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?

[brunumb]

How on earth is that an answer to "is there a good reason for god to use others and other 'things' to do its bidding"? I'm guessing it's just another dodge because you don't have a reasonable response. That aside, offering up events that have not happened does not account for the absence of God in events that have happened where human beings and natural phenomena have been the obvious agents involved. Of course the best explanation for the absence of God is that he doesn't exist.

Basically, if reading comprehension is used to its full capacity, what I am saying is; you want God to do something for all to see, and that (the Scripture presented) is what he will do for all to see.

And that will also be him doing his bidding. So two birds with one stone with that scripture.

That, followed by the fact that we (those doing his bidding) are doing so based on our own free will.

We dont have a problem with it, so you need not concern yourself with God and his arrangements with his followers.

Yes, but, is there a good reason for god to use others and other 'things' to do its bidding?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, but, is there a good reason for god to use others and other 'things' to do its bidding?

"Good reason" is subjective. Obviously there is a good reason for him, otherwise it wouldn't be getting done.

It may not be a good reason for YOU...but no one is asking you so hey.

[brunumb]

Yes, but, is there a good reason for god to use others and other 'things' to do its bidding?

"Good reason" is subjective. Obviously there is a good reason for him, otherwise it wouldn't be getting done.

I'm sure everyone could see that excuse coming from a mile away. But the obviously best reason is that there is no God there to do anything.

[JoeyKnothead]

We_Are_VENOM, if you had an nth of a gram of integrity, you'd apologize for saying I'd reject claims simply because they were theistic.

I stand by what I believe to be true.

I keep trying to be civil here, but I ain't gonna stand for being accused of rejecting arguments simply because they're theistic in nature.

Do you consider debating by insult to be a good way to determine the legitimacy of statements or claims?

As well, you'd acknowledge snipping out that part of my previous post where I specifically asked that you ask for clarification when you think I've not addressed your statements.

Been there, done that.

You falsely claiming that I am special pleading my way through all of this, is NOT addressing the meat and potatoes of what I said.

Your "meat and potatoes" is a rancid dish of illogical assertions.

You insist upon the universe having a cause, but disclude your own proposal from it...

Ive brought that to your attention on more than one occasion and you continue to do so.

So it is what it is.

And "what it is", is that you wish to declare - sans empirical evidence - that the universe can't have always existed, but that your "cause" can have always existed, or existed prior to the universe.

My point here is that we observe the universe. We don't observe the universe in any prior form (other'n it's continued expansion and such). That's all we've got.

But you wanna insert your favored god into the picture, so you posit a claim that can't even be logically supported, without, of course, disallowing for that "cause / creator" to have it a "cause / creator".

Alas, I've come to expect such from a certain breed of Christians who can only debate by smear and omission.

Then I guess we both have our expectations towards the opposition.

And this thread stands in testament to you, a Christian, accusing me, an atheist, of rejecting claims simply because they have a theistic premise.

I don't reject your / a theistic premise. I reject your illogical, ill-informed argument, and have at least now explained in fuller detail why I reject your argument - regardless of any theistic angle.

That it's a commonly presented theistic / religionistic argument is beside the point.

So we ask the observer to compare the pertinent comments, and come to their conclusions regarding which of our referenced comments approaches closest to the truth.

Let them do what they do.

I'd be cool with that IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOU TRYING TO SWAY THE OBSERVE BY ACCUSING ME OF REJECTING CLAIMS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A THEISTIC ANGLE.

DON'T IT BEAT ALL, THE CHRISTIAN, WHOSE HOLY BOOK DECLARES NON-BELIEVERS INCAPABLE OF DOING GOOD - WELL HOW 'BOUT THAT, THE CHRISTIAN'LL SLANDER AND SMEAR TO HIS HEARTS CONTENT ANYONE WHO REJECTS HIS CLAIMS OR ARGUMENTS.

Please let me know which of my statements you'd like explained, or which comments you feel have been left dressless. I consider my comments address your statements, so without specifics, you're asking me to read your obviously befuddled mind.

Too lazy to go back in time. The idea of moving on outweighs the thought of going back.

"But, but, but you won't address my statements."

"What statements'd ya like me to address?"

"Nevermind."

So, moving on it is.

This, dear observer, is, I contend, evidence that the claimant'd rather ignore any refutation of his arguments, and instead prefers to insult others in some misguided, ill-informed attempt to "win the dub".

Snip off topic banter, but note it was good fun.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, but, is there a good reason for god to use others and other 'things' to do its bidding?

"Good reason" is subjective. Obviously there is a good reason for him, otherwise it wouldn't be getting done.

I'm sure everyone could see that excuse coming from a mile away. But the obviously best reason is that there is no God there to do anything.

Well if there is no God, then there is no "bidding" and nothing to " see", which make this all a dead issue anyway.

Which makes me wonder why the question is being asked in the first place.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I keep trying to be civil here, but I ain't gonna stand for being accused of rejecting arguments simply because they're theistic in nature.

