So, if we define God as natural rather than supernatural, that changes the entire discussion. We would appear to be Gods to most ancient civilizations. I think by definition, God HAS to be supernatural, otherwise we are just talking about a naturally occurring phenomenon that we don't yet understand so we label it as 'God'. I can't even begin to imagine how many of those phenomenon exists, but it's more than one.
Living in the Protestant-dominated USA I believe many of us get caught up in the literal interpretation of God as an old man in a flowing white robe.
That is an extremely limited and simple minded perception of the divine.
The Judeo-Christian God, according to Aquinas and the orthodox tradition, is the immutable first cause of causes, the prime mover of the natural order, existing completely outside time and space, but being utterly incomprehensible and cannot be imagined by the human mind.
Brahma is the manifestation of ultimate reality in Hinduism, and the Vishnu and the pantheon of dieties play their role in the order of things against this backdrop.
The Dao in Daoism is some kind of spritual Way of Nature.
I am not even going to speculate about how Mahayana Buddhism concieves of the Buddha as a diety.
Animism seems to be an expression of human's role in the spirituality of the natural world.
My take away from my limited working knowlege of world religions is they are all trying to put a face on something most humans seem hard-wired to sense by intuition - that there is a deeper reality and an ultimate truth underlying the universe that our sensory perception and cognition cannot directly access.
Last edited: