even, a nature that was different from that which we know as must have been the case at and before the big bang

[rainbow]

IF there is a being that can, at will, set and change the laws of nature, that being is clearly superior and beyond such laws, and so clearly supernatural in the truest sense

Highly evolved perhaps.
There are things we can do today that would be considered to be 'supernatural' only a few years ago.

Like making a young Beaujolais reasonably pleasant drinking.

[Svartalf]

and we're still justified in applying Clarke's third Law until and unless we can effectively differentiate such world shaking abilities from magic

[Hermit]

Did the Universe come to exist without a cause?

If you presume that everything must have a cause you'll have to ask why the creator of the universe did not.

If you presume that the creator of the universe did not need to be caused on what grounds do you justify that the universe did?

[pErvinalia]

God works in mysterious ways. Something something...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

God works in mysterious ways. Something something...

You forgot mumble mumble.