To Believers: God is supernatural by definition (tradition)

[ndf8th]

Are God supernatural by definition of the religious traditions?

I've looked it up in Dictionaries and even looked at atheist texts
and it looks like God is supernatural by definition. That is my best take on it.

So if you know that me get it all wrong
then please help me understand what
is the better way to explain how God is supernatural?

Here is the background. 2013 I live in Sweden and I saw this TV series
"What is religion?" by Erik Sandstrom.

I saw this TV series in Swedish so it would be beyond me
to translate to English. I barely can express myself in English
and to translate somebody else feels very demanding.
I don't want him to get mistranslated and misunderstood.

So the following is my understanding of what he says
and not word for word his own thought so hope you can read
the text with that in mind.

Erik Sandstrom works for Swedish Television but is a freelancer most likely.

He traveled the world in one year and made numerous interviews
and then put together a TVseries about "What is religion" and
from the first episode I try to retell his conclusion from that
one year journey he did.

Background. He was and still is atheist
but he says that he had to rethink his view
on religion. "Religion works every time"

That surprised him and he try to understand why it works.

He says "religion works when the believer put their doubt aside
and decide that what the religion teach is true to them. And that
this is so for all religions. The important thing is that the believer
decide on that it is true and then act on that faith in their religion
then it works for them. Every time. "

Not word for word but my best take on what he really said.

I am a former atheist myself and I am not a theist and not agnostic
I am somewhere in between or past the dichotomy of theism/atheism.

I find his words to be very true. All my experience support his take on it.

Here is my own words trying to summarize this view.
the following words is me trying to get how it works
for a true believer in God. I express my understanding

I don't believe it like that but I think it is how it works if one believe?

As a believer in God I am committed to
the hard to fake counter intuitive faith
that God is supernatural by definition of
religious traditions and as an act of faith
I will cooperate with like minded friends
for to spread that interpretation as the truth.

What I like to ask as many believers as possible.

Can you agree with this part?
"God is supernatural by definition of religious traditions"

Maybe the grammar or logic is false? Can you help me
to get it right?

Now I did try to find out if it is like I say. I did a lot of reading
of what supernatural is supposed to be on atheist sites.

Richard Carrier wrote a whole book about his take on it
and Austin Klein on atheism.about.com also try to explain
and I looked at dictionaries too.

so now I ask you as a true believer in God. Can you agree?

In what other way can God be supernatural
than by faith and definition alone?

An important reason I ask is that I do want to find myself
a decent religion to believe in and to find words for what it is
that one commit to and thus I want to get your view and experience.

[Divine Insight]

What is "supernatural"?

In fact, a far better question is to ask, "What is Natural?"

If science, or any human, claims to know the true nature of reality this is groundbreaking news to me.

So before I can even talk about 'Supernatural', I need to have a better understanding of what you believe constitutes "natural".

I am a "believer" in a mystical essence of reality.

Is that a "supernatural" belief?

I have no clue.

To the best of my knowledge realty may very well be mystical. And if that is indeed the case, then clearly being "mystical" is the essence of nature.

Thus a mystical reality would be a natural reality. Nothing "super" about it.

In fact, this is precisely how I believe.

Just in case you might be interested, my beliefs are along the lines of Taoism (in the deepest philosophical sense).

But I also embrace many spiritual and psychic traditions from various forms of Buddhism, Shamanism, Wicca, and even some of the more abstract views of European Faery Traditions.

Are any of those "supernatural"?

I have no clue. I think it all depends on how you view them.

And of course, on what you think constitutes "nature".

You need to have a really good handle on nature before you can even speak about the "Supernatural". I've been a scientist all my life, and I don't see any handles on nature. She seems to be pretty handle-less to me.

[ndf8th]

Divine Insight, then I would have asked
Is mysticism the better explanation of God
or something like that. To talk about mysticism
in a thread about standard ordinary faith in God
would derail the thread too much.

You are welcome to start your own thread
about What is natural.

All my experience support that God is supernatural by definition.
So I hope ordinary believers would confirm this definition.