If you aint gonna stand for it, then have a seat to it.

Tell ya what, have the moderators take a look at what was said and if they determine that you have a case...and if I am penalized for it (since i refuse to apologize), then I will have to block you from now on.

It just isn't that serious (in my opinion) for you to be carrying on and on about something so trivial.

Do you consider debating by insult to be a good way to determine the legitimacy of statements or claims?[/b]

"Debating by insult". No one has insulted you. And if you feel youve been insulted, then you and I have differing opinions on what it means to be insulted.

Your "meat and potatoes" is a rancid dish of illogical assertions.

You insist upon the universe having a cause, but disclude your own proposal from it...

That's the point; all things arent equal. I didnt just disclude my own proposal from it, but rather I offered reasons why my own proposal is discluded from it.

In fact, I devoted an entire thread on those reasons, explaining why a First Cause (God) is exempt from it and the universe isn't.

Now if you disagree with those reasons, that is one thing...but to flat out dismiss those reasons and then spout out some fake accusation of a phantom fallacy is disingenuous (in my opinion).

But I already know that you guys have no answer for it...so I just take the W and keep it moving.

And "what it is", is that you wish to declare - sans empirical evidence - that the universe can't have always existed, but that your "cause" can have always existed, or existed prior to the universe.

Sure, just like you wish to declare that reptiles eventually grew wings and feathers, while canines didn't.

I guess that is special pleading in favor of your favorite evolutionary tale.

Sounds ridiculous? Well, apply that ridiculousness to your logic as it pertains to this discussion, as it is the same concept.

My point here is that we observe the universe.

We don't observe the universe in any prior form (other'n it's continued expansion and such). That's all we've got.

Which is irrelevant to the argument but ok.

But you wanna insert your favored god into the picture, so you posit a claim that can't even be logically supported, without, of course, disallowing for that "cause / creator" to have it a "cause / creator".

The argument remains unaddressed while all energy and efforts are going towards empty assertions.

Now, if you don't want to address the argument, then it is what it is. Sometimes, life is just as simple as that.

And this thread stands in testament to you, a Christian, accusing me, an atheist, of rejecting claims simply because they have a theistic premise.

I don't reject your / a theistic premise. I reject your illogical, ill-informed argument, and have at least now explained in fuller detail why I reject your argument - regardless of any theistic angle.

That it's a commonly presented theistic / religionistic argument is beside the point.

It is what it is.

I'd be cool with that IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOU TRYING TO SWAY THE OBSERVE BY ACCUSING ME OF REJECTING CLAIMS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A THEISTIC ANGLE.

DON'T IT BEAT ALL, THE CHRISTIAN, WHOSE HOLY BOOK DECLARES NON-BELIEVERS INCAPABLE OF DOING GOOD - WELL HOW 'BOUT THAT, THE CHRISTIAN'LL SLANDER AND SMEAR TO HIS HEARTS CONTENT ANYONE WHO REJECTS HIS CLAIMS OR ARGUMENTS.

You said to let the readers decide...well, let them decide. No need to "sway" them them by typing in all caps in efforts to appeal to emotions and heart strings.

"But, but, but you won't address my statements."

"What statements'd ya like me to address?"

"Nevermind."

You just demonstrated above that you know full well what im talking about.

This, dear observer, is, I contend, evidence that the claimant'd rather ignore any refutation of his arguments, and instead prefers to insult others in some misguided, ill-informed attempt to "win the dub".

Snip off topic banter, but note it was good fun.

I am a Christian, and I take the W based on that alone.

[brunumb]

Well if there is no God, then there is no "bidding" and nothing to " see", which make this all a dead issue anyway.

Precisely. it is all consistent with the non-existence of God.

Which makes me wonder why the question is being asked in the first place.

I guess the failure to generate any meaningful answer serves to highlight the non-existence of God to those not already down that particular rabbit hole.

[brunumb]

Sure, just like you wish to declare that reptiles eventually grew wings and feathers, while canines didn't.

And once again that thorn in the creationist's side, evolution, gets thrown in when it is completely irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that it is also the poorly constructed reductio ad absurdum version that inevitably also reduces creationist arguments to laughing stock.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Precisely. it is all consistent with the non-existence of God.

So basically, you are concluding that God doesn't exist, yet you are asking questions based on the actions, or lack of actions of this non-existent God.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess the failure to generate any meaningful answer serves to highlight the non-existence of God to those not already down that particular rabbit hole.

And since I have (and still am) questioning the meaningfulness of your posed question in general, we are even.

No robbery with fair exchange.

[We_Are_VENOM]

And once again that thorn in the creationist's side, evolution, gets thrown in when it is completely irrelevant.

It is relevant to me.

Not to mention the fact that it is also the poorly constructed reductio ad absurdum version that inevitably also reduces creationist arguments to laughing stock.

Laugh if you must.