Nature is from God

[dad]

I do not view nature and forces and laws as something God has to send trillions of pixies and angels to overcome. I view God as controlling nature. He uses nature to control mankind. (regardless of what the Canadian leader may want to call us). Nature is from God.

If the world was different in the past, I see God affecting the changes via nature. The only real question then is will God change life on earth, and did He do so in the past or not?

The godless way to look at the forces and laws that exist on earth would be to imagine they are not directly set up by God, by a result of some series of cosmic events. (or even that the cosmic events resulted in nature)

A more godly way to look at nature would be to see it as from God and tailored to the needs of man. Eden was designed for unfallen man. The flood was designed by God to affect fallen man. The post flood nature was designed by God for us sinners. The coming 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth will have a nature designed by Him also, and lions will eat grass etc.

Jesus proved He controls nature.

Science does not even know what forces and laws are, they just label them. They do not know where they come from.

Only in looking at the present nature as set in stone forever does the bible past or future seem unreal. Science looks at nature exactly that way. In fact, it created and modeled everything about the past based on that.

There is no proof nature was the same. So we all can relax and know God was right all along. That is where science went wrong.

 

[Call me Nic]

I do not view nature and forces and laws as something God has to send trillions of pixies and angels to overcome. I view God as controlling nature. He uses nature to control mankind. (regardless of what the Canadian leader may want to call us). Nature is from God.

If the world was different in the past, I see God affecting the changes via nature. The only real question then is will God change life on earth, and did He do so in the past or not?

The godless way to look at the forces and laws that exist on earth would be to imagine they are not directly set up by God, by a result of some series of cosmic events. (or even that the cosmic events resulted in nature)

A more godly way to look at nature would be to see it as from God and tailored to the needs of man. Eden was designed for unfallen man. The flood was designed by God to affect fallen man. The post flood nature was designed by God for us sinners. The coming 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth will have a nature designed by Him also, and lions will eat grass etc.

Jesus proved He controls nature.

Science does not even know what forces and laws are, they just label them. They do not know where they come from.

Only in looking at the present nature as set in stone forever does the bible past or future seem unreal. Science looks at nature exactly that way. In fact, it created and modeled everything about the past based on that.

There is no proof nature was the same. So we all can relax and know God was right all along. That is where science went wrong.

At the very microscopic points of nature and observation of nature, "men of science" have discovered vibrations at the heart of everything; vibrations make up atoms, and the subatomic particles as well. I think this is perfect proof of the fact that, like you said, God controls nature and everything in it. God created everything in the beginning with his Word according to John 1:1-3. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, so Jesus Christ is the Creator when he walked upon the earth and has control over all things because the Word is the basis of all things: the vibrations of God's voice as the foundational element for all of existence... it's quite mind-blowing.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I do not view nature and forces and laws as something God has to send trillions of pixies and angels to overcome. I view God as controlling nature. He uses nature to control mankind. (regardless of what the Canadian leader may want to call us). Nature is from God.

If the world was different in the past, I see God affecting the changes via nature. The only real question then is will God change life on earth, and did He do so in the past or not?

The godless way to look at the forces and laws that exist on earth would be to imagine they are not directly set up by God, by a result of some series of cosmic events. (or even that the cosmic events resulted in nature)

A more godly way to look at nature would be to see it as from God and tailored to the needs of man. Eden was designed for unfallen man. The flood was designed by God to affect fallen man. The post flood nature was designed by God for us sinners. The coming 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth will have a nature designed by Him also, and lions will eat grass etc.

Jesus proved He controls nature.

Science does not even know what forces and laws are, they just label them. They do not know where they come from.

Only in looking at the present nature as set in stone forever does the bible past or future seem unreal. Science looks at nature exactly that way. In fact, it created and modeled everything about the past based on that.

There is no proof nature was the same. So we all can relax and know God was right all along. That is where science went wrong.

What is the godful way to look at nature? I mean, you would have to count for all the religions and their gods, the religion which I am a part of (technically) has more than a hundred gods.
Nature does not give a **** about man. We are just another species.
When did Jesus prove anything? Please, give me that proof.
A force is a push or pull.
A law is a statement that is universally correct.
I don't think that you know evolution, but species were way different in the past, and will be in the future. Science sure agrees with you in that regard. In fact, there is evidence that nature was way different in the past. I don't get where science went wrong.

