Almighty VS Mother Nature

[arizona_sunshine]

In High School, one of my fondest memories was that of a debate on this very topic.

Being one of very few LDS in a small Florida town, I surprised everyone by subscribing to the "Nature" argument with a bunch of atheists and "free-thinkers."

So who weilds the power: God or Nature?

My thoughts were that although we do not always comprehend the means by which God accomplishes His incredible works, He does bind Himself by His own laws of nature.

What are your thoughts?


Edit: Please keep in mind, this is not a belief held by the LDS faith, nor is it representative of any one's opinion but my own... And while I am fond of my little way of thinking I take no offense to thoughts in utter opposition to my opinion. Done

 

[JVAC]

Well it is my belief that I should not say that God is limited, for if I say thus then I am putting a limit on him by my speech. Who am I to limit God? (One of the few good things to come from the Schleitheim Confession.)

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Well it is my belief that I should not say that God is limited, for if I say thus then I am putting a limit on him by my speech. Who am I to limit God? (One of the few good things to come from the Schleitheim Confession.)

I completely agree with you there.

But does He Himself work thru His own established natural laws to bring about His purposes?

Example: A pretty much dismissed belief of Christians is that the earth is 6000 years old. We have instead embraced the idea that the "days" mentioned in Genesis were representative of "lengths of time," and that God organized and developed the earth in a natural manner.

 

[JVAC]

God is not very natural in that respect, for the law of conservation of mass states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, in the beginning God created, thus we have God working outside the bounds of 'natural law'. Man can think of other instances.

In the Bible we are told of 'mana falling from heavens' to feed the Jews on thier forty year travel in the desert. Bread doesn't fall from the sky naturally. Jesus revives Lazarus after being dead for quite a time, there is nothing natural about that. Many other miracles happened that aren't natural and yet happened.

God can work how he wants to work, and instead of putting limitations there can't we just put limitations on nature, or even our understanding?

 

[arizona_sunshine]

God can work how he wants to work, and instead of putting limitations there can't we just put limitations on nature, or even our understanding?

My understanding is limited, definately.


At that thought, I will probably let my neglected topic kick the bucket.




Thanks for the thoughts, JVAC!

 

[spike]

My thoughts were that although we do not always comprehend the means by which God accomplishes His incredible works, He does bind Himself by His own laws of nature.

Hi, arizona_sunshine!

I believe that you know my opinion, but I'll put it in to print because I feel that the topic has great potential for exploration before being brought to a hasty conclusion.

I have always believed that Nature, in essence, is of and a part of God - His environment (playing field, if you will) for His children. He will keep things as consistent as they need be by choice to allow chaos to not run amok, but like the true Loving Parent that He is, He has the ability to 'change the rules', so to speak, to help guide us. He is not necessarily bound by the rules of nature, for He is Nature, and it is His creation. And, you know how I feel about the traditional Timeline - the marvelous power of God cannot have been described with all of its wonderful detail and incredible complexity in a text as the Bible to people of the time with no knowledge of the genius of His science and creation. You have often stated, He reveals to us what we need to know when we need to know it, and I agree. He reveals the miracles of life to us over time, as we are able to understand, comprehend and appreciate them.

This could also explain why certain dogs are so terribly endearing.. !

-spike-

 

[fatboys]

I believe that God lives by laws. God did not make these laws, but are co eternal. They have always been laws. These laws that God lives by is what defines God. I also believe that there are two forces at work in Gods realm. Positive and negative. The positive can be overcome by the negative and become all negative. The Positive can also become more positive to where negative can not affect it in any way. The negative that becomes more negative gets to the point where it becomes non cohesive matter and becomes no more what it was.

