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?

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

I don't doubt those whose holy texts declare non-believers to be "fools", and "incapable of doing good" would consider insulting folks to be a trivial matter.

My point here is that you've tried to state or imply that I'd reject an argument a priori simply because it leads to a theistic conclusion.

I reject that notion. If the Christian could show he speaks truth, or logically, I'm happy to accept their argument. It's just, well, about that.


I have asked for moderator ruling on this issue. I'm keeping civil about this until either you're sanctioned, or I'm allowed to respond in kind.

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

"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.

You attack my character when you say I'd reject an argument simply based on it being theistic in nature, or conclusion.

The only trust I can attempt to build with the observers of these posts is to have em see I debate as fair and honest, as open and honorable as I can. That I judge statements and claims on the merits, not on if someone has the Pope on speed dial.

That's all I've got, and I seek to ensure the observer is aware that some folks prefer to avoid debate on the merits, considering insults and slanders "trivial".

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.

And my point is that your reasons for discluding it are faulty.

Not that you'd reject my argument simply cause it lacks a theistic angle.

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.

We're in this thread though, where I contend your argument is just as faulty as when you presented it any other thread.

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).

More slander and slur.

I've explained why your argumentation is fallacious.

Not that you reject it simply cause it lacks a theistic component. Nor have I accused you of being 'disingenuous' for rejecting it.

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

That you reject an answer doesn't mean an answer hasn't been provided.

I trust the observer'll make their own determinations on who "takes the W".

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.

Do you now contend that canines grew wings and feathers?

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

It never fails to amuse me when the theist refers to the claims or statements of others as "tales".

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

Your inability to see the sound reasoning is an issue I can't fix for ya.

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.

It's relevant to the argument of "the universe has a cause, only I'm gonna disclude my cause from having a cause, or having been itself created".

Your inability to see the relevance is not my problem.

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.

Says the guy who declares the universe has a cause, only his cause doesn't have a cause.

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

I have, only to have you accuse me of rejecting arguments based solely on their theistic content.

I prefer not to consider life "as simple as that", lest the observer think I'm a simpleton.

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 remember I had a PM once, who told me the soils test were complete, and that no remediation'd be necessary. Now, the first rule of supering, is ya know what kinda soils your fixing to work in or on. But I was assured the paperwork (which suspiciously was never provided) was as good as grits and gravy. I could set the sub to digging footings just soon as they showed up. Fifty foot of trench later the trackhoe was sinking in so deep the operator started speaking Chinese.

When asked about the discrepancy, "It is what it is" turned into having to place ten foot of surge on top of the site, just to squish it down enough that compaction tests'd be satisfactory. Ten foot of surge, plus my salary for the month of watching surge surge, plus the cost to have the sub bring all his equipment back, plus the damage to the company's reputation added up to quite a few dollars and fussings. And the PM's cost of securing new employment.

Moral of the story? "It is what it is" a useless determinant of fact, logic, or any much more'n someone ain't got em nothing of note to add to the discussion.

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.

And so I give em data by which they may decide.

I add emphasis to ensure they don't miss em nothing.

"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.

You said you were "moving on".

I related how you fussed about me not addressing your statements.

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.

"I'm Christian, so I can't lose" is the kinda thinking that has folks blowing up clinics and Olympics venues, and / or preventing women from deciding how to care for their own bodies.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #171]

Please stop talking to me. If you comment to me again, you will be blocked.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #171]

Please stop talking to me. If you comment to me again, you will be blocked.

"If you keep refuting my arguments, I'm just gonna stuff my fingers in my ears!"

Or, as this is all text based...

"If you keep refuting my arguments, I'm just gonna cover my eyes every time ya do."

It's a bit telling that one'd enter debate, only to ignore, well, debate.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #171]

Please stop talking to me. If you comment to me again, you will be blocked.

"If you keep refuting my arguments, I'm just gonna stuff my fingers in my ears!"

