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.

[boatsnguitars]

[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.

I have not come across that definition of God. I'm not sure what a non-supernatural God would be?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #11]

I'm not sure what a non-supernatural God would be?

Indeed, it can be noted that the question of what a non-supernatural God would be reflects the extent to which supernaturalism has influenced common thinking and understanding. See Also circumduxit per nasum

By challenging the assumption that "God" necessarily has to be associated with the supernatural, the possibility of exploring alternative perspectives and interpretations that do not rely on supernatural elements is made available.
This allows for a broader and more nuanced understanding of the concept of "God" within a naturalistic framework.

Challenging the assumption that "God" is inherently tied to the supernatural opens up new avenues for exploring the concept of "divinity" within a naturalistic framework.

By considering alternative perspectives and interpretations that do not rely on supernatural elements, a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of "God" can be developed that aligns with our evolving knowledge and scientific understanding of the natural world.

This broader and nuanced understanding allows for a more inclusive and meaningful exploration of spiritual and existential questions.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #11]

I'm not sure what a non-supernatural God would be?

Indeed, it can be noted that the question of what a non-supernatural God would be reflects the extent to which supernaturalism has influenced common thinking and understanding. See Also circumduxit per nasum

By challenging the assumption that "God" necessarily has to be associated with the supernatural, the possibility of exploring alternative perspectives and interpretations that do not rely on supernatural elements is made available.
This allows for a broader and more nuanced understanding of the concept of "God" within a naturalistic framework.

Challenging the assumption that "God" is inherently tied to the supernatural opens up new avenues for exploring the concept of "divinity" within a naturalistic framework.

By considering alternative perspectives and interpretations that do not rely on supernatural elements, a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of "God" can be developed that aligns with our evolving knowledge and scientific understanding of the natural world.

This broader and nuanced understanding allows for a more inclusive and meaningful exploration of spiritual and existential questions.

But why posit a God or "God" in the first place? I'm not aware of anything that needs explaining that doesn't fall within the explanatory powers of science, or naturalism. Take, for example, ghosts: I don't see a need to look for material explanations that account for incorporeal spirits floating around when naturalistic explanations of people seeing things, or pareidolia, or whatever, are explanation enough.
NDE's: I don't see why naturalistic explanations can't account for the data (the reliable data) we already have.
Gods: It seems they have been completely accounted for.

I feel the minute we try to turn the term "God" into some force that created the universe, even if it's impersonal, natural, etc. we are just being loose with terms. Gods are things like Yahweh, Odin, Krishna. That's what the term is used for. Not natural mechanisms that happen to make universes... IMO.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #13]

But why posit a God or "God" in the first place?

You raise a valid question about why one would posit a God or "God" in the first place. It's important to critically examine the reasons and justifications behind such beliefs. Exploring alternative perspectives and interpretations allows for a deeper understanding of the concept of "God" and its relevance in our lives.

I'm not aware of anything that needs explaining that doesn't fall within the explanatory powers of science, or naturalism. Take, for example, ghosts: I don't see a need to look for material explanations that account for incorporeal spirits floating around when naturalistic explanations of people seeing things, or pareidolia, or whatever, are explanation enough.

Which is why I equate the Immaterial (which science agrees exists alongside the Material), with “Mind”. Mind=Immaterial. Ghost=Immaterial. Therefore Mind=Ghost.

The point of the purposeful conflation is to critique the idea of Ghosts being supernatural by pointing out that Minds are not. Minds are natural.

My intention in using the conflation of minds and ghosts is to highlight the distinction between supernaturalism and the immateriality of the mind. By emphasizing that minds are not inherently supernatural, I am challenging the assumption that immaterial phenomena must be "supernatural" in nature.
This perspective can encourage a more nuanced understanding of the mind as an immaterial aspect of consciousness (also immaterial itself) that can be explored within a naturalistic framework.

It opens up the possibility of examining the mind as a natural phenomenon without invoking supernatural explanations.

NDE's: I don't see why naturalistic explanations can't account for the data (the reliable data) we already have.
Gods: It seems they have been completely accounted for.

Regarding NDEs, ongoing studies investigate various psychological, physiological, and neurological factors that may contribute to the reported experiences. While there is still much to uncover, the aim is to provide explanations rooted in natural phenomena rather than resorting to supernatural explanations.

As well as that, there are ample eyewitness testimonies on the internet which give a comprehensive overview of minds interacting with alternate experiences - and it would need to be explained "where" these minds "go" when the experiences take place.

An explanation for how it might be, is they "go" into a more encompassing Mind which is able to accommodate them, and that the Mind this happens within is a natural aspect of Nature, which evolved further back at the beginning of the universes (ongoing) formation, and that this occurrence of an Immaterial Mind emerging from, and interacting with, learnt how to organize matter into useful forms it could occupy.