Now as for how God acts upon matter, or nature as you have called it. I believe that all matter has intelligence. And that under the command of God does the will of God. It is knowledge that we have not yet learned but can participate in through the power and will of God. For we can not act independant of the Father. This was shown as his very Son always stated that he did not do his own will, but the will of the Father. God's purpose is to take positive matter, that may or may not have negative in it, so it can progress to be more than it was. Or in other words to bring to pass the immortality(resurrection or physcial salvation) and eternal life(spiritual salvation) of man. God took intelligent matter and placed this matter into a created spirit body. Spirit matter has always existed as well, but is more fine and pure that physical matter. Intelligent matter or the essense which we are today has also always existed. This matter is more fine and pure than spirit matter. So God took this purer matter and placed into a perfect spirit body. THe spirit body is immortal and can never die, because God created it. So we really have two souls. Our intelligence to spirit body soul, and our spirit to physical body soul.

These descriptions of our eternal existance are names that I have gleaned from ancient and modern texts. It is the best I can do with my limited knowledge.

By the way this will not be found in any doctrines of the church, but my own personal opinion.

 

[fatboys]

God is not very natural in that respect, for the law of conservation of mass states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, in the beginning God created, thus we have God working outside the bounds of 'natural law'. Man can think of other instances.

In the Bible we are told of 'mana falling from heavens' to feed the Jews on thier forty year travel in the desert. Bread doesn't fall from the sky naturally. Jesus revives Lazarus after being dead for quite a time, there is nothing natural about that. Many other miracles happened that aren't natural and yet happened.

God can work how he wants to work, and instead of putting limitations there can't we just put limitations on nature, or even our understanding?

FB: Mana or Bread can fall from the sky under natural means. What those natural means are I have not the faintest. But God can make it happen because matter can do his will. It is only outside the bounds of nature as we understand nature, but there are many things we do not understand that are natural. For instance we have very little knowledge about how our brain works in all its functions. Yes we have some knowledge and that helps us. But we really do not know why one person is a genius and I am not.

 

[JVAC]

I don't know if you are thinking of matter in the same way I am, I am thinking in terms of protons, electrons and such. According to 'the natural laws' they all break down on creation. Creation is not a natural thing and no laws may govern it. Such a thing that exists now, that is bound by no law, is a black hole. Blackholes are governed by no such law beyond the eventhorizon. The law of uniformitarianism can't hold true there, thus all our laws aren't absolutes but conditionary laws. Thus if the natural laws are conditonary God deffinately can do as he will.

Now, mana, bread falling from the heavens is only possible if either we had a B-52 going on 'Save Israel' runs or some tornado in kansas blew over some bread to the Hebrews and dropped a house on Ramses. There are far too many unnatural things that happen in the Bible, to be reasoned as God acting with in the 'laws'.

God does have his purpose for acting how he acts. Is his power limited by the laws; again I say no. Another name God revealed to his people is El Shaddai, this is God Almighty, unrestrained power is God.

 

[fatboys]

I don't know if you are thinking of matter in the same way I am, I am thinking in terms of protons, electrons and such. According to 'the natural laws' they all break down on creation. Creation is not a natural thing and no laws may govern it. Such a thing that exists now, that is bound by no law, is a black hole. Blackholes are governed by no such law beyond the eventhorizon. The law of uniformitarianism can't hold true there, thus all our laws aren't absolutes but conditionary laws. Thus if the natural laws are conditonary God deffinately can do as he will.

Now, mana, bread falling from the heavens is only possible if either we had a B-52 going on 'Save Israel' runs or some tornado in kansas blew over some bread to the Hebrews and dropped a house on Ramses. There are far too many unnatural things that happen in the Bible, to be reasoned as God acting with in the 'laws'.

God does have his purpose for acting how he acts. Is his power limited by the laws; again I say no. Another name God revealed to his people is El Shaddai, this is God Almighty, unrestrained power is God.

FB: Now don't get freaky on me. It is interesting as to that thought of what laws are, but there are laws which also govern blackholes. Also there is matter which is more pure and fine than what we understand. There are also different types of matter in different dimenisons. Laws that are un-natural in our dimenison or realm. If God wanted, there could be a natural law in which we know nothing about which could take the particles of the air or clouds and change it into something sweet to the taste. That it could only keep to gether one day, and melt into the earth. I don't know how, but I believe that it was all done through natural laws. Laws we don't know about.