Or, as this is all text based...

"If you keep refuting my arguments, I'm just gonna cover my eyes every time ya do."

It's a bit telling that one'd enter debate, only to ignore, well, debate.

While fishing for speckled trout one morning, a 48-pound black drum found its way onto my hook. I'll tell you, that fish probably didn't even realize it was hooked at first; jut kept swimming around all casual-like for at least a two minutes. All of a sudden, there must have been a Bluelight special at the brackish water equivalent of a Kmart because that drum felt obliged to run nearly all the line of my pole. I attempted to real the fish closer to the boat before it proceeded to run in the opposite direction again. This process must have repeated five or six times for at least 45 minutes. I eventually pulled that beast into my boat, yet the fish was behaving as though it were still swimming on its way down the bayou. Usually, by the time a black drum grows to that size, its flesh has become infested with parasitic worms and isn't worth the effort of cleaning and cooking. So, I released it back to the bayou where it swam away with a smug expression on its face.

[otseng]

I'm guessing it's just another dodge because you don't have a reasonable response.

Basically, if reading comprehension is used to its full capacity

Moderator Comment

Both of these comments are crossing over to the personal, please avoid.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

I understand that arguments for theism aren't your cup of tea and you must reject them at all costs

I don't reject your arguments "at all costs", I reject your arguments cause they're illogical, and maybe, if I seek to understand, best I can tell, at the most charitable understanding, you're a liar.

You dare to insult me and my motives. You dare declare to spout inflammatory language about why I reject your claims. You dare accuse me of an ulterior motive when your arguments are so illogical they deserve em an entire wiki entry about em.

You lie about me or my concludings cause you can't refute my arguments. You accuse me of rejecting arguments simply cause they're theistic in nature. You lie about me[/i] when you declare I don't care the costs of my rejections of your illogical claims. You're such a liar, the society of Ain't We Proud of Liars can't tell if it's them lying to give you the their glory!

The "cost of my rejection" of your statements or claims is the observer thinking I can't do me no logical concludings, or, perhaps worsely, you're concludings are logical.

You lie about me cause your argument is so weak you hafta impugn my integrity in a sad, stupid, idiotic attempt to sway folks to your side.

I reject your lying lies, and will not sit idle as you're allowed to impugn my integrity!


(where mods have indicated insulting and impugning the integrity of others is a perfectly acceptable form of debate)

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm guessing it's just another dodge because you don't have a reasonable response.

Basically, if reading comprehension is used to its full capacity

Moderator Comment

Both of these comments are crossing over to the personal, please avoid.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

But slander Joey to your hearts content!

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #171]

Please stop talking to me. If you comment to me again, you will be blocked.

"If you keep refuting my arguments, I'm just gonna stuff my fingers in my ears!"

Or, as this is all text based...

"If you keep refuting my arguments, I'm just gonna cover my eyes every time ya do."

It's a bit telling that one'd enter debate, only to ignore, well, debate.

While fishing for speckled trout one morning, a 48-pound black drum found its way onto my hook. I'll tell you, that fish probably didn't even realize it was hooked at first; jut kept swimming around all casual-like for at least a two minutes. All of a sudden, there must have been a Bluelight special at the brackish water equivalent of a Kmart because that drum felt obliged to run nearly all the line of my pole. I attempted to real the fish closer to the boat before it proceeded to run in the opposite direction again. This process must have repeated five or six times for at least 45 minutes. I eventually pulled that beast into my boat, yet the fish was behaving as though it were still swimming on its way down the bayou. Usually, by the time a black drum grows to that size, its flesh has become infested with parasitic worms and isn't worth the effort of cleaning and cooking. So, I released it back to the bayou where it swam away with a smug expression on its face.

A cunning linguist.

Speaking of fishing...

I once caught me a twenty pound trout. On a two pound cricket.

Ya know, I see we can only really relate our truths as we know em, even if our truths, well, they ain't.

