What's the term to describe this?

[Nakosis]

Why do you think that God is nature?

I don't. I'm just responding to the OP.
I think this idea that God is nature is more of a new age position.

 

[Valjean]

No, because one Creator is adequate enough to explain the existence of the creation.

But "creator" explains nothing, it just attributes.

Flowers trees and children in the womb don't have intermediate organs. We can see their development but that doesn't reveal their ancestors having intermediate organs. The blueprint of those organs already exists in their genetic code. There is no child in the womb with half a heart. There's a difference between life developing on an individual case and that life having an intermediate organ. It's akin to bacteria can develop on its own with rotted meat but that never becomes sentient life. There's a difference between bacteria developing and it becoming that complicated dna.

What the heck is an 'intermediate'' organ? Organs evolve, they change form and function -- over long stretches of time.

Good question. Because the nature of the creation reveals the nature of the Creator. Romans 1:20 says that since God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen from what has been made. Unmasking the Creator

Hogwash! Creators can and do create things quite unlike themselves; and God? Are you extrapolating from human creations and assuming the relationship between a toaster and human mirrors that between God and a rock?
And what's with the biblical reference? The Bible's not a science book. You might as well quote Grimm's fairy tales.

"Unmasking the Creator?" It claims a creator logically follows from creation. It does not, nor does the essay explain how.
It starts out with unsupported claims like: "The evidence of cosmology demonstrates that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, beginningless, timeless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power." and "The evidence of astronomy, showing that the Creator was incredibly precise in creating a livable habitat for the creatures he designed, logically implies that he has care and concern for them."
It goes on to misconstrue faith and attempt to support its argument with ad populum declarations of religious 'scientists' -- most of whom go unnamed.
In the words of the author, his faith is swimming upstream against a current of facts -- and he declares this reasonable. He sees us in a "great era of science-religion fusion," with more evidence for Christianity emerging all the time -- which, apparenty, has been missed by the world's scientists.
He misconstrues atheism, and believes it a faith.

The whole article is a fantasy of odd declarations and faulty reasoning. He makes grand statements, implies that they follow from various scientific disciplines, quotes a lot of people who seem to concur, but gives neither evidence nor an explanation of how these conclusions were derived from any of these disciplines.

Do you really find such declarations of faith convincing?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Look, proof of no God is in nature.

The more we discover about nature the less we need God as an explanation for it.

What are you trying to prove? That God is whatever you are claiming God to be?

From an Abrahamic view, this makes little sense. God is not nature. God created nature. Sounds like a new agey view trying to hold onto tribal gods.

This OP must not be for you, then, hm?

Christians see proof of god by his creation.

I don't see it as new agey. If you believe something is created, obviously, that something has a creator. Since I do not believe that, I ask them how did they come to that conclusion.... it can't be just intellectual guessing?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Look, proof of no God is in nature.

The more we discover about nature the less we need God as an explanation for it.

What are you trying to prove? That God is whatever you are claiming God to be?

From an Abrahamic view, this makes little sense. God is not nature. God created nature. Sounds like a new agey view trying to hold onto tribal gods.

I'm not sure how this all connects to life not being organized and designed-everything is in chaos and humans try to organize nature.

If something is true, it has multiple sources to verify it.

How is the word designed if we have cancers and seizures et cetera?

 

[Valjean]

Why would a loving God who designed everything not be involved with the earth and people? God and the universe not being co existent means that God is the universe. How can God be the universe if he created the universe? To prove God isn't the universe actually supports there being a God who created everything. Regarding deism, the character of God talked about in the Scriptures proves deism wrong. God is a loving Father not a distant creator. The Bible describes who God is and that is what I go by in not believing in deism.

You're assuming "a loving God" as a major premise. Who created this God?
The Bible describes two very different Gods, and why do you believe the Bible over the Quran or Chronicles of Narnia? If either had any empirical support they'd already be accepted universally, like science or mathematics.