 

[JVAC]

Like "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs"? I am sorry but I don't see how you could think that, it is not chemically possible for air molecules to combine into bread, mostly because it lacks the carbon needed, but it also lacks many other elements. Now, elements don't change into other elements, unless they undergo fuision or fission, which releases extreme amounts of energy. Doubtless the Israelites would have perrished on the formation of bread from nothing. Not even to mention the ammount of energy required to be expended to change elements.

Beyond the Eventhorizon of a Blackhole, there is a break down of physics, and there are no laws for it.

 

[fatboys]

Like "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs"? I am sorry but I don't see how you could think that, it is not chemically possible for air molecules to combine into bread, mostly because it lacks the carbon needed, but it also lacks many other elements. Now, elements don't change into other elements, unless they undergo fuision or fission, which releases extreme amounts of energy. Doubtless the Israelites would have perrished on the formation of bread from nothing. Not even to mention the ammount of energy required to be expended to change elements.

Beyond the Eventhorizon of a Blackhole, there is a break down of physics, and there are no laws for it.

FB: I forgot you have been there and seen this with your own eyes. And that you have all knowledge so you could tell me what could and could not be done with matter. Thank you very much

 

[JVAC]

I thought you were the one that was saying God works through the laws of nature?

Doesn't that include working with in reason?

If God works in the laws of nature then it must be reasonable. Such things as miracles are not possible for a God that works 'naturally'.

This reason doesn't befit your point, it more befits mine. Because if God acts in ways we can't understand, then he must work beyond nature, because we can understand nature. I may not know EVERYTHING, but there are things that can be known, and your failure to acknowledge them is either a guise or .....

 

[Apollonian]

Here is an important pertinent question: What do you refer to when you write "natural law" ?

To answer this question, I would say resoundingly that "Natural" law, or more specifically what we refer to when we say "natural law" is not God's law, nor is it truly the way the universe works.

There is a crucial distinction between that which is the universe and that which is the word "universe".

Inevitably, our "natural laws" are confounded by new phenomenon every year. Anyone who has ever taken physics knows that there are many examples of how "natural laws" seem violated. Newton's "law" of inertia only applies in something called an "inertial" reference frame (which for the sake of this discussion is like saying "they only apply in situations where they apply"). Furthermore, there are many natural effects that we have no "laws" for yet we still refer to their principles as "natural law". Because of our profound confidence in science to produce predictive models, we project onto nature the idea that everything is "governed" by "natural law" even when we admit that we are uncapable of producing what that law is. If anyone wants to disagree with me, then please consider how you might determine the "law" that governs what shape a tree will make when it grows.

With this in mind, it is ridiculous in my mind to attempt presenting a dichotomy between "natural law" (the laws we would assert upon God as to how the universe works) and the way that God works. Inevitably, we will find some distinction between the way that God works and the way that we think he works. This is not because of God but rather because we think (and think imperfectly).

In the end, I find that God works in misterious ways...and we have only begun to apply math to determine how He does them. In other words, "natural law" is simply our attempt to explain the miracles of God and not a way by which we may discount the miracles of God. If something appears to disobey the "laws" of nature, it is not because it defies the way the universe is made to work but rather that our model is flawed in some way.

There is a difference between "superstition" which is the belief in miracles which defy nature (I believe this is unBiblical) and "phenomenalism" which is the belief in miracles as nature. Either way, the actually events are the same, the only difference is how we think about our world. Go ahead, try to assert your scientific theory to pin God down, but I'm afraid I don't think you will win

 

[JVAC]

Apollonian, if you were reffering to me in the last statement, I am arguing that God isn't bound by science, or anything natural. I am not trying to put God into a 'theory', I think he has already shown himself, omnipotent.

 

[fatboys]

Here is an important pertinent question: What do you refer to when you write "natural law" ?

To answer this question, I would say resoundingly that "Natural" law, or more specifically what we refer to when we say "natural law" is not God's law, nor is it truly the way the universe works.

There is a crucial distinction between that which is the universe and that which is the word "universe".

