Is Nature God?

I have brought this topic up in several threads now, and it is apparent to me that the subject is being avoided.The current definition of nature is no different than what is commonly understood to be the definition of God. (in particular, the God described in the Bible)...In the beginning, nature created the heavens and the earth. Nature is a materialistic creator.Nature created life, and that nature created all extant and extinct life through that one life.Nature is omnipresent.Nature is omnipotent.And I think I could argue that there are other natural God-like attributes of Nature.Therefore, by the current definition of nature, there is no such possibility of the supernatural. Nature is infinite, not finite. The definition creates a tautology. Every causal effect is natural. In opposition, every causal effect is God.I will be willing to have open discussion on this topic, or a "great debate". That is, if you approve.

Probably because most all think your message is total nonsense.My reply is in the subtitle.I've floated this topic as becoming a "Great Debate", but I strongly suspect it's heading for "rejected" status.Adminnemooseus

---

With all due respect, your response is nonsense. Nature is not without mind. Parts of nature are without mind, but certainly not all of nature. You have a mind. There is substantial evidence that various animals (especially apes) have minds.The mind was created by nature according to ToE. I would argue that nature is all knowing.

so I have to agree with Moose, we don't need another nonsense thread right now.

I can certainly see your motive for rejecting this topic, but you haven't given a reasoned argument for it. You certainly believe that you are a part of nature. And I assume you think you know something. Nature is the sum total of the material universe which includes all brain matter, and therefore all ability to know.If ToE is to be believed then all knowledge developed/emerged/evolved naturally didn't it? Some animals certainly have some level of knowledge. They are not human. There is substantial evidence that apes can reason and know things.Here are some citations about animal reasoning...http://www.springerlink.com/content/g16548n962hx3553/http://www.nbu.bg/...1/Reasoning%20in%20the%20Chimpanzee.pdfhttp://psych.upenn.edu/...ions/Cheney%20et%20al.%201995b.pdfSaying this is nonsense is just an ad hominen attack unless you give a reasoned response.

Would you draw any parallels with Spinoza and/or pantheism?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Spinoza was basically a pantheist in his philosophy.(that's a gross over simplification)Pantheism, and philosophical naturalism have many parallels. But the differece is the scientific method. Which is a logic system. Pantheism accepts the God-like attributes of nature because of it's philosophy, not because of the methodology of science.My argument is that if God exists, which science doesn't argue for or against necessarily, then ultimately science will discover/ define/ and assign all of the God-like attributes to the abstract concept of nature. I believe we have already reached this level. And that sort of makes science pantheistic without the worship aspect. Even though most pantheistic worship is not regimented or dogmatic, it is emotional. I hope you would agree that there is alot of emotion represented in these forums.The definitions of "science" and "nature" have changed substantially as we have moved on to new discoveries. And with each of these discoveries, we assign more God-like attributes to "nature". I would think that if God didn't actually exist, then there would be no discoveries that would yield the God like attributes to "nature".Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

You're drawing distinctions between your own views and Pantheism by misdefining it. Naturalistic pantheism, the pantheism of Spinoza, does not assign God-like attributes to nature, especially if you're thinking of the Christian God-like attributes of a conscious, omniscient, omnipotent miracle worker.Now before you go off formulating a rebuttal let me caution you that debate is not what's going on here. I'm not trying to engage in a back and forth with you. This thread is still in the proposal stage. Unless you can compose an opening post that satisfies moderator requirements of focus, clarity and consistency, this thread won't be promoted. If you respond in rebuttal mode I'll close the thread. But if you post a revised topic proposal I'll give it careful consideration.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy,I will try not to debate but explain. If you look closely at the OP, I puposely left out omniscient and conscious as attributes of nature. I was very specific in detailing certain attributes...all powerful
all/ever present
creator of heaveans and the earth
creator of life and the variety of life.Those alone are indeed substantial attributes normally considered God's.Intelligence, Consciousness, and design are huge debates today, but I believe over time, as more evidence comes in through the years that this pattern of assigning God-like attributes to nature will continue.I don't think this topic has a winning position. I do think it asks a very important question.I may have been to strong in this statement... I could revise it to say...The current definition of nature is very similar to what is commonly understood as "god".However, this is the main claim of the post I would like to defend... Does this help?