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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

In seriousness, IYO, 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?

Matt 24:30

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Kinda strikes me as a "for all to see" kind of things.

When you get what you asked for, it may not quite be what you asked for.

[brunumb]

In seriousness, IYO, 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?

Matt 24:30

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Kinda strikes me as a "for all to see" kind of things.

When you get what you asked for, it may not quite be what you asked for.

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.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #135]

Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual.

With that thinking, how will anyone become a christian?!?

Winged rabbits and dogs're dogs!

In seriousness, IYO, 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?

Not being there to do something makes doing something really, really difficult.

For us 'normals', maybe. But this god is supposed to be special; supreme; creator of all things (except bad things, of course); and on and on.
When you're 'the best' of 'the creator of all thing' or 'all knowing, powerful, etc', and there's nothing tactile to prove it so (thus, relying on faith) it's easy to do the unthinkable and undoable.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit: Made a mess of the tags. I blame everyone but myself...
lol still can't get em right, can't figure how I broke em...

For us 'normals', maybe. But this god is supposed to be special; supreme; creator of all things (except bad things, of course); and on and on.
[\quote]
Which, by virtue of my belief in him, makes me beetter'n you. I'm sorry, but thems the rules. I'm in, you're out.

When you're 'the best' of 'the creator of all thing' or 'all knowing, powerful, etc', and there's nothing tactile to prove it so (thus, relying on faith) it's easy to do the unthinkable and undoable.

Helps me get by when things become compoundedly confusing.

See, he does do miracles!

I'm convinced religious belief is but one more coping mechanism.

[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. 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.

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

Lol.

I trust those reading these posts'll see my statement is closer to the truth than yours.

I agree with the statement but the point is, that the statement itself is not what makes the statement true.

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.

Any y'all notice how We_Are_VENOM snipped out the part where I recommended to request clarificationings?

We will get to the clarificationings after we get past the unaddressments.

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.

Extra credit for "unaddressments"

I recommend a dictionary.

Great idea. I went over the definition of the word, and after consulting with attorney on this matter; it was determined that it is safe to continue disagreeing with you.

It took you having to discuss with a lawyer if you can disagree with some dude on the internet?

I'd hate to hafta be your waiter

[bluegreenearth]

A disembodied mind makes no sense based on current observation. It may be a thing, but until we can observe it, it's as good as imaginary.

By observe, do you mean through direct observation or indirect observation where consistently successful tests of a novel prediction will serve as an indirect observation? In other words, would it be correct to interpret your statement above as indicating that the concept of a disembodied mind has the potential to describe a thing existing in reality but can only be known as a conceptual (i.e. an imaginary) thing until demonstrated otherwise by being directly observed or by being indirectly observed through consistently successful tests of a novel prediction?

[benchwarmer]

A disembodied mind makes no sense based on current observation. It may be a thing, but until we can observe it, it's as good as imaginary.

By observe, do you mean through direct observation or indirect observation where consistently successful tests of a novel prediction will serve as an indirect observation? In other words, would it be correct to interpret your statement above as indicating that the concept of a disembodied mind has the potential to describe a thing existing in reality but can only be known as a conceptual (i.e. an imaginary) thing until demonstrated otherwise by being directly observed or by being indirectly observed through consistently successful tests of a novel prediction?

Yes, by observe I mean through direct or indirect observation as you have described.

Example: I hand someone a sealed box that is producing 'meow' sounds.

This person can observe (hear) the meow sounds and reasonably deduce there is something in the box producing that sound. Every time the person shakes the box, it produces a 'meow'.

One can reasonably deduce there is a 'meow' producing item in the box, but we cannot claim there is actually a cat in the box. It might be a raspberry pi mini computer with a motion sensor that creates the 'meow' every time the box is shaken. In other words, we are free to make hypotheses about what's in the box, but simply claiming one thing or another without supporting evidence (observation of data) does not fly.

One could make some predictions and run further tests on the box to sort out if it might actually be a cat, a computer, or something else. i.e. X-ray the box.

[TRANSPONDER]

Edit: Made a mess of the tags. I blame everyone but myself...
lol still can't get em right, can't figure how I broke em...

For us 'normals', maybe. But this god is supposed to be special; supreme; creator of all things (except bad things, of course); and on and on.
[\quote]
Which, by virtue of my belief in him, makes me beetter'n you. I'm sorry, but thems the rules. I'm in, you're out.

When you're 'the best' of 'the creator of all thing' or 'all knowing, powerful, etc', and there's nothing tactile to prove it so (thus, relying on faith) it's easy to do the unthinkable and undoable.

Helps me get by when things become compoundedly confusing.

See, he does do miracles!

I'm convinced religious belief is but one more coping mechanism.

I accept my share of the blame

"I try to quoteright, but I can notty
punish the offenders and break their botty"

In seriousness, IYO, 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?

Matt 24:30

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Kinda strikes me as a "for all to see" kind of things.

When you get what you asked for, it may not quite be what you asked for.

That bothers me about as much as a Startrek enthusiast who had come to believe it was real and after a long debate in which arguing that the stories might have been written by humans but were True in some more ineffable sense was dismissed as an unsubstantiated claim, the believer quoted the Borg greeting and supposed that proved something.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

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.

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

So it is what it is.

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

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

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.

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.

So, moving on it is.

Extra credit for "unaddressments"

Groovy.

It took you having to discuss with a lawyer if you can disagree with some dude on the internet?

Hey, he is on retainer anyway.

I'd hate to hafta be your waiter

I am on a date with tam at a restaurant. You are our waiter.

Since tam is a "Karen"..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)

and she doesnt like your attitude (come to think of it, neither do I ), she'd like to speak to a manager.

We'd like a new waiter, is what I am trying to say