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

If we don't know WHAT was the first cause, how can we possibly decide whether we are pushing it backward or forward a step? It is only upon deciding that nature was the first cause, that you can say the supernatural is 'extra'. How can the 'natural' be the cause of anything if nothing natural existed? It's pretty simple. If nature is THE cause, then nature is God. You just don't mention it. I am declaring that WHATEVER is the uncaused cause is not known, and until it is known, God is not an extra step. He is the same step.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Is it appropriate to question the purpose or the plan of the Uncaused Cause?What is known of God is that His ways are unknowable. If we don't know what the first cause is, we don't know if it had plan or purpose.What we know:Natural events have causes, something without a cause may be considered higher, or 'super' natural. It does not need to be more complex than nature to be 'different' from what is observed so far.Any Uncaused was the 'creator' of all subsequent effects and causes.If God is the Uncaused, God occupies the first position in activity within the universe.If something else is thought to be a better description of the Uncaused, aka God, it still occupies the first position within causality.Of course I understand what you are saying, but I feel that we are simply using different adjectives for our 'Gods'.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I am not, first off, talking about the Christian Creator God. In the OP, yes, but in these recent posts on causal agent/s I have said that 'God' is one name of many for the Uncaused. We've embellished, sure, but at the core of the belief in God is the belief that there must have been something uncaused to avoid the infinite regression Grizz spoke of. Again, I am not speaking pure Christian rhetoric here. I am simply asking: if we don't know what was the first cause, how can we discuss whether it had plans or not? In that sense, the ways of anything unknown are unknowable. And I don't use that phrase to fill gaps or skirt issues. If you caught the beginning of the conversation, Grizz and I had said that the idea of something having no cause is 'unnatural' or foreign to us. Neither of us said it was impossible. No, to repeat we did not say that causes must exist. Well, in that regard I should have said 'initiator' but I was using terms as loose parallels. I don't understand how you say a random quantum EFFECT when we are debating about the initial CAUSE. Perhaps you mean event? Anyway, if that is true, then then God must either be nature itself, or we must regress. Unless, of course, when all religions came to be they used the word 'God' to symbolize the initial uncaused. We would then be debating what God was, and not where s/he/it appears chronologically.

Well, please know that I am not trying to prove or disprove anything.I do feel that people over-look some areas in the evo-creo debates. It is always 'science versus God' or 'God is extra'. Somebody is wrong, crazy, deluded, etc.In reality, this is just the modern version of the same old stuff. The only important change is that we may now have evidence that the ancients did not. We have a pretty good idea that life was once simple cells. We can study atoms. We may conclude that the universe had a beginning.The basic dilemmas of Aristotle and Plato are still relevent and unanswered, and we have a common bond as humans trying to answer these questions. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Maybe that's why I prefer the term 'God'? Far as I know, pantheism does not worship a sentient or thinking God. In patheism, God is energy or force. There are many philosophies which are based on a connection to the universe and nature. Yes, although we could question either. Ok. I don't know too much about quantum physics or mechanics at the 'initial' level. If they are effects which occur with in the universe, would they be able to occur before the universe formed? A better description would be that I believe the finite can not exist without the infinite. The universe is known to have a beginning, so it makes sense to me to say it must have been caused by something greater than that. At this level of thought, there is no evidence for either scenerio. Actually, in my personal beliefs I don't. I can talk about 'what ifs' in a thread, though, can't I? Because we don't know either, my view can still make sense. Even if I do regress further than you do. So what? In my view, a universe composed of 'stuff' could not have appeared from nothing unless somehow 'nothing' is an irreducible complexity. The universe could simply be the reduction of the whole into parts. That may not make sense, but any explanation would be mind boggling. It is not necessary to feel there is a creator Being, and in a sense, God is not a Being as we conceive of ourselves as beings. He simply IS being. The summation of all that was or will be. I have no problem saying that this Force can be greater than us and still communicate with us as one of its reductions.

I don't actually think anything is necessary. I have always believed in God, and I think that if I have so many other 'arguments' for God, then this common ground, give or take a level, is too close to being a draw for me to give up my belief just because it isn't necessary. Well, in a simple way, I take the word YHWH 'I am Who am' and I might say for you and others it should read 'I am What Is'. I don't think the first cause need be a Who, but with the limitations of langauge, What doesn't quite cut it.I am no Hebrew scholar or anything, but whatever it is which caused the universe, it can't be summed up or understood any better in a name. Maybe that is myself being mushy or soft. It is still a good reminder that the 'Christian Merciful Avenging Sacrificing God' is just tons of stuff we added along the way.

