God using nature, or just simply nature?

[nobspeople]

Probably old news, but it struck me that, perhaps, much of the biblical stories that ancient people thought were 'of god' was simply nature in action:
https://theconversation.com/a-giant-spa ... dom-167678

Surely one could (and likely would) argue that, in the example cited above, is 'god using nature'.
We see it in hospitals and medical situations: someone is dying and the doctors saves their life, to which people credit god, saying "God worked through the surgeon's hands!"
But why would god do that? Why not, simply, 'do it' itself? Surely, that would be more miraculous than 'working through' a person, or people. Working through others doesn't strengthen god's case as much as it would if the person, laying dying on the table, just 'got better', sat up and said 'What's going on?!?'

We sit it in the daily lives of church goers, who ask for donations to 'help keep the lights on' in churches, or to minister to other countries. One would think god created all that is, it's not a big deal for god to keep the lights on, or provide means for these others countries to be ministered to by the appropriate people.

Once the earth was created and people started thinking, god sure needs a lot of assistance in daily activities.

Are instances like these noted above, simply the faithful (or those ignorant of how the universe tends to work) justifying their faith by claiming 'god's responsible'?
Or is there a good reason for god to use others and other 'things' to do its bidding, instead of stepping up and doing it for all to see?

[TRANSPONDER]

....
Thunder is caused by the rapid expansion of the air surrounding the path of a lightning bolt.

Yes, but what caused the rapid expansion of air, and what caused that… …I think it is lazy to stop just to that first step, it really doesn’t tell the cause, only how something happens.

We know what caused the expansion of air, and what caused that….. What is really lazy is inventing a magical being that can do anything and using it to explain everything.

Yes. But one may anticipate an interminable series of 'what caused that?' Back to the Big Bang and beyond. The method being to find something the atheist can't explain and thus supposedly leaving the God -hypothesis in place. However, not even cosmic origins really makes a case for a god, never mind a god of a particular religion or three.

[1213]

...Yes. But one may anticipate an interminable series of 'what caused that?' Back to the Big Bang and beyond. The method being to find something the atheist can't explain and thus supposedly leaving the God -hypothesis in place. However, not even cosmic origins really makes a case for a god, never mind a god of a particular religion or three.

So, you believe, if God would exist, He could not cause a thunderbolt?

[TRANSPONDER]

Given a god that could do miracles, of course He could. But again (as in so much theist apologetics) you're arguing from an a priori assumption of the existence of God until disproven. The logical argument is that, if we can account for thunderbolts by natural means, there is no evidence for or reason to suggest a god is behind it, never mind which one it is.

Even if we couldn't account for it, that logically does not mean that a god (never mind Biblegod) has to be the answer. The logical answer is 'we don't know what causes thunderbolts'. In the Old Days, when I daily expected the Spanish Inquisition, it was considered that popping God in as the explanation for anything unexplained (while dismissing any other gods out of hand) was perfectly valid. But now, when so much has been explained without the need for a god, there are few gaps for God left and they are gradually closing.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
... there are few gaps for God left and they are gradually closing.

Gradually closing?

They're closing shut quicker'n pretty Polly's thighs when ya mention ya kissed her sister!

[TRANSPONDER]

Maybe. I still see a lot of debate about the 'something from nothing' idea as an alternative to an eternal complex creative being (name your own). Consciousness is gradually being understood better with research but some work to do yet. I think that 'Life' is one gap that it hypothetically closed, though the goddinnit advocates insist on before your werry eyes evidence before they'll accept it. But that doesn't matter. A hypothetical mechanism that gives a plausible alternative for life that doesn't need a God and job is done.

Other gaps like remote possibilities that can't be disproved don't count; the better explanation that has less logical entities is the logical preference. Rejecting that is just a preference. Not evidence and logic. That's why the case for evolution is done and dusted and was long ago and pointing to unexplained questions (real or imagined) is only going to be a gap for God for those who want there to be one. Morality the same a couple of decades ago; that was a hot debate - more, God - apologists thought it was a surefire winner. Now it isn't. Not only is morality based on nature and nurture so is common to all societies but also differs, like art, music, language and other human inventions, but it can be shown that 'Goid's morality' is based on human morality and takes the credit for it, but because it does not evolve (being Dogma) it gets left behind and has to play reluctant catch - up every now and again.

