Is Nature Omnipotent?

[Don Mc]

One of the common criticisms of theism is that omnipotence seems like a meaningless escape clause. The basic idea is that whenever Christian theists like me run up against a logical challenge such as an argument from evil, say, or a critique of the shrouded ontology of the Trinity, we can always handily resolve the dilemma by a blanket appeal to God's "mysterious ways" and thereby escape the burden of having to make sense of apparent contradictions. Though I think answers are available to such dilemmas beyond simply "God's mysterious ways," I do think the objection is a fair one on its face.

But I also think the kind of scientific-naturalistic view of the world shared so by many atheists faces a similar criticism. On scientific naturalism, nature, much like God, is credited with creating the universe from nothing (or else existing eternally), creating life from nonliving chemical constituents (the "dust of the earth"), and bestowing humanity with intelligence, an appreciation for beauty, and a sense of morality among other seeming miracles. I've heard serious naturalist philosophers propose that even if it could be verified that Jesus rose from the dead, that would not mean there could not be a naturalistic explanation for it (and I think they're right). And the paradoxes of general relativity or quantum mechanics seem no less confounding than the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ. It appears that as understood by advocates of scientific naturalism, nature, no less than God, can do (and explain) anything.

Questions for debate/dialogue:

1. In principle, can nature do anything God can do?
2. If so, does it require a metaphysical assumption of some sort to believe nature can do anything God can do?
3. If not, what limits does nature face that God does not?

[William]

I wonder why the obvious is being left out. The detectable qualities of nature have to be factored into the idea that nature is a creation of a creator, then we can better ascertain the most likely nature of The Creator by observing what it is we can of The Creation.

In that way, we are equipped to observe the capabilities and 'detect' said Creator within said Creation and the question can thus possibly, now, be answered.

Scientific naturalism does not need to presume nature is a creation in order for it to function. To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so.

Stating the obvious about one form of process does not answer any questions which arise outside of that which Scientific Naturalism deals with.

As such, it has no place in any Theological argument as it cannot be used to disprove some of the more expansive theories which have arisen with the collective human experience to date.

Not to say that it does not have its uses, but the theories it offers - even as it attempts to keep things simple - insist that it ignores those expansive theistic theories altogether by the proclamation it is founded upon.

• [the proclamation being;
  "To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so."]

As such, it is of little use to those among us who experience altered states - both drug induced and not - to be told "it is all in the mind" for we know something of the mind, and think of our experiences as being "minds within a mind."

This of course is beyond the current ability of Scientific Naturalism to probe. How are those who live by the proclamation of Scientific Naturalism, supposed to investigate? They have painted themselves into a corner in that regard.

It obviously has it uses in regard to real-world activity - as a probing device - but has proved over time to be failing Human Society, even as much as religion has done.

This leads one to question if it was such a good idea to attempt to stem and stifle the human mind with harmful concoctions created in certified laboratories and sell these in the market place.

I do understand the temptation to make riches while we are involved in this reality situation together, but really? Does it help to think of human beings as nothing in particular to be concerned with because when all is said and done, death is the end?

I cannot see Scientific Naturalism as anything good for humankind, since taking note of how Nazi Germany used it.
That path hasn't proven itself to be serving anything but itself...and hasn't been great for nature either.

[bluegreenearth]

As such, it has no place in any Theological argument as it cannot be used to disprove some of the more expansive theories which have arisen with the collective human experience to date.

What are these more expansive theories and are they falsifiable at all?

Not to say that it does not have its uses, but the theories it offers - even as it attempts to keep things simple - insist that it ignores those expansive theistic theories altogether by the proclamation it is founded upon.

• [the proclamation being;
  "To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so."]

I'm not sure what "expansive theistic theories" you are referring to here, but if we have no method of determining whether they are true or false, what else can be done with them?

As such, it is of little use to those among us who experience altered states - both drug induced and not - to be told "it is all in the mind" for we know something of the mind, and think of our experiences as being "minds within a mind."

This of course is beyond the current ability of Scientific Naturalism to probe. How are those who live by the proclamation of Scientific Naturalism, supposed to investigate? They have painted themselves into a corner in that regard.

Again, are such claims falsifiable at all? What is to be done with claims that we cannot determine to be true or false?

It obviously has it uses in regard to real-world activity - as a probing device - but has proved over time to be failing Human Society, even as much as religion has done.

This leads one to question if it was such a good idea to attempt to stem and stifle the human mind with harmful concoctions created in certified laboratories and sell these in the market place.