 

[Halbhh]

A more godly way to look at nature would be to see it as from God and tailored to the needs of man

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. "

Science does not even know what forces and laws are, they just label them. They do not know where they come from.

Real science is simply the effort, over time, to try to understand nature.

It's very incomplete of course, and that's good to remember. When we read a typical popular article in science we usually will get extra viewpoints of the writer which are not justified by the actual real science, just like most articles in all subjects, everywhere else, add the views of the author on top of something.

It's also good to remember that God is only revealing in scripture what is best for our souls, so that we might be saved.

Scripture won't be saying something that would block what we truly need in our souls.

For instance, if the Bible simply said the Earth was 4.55 billion years old (some mere quantity/time information, unlike the actual wording in Genesis), that would prevent real faith.

It's not faith to merely know a fact.

Say you have a blue car. It's not faith that you have a blue car then, but simply knowledge.

Faith is believing in and trusting God.

So, if He were to reveal mere detailed checkable facts about mere science quantities (measurable) in some area, it would prove everything without any faith needed.

If the Bible said: "Earth is about 4 and 1/2 billion years old" <- this would preempt (preclude, even prevent) faith.

We need to trust God, not merely calculate our own best selfish interest in view of God as mere fact to merely deal with in some alienated way.

We need a lack of easy proof at least part of the way (up to some point in time at least) so that we may approach God correctly, in an actual true trust, a reaching/seeking Him, in faith.

The leap of faith is a kind of act of good will trust. We seek God.

Christ said to also in Matthew chapter 7.

 

[Heissonear]

I do not view nature and forces and laws as something God has to send trillions of pixies and angels to overcome. I view God as controlling nature. He uses nature to control mankind. (regardless of what the Canadian leader may want to call us). Nature is from God.

If the world was different in the past, I see God affecting the changes via nature. The only real question then is will God change life on earth, and did He do so in the past or not?

The godless way to look at the forces and laws that exist on earth would be to imagine they are not directly set up by God, by a result of some series of cosmic events. (or even that the cosmic events resulted in nature)

A more godly way to look at nature would be to see it as from God and tailored to the needs of man. Eden was designed for unfallen man. The flood was designed by God to affect fallen man. The post flood nature was designed by God for us sinners. The coming 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth will have a nature designed by Him also, and lions will eat grass etc.

Jesus proved He controls nature.

Science does not even know what forces and laws are, they just label them. They do not know where they come from.

Only in looking at the present nature as set in stone forever does the bible past or future seem unreal. Science looks at nature exactly that way. In fact, it created and modeled everything about the past based on that.

There is no proof nature was the same. So we all can relax and know God was right all along. That is where science went wrong.

I like what you present very much.

It is God and then nature in every aspect of this Creation. The forces and fundamental principles of nature is produced and held to continue by His Power. Nature is not independent of Him.

Many have made Science an idol. Many bow down and exalt their idol.

 

[Heissonear]

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. "





Real science is simply the effort, over time, to try to understand nature.

It's very incomplete of course, and that's good to remember. When we read a typical popular article in science we usually will get extra viewpoints of the writer which are not justified by the actual real science, just like most articles in all subjects, everywhere else, add the views of the author on top of something.

It's also good to remember that God is only revealing in scripture what is best for our souls, so that we might be saved.

Scripture won't be saying something that would block what we truly need in our souls.

For instance, if the Bible simply said the Earth was 4.55 billion years old (some mere quantity/time information, unlike the actual wording in Genesis), that would prevent real faith.

It's not faith to merely know a fact.

Say you have a blue car. It's not faith that you have a blue car then, but simply knowledge.

Faith is believing in and trusting God.

So, if He were to reveal mere detailed checkable facts about mere science quantities (measurable) in some area, it would prove everything without any faith needed.

If the Bible said: "Earth is about 4 and 1/2 billion years old" <- this would preempt (preclude, even prevent) faith.

We need to trust God, not merely calculate our own best selfish interest in view of God as mere fact to merely deal with in some alienated way.

