Can Christians Believe That God Is Immanant In The Natural World?

I think this boils down to what place fundamentals have within causality. Our knowledge of the world tells us all effects must have causes. It does not neccesiate that all causes need be effects themselves. We assume all 'things' must have causes. This is not what causality tells us. Only effects need have a cause. Casuality does not rule out self sufficient entities that are not contingent upon any other 'thing' for their existence.The big question is why would nature as a whole not qualify as a self sufficient entity that is fundamental? In other words nature itself is not an effect but a fundamental cause which is not contingent. It needs no cause because it is not an effect of something ontologically prior. Nature itself is the fundamental generator of causation.If you could show 'nature' itself is incapable of explaining certain observations or facts then one would have reason to believe that nature is not fundamental and a further level of causality is required. Currently I do not see any reason to believe nature is not fundamental and is contingent. .Ultimately, to avoid an infinite regress of casuality there must be fundamental self sufficient entities that rely on nothing for their existence. They are not effects - they are simply fundamental causes.So yes - at this time I would say nature is immanant. Until further evidence points to a different conclusion I would divert to Laplace who stated "Sir, I simply have no need of that hypothesis".

The topic at hand ultimately is an issue of casuation and what role casual agents play. Sending and recieving involve causal agents doing the sending or recieving. My point is any 'external' agent able to influence a system would itself be part of the system since it would be just another causal agent within a larger system. It would still be part of the 'Universe' because it is causally connected to it. There would be nothing 'external' about it.If you consider the Universe as a set of non-contingent fundamental causal agents there is no need for any other level of causal influence. There is no need to incorporate a larger level of causation. You are free to speculate on what those agents are but the Universe as such a whole is Immanent - it does not need to account for itself as the agents are fundamental. It is not an effect and does not require other agents to sustain it. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

In principle it doesn't as one would be free to define this non contingent fundamental generator of causality as 'God'. Why bother though? It won't add to or detract from anything by changing it's proper name from Nature to God. These are questions that you need to answer through your own reflection and understanding. These are my opinions. My opinions have changed throughout my life and perhaps they might change again. I could very well be entirely wrong. I am not an Atheist in the sense I deny the possibility of the existence of a first cause that supersedes nature on this scale of fundamental cuasation. I simply see no reason to require that a level of fundamental causality as seen in nature be backed up a notch.The one thing that I have been convinced of is that in order to not revert to circular reasoning or infinite regress one needs to be able to resort to non contingent fundamental 'things' as primary.Take the age-old questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?". This question is absurd because it results in a circular argument. If there are 2 contingencies to be chosen from - "something" and "nothing" then the agent that does the choosing must be "something". Therefore "nothing" cannot exist. In other words "something" cannot be contingent.Asking why nature is here I would currently reply that it simply "just is so". It needs no explanation as it is not an effect but a fundamental cause that is itself not an effect. This is hard to envision as our brain and experience has conditioned us to see effects everywhere. We have never seen a 'cause' that is not congingent so we conclude all 'things' must be effects with causes and ultimately must rely on something else for their own existence.

Look at it this way - Our position that Causes must also be Effects is a direct result of our inquiry into nature proceeding from the top down rather than from the bottom up. We started at the top and have gradually unraveled deeper levels of causailty. The current goal of a TOE is basically to find a natural basis for all the causality we see around us. It would be the generator of causailty.If such a fundamental causal agent that is described by this TOE were indeed established it would not need a cause. If it is by definition a fundamental generator of all causality then it need not be an effect of something ontologically ”prior’. It is not an effect but a fundamental primary cause. Demanding that such a fundamental cause also have an explanation is the same as demanding that there must be something North of the North pole. The buck stops there.This does not 'prove' that there is no deeper level of casusality. However, in order to establish a deeper level of causation you would need some observation or condition of logical necessity that dictates such a generator is contingent upon something else more fundamental. Other than guessing or taking as faith what do we observe that would indicate something deeper exists outside the causal structure of our existence that could not be accounted for by this generator?Nothing we observe in nature makes it logically necessary that a fundamental agent would also exist as a contingent. There is no law that dictates all causes must also be effects.This is my formed opinion based on common sense, inference, and what I see as necessity. The backbone of this argument is that an infinite regress of causes is implausible. The only way to avoid an infinite regress is by an appeal to fundamental entities that are not contingent upon any other entity for their existence.To counter this argument one would need to show that all causes must also be effects.I do not consider this plausible in the physical sense. Without fundamentals as a categorical basis you will simply end up in an infinite causal regress - each level requiring deeper explanations. Whether you are thiest or a naturalist I would see this as unpalitable.Causality has to have a home base otherwise it simply wanders forever without any firm basis to stand on. Ultimately what I am stating is that fundamental agents ”simply are’. This is neither a copout or an argument from ignorance. It seems to me to be logically necessary that there must exist causal influences that exist in and of themselves.
......................................Anna,If youre interested here is a very nice read. The work covers the whole range of causal thought from conditionals to explanations, laws, and inferences. It really would go a long away in sorting out some of the ideas that surround your questions in the OP and helping you form your answers. You can probably find it at Amazon.A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals - Jonathan Bennett;Oxford Press 2003.Edited by Grizz, : Added Book reference