Mysticists sure can share their views but the thread is
about standard ordinary views on God and not about Mysticism.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mysticism

1. belief in or experience of a reality surpassing normal human understanding or experience, esp a reality perceived as essential to the nature of life
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a system of contemplative prayer and spirituality aimed at achieving direct intuitive experience of the divine
3. obscure or confused belief or thought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

Mysticism (About this sound pronunciation (help·info)) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on practices intended to nurture those experiences. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.

If you go to an ordinary Church on a Sunday and ask those who are there
I would doubt that even 1% of them are into mysticism.

so please can you wait or start your own thread about mysticists views
on the natural.

I've spent 5 month daily talking to atheists about what God is
and I don't want to spend weeks on debating what mysticism is.

[ndf8th]

Here I ahve found the thread where you can talk about
what naturalism is or is not.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=
title of thread is "Naturalism "

so please let us talk about if God is by definition supernatural here.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by ndf8th]

It depends on which god, but every god I have researched have supernatural attributes. I am an ex-believer. If you are looking for a god that does not have supernatural attributes then I am afraid that you are pretty much looking for a virgin in a brothel.

[ndf8th]

[Replying to post 1 by ndf8th]

It depends on which god, but every god I have researched have supernatural attributes. I am an ex-believer. ....

yes seems to be either by definition or by established norms of historic usage?

Sure you have something that is both natural and supernatural?
Modern druids in England assert them are naturalists.
they see their gods as natural forces. But I have no intent to
join them so I have not spent any time on it.

what about the modern Jedi also in England?
They are most likely inspired by Lucas movie The Star Wars
but they seems to have added or subtracted so it is their own
version? Do they see their Force as supernatural?

what about Tao/Daoism? Their Chi power?

okay back to gods as atheists refers to them.

The odd thing is that some atheists get very upset if I write

God is supernatural by definition

They tell me that logically if God is supernatural by definition
and that if one know that God is supernatural by definition
then it is a false god and not a god at all. which makes a believer
in a God that is supernatural by definition not a believer but an atheist
that pretend to be a believer.

Their logic seems to be that for God to be a real God
then God has to be supernatural by faith and not by definition.


I got really surprised that atheists cared that much about believers
that the atheist would care if the God is real or false?

Why would an atheist want to have believers seen as atheist
if the believer is satisfied with a faith in a God that is God by
definition and that one of the features of that God is to be supernatural?

So logically could you find out what am I supposed to write then?
for to be logically correct? I give it a new try?

God is only God if God is truly supernatural by act of faith by the believer
and the believer should not be aware of that God is supernatural by definition?

Another way to say same thing would something like this.

God is only the true God if the believer is deluded to trust
that God is supernatural out of necessity for to be The Creator.

sorry that grammar may be flawed too.

I am obviously not clever enough to get this logic.

It even seems that if the believer understand what God is by definition
then that believer instantly lose faith and become atheist by definition?

One can logically only a believer as long as one are not aware of
that one are an atheist by definition? Due to atheism being the default
and theism being a kind of delusion. The believer is only a true believer
if them deluded. They can not be aware of that them deluded?

[ndf8th]

I trust we have to start at Go .The very start of it all.

Erik Sandstrom works for Swedish Television but is a freelancer most likely.

He traveled the world in one year and made numerous interviews
and then put together a TVseries about "What is religion" and
from the first episode I try to retell his conclusion from that
one year journey he did.

Background. He was and still is atheist
but he says that he had to rethink his view
on religion. "Religion works every time"

That surprised him and he try to understand why it works.

He says "religion works when the believer put their doubt aside
and decide that what the religion teach is true to them. And that
this is so for all religions. The important thing is that the believer
decide on that it is true and then act on that faith in their religion
then it works for them. Every time. "

That is the premise of the whole thing. He did this journey 2012
or maybe 2011 to 2012 and then edited it and present it now
as a TV series 2013 unfortunately in Swedish so he would need
to translate it for it to be in English reaching a wider audience.

So logically if he has grasped what religion is then the believer
male a leap of faith. And act of faith to accept the claims of that
particular religion them join.

they put trust in the claim and act in agreement to the claims
of that faith. that is why it works for them. Each time unless
they start to doubt the claims and then they lose that religion.

So logically that has to be the start.

