And we really are created in her image, according to her laws.
And she is a benevolent creator or life would not exist.
Super symetry flowing out of singularity and back again in an eternal round.

nein !

So the GAs were called by nature?

Nature can call at the most inopportune time!!

If I were Nature or in charge of Nature, I would be way pissed at how Homo Sapiens Sapiens is screwing things up for all the other creatures.

I don’t think it’s Jesus we have to worry about.

Nature calls old men often in the night. God created a little factory that would expand and grow with age causing them to be extra receptive to the call of nature.

God emits revelation at night.

Its not called a nocturnal emission for nothing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2019 11:59PM by dogblogger.

Please keep your nocturnal admissions to yourself!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please keep your nocturnal admissions to yourself!


I'm so glad you're here Lottie... you're keepin" it real.

Hahahahahahhahahahaha.

For me it is.

Nature is short for nature.

Exactly.

And "God" normally means "God."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly.
>
> And "God" normally means "God."

But the human concepts of deity, worldwide and throughout human history, can be SO different!! Just mentally "look" around the world, and all the different human populations, and appreciate the oftentimes vast differences between "God" in THIS place, and "God" in THAT place. There is not only no relationship between the different cultural/religious concepts, but there is often no nexus point either.

I, personally, have always thought that the Big Guy in the Sky concept [a gigantic (although invisible), human-shaped, male who spied on EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME] was nonsense.

Even when I was a little kid, I thought this was nonsense (and I couldn't understand why so many of the kids around me believed exactly this).

"God" (whether in English, or translated into any of the world's existing, or former, languages) is an immense jigsaw puzzle of different concepts, most of them in conflict with most of the others (which are outside of their own "home" group of "family relations").

To a large extent, I think this would depend on how "Nature" is understood.

Does it apply to this planet only, or does it apply to Earth and also to our Moon, or to all planets [and their satellites, of whatever kind] within our solar system, or in our presently known universe, or in ALL existing universes (whether or not we are presently able to comprehend them)?

I think Nature (as we comprehend it) is certainly "within" God (a concept that I, personally, define as "All That Is"), but is not, in fact, actually God....if for no other reason than we, with our presently existing brains, are presently incapable of comprehending the full scope of what actually does exist, but is beyond the reach of our present understanding and technology.

I do think there are universal "laws of nature" which exist, and that we are getting ever closer to understanding more and more of them, but when our understanding is compared to what is actually Real (capital "R"), we, as a species, are still in our kindergarten period of understanding.

I believe that both the Hindu concept of Brahman (WITH the final "n" and the end of the word), and the Jewish concept of Ein Sof ("no end," "infinity," "boundless") come closest to probable reality than any other religious, philosophical, or scientific concept I am aware of.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 01:31AM by Tevai.

But our lack of understanding of nature does not per se imply God, right? It implies that we do not fully understand nature. Whether there is a God beyond it all is a separate question.

Unless one is speaking metaphorically, in which case one runs the risk of being taken literally.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But our lack of understanding of nature does not
> per se imply God, right? It implies that we do
> not fully understand nature. Whether there is a
> God beyond it all is a separate question.

If the concept of God means "all that actually *is*, then "all that actually *is,* is (by definition), God. This isn't meant to be a tautology.

When I (and Ruth Matheson, Richard Matheson's wife and my sister-in-law) took a community college intro course together in Comparative Religions, one of test questions on one of our exams was:

True or False: If horses were aware of God, then God would be a horse to them.

The answer is True, but Ruth was completely flummoxed by the question and its answer, and she kept saying (to me; we sat together) "But this can't be! Horses don't think of God, and even if they DID think of God [who she did NOT believe in, Rich and I both were in agreement that Ruth was the most thoroughly atheistic person either of us had ever met, and he discussed her feelings of the non-existence of God at some length in a number of things he wrote through the years--including WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, which was based his creative interpretation of his wife's understanding], God is NOT a horse!!"

Ruth continued to talk about this particular question, both with me when we were alone together, and also at group gatherings, at great length, over many of the following years.

I think our species is also, at least mostly, limited by the "horse problem."

Nature (certainly "nature" as we conceive of it on this planet) can be, I think, a PART of what we conceive of as God, but it cannot (so far as I am able to perceive) encompass ALL of God, because our human abilities to know and to comprehend are not, at this point in our evolution (to my knowledge) adequate to include all that may ALSO be true--and from this perspective, WE are "the horse" in the exam question.


> Unless one is speaking metaphorically, in which
> case one runs the risk of being taken literally.

I think we, as a species, know and understand so little compared to what actually exists in the totality of "universe"/universes, that metaphor and reality tend to meld together as we think and attempt to communicate on this particular subject.

In real life, we do our best as we stumble along, and every ten years or so, or with each new generation or two, we gain some further knowledge and understanding, which allows us to make appropriate edits of what has previously been said and thought in the past.

We are very smart "horses" indeed, but on this matter, our species-limited "equine potential" is always partial when compared to what we have yet to discover.

A suitably Indian answer and one with which, in the context, I sympathize.

But not, I suspect, an accurate reading of the English word. As I just mentioned to our resident royalty, the OED does not include any definition that equates nature with God or even as an extension of God.

Moreover, your post exemplifies the problem--on two levels. First, you move from your initial assertion of identity to a discussion of the differences between the two phenomena. The paradox may be resolvable in some fashion, but sometimes there is no esoteric principle capable of equating superficially disparate things. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Which leads to my second quibble. You state that we humans don't understand God, which is true, and that we don't understand nature, which is also true. But there is no transitive power of incomprehension. It is possible for two things that are beyond our ken to nonetheless be different.