Just as 'soul' bears little resemblence to anything a doctor would recognize. Yeah, I still don't get how something observed in the universe could have existed before the universe was here to observe it in. I guess anything is possible, but I will try to learn more about it. Probably nothing more than familiarity with the idea, and no reason to believe otherwise. I mean, infinite things can exist, and finite things can exist within them. Because there can only be ONE uncaused, and I can't say 'I am going beyond that' if I don't know what THAT is. Right now, I am still on the first cause, the first cause which caused the universe. Let me put it this way. How do I know we aren't talking about the same thing? I don't need to find a role for God. He is what he is. BUT, it was sort of the purpose of the thread to find a description of God. Is God immanant in Nature? You say God is Nature. Not in so many words. Anyway, the whole subject of infinity can probably be traced back to some philosopher or another, and I can probably pick their brains, but I don't have anything to prove here. All the philosophizing in the world won't prove anything. I believe what makes sense to me, same for you. We can always learn more. Right now, you are also fitting your beliefs about the existence of God into your beliefs about the origins of the universe. What would be really crazy is if either of us weren't. I mean, would an atheist find it necessary to look for any further cause than nature itself? Wouldn't it be rather ludicris?

No, I got the point since the first post, but it is not all black and white.I think I have already mentioned that it is quite possible IMO that all of us are talking about the same thing, with a different description. Either way you look at it, something caused the universe. There had to be some first phenomenon which propelled the rest, unless the universe has always existed. Are you denying this? The universe could also be said to be the only evidence we have that there was a cause, and we still don't know what that was. Additional assumptions? I am assuming the same things you are.A. the universe existsB. there must have been a first causeI could go further and say something can not come from nothing, so there must have been a something which has always existed. That may be 'additional' but it is not illogical. I am not making any attempts. I was asking the opinion of fellow Christians. I have no vested interest in the outcome of the conversation.

Not at all. No Christian has responded anyway.Don't be frustrated. You may be assuming that I am trying to prove the need for God. I already konw that is not possible in the objective sense.I am maybe trying to prove that there is a need, if we are to avoid infinite regress, to come to a cut-off point in causality. That very need may have been the foundation of all 'god concepts'.I do not care one way or the other that you say 'the universe is contigent upon nothing' and immanant in itself. The important thing is, that if we accept ideas like that, we have understood all that is understood in the word 'God'.It does seem a teeny bit simplistic to me to say that the universe is self-made, only because this 'obvious conclusion' and along with it, naturalism, and nature worship, etc. is amoung the earliest forms of religion that existed. Why did men conclude that the universe needed a cause? Well, to some, THAT seems obvious. To hear that the effect is the cause, and the cause is the effect, sounds like a conundrum. I suppose that is why we don't refer to God as a cause, but as a creator. The Thing which made something happen from nothing.The amazing thing is, that in a world where everything came from nothing, the very first movements in the universe should appear the same to everybody. The should appear exactly as if they were poofed there by magic. Therefore I don't understand the arguments from Christians concerning the findings of science, nor really see why people don't believe in this 'magic' called the Unseen. I think it is amazing how theologians had a grip on these ideas long before the discovery of anything 'quantum'.

If that is all you have taken from this discussion...sorry.I thought it was already clear that theology had come to the same conclusions you have.A. There is no need for infinite regress
B. the universe came from nothing All of these 'mumbo-jumbos' are not part of this discussion. They are extrapolated from Biblical accounts once the principle of the Uncaused has been established.I mentioned infinity only because you had asked for my opinion. Or, it makes the theologians right all along. All that we can observe, came from nothing. If you prove that, that's one point in favour of Genesis.

A creator is one who makes something from nothing.

That is really not very different from asking if God allows evil. Obviously, yes, God allows bad things to happen.If you take any interest in the morality topics, it is hard to define evil. What is natural is not evil.If God sustains the universe, whether inside or outside, the universe we see, including what we see as evil, is sustained and allowed by God.In other words, if you want to prove that God is not in nature by saying nature is 'evil', it won't work. At least not for me. How can something naturally occur from nothing, when nature is all cause and effect? Is it wrong to say that this idea about 'being contrary to common sense' is just what theists do when they reach an unexplainable impasse? I don't know why, if you have all the 'parts' of God, you think you don't have God.