We need a lack of easy proof at least part of the way (up to some point in time at least) so that we may approach God correctly, in an actual true trust, a reaching/seeking Him, in faith.

The leap of faith is a kind of act of good will trust. We seek God.

Christ said to also in Matthew chapter 7.

Another very good post, brother.

 

[PsychoSarah]

At the very microscopic points of nature and observation of nature, "men of science" have discovered vibrations at the heart of everything; vibrations make up atoms, and the subatomic particles as well.

Vibrations don't make up atoms; atoms vibrate. I wouldn't call energy "vibrations".

I think this is perfect proof of the fact that, like you said, God controls nature and everything in it. God created everything in the beginning with his Word according to John 1:1-3. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, so Jesus Christ is the Creator when he walked upon the earth and has control over all things because the Word is the basis of all things: the vibrations of God's voice as the foundational element for all of existence... it's quite mind-blowing.

That makes no sense, since having a voice is contingent upon there being a gas for the sound to pass through at the start.

 

[Heissonear]

What is the godful way to look at nature? I mean, you would have to count for all the religions and their gods, the religion which I am a part of (technically) has more than a hundred gods.
Nature does not give a **** about man. We are just another species.
When did Jesus prove anything? Please, give me that proof.
A force is a push or pull.
A law is a statement that is universally correct.
I don't think that you know evolution, but species were way different in the past, and will be in the future. Science sure agrees with you in that regard. In fact, there is evidence that nature was way different in the past. I don't get where science went wrong.

Jj
Please do a re-read of the OP.

 

[dad]

At the very microscopic points of nature and observation of nature, "men of science" have discovered vibrations at the heart of everything; vibrations make up atoms, and the subatomic particles as well. I think this is perfect proof of the fact that, like you said, God controls nature and everything in it. God created everything in the beginning with his Word according to John 1:1-3. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, so Jesus Christ is the Creator when he walked upon the earth and has control over all things because the Word is the basis of all things: the vibrations of God's voice as the foundational element for all of existence... it's quite mind-blowing.

So maybe the vibes are a little different in the coming millennial nature. But we'll keep gettin those good vibrations.

 

[Halbhh]

What is the godful way to look at nature? I mean, you would have to count for all the religions and their gods, the religion which I am a part of (technically) has more than a hundred gods.
Nature does not give a **** about man. We are just another species.
When did Jesus prove anything? Please, give me that proof.
A force is a push or pull.
A law is a statement that is universally correct.
I don't think that you know evolution, but species were way different in the past, and will be in the future. Science sure agrees with you in that regard. In fact, there is evidence that nature was way different in the past. I don't get where science went wrong.

Science is the valuable and good effort to try to understand how nature works.
It takes a lot of work, and much progress has been made.

About God though, He wants faith, which is like trust, and that's because trust (in what is good) is needed fundamentally for a love relationship to last.

To flourish over the years, more than just past the initial glow. More than just 5 or 10 years, or 100. But forever. Faith is totally needed for that eternity. It's a profound good. Even the most essential virtue of all.

So, that means we have to take a kind of 'leap of faith' to find the one true God.

Like this:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?"
"If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."


.

 

[dad]

What is the godful way to look at nature?

I would think the more we see God in it, the more godly it will be. Past, present and future.

I mean, you would have to count for all the religions and their gods, the religion which I am a part of (technically) has more than a hundred gods.

Not really. I don't consider demons to be part of nature, more like a pest.

Nature does not give a **** about man. We are just another species.

Glad you said that. Wow. That capsulizes the evil of science.

When did Jesus prove anything? Please, give me that proof.

I accept the proofs God gave and gives, thanks. You accept whatever you like. Don't pretend science covers it either way though.

A force is a push or pull.

I see. So the weak nuclear force is a ...push or a pull? What causes that push or pull?

A law is a statement that is universally correct.

That is a statement that is universally false.

I don't think that you know evolution, but species were way different in the past, and will be in the future.

I know. I also know more than that, I happen to know all the evolving in the pre flood days was fast. The lions and wolves changes in the future also will be fast. Guess who doesn't know about evolution here?

Science sure agrees with you in that regard.

I know. I have science in my back pocket.