[1213]

Given a god that could do miracles, of course He could. But again (as in so much theist apologetics) you're arguing from an a priori assumption of the existence of God until disproven. The logical argument is that, if we can account for thunderbolts by natural means, there is no evidence for or reason to suggest a god is behind it, never mind which one it is.
...

Ok, if it is possible that God could cause it, then we can't say He has not done that.

[benchwarmer]

Given a god that could do miracles, of course He could. But again (as in so much theist apologetics) you're arguing from an a priori assumption of the existence of God until disproven. The logical argument is that, if we can account for thunderbolts by natural means, there is no evidence for or reason to suggest a god is behind it, never mind which one it is.
...

Ok, if it is possible that God could cause it, then we can't say He has not done that.

We also can't say that pixies haven't done it either. Or dragons, or the pink unicorn living in my hedge, or .....

We actually don't know if God could cause anything because we have no observable God to determine if thunderbolts are in it's realm to create. In other words, one can insert anything they like into your argument and it makes just as much sense.

[TRANSPONDER]

Given a god that could do miracles, of course He could. But again (as in so much theist apologetics) you're arguing from an a priori assumption of the existence of God until disproven. The logical argument is that, if we can account for thunderbolts by natural means, there is no evidence for or reason to suggest a god is behind it, never mind which one it is.
...

Ok, if it is possible that God could cause it, then we can't say He has not done that.

Well, really and reasonably we can, even aside that you can't say which god might have done it if any god did. But knowing what does the thunderbolts means that there is no good reason to suppose that any god is behind thunderbolts, so there is no GOOD reason to suppose a god is involved, only the Bad reason of wanting to believe there is. I know that you probably believe that if you can say that a god has not been totally ruled out, you have somehow come out ahead of the debate, but only because for the theist apologist, it generally comes down to defending individual Faith and not making a good case (1). But for an atheist like me, making a perfect case why there is no reason to believe in a god of any kind let alone the god of a particular religion, is a win. It's not about trying to convince the believer, but making the best case for the lurkers and browsers.

(1) one of Artq's Atheist Axioms: "For the theist apologist, a Draw is a Win". Another one is 'It takes far less words to say: "There are fairies at the bottom my garden" than to explain why there probably aren't'.

[bluegreenearth]

Given a god that could do miracles, of course He could. But again (as in so much theist apologetics) you're arguing from an a priori assumption of the existence of God until disproven. The logical argument is that, if we can account for thunderbolts by natural means, there is no evidence for or reason to suggest a god is behind it, never mind which one it is.
...

Ok, if it is possible that God could cause it, then we can't say He has not done that.

We also can't say that pixies haven't done it either. Or dragons, or the pink unicorn living in my hedge, or .....

We actually don't know if God could cause anything because we have no observable God to determine if thunderbolts are in it's realm to create. In other words, one can insert anything they like into your argument and it makes just as much sense.

I've noticed that this particular reasoning error is not only fairly common among many theists but often repeated by the same theists even after having been informed of the mistake. It's almost as if they care more about what to think than how to think.

[TRANSPONDER]

Absolutely. As I've mentioned before, the key to understanding Theisthink (and its politico -cultist offshoots) is to reember that it's based on Faith The God (read the God of Christianity and none other) is true until 100% disproven. This means that even a minor possibility of any theist claim is true until 100% disproven. I've heard that in "Are you 100% sure?" arguments. The ydon't use the weight of probability argument - that is, not unless it suits them. Such as 'a creator is more probable than something from nothing' or 'Designed DNA is more probable than naturally -made DNA'. But challenge that and they soon retreat to 'you can't be sure...isn't it possible that God did it?' And it is frustrating that the weight of probability is ignored, when convenient.