This isn't strictly true... Just because the workings inside the universe seem to run on cause and effect does not mean that the universe was necessarily the result of such. I.e. Is it correct/safe to judge the nature of supernatural (I.e. that which is external to our universe / outside of the nature of the universe) by what happens inside? Some say yes, some say no, others feel that once you get beyond the natural (I.e. Once you talk about "outside the universe" or "before the Big Bang") then such matters are meaningless to us.
If something is supernatural, and by that I mean outside the nature of the universe, rather than just being a natural thing beyond our abilities to detect it or beyond our current understanding, then is it at all possible to know anything about such a thing? If such a supernatural thing exists then how can it interact with the internal nature of the universe without upsetting / violating the very laws of nature by which the universe operates? And if it does not interact with the internal workings, then how can we possibly know anything about it? I'm very much a metaphysical naturalist in this regard... but it does depend upon how you define the supernatural.
... Metaphysical naturalist... cannot be a natural one due to the nature of nature itself; do you guys even understand - as in able to express - your own arguments? I mean, I could argue with Jan, but I like batting around this cat toy bouncy ball more - I get more exercise!
I already answered your question.. That is my answer, so work with it. Once you get the idea, you will see that your question is a paltry one. jan.
This is not actually a definition. It describes things that come from god, but not god. It has avoided a definition. Compare with: "Define a broken leg." "A broken leg is that which results in a hospital visit, a cast and six weeks recovery." For someone who demands others define god, you're going to have to pony up.
If this was addressed to me: yes, I understand my own arguments, thanks. What makes you think that I don't? Are you not able to understand them? Do you have issue with terms such as "metaphysical naturalist"? I think it should be a reasonably understood concept in the field of philosophy, and I'm sure wiki will have a page on it somewhere. Feel free to check there if you're struggling with any such terms. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe God can only be defined by what He does? The same way a policeman is defined by the roles and actions he performs.
That being said, it's OK by me. Jan has accepted that a thing itself need not be defined to some expected degree of detail in order to be workable. "The Supreme Cause of ALL CAUSES is what it is." is of the same descriptive form as "whatever god is, it is of supernatural origin" i.e. outside our natural laws. Many rational people do not grant entities for which there is insufficient evidence. Supernaturalism is one.
That would place it squarely in the supernatural. A policeman can be identified by his height and eye colour, even if that does not apply to other policemen. There is no such thing as a policeman without the person.
I wouldn't disagree. I struggle to see how God could be anything but supernatural (as in outside the realms of the nature of the universe) and as such seems to be beyond inquiry and possibly beyond meaningfulness.
Yes. Science is silent on the subject. My point (mostly to Jan) was simply that many people prefer not to believe in things for which there is insufficient evidence. And furthermore, that humans in general are demonstrably prone to invent things to explain the inconceivable. This is not intended to refute Jan's assertion that god does exist, simply that god-as-a-human-invention is a valid explanation, satisfying many.
Your answer I kinda' doubt you do - but this is almost one hundred percent semantics here. Metaphysics is not easily defined and "metaphysical naturalism" is synonymous with "ontological naturalism", "philosophical naturalism" and "scientific materialism". I see the term "metaphysical naturalism" as equivocal.
You miss the point. The question to ask is; If everything ceased to be, you would be left with the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes.. Have a think about that. jan.
I sorry to intercede, but I puzzled why have you intimated that electromagnetic waves are supernatural. Or am I completely off here?
God is, at least every single perception of anything that ever, and will ever be perceived God is both outside and inside the laws of nature. The laws of nature are His laws. The life force is His force. God breathed life into a body, and it became a living soul. That may have been a personal interjection from God, as opposed to the natural process of procreation, but that is the process. That means all life forms have that same life force, so God is present with us, through that. How could anything exist or occurr without The Supreme Cause? How do they justify their claim of insufficient evidence. That is why we must define God if we are to seriously answer any of the OP questions. jan.
I can do no more than assure you that I do know my own arguments. I am also aware of what the term is considered synonymous with, and depending upon the subject of discussion I would possibly use one of the others. But since the discussion here seems to be one regarding the nature of being (specifically of God), and with the issue of natural vs supernatural, I went with "metaphysical naturalism". It seemed to be more apt. Do you have issue with the position taken, other than your dislike of the specific term I used? Semantics? If you mean that your issue is simply about the choice of words I used rather than the meaning then yes, I'd agree, but then semantics is about the meaning of words. You yourself note the synonymity of the terms, so then how can you say it is just a matter of semantics? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And why do you consider the term to be equivocal, given that you seem to know exactly what it refers to? Do you consider "scientific materialism" to be similarly ambiguous a term? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
First, if you're going to say what the question to ask is, perhaps you ought to actually ask a question rather than just make a claim. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Secondly, if everything ceased to be then even the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes surely disappears as well. You have nothing left. Zip. Nada. Nout. One less than one, the square-root of naff-all, etc. To claim otherwise would seem either be a case of special pleading - and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be criticised of that - or in the odd position that you're claiming God doesn't actually exist in the first place... because that is the only other way your claim would seem to hold true: If God is nothing (doesn't exist) then once all that exists ceases to be, all you have left is nothing... I.e. God. But then if God is also defined as the Supreme Cause of ALL Causes then you're also claiming that, since everything sprang from God, everything did indeed come from nothing. That's quite a leap for you to take, Jan. I'm impressed! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