The essence means the basic aspect of what something is. A language that evolved is still a language. A plant that had certain changes is still a plant.

Small changes knowing when to stop changing isn't an issue because they can't change past a certain point. There are no fossils that demonstrate macroevolution. Genetics support that macroevolution isn't possible because genetics can't change to that degree and when bacteria develops on its own, it just stays as bacteria.

Fossils do support macroevolution, as does genetics. Apparently you haven't looked into either of these very deeply.
You keep making these declarations about God and the Bible and science, but I'm seeing no real support for them. Anyone can make claims.

 

[Valjean]

This is because some of the greatest geniuses in recent times have asserted their beliefs based on this. Einstein is a bit of an enigma, since he sometimes says that he's an atheist or agnostic, while at other times says that "God doesn't play dice with the universe" when he had initially doubted quantum mechanics (later he accepted it, and even contributed to it: Bose Einstein Statistics (which statistically describe large particles called bozons). Einstein also said that it must be God that can make several pages of his calculations and complicated thoughts boil down to simple formulas like E = mc^2.

Metaphor.

Enrico Fermi said that it is the hand of God that moves the particles.

In other words: "I have no idea."

I spoke to a highly religious cardiologist who said that the human body is far too complex for it to have been made by accident. In further discussions, he mentioned that on several occasions people have died on the operating table (to be revived later), but their spirit (they claim) floated about the hospital, overhearing conversations in distant rooms, which they could not possibly have overheard in soundproof surgical theaters. Querying the people involved, they claim that they did say the things that this spirit overheard. If spirits can float about, why not God?

"Highly religious" being the salient term. Maybe he should bone up on his evolutionary biology.

It could be argued that the blueprints of the whole human being are contained in virtually all cells of the body in the form of DNA (except for red blood cells which don't have nuclei). So, there is plenty of room for dissension among atheists who believe that who bodies can be made from that dna chemical. Indeed, we can clone and gene splice, so we are beginning to understand how God does it. It is said that all things will be known in the end days (perhaps we are very close to those days).

Sounds like you're presuming God's hand in things. Might not things happen by natural mechanisms? Wouldn't this be more likely? Historically, most things formerly attributed to magic (Goddidit) have toppled to physics, chemistry, biology &c when explored scientifically.

I think of nature as God's greatest creation.

I suspect God is man's creation.

Satan thinks of nature as God's greatest creation, too. But, Satan wants to destroy it. Satan rules by deception and fear. Satan says that he is on God's side "fighin' the Axis of Evil." But we know that God told us to "turn the other cheek" and "thou shalt not kill." Satan wants logging roads into God's forests, and wants drilling off of God's beautiful shorelines (after we have already seen countless oil leaks). Satan wants to stop burning dry weeds to prevent dangerous out of control fires (using controlled burning, which we used to do prior to the W. Bush administration). We have now seen the results of these devastating wild fires in the forests of California, Oregon, and Washington state. Satan wants God's environment to be polluted and foul, and utterly destroy God's greatest creation.

You're preaching now; re-iterating unsupported Christian folklore.

 

[Skywalker]

You're assuming "a loving God" as a major premise. Who created this God?
The Bible describes two very different Gods, and why do you believe the Bible over the Quran or Chronicles of Narnia? If either had any empirical support they'd already be accepted universally, like science or mathematics.
Fossils do support macroevolution, as does genetics. Apparently you haven't looked into either of these very deeply.
You keep making these declarations about God and the Bible and science, but I'm seeing no real support for them. Anyone can make claims.

God is self existing. God is long-suffering in the Old Testament and Jesus turned the tables in the New Testament. I believe the Bible over the Quran and Narnia because the Bible has fulfilled prophecies and is based on historical events.

How do fossils and genetics support macroevolution? Darwin said that there are changes of kinds. What is the link between one species and another? What's the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution?