In fact, there is evidence that nature was way different in the past. I don't get where science went wrong.

What evidence are you talking about...or do we need to guess?

 

[dad]

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. "





Real science is simply the effort, over time, to try to understand nature.

Yet the nature of the future is not this nature, so they seek to model the future on this nature. The past also. Nature is not limited to the nature of the present.

It's very incomplete of course, and that's good to remember. When we read a typical popular article in science we usually will get extra viewpoints of the writer which are not justified by the actual real science, just like most articles in all subjects, everywhere else, add the views of the author on top of something.

It's also good to remember that God is only revealing in scripture what is best for our souls, so that we might be saved.

Scripture won't be saying something that would block what we truly need in our souls.

Part of what it says is how the world was in the days of Genesis, and will be in the future. That is good for our souls.

For instance, if the Bible simply said the Earth was 4.55 billion years old (some mere quantity/time information, unlike the actual wording in Genesis), that would prevent real faith.

Right, because that is not true. Thankfully the bible is true. The way they get the billions of years is by using our current forces/laws/nature and assuming the past was the same.

It's not faith to merely know a fact.

Say you have a blue car. It's not faith that you have a blue car then, but simply knowledge.

Faith is believing in and trusting God.

So, if He were to reveal mere detailed checkable facts about mere science quantities (measurable) in some area, it would prove everything without any faith needed.

If the Bible said: "Earth is about 4 and 1/2 billion years old" <- this would preempt (preclude, even prevent) faith.

If the bible said Adam lived that long ago, we might worry about that.

 

[dad]

I like what you present very much.

It is God and then nature in every aspect of this Creation. The forces and fundamental principles of nature is produced and held to continue by His Power. Nature is not independent of Him.

Many have made Science an idol. Many bow down and exalt their idol.

Right. I might add that the nature of the millennium will not be a continuation of our current temporary nature. Same power, different nature.

 

[Uber Genius]

I do not view nature and forces and laws as something God has to send trillions of pixies and angels to overcome. I view God as controlling nature. He uses nature to control mankind. (regardless of what the Canadian leader may want to call us). Nature is from God.

If the world was different in the past, I see God affecting the changes via nature. The only real question then is will God change life on earth, and did He do so in the past or not?

The godless way to look at the forces and laws that exist on earth would be to imagine they are not directly set up by God, by a result of some series of cosmic events. (or even that the cosmic events resulted in nature)

A more godly way to look at nature would be to see it as from God and tailored to the needs of man. Eden was designed for unfallen man. The flood was designed by God to affect fallen man. The post flood nature was designed by God for us sinners. The coming 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth will have a nature designed by Him also, and lions will eat grass etc.

Jesus proved He controls nature.

Science does not even know what forces and laws are, they just label them. They do not know where they come from.

Only in looking at the present nature as set in stone forever does the bible past or future seem unreal. Science looks at nature exactly that way. In fact, it created and modeled everything about the past based on that.

There is no proof nature was the same. So we all can relax and know God was right all along. That is where science went wrong.

You make a number of advanced points about God in relation to creation, competing inferences (creationism vs naturalism), anarchronism in scientific claims, false assumptions about the limits of scientific knowledge. These all seem fair and well-thought out.

One point I might make is that scientific knowledge, the way Newton understood it, doesn't commit a scientist to these false methods, and false beliefs. Christians could view exploration of the physical realm as exploring the beauty and design in God's creation.

Just as atheists can perform moral acts while denying God's existence (because God gives all men a conscience), so too an atheist can do science as long as he recognizes the limits of science as a knowledge discipline.

 

[dad]

About God though, He wants faith, which is like trust,....

Faith not in what science says about where we came from and when, but what He said.

 

[Halbhh]

Faith not in what science says about where we came from and when, but what He said.

That's right (and what He said is only His words, not our extra thoughts). Not even our various versions of creationism are in the Word, which intentionally does not say which one is correct (see why below).

Actually science merely has hypotheses (and very many, many disagreeing with others, and often plausible but not fully provable) about details about modern human origins, the same as any of us, you or me, when we ourselves go past the very limited detail in scripture, which only reveals a big-picture and leaves thousands of details unaddressed (for reasons!) -- I believe especially for the reason I pointed to above, in order that we have room for faith, which is not knowledge. Faith is required of us.