1. The believer make an act of faith.
2. the believer acts on faith and trust the claim
that God is supernatural and then experience
that to be true for the believer of that particular faith.

3. As long as the believer acts on faith and cast all doubts aside
then the faith works as they claim it to work in that particular tradition.

4. When believers start to doubt and no longer make acts of faith
then they lose their faith and become disbeliever in that particular faith.

So maybe I can change the "by definition"
to "by acts of faith on the claims"

That would be logically more correct then???

Could you as a former believer and now as atheist confirm
that to be your experience and logical reasoning too?

I have only been aggressive anti-theist/Anti-religious so
I am too biased to be logical about God. To me god is emotion
and not logic but the atheists force me to be logical or else it is
not a real god they tells me. An emotional relation to God is not
a real god they tells me. Then it is no more than a man made
imaginary friend. Something so ridiculous that it is beyond to talk about.

[Divine Insight]

All my experience support that God is supernatural by definition.
So I hope ordinary believers would confirm this definition.

Ok, forget about mysticism then.

You still have the fundamental problem of what you mean by supernatural.

How can you talk about the supernatural if you don't yet have a complete explanation of what constitutes "natural".

Even if you're speaking about a human-like egotistical God that resides in a place called heaven, how can you say that this isn't natural when you can't know what natural even means?

Modern scientists (the people who try their best to describe nature) have no clue at this point in time what constitutes "natural" or natural.

Currently they are proposing that there may exist infinitely many parallel universes. If that constitutes "natural" then a human-like egotistical God could potentially reside in any one of those infinitely many parallel universes and call that particular universe "Heaven". There could also be other universes that are designated as "Hell".

Don't forget, what you are calling "the standard ordinary views on God" (which I assume you mean the Abrahamic myths), those myths require the existence of both a heaven and a hell. At least one of each, possibly more, depending on which version of the myths you are calling "standard myths".

I would personally argue there there is no such thing as "the standard ordinary views on God", and that very ideal right there is nothing other than a potentially cultural or regional view. If you had been raised in culture that believe in a mystical view of reality then for you that would be "the standard ordinary views on God".