 

[nPeace]

When someone says "look. proof of god is in nature... see!"

What is the name for the attribution they are putting to what they see and what they believe?

Since there is no direct connection between nature and creator (me and someone across the world should believe come to the same conclusion when looking at the same thing), it's based on the person who determines that connection not a obvious means of conclusion.

Maybe it's a fallacy, I don't know.

(From an abrahamic view)

I was thinking... Why and how does a baby know it's mother.
Studies have found that newborn babies are able to identify and recognize their mothers...
I think this is a good example of why people know that God is. What connects them? Not smell, touch, or sight.
Is there a connection? What if someone said there is... would that sound reasonable, at least?

 

[nPeace]

Or the heavens declare the glory of God.

In one expression 'undeniable evidence' - Romans 1:19, 20

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was thinking... Why and how does a baby know it's mother.
Studies have found that newborn babies are able to identify and recognize their mothers...
I think this is a good example of why people know that God is. What connects them? Not smell, touch, or sight.
Is there a connection? What if someone said there is... would that sound reasonable, at least?

Interesting. Nice. I didn't know babies can only see up to 12 inch distance. With god, what distinct factors could you list that explains how a group of people (not all people) detect nature is automatically sensed as a creation of god? Since it's not the five senses, is there a term(s) that are not too mystical (spirit, soul, etc)?

Since I'm not bible focused, is there ways you can list without verses?

 

[nPeace]

But I also said that we "know" buildings have a builder because we can ask, look at blue prints, and build buildings ourselves. So it's logical to assume man made things have "creators."

But to extend that logic to trees and plants, it should have the same process. We can assume our logic on life applies to our beliefs. They are still assumptions, beliefs, or based on faith.

So if there is a godly correlation it would have to be more distinct since unlike builders we can't test our assumptions.

Unless we admit they are assuming or making intelligent guesses, the question is just the same.

As for darwin, "even darwin believed..." doesn't prove anything. 1000 people can believe God exists and one does not doesn't make either side any more true than the other. One person's belief doesn't prove there is a builder either.

You've stirred my curiosity Artist.
How does one test the assumption that the grand pyramid was built by man?

 

[nPeace]

Interesting. Nice. I didn't know babies can only see up to 12 inch distance. With god, what distinct factors could you list that explains how a group of people (not all people) detect nature is automatically sensed as a creation of god? Since it's not the five senses, is there a term(s) that are not too mystical (spirit, soul, etc)?

Since I'm not bible focused, is there ways you can list without verses?

Well, you haven't told me if you would consider there being some connection, to be reasonable, at least. That's important, I think.

 

[Valjean]

What is physics learning about the origin of the universe? God is not effect without cause because God is self existing and omnipotent. Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin were scientists who founded and developed the key disciplines of science and they were all creationists.

Physics is learning a lot about cosmogeny. You need to brush up on your physics.

What does God's presumed omnipotence and self-existingness have to do with magic? I'm not hearing any mechanism proposed by religion, ergo: effect without mechanism.

God doing everything with an order and a purpose is evident in nature. You don't see chaos in nature you see order and beauty and design. The Bible says that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

God doing everything is not evident to those who understand the actual mechanisms involved. If order and purpose were evident they'd be common knowledge, yet those most knowledgeable on the subject are those least likely to see a god's hand in it.
We do see chaos in nature -- and a lot of bad design. Science describes how this came about.

Rebellion? Sin? Witchcraft? This is all folklore, is it not?

Regarding fallen angels, even without the Bible people know that evil exists. The Bible says that creation changed when Adam sinned. Nature is full of poisonous plants because the ground was cursed when Adam sinned.

Nature is full of poisonous plants because they couldn't evade predators like animals can. They had to resort to chemical deterrents.
Adam sinned? Nature changed? There's no evidence for either of these.