Like a Ghost in a Machine. That is what sentience is.

Regarding gods, it is true that different theological concepts and beliefs have been historically attributed to gods, often accompanied by supernatural elements. However, within the context of this discussion, the focus is on exploring alternative perspectives that challenge the assumption of gods as necessarily supernatural entities. This allows for the consideration of naturalistic interpretations and understandings of the concept of gods, which align with our evolving knowledge and scientific advancements.

The goal is to encourage critical thinking, open dialogue, and a broader exploration of these topics, examining them from various angles and interpretations while considering the available evidence and data.

I feel the minute we try to turn the term "God" into some force that created the universe, even if it's impersonal, natural, etc. we are just being loose with terms. Gods are things like Yahweh, Odin, Krishna. That's what the term is used for. Not natural mechanisms that happen to make universes... IMO.

My focus is on the similarities – not just with God-concepts which give human form to said Gods, but also those which give planetary and star forms to God-concepts.

We know that humans at least have minds and so can relate more to concepts involving God-images which have a human likeness. For example this recent claim by a Christian.

Thinking that Planets, Stars and Galaxies have Minds too, is a much harder step for us to take.
However, given the time-span so far, it is plausible that not only do our bodies show us in our examination of them, that they are made of the stuff of stars, but us being Minds can show us that we are the stuff of those/that Mind(s).

The problem is in how to scientifically pursue answers to the questions such thinking produces.
We can make a start by accepting the possibility the idea being presented is true.

Expanding our perspective and considering the possibility that entities beyond humans, such as celestial bodies, may possess some form of consciousness or mind can open up new avenues of exploration. It invites us to contemplate the interconnectedness and shared essence of all things in the universe.

Scientifically pursuing answers to these questions is indeed a complex task. It requires a multidisciplinary approach that integrates fields such as cosmology, neuroscience, and philosophy. It involves exploring the nature of consciousness, the origins of life, and the fundamental properties of the universe.

By acknowledging the possibility and remaining open to new ideas, we can encourage scientific inquiry and foster a deeper understanding of the mysteries that exist beyond our immediate human experience. It is through such exploration that we can continue to expand our knowledge and gain insights into the nature of reality.

[boatsnguitars]

By acknowledging the possibility and remaining open to new ideas, we can encourage scientific inquiry and foster a deeper understanding of the mysteries that exist beyond our immediate human experience. It is through such exploration that we can continue to expand our knowledge and gain insights into the nature of reality.

How does using sloppy definitions help this, and why do you feel that science isn't already doing this?

[William]

By acknowledging the possibility and remaining open to new ideas, we can encourage scientific inquiry and foster a deeper understanding of the mysteries that exist beyond our immediate human experience. It is through such exploration that we can continue to expand our knowledge and gain insights into the nature of reality.

How does using sloppy definitions help this, and why do you feel that science isn't already doing this?

I am unsure as to what you are referring to re "sloppy definitions" but to answer the second part of your question, I feel science could do this but scientists who are willing to do this and people who fund scientists who are willing to do this, seem to be is short supply. They - scientists and funders - appear to be “stuck in the bog” as it were. “The Bog of Current Consensus” as I affectionately refer to it.

[Miles]

By acknowledging the possibility and remaining open to new ideas, we can encourage scientific inquiry and foster a deeper understanding of the mysteries that exist beyond our immediate human experience. It is through such exploration that we can continue to expand our knowledge and gain insights into the nature of reality.

The problem is that science is limited to investigating only reality, and as such will never explore anything outside of it, such as the supernatural (phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature) or any proposed phenomena "beyond our immediate human experience." Science leaves such things to astrologers, tarot readers, and the religious to play with. And it's one reason "Creation Science" is such a misleading misnomer and its claims regarded as a pseudoscience.

sci·ence
noun: science
1. the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
[My emphasis.]


pseu·do·sci·ence
noun: pseudoscience; plural noun: pseudosciences; noun: pseudo-science; plural noun: pseudo-sciences

a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Oxford Languages Dictionary

.

[boatsnguitars]

By acknowledging the possibility and remaining open to new ideas, we can encourage scientific inquiry and foster a deeper understanding of the mysteries that exist beyond our immediate human experience. It is through such exploration that we can continue to expand our knowledge and gain insights into the nature of reality.

How does using sloppy definitions help this, and why do you feel that science isn't already doing this?

I am unsure as to what you are referring to re "sloppy definitions" but to answer the second part of your question, I feel science could do this but scientists who are willing to do this and people who fund scientists who are willing to do this, seem to be is short supply. They - scientists and funders - appear to be “stuck in the bog” as it were. “The Bog of Current Consensus” as I affectionately refer to it.

But are they?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #18]

But are they?

They appear to be.

[JoeyKnothead]

I gotta get me some of this conversation. Details to come after I've gone through the thread.