Supernatural is Natural

October 10, 2019 Open Religion No Comments

If ‘everything that is’ is denoted as nature, then how can the supernatural be anything more than nature?

Oops, did I already say – within this question – everything that needs to be said?

Of course, it’s terminological.

I just equalized ‘nature’ with something of my own choice.

Indeed?

But what is another option for ‘nature’? Let’s look at some:

nature = ‘organic nature.’ Then every stone is supernatural. Bullocks.
nature = ‘everything except the supernatural.’ Perfect circular definition, thus worthless.
nature = ‘everything but God.’ OK. I want to follow in this for a while, especially since it’s the last option I imagine.

Of course, you cannot point your finger at what is God.

Not only because it would be utterly impolite. It’s also impossible.

Quote the Bible: “You cannot look God into the face and live.”

You also cannot point your finger at God without looking him into the face. Thus, you perish.

Hm.

There’s some more semantic conundrum. Take for instance the simplistic train of thought:

“If God created everything, then who created God?”

Answer: “It’s a sacrilege to even ask this question.”

I see.

I’m a Spinozist in this respect: God = nature.

‘Deus sive Natura.’

What I recognize in religion, is that people want something more ‘special’ than the naturally natural. That may be because the natural is not enough… I don’t agree with this. It’s too easy.

It may also be because what people see in the natural, is not enough. That is: the seeing itself is not enough.