I do understand the temptation to make riches while we are involved in this reality situation together, but really? Does it help to think of human beings as nothing in particular to be concerned with because when all is said and done, death is the end?

We hear the same argument from theists and atheists against each other and the same defense in return. This objection might apply to the way some people incorporate scientific naturalism (or theism or atheism) into their own twisted ideologies but not to scientific naturalism (or theism or atheism) itself.

I cannot see Scientific Naturalism as anything good for humankind, since taking note of how Nazi Germany used it.
That path hasn't proven itself to be serving anything but itself...and hasn't been great for nature either.

Scientific naturalism isn't to blame for how Nazi Germany has been accused of perverting it. Christians will have the same defense for Christianity when atheists refer to the Spanish Inquisition. Atheists will have the same defense for atheism when Christians refer to Stalin's military campaign in Italy.

[William]

You brought into the discussion the argument for Scientific Naturalism as if it were something relevant to argue against theism or to the OP.

It obviously is not.

It presumes we exist in something that isn't a creation, on the grounds that it cannot do the science to confirm it or prove it wrong.

The presumption is fine as far as Scientific Naturalism itself goes. The presumption has no relevance as a device in which to debate theological concepts which cannot be falsified.

I mention one such expansive theological idea [here] in relation to those who attempt to use Scientific Naturalism as an argument against theological concepts.

[bluegreenearth]

You brought into the discussion the argument for Scientific Naturalism as if it were something relevant to argue against theism or to the OP.

It obviously is not.

It presumes we exist in something that isn't a creation, on the grounds that it cannot do the science to confirm it or prove it wrong.

The presumption is fine as far as Scientific Naturalism itself goes. The presumption has no relevance as a device in which to debate theological concepts which cannot be falsified.

I mention one such expansive theological idea [here] in relation to those who attempt to use Scientific Naturalism as an argument against theological concepts.

I only brought a description of scientific naturalism into the discussion because it seemed to be inaccurately portrayed in the OP and required a clarification. It is my understanding of scientific naturalism that it does not presume anything about whether we exist in a creation or not. This is precisely because we have no method by which to determine if that claim is true or false. It is not my intention to argue for scientific naturalism as a refutation of theism but to demonstrate that it functions quite well without having to invoke anything supernatural.

[William]

You brought into the discussion the argument for Scientific Naturalism as if it were something relevant to argue against theism or to the OP.

It obviously is not.

It presumes we exist in something that isn't a creation, on the grounds that it cannot do the science to confirm it or prove it wrong.

The presumption is fine as far as Scientific Naturalism itself goes. The presumption has no relevance as a device in which to debate theological concepts which cannot be falsified.

I mention one such expansive theological idea [here] in relation to those who attempt to use Scientific Naturalism as an argument against theological concepts.

I only brought a description of scientific naturalism into the discussion because it seemed to be inaccurately portrayed in the OP and required a clarification. It is my understanding of scientific naturalism that it does not presume anything about whether we exist in a creation or not. This is precisely because we have no method by which to determine if that claim is true or false. It is not my intention to argue for scientific naturalism as a refutation of theism but to demonstrate that it functions quite well without having to invoke anything supernatural.

You were replying to my own post quoted;

I wonder why the obvious is being left out. The detectable qualities of nature have to be factored into the idea that nature is a creation of a creator, then we can better ascertain the most likely nature of The Creator by observing what it is we can of The Creation.

In that way, we are equipped to observe the capabilities and 'detect' said Creator within said Creation and the question can thus possibly, now, be answered.

Scientific naturalism does not need to presume nature is a creation in order for it to function. To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so.

I was commenting specifically on the irrelevance of the assertion you made regarding Scientific Naturalism. As a position it is not a device through which theist understanding [we exist within a creation] can be argued against.

Its propensity to attract Nazi-type-thinking is well documented. The shift which gives that process the green light, has come as a popular acceptance to the type of 'creed' it declares...namely..."it functions quite well without having to invoke anything supernatural."

That it cannot tell the difference between 'supernatural' and 'created simulation' is something fir theists to focus upon as a glitch.

Primarily Scientific Naturalism's assumption is designed for the purpose of putting the position [Scientific Naturalism] on a pedestal above all other positions and looking for a creator within the creation would naturally work against that, which is why it is of no importance. "We can not be having a Creator whom is obviously better than we can be...so we insist there is no need for people to go looking. We have been found!"

Attitudes along such lines are an obvious natural consequence of such thought processing.

