Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

[William]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

[Miles]

.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?

No more so than pixies with fairy dust or pink elephants have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists.

.

[William]

.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?

No more so than pixies with fairy dust or pink elephants have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists.

.

I don't understand the significance of your reply. Can you expand on what it is you are saying?

Your comment mentions pixies with fairy dust and pink elephants. Are you suggesting that the idea of a supernatural universe is as fantastical or implausible as those examples?

Additionally, since we are discussing the concept of a supernatural universe, I think it would be relevant to explore the Christian idea of God. Many Christians consider God to be an immaterial or supernatural MIND that exists beyond the natural universe. What are your thoughts on this perspective re aligning that with the existence of fairy dust and pink elephants et al?

While the concept of a supernatural mind, particularly within the Christian tradition, carries profound significance and attributes such as intelligence and intentionality, it is - perhaps - crucial to consider whether a supernatural universe is necessary to explain the existence of our natural universe.

One alternative viewpoint suggests that the natural universe itself possesses inherent properties of a mind, without requiring the existence of a separate supernatural mind. This perspective posits that the organization and complexity observed in the natural world can arise from the interplay of natural processes which include minds/ the making of minds, without the need for supernatural intervention.

By exploring this perspective, we can challenge the assumption that a supernatural mind is a prerequisite for explaining the existence of our universe. It opens up avenues for considering how emergent properties, self-organizing systems, and the laws of nature can give rise to the order and complexity and the mindfulness we observe.

Therefore, while the concept of a supernatural mind has its philosophical and theological implications, it is not necessarily the only explanation for our universe's existence and the mindfulness apparent in that. By examining alternative possibilities and engaging in critical inquiry, we can explore different perspectives that do not rely on invoking a separate supernatural realm.

What are your thoughts on this perspective, which suggests that our natural universe can possess inherent properties of a mind without necessitating a separate supernatural mind?"

eta:
PS: One can also take your statement as saying that even if every other supernatural thing ever thought up as fantasy actually existed in our universe, a supernatural mind would not be necessary to explain why anything exists.

[Miles]

.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?

No more so than pixies with fairy dust or pink elephants have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists.

.

I don't understand the significance of your reply. Can you expand on what it is you are saying?

Your comment mentions pixies with fairy dust and pink elephants. Are you suggesting that the idea of a supernatural universe is as fantastical or implausible as those examples?

The supernatural has no more been shown to exist than have pixies with fairy dust or pink elephants.

Additionally, since we are discussing the concept of a supernatural universe, I think it would be relevant to explore the Christian idea of God. Many Christians consider God to be an immaterial or supernatural MIND that exists beyond the natural universe. What are your thoughts on this perspective re aligning that with the existence of fairy dust and pink elephants et al?

God has no more been shown to exist than have pixies with fairy dust or pink elephants.

While the concept of a supernatural mind, particularly within the Christian tradition, carries profound significance and attributes such as intelligence and intentionality, it is - perhaps - crucial to consider whether a supernatural universe is necessary to explain the existence of our natural universe.

If it's perhaps crucial to consider pixies with fairy dust or pink elephants then go right ahead. Personally, until they've been shown to exist I see no reason to.

One alternative viewpoint suggests that the natural universe itself possesses inherent properties of a mind, without requiring the existence of a separate supernatural mind. This perspective posits that the organization and complexity observed in the natural world can arise from the interplay of natural processes which include minds/ the making of minds, without the need for supernatural intervention.

Suggestions about a fabricated entity are no more interesting than a calm wind.

By exploring this perspective, we can challenge the assumption that a supernatural mind is a prerequisite for explaining the existence of our universe. It opens up avenues for considering how emergent properties, self-organizing systems, and the laws of nature can give rise to the order and complexity and the mindfulness we observe.

Explore away.

What are your thoughts on this perspective, which suggests that our natural universe can possess inherent properties of a mind without necessitating a separate supernatural mind?"

About as interesting as the turn of the next tarot card. In as much as it should be apparent that I don't believe the supernatural exists, I'm assuming you understand my disinterest in its nature.

.

[boatsnguitars]

I initially thought about posting this in the Science and Religion forum because I think it is most appropriate , but decided that the Christianity and Apologetics forum might garner more interest in the subject.

Q: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why our natural universe exists?


I ask the question because a recent interaction with a Christian who insisted that this was the only plausible conclusion one could reach to explain why we and the universe exist.
Indeed, many Christians argue the necessity for the supernatural to explain the natural.

Some of the key points for discussion/debate.


The influence of Christian beliefs: The cosmological argument has been shaped and influenced by certain Christian perspectives, which can impact its perceived validity.

I was thinking about this, too. When we see polls on what philosophers think, there is, sometimes, a skew towards Christian beliefs because they have dominated for so long, but that doesn't make them valid. It just makes them vestigial.