I agree with you that changes within kinds over time is a fact, not a theory. But that's not macroevolution that's microevolution. Natural selection cannot explain the origins of DNA. DNA is so complicated that if all the DNA in your body was put end to end, it would reach to the sun and back over 600 times.

How would natural selection explain anything before there was nature to select from? We're talking chemistry here, which is quite sufficient to create the organic components of life.
DNA complicated?! Poppycock! It's a simple polymer, albeit very long. Why do you say it's complicated?

A chain may be six links long, or six million. One is not more 'complicated' than the other.

 

[Valjean]

Those kinds of things exist because we live in a fallen world affected by sin. They are not a part of God's ideal creation, but when Adam sinned, because he had dominion, even nature was affected. Genesis 3:18 Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

Cancer and poisonous plants aren't God's design they exist because of the sin of people.

Preaching.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You've stirred my curiosity Artist.
How does one test the assumption that the grand pyramid was built by man?

Grand pyramid? I would think that's knowledge not an assumption that men build pyramids. I had to look it up, but if you're talking about the Grand Pryamid of Giza (wild guess), I'm sure it wasn't an assumption. When people say evidence for god (and related), they're not talking about historical evidence whether it be an origin of something (like the originator of nature), but they're talking about the supernatural component (god doesn't have hands and feet involved).

But I'm confused to what you're asking. I can see how people can see a building has a builder. But it would be a huge huge assumption to say the same thing to non-man made living and not living beings and things.

Another thing that puzzles me is if you look at the formation of a star, why don't we say god is forming the star as we see it come to being? Why not see god act now-so every person will see god role without needing to believe in a specific faith or god-religion to figure it out?

When a flower grows or a baby is growing in her mother's womb, why don't we say god is creating then?

While we can't go back in time to test whether a god (which I'm not sure how it would look) created the world, but did he stop creating in present moment-because I'm sure the laws of physics and movement haven't changed before humans existed and today.

 

[Valjean]

Cancer and poisonous plants aren't God's design they exist because of the sin of people.

How is the universe not perfect? A lot of things that exist in nature, like marijuana, didn't exist in the garden of Eden.

Preaching, again.

 

[Valjean]

Why do you think that God is nature?

Cause all the things attributed to him are natural phenomena?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, you haven't told me if you would consider there being some connection, to be reasonable, at least. That's important, I think.

I don't see the connection since smell, sight, hearing, et cetera are not "supernatural." So, when you look at a tree and a baby is listening to a mother's heartbeat, the latter there are physiological and biological explanations involved. The former, from an outsider, you're appreciating the awe of the tree, but not many people explain (or what to or can find the words) to explain what the connection they have (like the mother and baby) they have with the tree other than "but it's god." We can study the relationship between baby and mother, but not quite when it comes to how one connects nature to a creator.

It's not obvious-so, I can't see the comparison.

 

[Valjean]

God is self existing. God is long-suffering in the Old Testament and Jesus turned the tables in the New Testament. I believe the Bible over the Quran and Narnia because the Bible has fulfilled prophecies and is based on historical events.

What prophecies do you find so convincing? Perhaps the fulfillment is more in the post facto interpretation.
The Bible does mention historical events -- which were common knowledge. It also mentions a lot of events, like the flood or exodus, that definitely did not occur.

How do fossils and genetics support macroevolution? Darwin said that there are changes of kinds. What is the link between one species and another? What's the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution?

Fossils show a sequence of changes over time, so does genetics.
Darwin described changes and proposed a mechanism. "Kinds" is a recent, creationist term.
What determines a kind? Apparently there's some distinctive difference between kind and, say, 'variety'. What would that be?
Creationists are grasping at straws.

 

[Valjean]

I was thinking... Why and how does a baby know it's mother.
Studies have found that newborn babies are able to identify and recognize their mothers...
I think this is a good example of why people know that God is. What connects them? Not smell, touch, or sight.
Is there a connection? What if someone said there is... would that sound reasonable, at least?

I don't know the mechanism, therefore God?