That Scientific Naturalism has nothing on The Creator, is not the fault of The Creator.

[bluegreenearth]

You brought into the discussion the argument for Scientific Naturalism as if it were something relevant to argue against theism or to the OP.

It obviously is not.

It presumes we exist in something that isn't a creation, on the grounds that it cannot do the science to confirm it or prove it wrong.

The presumption is fine as far as Scientific Naturalism itself goes. The presumption has no relevance as a device in which to debate theological concepts which cannot be falsified.

I mention one such expansive theological idea [here] in relation to those who attempt to use Scientific Naturalism as an argument against theological concepts.

I only brought a description of scientific naturalism into the discussion because it seemed to be inaccurately portrayed in the OP and required a clarification. It is my understanding of scientific naturalism that it does not presume anything about whether we exist in a creation or not. This is precisely because we have no method by which to determine if that claim is true or false. It is not my intention to argue for scientific naturalism as a refutation of theism but to demonstrate that it functions quite well without having to invoke anything supernatural.

You were replying to my own post quoted;

I wonder why the obvious is being left out. The detectable qualities of nature have to be factored into the idea that nature is a creation of a creator, then we can better ascertain the most likely nature of The Creator by observing what it is we can of The Creation.

In that way, we are equipped to observe the capabilities and 'detect' said Creator within said Creation and the question can thus possibly, now, be answered.

Scientific naturalism does not need to presume nature is a creation in order for it to function. To presume nature is the creation of a creator is to add additional complexity where there is no reasonable justification to do so.

I was commenting specifically on the irrelevance of the assertion you made regarding Scientific Naturalism. As a position it is not a device through which theist understanding [we exist within a creation] can be argued against.

Its propensity to attract Nazi-type-thinking is well documented. The shift which gives that process the green light, has come as a popular acceptance to the type of 'creed' it declares...namely..."it functions quite well without having to invoke anything supernatural."

That it cannot tell the difference between 'supernatural' and 'created simulation' is something fir theists to focus upon as a glitch.

Primarily Scientific Naturalism's assumption is designed for the purpose of putting the position [Scientific Naturalism] on a pedestal above all other positions and looking for a creator within the creation would naturally work against that, which is why it is of no importance. "We can not be having a Creator whom is obviously better than we can be...so we insist there is no need for people to go looking. We have been found!"

Attitudes along such lines are an obvious natural consequence of such thought processing.

That Scientific Naturalism has nothing on The Creator, is not the fault of The Creator.

Why do you insist upon mischaracterizing scientific naturalism, even after I've clarified where your objections are actually better directed at metaphysical naturalism?

[William]

Why do you insist upon mischaracterizing scientific naturalism, even after I've clarified where your objections are actually better directed at metaphysical naturalism?

What? You seriously think we should believe that weapons of mass destruction were created by the wizards of metaphysical naturalism rather than the scientists of scientific naturalism?

[bluegreenearth]

Why do you insist upon mischaracterizing scientific naturalism, even after I've clarified where your objections are actually better directed at metaphysical naturalism?

What? You seriously think we should believe that weapons of mass destruction were created by the wizards of metaphysical naturalism rather than the scientists of scientific naturalism?

People with political ideologies create weapons of mass destruction. Scientific naturalism is not to blame for how people utilize the knowledge it produces. Otherwise, you will have to lay equal blame on theism for the way people misuse the knowledge claims it produces.

[Zzyzx]

.

I cannot see Scientific Naturalism as anything good for humankind, since taking note of how Nazi Germany used it.

That path hasn't proven itself to be serving anything but itself...and hasn't been great for nature either.

If scientific naturalism (view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time) is to be discredited and disavowed because it was involved in developing weapons of war, to be consistent one must also discredit and disavow modern medicine, communication, transportation, food production and distribution, etc in which scientific naturalism was involved.

Which of those are you prepared to do without?

[William]

Why do you insist upon mischaracterizing scientific naturalism, even after I've clarified where your objections are actually better directed at metaphysical naturalism?

What? You seriously think we should believe that weapons of mass destruction were created by the wizards of metaphysical naturalism rather than the scientists of scientific naturalism?

People with political ideologies create weapons of mass destruction. Scientific naturalism is not to blame for how people utilize the knowledge it produces. Otherwise, you will have to lay equal blame on theism for the way people misuse the knowledge claims it produces.

If that is the case, the problem with the world isn't theism, but politics.

The non-theists are thus barking up the wrong tree.