The whole jist of the argument is simply that there is no question of origin if a cause is fundamental and not an effect of something ontologically prior. There really is no final solution other than there exists a fundamental causal agent(s) that exists in and of themselves. They require no casual explanation and the only 'purpose' assigned to them is subjective.Yes, Theists have used the same argument I have. Naturalists have generally found it unpalatable and 'taboo' since it gives ammunition to the theist to posit a creator without a cause. Reality is not a popularity contest however. It does not follow that non-contingent entities imply a deity. In fact they make it even less probable if they can account for what we see around us , which I believe they do.I am an instrumentalist in that I see the laws of Nature as not really being 'laws' but rather patterns of regularity that are derived from primary causal agents. We never really see causes, we only see effects. For instance in a bubble chamber we are not viewing the particles under study, we are only seeing the tracks they leave behind. We see the final effect of an entity interacting with another system. Asking what the particles are in and of themselves is meaningless as we only see what things do - not what they are.To take an example from General Relativity let's ask what 'gravity' is in and of itself(you might also do the same with the notion of God as you define it). One might ask how the presence of mass causes spacetime to become warped?. If you look closely at this question ,however , it might be easy to conclude we have the question backwards. It is the warping of space that defines what mass is and what casual properties it displays to our eyes.Keep in mind here that we are not defining what 'matter' is but what mass is. Not all elementary particles of 'matter' have mass. Our everyday subjective perception of the world has caused us to equate matter with mass.Mass in this context is a property of space, not of matter. To understand what mass is in and of itself we must understand space. You cannot define 'space' in a more fundamental context. It is as far as you can go while retaining any conceptual physical framework.If Space was fundamental and not an effect of something ontologically prior then why would it need an explanation for it's own existence and properties? It is not an effect of something else but a fundamental cause. That's all we would be able to state with certainty. It simply 'is the way it is'.Certainly gravity and spacetime would originate as a byproduct of the physical and conceptual framework of the fundamental TOE physicists are seeking. But this generator of causality we call the TOE would be the endpoint in causation, there would be nothing deeper. It would not require a cause at is not an effect. As with the particle in the bubble chamber it is fundamental to the system, we simply see the result of the interactions of the elements derived from the TOE.If you had reason to believe there was something more fundamental you could certainly speculate that there is a prior causal agent responsible for the TOE. In the absence of evidence why would you? Something has to be fundamental and non-contingent without resorting to infinite casual regress. So why not keep going back further and further and stating the God has a more fundamental explanation? Because you would have no evidence to conclude as such.Anyway, sorry for the book.

Very interesting take. Keep in mind one of the main tenets of Christian Theology is only God can create life. So if life is a result of divine intervention and man is not divine how could he have the power to create life where it does not exist? By definition Christian theology limits life-generation to a supernatural God. In Christian theology we are mere mortal creatures embedded in nature.

Amen . That's the whole point here.The game we play as scientists is ultimately to decide what is fundamental to a system and then use that as our mode of explanation for the casualty we see. We can continue to unravel deeper levels of causation but eventually the buck has to stop somewhere. From there, looking for a deeper level of causation is as meaningless as asking what is North of the North pole.It is just that our mind and experience has deluded us into reaching the false conclusion that every 'thing' must be an effect of something causally prior. That every 'thing' must have a cause cannot be demonstrated as we only see effects - not causes. You cannot view a cause - you can only view what a cause produces.So the theist would say God MUST be the cause of Nature simply because they fell into the trap of assuming all things must have causes. They look at nature and say 'Who ordered that?'Granted, a Theist could employ this argument to explain 'God' as fundamental but as you stated why should we? If Natural law can explain everything we see why resort to a deeper level of causation?The theist's only recourse is to find something within the realm of existence and experience that cannot be explained by natural law. Then and only then will we have reason to suspect a deeper level of causation is required.I do not state a God cannot or does not exist. I simply state we see nothing that would currently lead us to believe Nature is not fundamental. If it's not broke, why fix it.

What's the point of equating God with Nature? You can assign any proper name you wish to Nature, just like you would a dog or a cat. You can call it Snowball, or Fluffy, or God. It doesn't change anything, and it won't add to or detract from the nature of existence. Nature cannot be deified, for the reason I noted above.As far as God being 'natural', If God is part of Nature then God could not have created nature as he is just a part of the whole, and contingent upon the whole. By defintion of Christian Theology God cannot be contingent on anything else for his existence.Also, the God described by Christian Theology cannot have 'natural' properties as it cannot be part of the thing which was created - Nature.

What are we on to? Nothing more than what Christian theologians have reasoned - there must be an uncaused fundamental agent. They too have rightly argued that not all causes must be effects. They simply push back causality one extra step when it is simply not needed.

I think it is safe to say we both agree on a matter of prime importance in this discussion: We both agree that not all effects must be causes. Something must be fundamental to avoid an infinite regress of causality.I have presented a simple argument that the causality present in nature derives it's source from fundamental cause(s) which are not effects. If these are indeed fundamental, then asking for the source of this causality is meaningless. It would make as much sense as a geneticist inquiring into the genotype that expresses a genotype.I am not claiming a further level of contingency cannot exist, I am simply stating that, based on what we know about physical existence, there is no reason to conclude one is necessary. You really have not supplied any argument that would indicate why you think it is necessary.You also are mixing and matching categories by trying to assign a supernatural category to the natural. By definition, God would be external from the causality that exists in nature - God is supernatural. God cannot be part of nature, the creator cannot be part of the created. Going a step further by equating God with nature simply results in a redundancy or a tautology.

We are not stating the Universe is self-made, just non-contingent and causally fundamental.