What's tragically ironic about Buchler's rejection of both the supernatural and the super-related is that he's missing a perfect opportunity to make a valid critique of our ways of talking about nature and the supernatural to begin with, a critique that is implied by his statements about God but never vocalized. God created nature ex nihilo , speaking it into actuality from possibility. With the creation of nature the Totality expanded to include that which was not God. But nature is sustained in actuality by God, who does independently exist in a system of relations with nature but is not dependent on it. God is strongly relevant, then, to all creation, but creation is weakly relevant to God.
Creation exists with different levels of relevance to itself.
Possibilities are defined as potentialities arising from the system of relations that is nature and from the mind of God, so that nature can surpass itself via divine intervention, as well as be generative of its own. There is a significant distinction between the natural and supernatural, which are both real but differently real. The supernatural is strongly relevant to the natural. The natural is varyingly relevant to the supernatural, the two being most interdependent in human beings. Previous statements about the ontological priority of the supernatural over the natural were mistaken ways of asserting the strong relevance of the supernatural to the natural, and the varying relevance of the natural to the supernatural. . .