Alternative explanations: A supernatural explanation may not be necessary to account for the existence of the natural universe, and that simpler explanations without invoking supernatural elements can be considered.

Especially when we try to think about how the Supernatural can make the Natural world - seemingly magically, out of whole cloth. To me, the most reasonable thing is to believe that the Cosmos is energy, and it can produce matter and time, life, consciousness, etc. Adding extra ideas like the supernatural, souls, angels, gods, etc. seems like residue from ancient people with no scientific process, and only stories to talk about the world.

Different interpretations of "supernatural": The definition of "supernatural" and whether it necessarily implies a separate and distinct realm from the natural universe.

Yep, and it seems to be a total grab bag. Everyone can have an opinion, and then, even better, you get people mocking other people's opinion about something that can't even be explained. It's pretty absurd.
Also, what about the Subnatural? I mean, if there's a Supernatural, why not a Hypernatural, a hyponatural, a quasinatural, on and on. Why stop at one alternative to the Natural?
Because, after all, what created the Supernatural?

Critique of the cosmological argument in natural theology: Re the OP question, counterarguments to this cosmological argument, challenging the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

(A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

Context and historical origins: The importance of considering the historical context and origins of the cosmological argument in order to engage in a more comprehensive discussion.

Validity of alternative arguments: Alternative explanations should not be dismissed simply because they reach different conclusions from the OP questioning that cosmological argument, and that critical evaluation of different perspectives is necessary for a robust discussion.

Exactly. The CA relies on the principle of causality, which may not apply to the universe as a whole. (Just like is claimed about God by Theists). Additionally, the argument assumes that there is a necessary being, but it is not clear that such a being exists or that it would have the properties traditionally attributed to God - but thousands of years of tradition keep the idea alive, like a zombie.

Thinking about "What made the Supernatural?", I realize that Theists must mean that God is the Supernatural. Because they believe that only God existed (not God within a Supernatural sub-universe, which would need it's own Cosmo Argument). So, that makes it more weird. They think reality is God (Ground of Being, etc) and that God is eternal and infinite, which doesn't sound like a Being, especially a personal one.

I guess I can't get over why we wouldn't think of reality as an infinite sea of energy, in which many things can occur, like universes. It would have the same powers as a god to create the universe, and the "time" to do it randomly. Makes me feel lucky to be alive, even if for a short time!

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #5]

I was thinking about this, too. When we see polls on what philosophers think, there is, sometimes, a skew towards Christian beliefs because they have dominated for so long, but that doesn't make them valid. It just makes them vestigial.

It is important to understand that the impact of Christian beliefs on the cosmological argument. While this does not necessarily render it invalid or without merit, the question of the supernatural element doesn’t help its case.

Especially when we try to think about how the Supernatural can make the Natural world - seemingly magically, out of whole cloth. To me, the most reasonable thing is to believe that the Cosmos is energy, and it can produce matter and time, life, consciousness, etc. Adding extra ideas like the supernatural, souls, angels, gods, etc. seems like residue from ancient people with no scientific process, and only stories to talk about the world.

The proposition that viewing the cosmos as energy, capable of generating matter, time, life, and consciousness, as a more reasonable explanation does have merit, and unlike supernature, is able to be observed, and through the observation, has more chance of being understood.

The suggestion that concepts like, souls, angels, and gods might stem from ancient beliefs without a scientific process, relying on stories to explain the world should not be confused with the supernatural when there is evidence that the science of psychology through Jung, offers the idea of the subconscious realm of the human mind re The Archetypes, and we needn’t conflate the subconscious realm with supernaturalism.
Like fairy dust and unicorns, such imagery from the stories told speaks of material things whereas The Mind is not a physical thing, but is still a natural thing not to be confused with supernaturalism.

It's important to note that discussions about the existence of the supernatural often delve into metaphysical, philosophical, and even religious domains that go beyond the scope of empirical science, when there really appears to be no logical reason for invoking supernaturalism to explain things of the mind.

Yep, and it seems to be a total grab bag. Everyone can have an opinion, and then, even better, you get people mocking other people's opinion about something that can't even be explained. It's pretty absurd.
Also, what about the Subnatural? I mean, if there's a Supernatural, why not a Hypernatural, a hyponatural, a quasinatural, on and on. Why stop at one alternative to the Natural?
Because, after all, what created the Supernatural?

I think that engaging in a balanced discussion involves considering both scientific explanations and the philosophical and metaphysical questions that arise when exploring the existence and origins of the natural universe and treating all things of the mind as being able to be naturally explained.

Your mention of the wide range of interpretations of the term "supernatural" and the potential implications this carries, leading to a variety of opinions and even mockery due to the inherent difficulty in explaining what it even is., seems valid.

