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?
God using nature, or just simply nature?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 781 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #141Apologies for the confusion. By 'appear' I meant only I could hear/notice God's presence. No one else (including me) could actually see God with our eyes. The *poof* at the end was to signify God 'going away' such that I could no longer interact.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:55 pmDisingenuous. I read it again, but I had it right the first time.No. I suggest reading it again. If I could see it I would have just set up a camera. No need for all the other hardware.
You are are now implying that you couldnt see it, yet in your simulation, God's first sentence to you was "Ive decided to APPEAR TO YOU".
And then at the end of your scenario, you have God disappearing with a *POOF*.
So maybe YOU should read it again.
You can take your 'dub' on that point if you wish as that was my fault for not being crystal clear.
However, the overall point remains. We can come up with a method to study anyone who is having an 'experience' with God. Whether they are seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. From there we can attempt to track down how God is doing the communicating and then hopefully find God. I made no claim that initial tests were going to actually measure the god in question, only that it's a method to start the investigation.
Why not just use 'mind' then? From a physical standpoint, it appears our 'mind' or collection of thoughts is simply the various parts of the brain communicating via chemical and electrical signals. We can measure chemical and electrical signals, so depending on how one defines 'mind', it seems to be measurable.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:55 pm A spirit is an unembodied mind...I dont know what a "mind" looks like.
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. Why make stuff up when we can observe brains at work. We also observe that damaged brains 'think' differently. Do spirits undergo damage at the same rate as the brain of the host?
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #142Ohhh, I get it.bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:48 am I didn't address the gist of your argument because I didn't ask you to provide me with an argument. I asked you to simply indicate your confidence level in the belief. That was all.
So basically what you are saying is; had I provided you the simple answer of "100%" and left it at that, that wouldn't have prompted you to ask one of your typical probing questions that you've had a history of asking..which wouldn't have prompted me to provide a more in depth explanation on my position?
So this particular case is the one exception to your (our) pattern of previous discourses.
Gotchaaa. Thanks for letting me know that. Expect one worded answers to your questions from now on.
AgreedNevertheless, it is clear from your recalcitrant response that you are doxastically closed on this matter. So, there is no value for me in continuing with the dialogue.
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #143And right you are to do so. It is not uncommon for some theists to impugn other's characters rather than recognize the weakness of the arguments for theism. When they run out of weak arguments to present, they turn to attacking those who recognize, and quite honestly so, the weakness of the argument/s being presented. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised given that some biblical authors rely on the same logically failure of an argument.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:03 am
I REJECT YOUR ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN MY CHARACTER BY DECLARING I'D REJECT AN ARGUMENT BASED SOLELY ON IT BEING 'THEISTIC', OR OTHERWISE.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #144The above quote in itself is just a "mere statement" which doesn't make it true and factual.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:03 am Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual.
Well, when my points are deliberately unaddressed, I take the dub.I'm not bound to debate in a manner that brings you comfort, as I contend my comments are pertinent.
Cool. So from now on, if my points arent addressed..no more convo.And again, I'm not bound to debate in a manner that brings you comfort.
Indubitably? I refuse to respond until I consult with my attorney.Unwarranted? Maybe.
Apt? Most indubitably.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #145So you don't think that "Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual" is true? That, what, merely stating something does make it true and factual?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:26 pmThe above quote in itself is just a "mere statement" which doesn't make it true and factual.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:03 am Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual.
Why am I not surprised.
.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #146Winged rabbits and dogs're dogs!nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:37 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #135]With that thinking, how will anyone become a christian?!?Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual.
Not being there to do something makes doing something really, really difficult.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?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #147Lol.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:26 pmThe above quote in itself is just a "mere statement" which doesn't make it true and factual.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:03 am Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual.
I trust those reading these posts'll see my statement is closer to the truth than yours.
You'll hafta take it, ya sure ain't earned it.Well, when my points are deliberately unaddressed, I take the dub.JK wrote: I'm not bound to debate in a manner that brings you comfort, as I contend my comments are pertinent.