What I wanted to illustrate is that any of us can find answers which defy common sense, or defy a step by step explanation of how something happened. If both of us agree that something just 'happened' for no reason, with no cause, both of us have defied common sense. Common sense tells us there should be a reason. Common sense does not tell us that whales are fish. In fact, once you really look at a whale, you can readliy explain why it isn't a fish. Common sense does not tell me an object will continue moving forever, because I have never thrown a ball and seen this happen. But it would be common sense to say that things happen for a reason, unless we prove that this is not always true. Yes, I understand, but like I said I can't use this 'suggestion' to your maximum advantage without knowing more about it. For one thing, can quantum mechanics conceivably be in operation before anything existed? Well, then, you will have to baby-step, because I still don't know how the natural processes came to be in existence. That is not to say I don't believe you, but I don't 'get it'. Likewise, I don't understand how a God could create from nothing. I guess my problem is that if someone could tell me 'how' something happened, I will have to go back to regression and ask 'how did THAT happen', and in order to have the first real uncaused cause, we would have to say, eventually, 'I don't know'. So, in the same way that I say 'I don't know how God happened, He just is', I would like the consistancy of hearing 'I don't know' on your side, rather than 'the first event happened by quantum mechanics'. That makes me want to look for an even further regressive cause. Perhaps I am being extremely naive. I don't get it. If someone thought the volcano was caused by an undeground angry God, and I showed them how it was caused naturally, the only thing I could prove is that there is no need for a god to be making the volcano. I know what you are saying, but this is subtly different. I do not have clear proof that there was a natural event which caused the universe, and was itself uncaused. Even if I did, I would not know how to tell the difference between something which looks to have just occured, and something which has occured by an unseen hand. I don't see the problem. At least, it is no greater of a difficulty than asking why a benevolent God could create the brutality, pain and suffering. Some people prefer to look at God as letting the universe go down hill after the 'fall' or something, but I don't personally have a problem with the universe as it is. The only thing 'evil' to me, is something acting in a way contrary to how it was meant to act.

Ok, let me start with this.I don't feel that anything will prove the existence of God, perse. The most we are looking at is asking whether something existed before the universe. Was there any pre-existing thing/person/event which caused the universe?I say yes, you say no. I say a pre-existing phenomenon caused all that is here to study, including quantum mechanics.To avoid continual regression, the buck has to stop with whatever came first, so 'God' effectively fills that in. Find out what the first thing is, you find out what God is, or who.Sometimes I don't know if studying the universe can ever definitively answer whether or not something pre-existed. Imagine I have a completely original art work, by an unknown artist who only painted one painting. I can not see any possible way of looking at the painting, the brushstrokes, the pigments, the style, or the subject, which would tell me the name of the artist. Of course it is common sense to say there is a painter, and we can make up whatever legends/myths we like about him. It would be ridiculous to say that not knowing the artist's name means the painting must have divine or supernatural origins. It may also be futile to pretend the painting will eventually give up the name. How many 'artist unknowns' do we see? Should we say all of these paintings are self-existing, and self-creating?I am sorry if I am rambling, I am pretty sick today, so I will get back to the rest of the post.

No, no fear. If that knowledge were available, I am sure I would have stuck my head out of my shell long enough to hear about it. I am not accusing you of false claims or misrepresentation.What I was asking, speculatively, was whether science is looking for an explanation of how the universe began? Say tomorrow it was confirmed that a random quantum fluctuation caused the universe, would we, hypothetically, be saying the universe was uncaused? Or would we would be saying the 'event/fluctuation' was uncaused?You have already mentioned that we don't know if quantum mechanics can exist outside of the universe.Is it therefore true that we would be looking for something 'pre-existing' and 'uncaused' in itself? Because, I suppose, right now we are only looking at the basic 'shapes'. Pre-existant, uncaused, and not obligated by the laws of nature. That is the 'shape' of a creator. I am trying to find out if that is the shape of quantum mechanics, or any other natural explanations. If 'yes', then we have conceiveably found our 'god' shape, and we are forced to say 'God' IS nature, or is IN nature. In that sense, we have 'proved' that the God shape exists, but not the Christian Creator Saviour Personal Deity. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.