To underscore this observation, you show how one can conjure other states beyond the natural and argue for the existence of those as well. You saying that if we accept supernaturalism then we might as well accept anything we can dream up.

The CA relies on the principle of causality, which may not apply to the universe as a whole. (Just like is claimed about God by Theists). Additionally, the argument assumes that there is a necessary being, but it is not clear that such a being exists or that it would have the properties traditionally attributed to God - but thousands of years of tradition keep the idea alive, like a zombie.

Thinking about "What made the Supernatural?", I realize that Theists must mean that God is the Supernatural. Because they believe that only God existed (not God within a Supernatural sub-universe, which would need it's own Cosmo Argument). So, that makes it more weird. They think reality is God (Ground of Being, etc) and that God is eternal and infinite, which doesn't sound like a Being, especially a personal one.

I guess I can't get over why we wouldn't think of reality as an infinite sea of energy, in which many things can occur, like universes. It would have the same powers as a god to create the universe, and the "time" to do it randomly. Makes me feel lucky to be alive, even if for a short time!

Your counterarguments to the cosmological argument questions the assumption that a supernatural cause is required to explain the existence of the natural universe.

I think that the principle of causality may or may not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole, and the existence of a “necessary being”, as posited by the argument, is not necessarily out of the question as it may have been necessary to the universes past, current and moving forward formation that a Mind emerged in that distant epoch which may even be aligned with the properties traditionally attributed to the Abrahamic ideas of God and – to be fair – there is no biblical reference to the idea of any actual "supernatural" existence.

Removing supernaturalism from the argument, any explanation of causation by the uncaused can be aligned with what we observe in nature – and this includes The Mind of nature. The idea of what made the natural and the possibility that Mind had something to do with it removes having to consider God as supernatural.
Rather, it assigns "God" as being within the universe, identified in all things mindful.

The nature of God can thus be examined re the nature of Nature…hereabouts as it is happening on this planet. This would not necessarily mean that biblical ideas of God being a personal and an infinite and eternal being run contrary to nature/the universe.

The idea of reality being viewed as an infinite sea of mindful energy, capable of giving rise to various manifestations (universes) grants the same creative power to the mind of reality as a concept of God, which can just as easily lead to a sense of appreciation for existence even in the face of its brevity.

[Miles]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #5]

I was thinking about this, too. When we see polls on what philosophers think, there is, sometimes, a skew towards Christian beliefs because they have dominated for so long, but that doesn't make them valid. It just makes them vestigial.

It is important to understand that the impact of Christian beliefs on the cosmological argument.

What impact is that?

While this does not necessarily render it invalid or without merit, the question of the supernatural element doesn’t help its case.

There are several cosmological arguments (for the existence of god)

1. First-Cause Cosmological Arguments

2. The Kalām Cosmological Argument

3. Contingency Arguments

Which did you have in mind? I ask because I don't recall any of them mentioning a supernatural element.

.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #5]

I was thinking about this, too. When we see polls on what philosophers think, there is, sometimes, a skew towards Christian beliefs because they have dominated for so long, but that doesn't make them valid. It just makes them vestigial.

It is important to understand that the impact of Christian beliefs on the cosmological argument.

What impact is that?

While this does not necessarily render it invalid or without merit, the question of the supernatural element doesn’t help its case.

There are several cosmological arguments (for the existence of god)

1. First-Cause Cosmological Arguments

2. The Kalām Cosmological Argument

3. Contingency Arguments

Which did you have in mind? I ask because I don't recall any of them mentioning a supernatural element.

.

I believe that's the point. They don't mention a supernatural 'realm', but it is the preferred conclusions of Theists due to the influence of Christian thought, especially considering Christians monopolized academics for centuries.

If we read the CA's without that influence, we needn't posit a God, or anything supernatural to explore their implications.

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #7]

What impact is that?

The impact of the idea that God is supernatural.

Which did you have in mind?

The one in I have in mind, is the one which the OP is addressing.

OP: (A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.)

OPQ: Does a supernatural universe have to exist to explain why the natural universe exists?

One could say that those type of CA’s you mentioned, tend to have a supernatural God superimposed over them, by Christianity – re the common consensus most Christians appear to agree to/with.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #8]

I believe that's the point. They don't mention a supernatural 'realm', but it is the preferred conclusions of Theists due to the influence of Christian thought, especially considering Christians monopolized academics for centuries.

I agree with this critique.

If we read the CA's without that influence, we needn't posit a God, or anything supernatural to explore their implications.

The cosmological arguments mentioned, do indeed posit a concept of God as a conclusion or inference.
To highlight my argument that God does not necessarily have to be understood as a supernatural entity, I must also point out that conflating "God" as "anything supernatural" is an invalid manner in which to reach the conclusion "we needn't posit a God." What the OP is saying is that we needn't posit a supernatural God.