I get that my reality, admittedly warped, ain't the reality others experience.

This should be exactly why we debate, that we can question our own truths, if by questioning the truths of others. I mean, sure, when pretty thing sets in on me about not doing me my chores, if I love the truth, I need to hear hers about it. Don't mean I'm gonna get me no better at the choring, just that, ya know, I tried best I could.

If only to me, our debates here often hold a very deep and personal thing there. I struggle to understand reality. Heck, I struggle just to know it. It just seems odd to me that someone'd enter a debate, just to pass that debate up as, I don't know, too danged difficult.

I'm here to tell it, I can't understand them Christians for much of nothing. But I can, and I do, recognize they got em some good stuff to tell. If it ain't truth as truth's understood, it can be a truth that leads to good (or bad, but that ain't what I'm getting at).

Our debates here, on the premiere religious / Christian debate site, is, if only to me, a way to understand not only myself, but my fellow critters. To exchange our ideas is a freedom some folks ain't got em. These debates are presented to the entire world, every nook and cranny, every pop 'n granny. These debate are important, in light of understanding not just our place in the world, but how we wanna be about the world.

To ignore an argument is, if only to me, to ignore data. To ignore understanding. To ignore any real or potential truth that might be found.

To all ya'll theists, all ya'll Christians, all ya'll goofy thinkers... I can't rightly say I got me any of this right, only just that I'll hear ya out, long as neither one of us is set to seek harm to one another.

Ignore debate?

On a site dedicated to it?

That's as goofy an idea as me thinking the pretty thing's trying to kill me by making me eat them little green peas. I'm here to tell it... heck, I swear it, she thinks they're good for me. No, really, she said it directly - "Eat em Joey, they's good fer ya!" That's her truth. And by my loving her, not her pretty, well I love that, but ya know, we're sposed to love us the wimmins for more'n that, don't ask me why. But she has her truth, and I have me, mine.

So, it comes to be, I hafta eat me up her nasty plate of them little green peas, in the off chance I'd discover me her truth. That if I can suffer me one more them nasty things down my gullet, I'd might find me her truth. I hate her, and her truth. But I know danged well to sit me down and hush me up when she goes to speak.

If I love my fellow humans, and mostly, I'm here to tell pretty girls're the best, but if I love me my fellow humans, I need to hear em out...

"Hey, this goofy thing here!"

"Oof, okay, but how 'bout this thing?"

"Naw, you reject my argument only and cause you refuse to accept the truth of the theistic thing there!"

Well don't that tear up the mater patch.

[Diagoras]

I get that my reality, admittedly warped, ain't the reality others experience.

This should be exactly why we debate, that we can question our own truths, if by questioning the truths of others.

A worthwhile reminder - this often gets lost in the heat of the moment.

To exchange our ideas is a freedom some folks ain't got em.

To ignore an argument is, if only to me, to ignore data. To ignore understanding. To ignore any real or potential truth that might be found.

Sometimes the truth that we find is that others think just too darn different to see the world the same way as we do. And us changing our thinking to match 'em would bend us all so outa shape that we wouldn't really be us anymore. Knowin' when to walk away rather than get all pretzelized seems to be about the best someone can manage at that point.

[JoeyKnothead]

I get that my reality, admittedly warped, ain't the reality others experience.

This should be exactly why we debate, that we can question our own truths, if by questioning the truths of others.

A worthwhile reminder - this often gets lost in the heat of the moment.

To exchange our ideas is a freedom some folks ain't got em.

To ignore an argument is, if only to me, to ignore data. To ignore understanding. To ignore any real or potential truth that might be found.

Sometimes the truth that we find is that others think just too darn different to see the world the same way as we do. And us changing our thinking to match 'em would bend us all so outa shape that we wouldn't really be us anymore. Knowin' when to walk away rather than get all pretzelized seems to be about the best someone can manage at that point.

Noted.

Sometimes I get too proud of myself.