So that very perspective right there is your own perspective. It has no actual reality.

~~~~~

Having said all of the above, they do say that "With God all things are possible", but I would hold that this is true of all spiritual faith, not just what you are calling "the standard ordinary views on God".

Now, if we accept that "With God all things are possible", then it must be possible for God to intervene in the laws of physics. After all, God created the laws of physics, and so surely if God created these laws God can manipulate them or violate them at will.

So in that sense, you could say that God is "Supernatural" (this would apply to all religions not just the ones you are considering).

However the question then must be asked, "Does this really violate the laws of nature?"

My answer is no, it doesn't.

What it would violate is the scientific notion that there only exist four forces of nature that we know of, and that those forces are all that exist and they cannot be changed.

However, if there exists a "God" that God may very well have other forces that God has not revealed to us. God may use those forces to change the laws of nature at his whim.

However, if that's the case, then God is still using forces, and cause and effect, etc. In other words, God isn't doing anything "Supernatural" at all, but rather God is simply using natural forces that mankind simply doesn't know exists.

What I'm curious about is why this is important to you?

Why is it important to you to know whether a God is "supernatural" or not?

I take it as a matter of definition that all concepts of "God" are supernatural with respect to "our knowledge" of nature, simply because our knowledge of nature is incomplete.

So this would be true of all spiritual philosophies and religions.

There is really no fundamental difference between what you are calling "the standard ordinary views on God" and the so-called mystical views. They are both mystical views.

The only real difference is that what you are calling "the standard ordinary views on God" (i.e. the Abrahamic picture of God) also require that God has an ego, and is an individual human-like person in his own right.

In fact, the Christian God lusts to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to rule over humans at some time in the future.

So this God would not only need to be "Supernatural" but he would also need to be obsessed with ruling over humans and having them worship him.

I'm personally not convinced that his represents a "Super-natural" God, or simply a "Super-absurd" God.

Why should a supernatural being have a desire, or a need, to rule over mere humans and have them worship him?

To me, that's a far more interesting question that is crying out for an answer.

[ndf8th]

I don't know how well informed Austin Cline are but he
answer for atheism at about.com He writes

Life is Material, not Supernatural: We Are Material, Natural Beings
All Evidence Points to Life Being Material & Natural, Not Supernatural

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsag ... terial.htm

Nearly every religion posits some sort of hidden,
immaterial realm which exists behind the visible,
physical, and material realm in which we live.

Often we are supposed to be partaking in this immaterial realm
because who we "really" are is defined by an immaterial, immortal soul.

This immaterial realm is also treated as being higher
and more important than the material one because
it's the realm in which gods live and which we are
destined to inhabit after our physical bodies die.
...
(over to his view on God then)

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/01/12/i ... st-god.htm

When debating the existence of god, perhaps the most important step
is the one that gets overlooked the most often, and by both atheists and theists:

defining what is meant by the concept 'god.'

You can't debate the existence of something unless
everyone is clear what it is they are talking about;
otherwise, people might be talking about
completely different things.

I fail to find what he think about God as the supernatural
apart from the above quotes so I go to wikipedia instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

The supernatural (supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD)
is that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively,
that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

With neoplatonic and medieval scholastic origins,
the metaphysical considerations can be difficult
to approach as an exercise in philosophy or
theology because any dependencies on its antithesis,
the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected.

Maybe that is what you talk about but that is to go deep into metaphysics
and into philosophy and that is not the purpose of this thread.

So maybe you are right on that level I don't mind if you are right
but what you talk about is not what the thread is about.

The thread is about what all ordinary average usage of the word
refers to when one use the word God. What you talk about is what
Mysticists and theologians and philosophers meeting each other
may love to go deep into.

So could you maybe accept that I give you right if you stop derailing the thread?

So what does the average believer mean
when they see God as supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe....
Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers. Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God...

Maybe it would be less problematic if I only asserted this part?

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial),

But I guess that numbers or forms or thoughts are also seen as
being incorporeal (immaterial) and that makes god into a thought?

So maybe the word supernatural is misleading?

What about this then
God is believed to be an invisible incorporeal (immaterial)
being that are believed to have created all that exists.

[Divine Insight]

So maybe the word supernatural is misleading?

What about this then
God is believed to be an invisible incorporeal (immaterial)
being that are believed to have created all that exists.

Think there are two separate issues here that might help to acknowledge.

First, consider the following statement:

"With God all things are possible."

In this philosophy we are simply saying that God can do what we consider to be impossible. In other words, God can even override what we consider to be "natural laws of physics".

This can easily be explained by simply allowing God to have access to forces that we do not have access to or knowledge of.

So in this sense God can easily be what we consider to be "supernatural" without even really violating the basic concepts of science at all. God would simply be using forces that God has not permitted us access to via our scientific inquiry.

A in this sense science cannot "rule out" this kind of "supernatural" God.

~~~~~

However, now you are moving to a totally different type of idea of "supernatural" by suggesting that God is himself immaterial or completely non-physical. This suggest that God is without "physics" of his own. In other words, God has no meaningful or identifiable structure.

I would personally rule this out. If any God has no structure of any kind, then how can it even be said to exist at all? It must have some properties before it can even be said to exist. If the God is said to be able to think and even be rational at all, then the God must have some sort of structure to even possess a thinking mind.

That structure would then be "The Physics of God" (which may be entirely different from the physics we see around us as the universe.

But still, God would need to have some sort of "form" or, a God who has no form at all, would be a non-existent God. But that defies the very claim that such a God exists.

So even a God must have some sort of "physics" that defines its nature.

In other words, any supernatural being must necessarily have its own supernatural nature.

Ironically also, is the idea that this God is said to be dependable, and trustworthy.

Well, in order for a God to be dependable and trustworthy surely it would need to have a structure that would provide for those characteristics.

So the very idea of a "God" requires that the God has some form or structure of its own. It's meaningless to suggest that a formless, structureless God actually "exists". What could it even mean to say that it 'exists' if it has no properties that exist?

So for me, the idea that a supernatural God, "who can do anything", necessarily requires that the God itself must have some nature in its own right. And that simply means that it must have some sort of structure or form. Without form how could it even be said to "exist" at all?

Therefore God must have physics of its own. Otherwise it's meaningless to even say that it exists.