 

[dad]

You make a number of advanced points about God in relation to creation, competing inferences (creationism vs naturalism), anarchronism in scientific claims, false assumptions about the limits of scientific knowledge. These all seem fair and well-thought out.

One point I might make is that scientific knowledge, the way Newton understood it, doesn't commit a scientist to these false methods, and false beliefs. Christians could view exploration of the physical realm as exploring the beauty and design in God's creation.

Looking at the fruit hanging on the tree of science, I see no apples or pears, just branches. You might feel that a branch has no obligation NOT to bear fruit on that tree, but I might ask...why is there no fruit on it anyhow?

The methods of science we might say in this analogy are like the dirt the science tree grows in. They will not add more fertilizer or water, or change the amount of light it gets. I am not sure how free they really are to not be committed to the belief system and methodology that is modern science today.

Just as atheists can perform moral acts while denying God's existence (because God gives all men a conscience), so too an atheist can do science as long as he recognizes the limits of science as a knowledge discipline.

To be able to recognize those limits he would have to be aware of them. If a scientist was not aware God is the force behind nature, and that He changes nature on earth for mankind as needed, and that this present nature is temporary, how would that scientist recognize the limits of science?

 

[Uber Genius]

Help me recall who was it that developed the idea that God falsified the record by making a young earth appear to be old?

It was in the 1960s.

Maybe Duane Gish, or Somebody named Morris?

Later some of the proponents of this hypothesis falsified a story (fake news) about the speed of light not being constant. A quick read of the abstract of the article they referred to demonstrated that they had misrepresented the research.

How is it That God demonstrates who he is through his creation (Romans 1::20)

"So since the beginning of creation God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, having been understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So are we to believe that God used his eternal power to reveal his disceptive nature? That he is fooling with the record? So is Paul wrong? Or is God a deceiver.

Paul is claiming that the true nature of God is going to be prosecution evidence exhibit 1.

The appearence of age is an attempt to destroy the validity of that evidence.

On the appearance of age theory we get stuck on the above horns of a dilemma, it seems.

Help me understand how to resolve that dilemma.

 

[dad]

Help me recall who was it that developed the idea that God falsified the record by making a young earth appear to be old?

It was in the 1960s.

Maybe Duane Gish, or Somebody named Morris?

Not sure. The actual problem is that what people think makes the earth look old is wrong.

Later some of the proponents of this hypothesis falsified a story (fake news) about the speed of light not being constant. A quick read of the abstract of the article they referred to demonstrated that they had misrepresented the research.

Great.

How is it That God demonstrates who he is through his creation (Romans 1::20)

"So since the beginning of creation God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, having been understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

So are we to believe that God used his eternal power to reveal his disceptive nature? That he is fooling with the record? So is Paul wrong? Or is God a deceiver.

You seem to be claiming that God changing things for man on earth is deceptive? I would say the deception lies in believing it was not and will not be changed.

Paul is claiming that the true nature of God is going to be prosecution evidence exhibit 1.

The appearence of age is an attempt to destroy the validity of that evidence.

There is no appearance of age except by belief.

On the appearance of age theory we get stuck on the above horns of a dilemma, it seems.

Help me understand how to resolve that dilemma.

Using the present nature as the basis to determine so called ages does nothing more than assume this nature always existed. If the nature did not exist, but was different, then the way it looks old to you is the deception.

 

[dad]

That's right (and what He said is only His words, not our extra thoughts). Not even our various versions of creationism are in the Word, which intentionally does not say which one is correct (see why below).

Actually science merely has hypotheses (and very many, many disagreeing with others, and often plausible but not fully provable) about details about modern human origins, the same as any of us, you or me, when we ourselves go past the very limited detail in scripture, which only reveals a big-picture and leaves thousands of details unaddressed (for reasons!) -- I believe especially for the reason I pointed to above, in order that we have room for faith, which is not knowledge. Faith is required of us.

Well, yes faith is required. But the bible has descriptions of the world and people and life in the past and future. There is enough there to say that the nature of the present is not the nature of the past and future.