Inevitably, our "natural laws" are confounded by new phenomenon every year. Anyone who has ever taken physics knows that there are many examples of how "natural laws" seem violated. Newton's "law" of inertia only applies in something called an "inertial" reference frame (which for the sake of this discussion is like saying "they only apply in situations where they apply"). Furthermore, there are many natural effects that we have no "laws" for yet we still refer to their principles as "natural law". Because of our profound confidence in science to produce predictive models, we project onto nature the idea that everything is "governed" by "natural law" even when we admit that we are uncapable of producing what that law is. If anyone wants to disagree with me, then please consider how you might determine the "law" that governs what shape a tree will make when it grows.

With this in mind, it is ridiculous in my mind to attempt presenting a dichotomy between "natural law" (the laws we would assert upon God as to how the universe works) and the way that God works. Inevitably, we will find some distinction between the way that God works and the way that we think he works. This is not because of God but rather because we think (and think imperfectly).

In the end, I find that God works in misterious ways...and we have only begun to apply math to determine how He does them. In other words, "natural law" is simply our attempt to explain the miracles of God and not a way by which we may discount the miracles of God. If something appears to disobey the "laws" of nature, it is not because it defies the way the universe is made to work but rather that our model is flawed in some way.

There is a difference between "superstition" which is the belief in miracles which defy nature (I believe this is unBiblical) and "phenomenalism" which is the belief in miracles as nature. Either way, the actually events are the same, the only difference is how we think about our world. Go ahead, try to assert your scientific theory to pin God down, but I'm afraid I don't think you will win

FB: Can God disobey a law and not sin?

 

[Duane Morse]

God is not very natural in that respect, for the law of conservation of mass states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, in the beginning God created, thus we have God working outside the bounds of 'natural law'. Man can think of other instances.

In the Bible we are told of 'mana falling from heavens' to feed the Jews on thier forty year travel in the desert. Bread doesn't fall from the sky naturally. Jesus revives Lazarus after being dead for quite a time, there is nothing natural about that. Many other miracles happened that aren't natural and yet happened.

God can work how he wants to work, and instead of putting limitations there can't we just put limitations on nature, or even our understanding?

"God is not very natural in that respect, for the law of conservation of mass states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, in the beginning God created, thus we have God working outside the bounds of 'natural law'. Man can think of other instances."

This is not quite correct.
"When scientists are trying to be exact, they state the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. The total quantity of mass-energy remains constant, but one can be transformed into the other. So far, humans have discovered how to change matter to energy, but we have not been very successful at transforming energy to mass."

God breaks no natural laws by converting His energy into mass, or visa-versa. The Creation is simply God converting some of His energy into a Body to house that energy.
Energy can be in the form of matter, and all matter is just another form of energy.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Duane Morse makes an excellent point.

In LDS theology, thru scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, we learn that God "organized" the world.

Book of Abraham, Chapter 4

1 AND then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

12 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

The Gods to which this refers is God the Father and God the Son.

 

[JVAC]

Arizona the thought of oranization, can also be taken from Genesis 1 in that whole sequnce of events. The words "and there was night and day", translated, can also be interpreted, "and from disorder and there was order".

Yes, Energy does equal Mass times the speed of light squared (E=MCC). The point is, it would have taken such a tremendous amount of energy to make just one gram of bread. Even when Jesus multiplied the fish and loaves, there is no record of this tremendous amount of energy.

 

[Duane Morse]

Arizona the thought of oranization, can also be taken from Genesis 1 in that whole sequnce of events. The words "and there was night and day", translated, can also be interpreted, "and from disorder and there was order".

Yes, Energy does equal Mass times the speed of light squared (E=MCC). The point is, it would have taken such a tremendous amount of energy to make just one gram of bread. Even when Jesus multiplied the fish and loaves, there is no record of this tremendous amount of energy.

You seem to be assuming that there would have been a bright burst of light or something? Or that the energy used was applied from an outside source and so would have been very apparent to all around?

But it did not have to be so.
The energy could have come from within, the bread and fish simply appearing from "seeming" nowhere.