Let's consider five phrases: 1) In its natural form, a dog is full of fleas; 2) Be more natural that you break! 3) Everything is so natural here, grass, flowers, no asphalt, no rails; 4) Is this your natural hair color? 5) I shouldn't have kissed her, but it was so natural.

The general meaning is not difficult to find. Natural color is the one that arose on its own, without paint. The dog is in its natural form, until no one has bought it. The place where grass and flowers grow is untouched by anyone. Natural behavior and a natural kiss are such as are characteristic of us, unless morality or caution interfere. Thus, the "natural" is that which happens by itself; something that does not need to be worked on; This is what happens if we do nothing. The Greek word for nature, phisis, is related to the verb "to grow"; the Latin "natura" is with the verb "to be born". The natural, the natural arises and exists by itself – it is given, it is, it is spontaneous, unintentional.

Prirodov believes that the ultimate reality, the fact of facts, is a huge spatio-temporal process that goes on by itself. Every event within this system is conditioned by another event and, ultimately, by the whole process. Every object (say, this page) is what it is, because other things are what they are; In the final analysis, because this is the whole system. All objects and events are closely related to each other, nothing exists "by itself", nothing goes "by itself". For example, no consistent naturalist can recognize free will, because with it people are able to act independently, to contribute something of themselves. And this is exactly what the naturalist denies. Spontaneity, originality, invention are left only "to everything together", and this is called nature.

The opponents of naturalists fully agree that there must be something independent, some basic given, which is absurd to explain, because it itself is the starting point, the basis of all explanations. But they don't call it "everything" or "everything in the world." They believe that outside of this system (or, if you prefer, above it) there is something, or rather Someone who caused it to exist. He exists in Himself, and she exists thanks to Him. It will disappear if He (or It) ceases to support its existence; it will change if He (or It) changes it.

It can be said that the naturalist describes reality as a democrat, his opponent as a monarchist. Naturer believes that honor and the right to independent existence are inherent in many things; his opponent is that they belong only to a few things, and most likely to One. As in democracy all are equal, so for the naturalist all objects and facts are equally valuable, i.e., each is equally dependent on the other, each manifests itself in time and space in the only possible way. The opponent of the naturalist believes that some things (most likely the One) are on a different level and more important than all others.

You may suspect that the proponents of this view simply brought the system of monarchical societies into the universe. You can just as well suspect naturalists. Both suspicions will overshadow each other and will not help us decide who is right. Only one thing is true: natural trust spread in the ages of democracy, and the other point of view, whether true or not, was universally accepted in the ages of monarchical power. Now those who do not think for themselves are naturalists; then they believed in the extra-natural.

Needless to say, the "extra-natural" is what we call God or gods. From now on, I will speak only of those who believe in God, partly because pantheism is not so relevant to most readers, and partly because pantheists very rarely considered their gods to be the creators of the universe. The ancient gods were not extra-natural in the strict sense of the word; they were part of the system of things and were generated by it. An important clarification follows from this.

Nature trust does not exclude faith in God. A certain god is not contraindicated to him. The most complex system called nature could give rise to an enormous cosmic consciousness arising from the natural, just as (in their opinion) human thought flows from it. This god will not interfere with nature's faith, because he is inside, not outside of nature, not "by himself". Nature was and remains "everything in the world". But the naturalist will not accept God, who stands outside of nature and created it.

Now we can more accurately determine the difference between a naturalist and his opponent. It is not just a matter of different interpretations of words; "nature". Naturer believes that a certain process exists by itself, by itself in space and time, and that there is nothing else, and that what we call separate things and events are only the parts into which we divide it, or the forms that it takes at a particular moment or place. It is this single, all-encompassing reality that he calls nature. His opponent believes that only God exists by himself; He created a frame of time and space and the sequence of interrelated events inscribed in it. These frameworks and what is in them he calls nature. Note that he does not claim that the First Principle did not create anything else. Perhaps there are other natures besides ours.

In this sense of the word, there can be several or many natures. This should not be confused with the so-called "multiplicity of worlds," i.e., with the idea that there are many universes in space and time, like islands. However remote they may be, they enter into the same nature as our sun; they are in spatial, temporal, and causal relations with it. It is this reciprocal connection within the system that creates what we call nature. Other natures may not know space and time at all, or their space and time have nothing to do with ours. It is this lack of connection that allows us to call them different natures. They have a connection, but it is quite different: they originated from one extra-natural Principle. They can be likened to different books by the same writer. The connection between Pickwick and Miss Gamp is only in Dickens's mind; so it is here, usually one nature is connected with another only through the Creator. I say "usually" because we do not know whether different natures do not sometimes come into contact. Perhaps God allows some events of one to affect another. Then they will partially intersect, but they will not become one nature, for in any case there will be no complete connection, and this incomplete one did not arise from this or that system, but from the Divine act that confronted them. If this happens, each nature is unnatural, supernatural for the other; But the very fact of their interpenetration is extranatural in another, more precise sense. And miracles are then possible of two kinds: the invasion of another nature and the invasion of the Creator.

All this is pure speculation. The presence of extra-natural does not yet say anything about the possibility of miracles. God, the Beginning of the Beginning, may not invade His creation: and if there are several of them, He may not confront them.

We will talk about this later. For now, I will say one thing: if we decide that nature is not everything, we cannot know whether it is immune to miracles. There is something outside of it; but we do not yet know whether it penetrates it or not. If the naturalists are right, we can immediately say that there are no miracles – nothing will penetrate into nature, because there is nothing to penetrate. Then everything that we ignorantly accept as a miracle is simply events that inevitably follow from the character of the whole system.

Thus, the first choice is between natural belief and faith in the extra-natural.

III. THE MAIN DIFFICULTY OF NATURAL TRUST