Any y'all notice how We_Are_VENOM snipped out the part where I recommended to request clarificationings?Cool. So from now on, if my points arent addressed..no more convo.JK wrote: And again, I'm not bound to debate in a manner that brings you comfort.
I recommend a dictionary.Indubitably? I refuse to respond until I consult with my attorney.JK wrote: Unwarranted? Maybe.
Apt? Most indubitably.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #148If you dont see the point being made there, then I cant help you.Miles wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:37 pmSo you don't think that "Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual" is true? That, what, merely stating something does make it true and factual?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:26 pmThe above quote in itself is just a "mere statement" which doesn't make it true and factual.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:03 am Merely stating something doesn't make it true and factual.
Why am I not surprised.
.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #149Yeah, quite misleading. No more simulations for you, buddy.By 'appear' I meant only I could hear/notice God's presence. No one else (including me) could actually see God with our eyes. The *poof* at the end was to signify God 'going away' such that I could no longer interact.
Honest mistake on your part = no dub for me.You can take your 'dub' on that point if you wish as that was my fault for not being crystal clear.
Ok, so if you plug my brain to a machine and monitor the reactions inside of my brain every time I think of God and/or feel his preference...you seem to believe that this method will allow you to track God down with a bloodhound and find him?However, the overall point remains. We can come up with a method to study anyone who is having an 'experience' with God. Whether they are seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. From there we can attempt to track down how God is doing the communicating and then hopefully find God.
LOL!!!
Sure thing. Whatever you say, palI made no claim that initial tests were going to actually measure the god in question, only that it's a method to start the investigation.
We do. Mind/spirit can be used interchangeably, but we usually use "mind" more commonly, as there is a religion connotation that comes with the "spirit" term...which is something that people like you tend to dread.Why not just use 'mind' then?
Then I guess the concept of free will is out of the question.From a physical standpoint, it appears our 'mind' or collection of thoughts is simply the various parts of the brain communicating via chemical and electrical signals.
If we are nothing but just blobs of matter with chemicals and electric signals running through our brains, then our actions and thoughts are based upon the reactions/signals...as those are the things making the choice for us.
We are nothing but robots, apparently.
So when I think of an apple, what about the chemicals and/or signals are the thought?We can measure chemical and electrical signals, so depending on how one defines 'mind', it seems to be measurable.
When I am sad, what about the chemicals and signals are sad?
These are the same kind of questions Ive been asking, though. It is a never ending cycle.
But the argument/reasons aren't based on observation, it is based on inference.A disembodied mind makes no sense based on current observation.
Wow. Well I guess reptile-to-bird transformations in nature is imaginary. Glad we agree.It may be a thing, but until we can observe it, it's as good as imaginary.
We observe a correlation between the mind and the body. But naturalists confuse that with the notion of one begetting the other...which is like a vegan's attitude towards beef.Why make stuff up when we can observe brains at work.
It is a huge mistake (missed steak).
Not at all. If you are riding a car and the engine blows and now the car is inoperable, your ability to use the car as a means of transportation is hindered. Or even if the car is not completely inoperable, but riding funny and needs work done...your transportation is hindered.We also observe that damaged brains 'think' differently. Do spirits undergo damage at the same rate as the brain of the host?
However, you can always get out of the car and walk.
The car = your brain
Your mind = you
When people suffer from any ailment of brain damage, there is a disconnect between the mind and the body.
However, once the mind is removed from the body, those ailments are ceased.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: God using nature, or just simply nature?
Post #150I agree with the statement but the point is, that the statement itself is not what makes the statement true.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:14 pm Lol.
I trust those reading these posts'll see my statement is closer to the truth than yours.
We will get to the clarificationings after we get past the unaddressments.Any y'all notice how We_Are_VENOM snipped out the part where I recommended to request clarificationings?
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.I recommend a dictionary.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!