Why I Reject a Natural/Supernatural Distinction

[Truthseeker]

Ok. It seems then that your view on the theory of a natural/supernatural demarcation revolves around the focal point of thoughts regarding 'natural law.' So the problem of calling something a "natural law" is that we artificially divide existence (e.g. existence of things in the creational realm) based on the distinction between normal observational phenomena and unseen realities. I would then extrapolate that the artificial divide then merely has made 'science' comfortable to those who wish to exclude the unseen realities.

On a different issue of the idea of natural law...
If I follow you, at a surface level, we can say there are observable patterns but these are incorrectly called 'natural' in the colloquial sense. This colloquial sense would be that 'nature' has an independent existence which supersedes (e.g. like an absolute law) all other options (whereas 'nature' in its root came from the concept of being born, e.g. 'created'). The improper use of 'nature' is connected with the definition from m-w.com "a creative and controlling force in the universe," as if such force were in and of itself, thus independent of God.

I wonder what you think of methodical naturalism. Some people do science on that basis even though they say that they believe in God and the point that we ourselves are supernatural in a way, as I showed in a recent post.

[Kelp(p)]

I wonder what you think of methodical naturalism. Some people do science on that basis even though they say that they believe in God and the point that we ourselves are supernatural in a way, as I showed in a recent post.

Methodical naturalism is science. You can't fill a gap in your theory by saying, "And here, a miracle occurred." There's no way to test or detect that.

[Apologiaphoenix]

My view at this point isn't so much of nature as it is of natures. Hume said dropping a rock 1,000 times is not proof that the 1001st time it will fall. I say ridiculous. If you know what a rock is, you know that it will fall.

As for what God is made of with regard to what Kelp said, God is not made of something as if He has parts. I hold to divine simplicity.

[Tassman]

Methodical naturalism is science. You can't fill a gap in your theory by saying, "And here, a miracle occurred." There's no way to test or detect that.

Exactly right! And there is no other form of existence than the natural universe that we know of.

As for AP’s non-definition of God as “divine simplicity”, this is meaningless drivel. God is either a part of this universe, which would make him a natural entity OR He is not a part of the natural universe which would make him non-natural – or, as usually designated: “supernatural”.

If the latter, one is faced with the question: how can an immaterial entity interact with the material universe? What is the point of contact or nexus?

[Kelp(p)]

Exactly right! And there is no other form of existence than the natural universe that we know of.

As for AP’s non-definition of God as “divine simplicity”, this is meaningless drivel. God is either a part of this universe, which would make him a natural entity OR He is not a part of the natural universe which would make him non-natural – or, as usually designated: “supernatural”.

If the latter, one is faced with the question: how can an immaterial entity interact with the material universe? What is the point of contact or nexus?

I don't know how to answer the nexus question, but it seems to me that simplicity is a concept supported by science. Elements, atoms, protons, quarks...it seems like eventually you have to get down to an indivisible substance (and no, I'm not arguing for any kind of irreducible complexity).

[Kelp(p)]

My view at this point isn't so much of nature as it is of natures. Hume said dropping a rock 1,000 times is not proof that the 1001st time it will fall. I say ridiculous. If you know what a rock is, you know that it will fall.

As for what God is made of with regard to what Kelp said, God is not made of something as if He has parts. I hold to divine simplicity.

Does He have to have parts in order to be made of something? How about an infinite amount of uniform energy?

[Paprika]

Methodical naturalism is science.

Scientific research assumes methodological naturalism.

You can't fill a gap in your theory by saying, "And here, a miracle occurred." There's no way to test or detect that.

And here, the first cell came into being.

[Tassman]

I don't know how to answer the nexus question,

Indeed! So the question remains: “how can an immaterial entity, such as a deity, interact with the material universe? What is the point of contact or nexus?”

but it seems to me that simplicity is a concept supported by science. Elements, atoms, protons, quarks...it seems like eventually you have to get down to an indivisible substance (and no, I'm not arguing for any kind of irreducible complexity).

“Elements, atoms, protons and quarks” etc are all components of the material universe. This has no bearing upon AP’s definition of the non-material God as "divine simplicity”.

[robrecht]

... As for AP’s non-definition of God as “divine simplicity”, this is meaningless drivel. God is either a part of this universe, which would make him a natural entity OR He is not a part of the natural universe which would make him non-natural – or, as usually designated: “supernatural”. ...

Perhaps the primary meaning of divine simplicity, for those to hold divine simplicity, for example, Thomas Aquinas, is that God cannot be defined, we are unable to analyze his nature into genus and species. The 'non-definition' is worn as a badge of courage by those who hold to some type of apophatic theology. It may not be meaningful to you, but it is very meaningful to others. To say that God is either part of the natural universe or not part of the natural universe is merely to say that we can indeed define God or the extent and breadth of the natural universe. I don't think we can define or delimit either. But if you can, great!

[mikewhitney]

I wonder what you think of methodical naturalism. Some people do science on that basis even though they say that they believe in God and the point that we ourselves are supernatural in a way, as I showed in a recent post.

I wasn't discussing my own view specifically but rather seeking to understand Apologia's point.

On a review of the term 'methodological naturalism' (and some posts just now) I realized that 'science' doesn't particularly operate (in every scientist's mind) under the constraints of a single philosophical understanding. But indeed, to a large extent, science does work in a general paradigm of creating theory and experimentation. My quick study looked at an article on methodological neutralism -- which focused on a wider range of outcomes than methodological naturalism, essentially the idea of following the evidence rather than constraining results to a naturalistic framework (I speak in conventional terms of 'nature' rather than adding Apologia's proposal). The term 'nature', however, has become perceived as its own independent force which is an assumption without basis.
In the alternative to the term 'natural laws', the term 'patterned behavior' would possibly be better. 'Nature' and 'natural' have taken on meaning which I suppose to be a distortion from earlier meaning, that is of nature as part of creation -- "to be born" as its root.

I suppose we could keep 'law' within the description. The idea of 'law' is good enough as long as we hold to the definition such as at m-w.com
" a statement of order or relation holding for certain phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions "
But we may be giving too much weight to the idea that 'law' forces everything in an inviolable fashion.

[Adrift]

Perhaps the primary meaning of divine simplicity, for those to hold divine simplicity, for example, Thomas Aquinas, is that God cannot be defined, we are unable to analyze his nature into genus and species. The 'non-definition' is worn as a badge of courage by those who hold to some type of apophatic theology.

This is off topic, but do you believe that God has any well defined properties?

[robrecht]

This is off topic, but do you believe that God has any well defined properties?

Not sure, but I suspect that if they are too well defined then they are no longer properties of God himself. I do believe we can certainly speak of God by analogy, metaphor and parable.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Does He have to have parts in order to be made of something? How about an infinite amount of uniform energy?

Any combination goes against divine simplicity. Angels are simple in that they are essence + existence, but they are not absolutely simple like God is. God is existence = essence.

btw, just so you all know, I put Tassy on ignore long ago. I have far better usages of my time.

[Adrift]

Not sure, but I suspect that if they are too well defined then they are no longer properties of God himself. I do believe we can certainly speak of God by analogy, metaphor and parable.

Are there any positive theological statements we can make about God? Any true statements we can make about God?

[robrecht]

Are there any positive theological statements we can make about God? Any true statements we can make about God?

Yes, of course, as long as we understand that we are speaking analogically (if we accept Thomistic theological terminology) or otherwise acknowledge the limitations of human language and knowledge and the transcendence of God. For example, we might say that God exists or that God is good, but do we really think that we can fully comprehend God's goodness or the nature of his existence?