What brings so many people to the intuitive sense that God and nature are identical, or only distinct by one or two degrees? It is the sheer incomprehensibility of both phenomena, the awe that we feel in their presence. But that similarity in impression is not a solid foundation on which to erect a unitary edifice, as both you and Wally indirectly acknowledge.

The only ways to merge God and nature are either to do so without reservation, making God responsible for evil as well as good--this is either a pessimistically fatalistic vision of the cosmos, or ridiculous Panglossianism--or to go with Kori and adopt an effectively atheistic vision of God that deprives that term of any meaning beyond nature.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:54AM by Lot's Wife.

If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who designed and created everything, then yes nature = God, unless you define nature as only those things that humans have directly observed and come to understand as "nature" with their extremely limited perceptions over a time period that is ridiculously brief in relation to eternity. "Nature" as understood by humans could therefore be nothing more than an "app" that God has chosen to run for a million years and when that app has run its course, God may simply turn it off and run another app.

But if there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who designed and created everything, there's no particular reason to attempt to make the word "nature" into a synonym for the word "God". In traditional usage "God" (or a "god") is a being that stands apart from and is able to control nature. Roughly speaking it would be like saying an airplane pilot is just another way of referring to an airplane. I mean people can agree to change definitions and meanings. It happens all the time. Sometimes tacitly and sometimes explicitly. But it's often not a good thing as it leads to more confusion and lack of clarity, rather than promoting a deeper and better understanding of our world.

Let’s look at your first paragraph.

Since language is a human invention, the human meaning of nature is what matters. So if humans use that word in the sense of a software application, isn’t that exactly what it is?

Nature then is to God as an app is to an operating system or, if one must, to Steve Jobs. The app is not Steve Jobs.

airplanes.

The pilot is not the airplane. If someone were to try to make "pilot" synonymous with "airplane" that would make the language more confusing, not less.

But, yeah, in the very first statement, it would have been more accurate to say that "nature = the will of God" rather than "nature = God".


If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God ("OOOGOD") who designed and created everything, then humans and, by extension, human language are all products and intellectual property wholly created and owned by OOOGOD. Traditionally, nature and God have not been synonymous in human language, but since God controls nature, everything that happens in nature is God's will.

On the other hand, given human nature--a subset of nature--humans will play around with and change definitions and quibble over semantics--sometimes to reflect an expanding/evolving understanding of the nature of the world around them and sometimes to spin and obfuscate. If there is an OOOGOD, that's all part of the plan. If there is no OOOGOD, it could just be pointless in the end.

Sure, but if you define nature as God's will you inevitably encounter the problem of evil. For nature brings human suffering on a catastrophic scale.

People try to get around that by conjuring a demiurge who screwed up the creation or a Satan who limits and contravenes God's will (through, it is important to note, a nature that is in this instance operating against God) or through a deistic notion of a Watchmaker God. All of these are ways of separating our supernatural deity from nature because we don't want to attribute imperfection and evil to God.

So I return to the original proposition: nature isn't God. Just to check that notion, I looked at the OED's definition of "nature." It has no mention of God which, I believe, is the best way to think of it. For as soon as you combine God and nature, you end up with all sorts of unpleasant contradictions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:57AM by Lot's Wife.

but it does make a difference whether one believes in an OOOGOD or not. If not, it's even more important to avoid the attempt to make nature synonymous with the word "God". That was actually the main thrust of my argument. That's why I said that "there's no particular reason to attempt to make the word 'nature' into a synonym for the word 'God'."

But for those who do believe in an OOOGOD, it's not really possible to pretend that God and nature are not inextricably linked. I guess that's where it gets confusing. I was just attempting to also address the "nature" and "god" concepts as seen from the perspective of OOOGOD believers.

OOOGod simply allows Satan and demons to do their thing because it's part of a bigger plan--the OOOGOD's "plan of salvation" (according to Mormons and according to similar lines of thinking for most theists). It's part of a big test that God has devised. It's part of a big sifting and filtering of souls operation designed and set up by God. Even Satan gets roped into to doing God's will in the long run. Isn't that how the story goes? The Book of Revelations, according to many believers, reveals the script and Satan and his demons are bound to follow it...because it's God's will. It is of course full of contradictions and confusion, which is why so many people have a hard time believing in the traditional OOOGOD-based religions.

That's why I was careful to couch those comments in terms of belief in an OOOGOD. The Roman, Norse and Greek pantheon is full of limited Gods who sometimes control and sometimes are acted on by nature.

I think then that we would agree on the need to define terms precisely before embarking on a discussion. In the absence of such preliminary agreement, the only reasonable course is to rely on the established meanings of our shared lexicon.

Otherwise we talk past each other. That's the problem that arises when people wrest the words of Einstein, Hawking, and others from their avowedly atheistic context and thrust them forward as if they are used in the conventional sense.

"Traditionally, nature and God have not been synonymous in human language, but since God controls nature, everything that happens in nature is God's will." (In the context of my comments, the last part of that sentence would clearly only apply with regard to people who believe in an OOOGOD.)

The whole exercise was prompted by the OP's apparent desire to revisit and reconsider the relationship between the terms "nature" and "god". Accordingly, I didn't want to simply quote dictionary definitions back to the OP, but rather wanted to explore whether there would be any merit in redefining the terms to make them synonymous.

My conclusion is that it would not be of any benefit to do so. There's not really any point in saying that nature and god are not closely linked in the minds of most people who profess a belief in god. But for such believers, nature is something that is created and controlled by god rather than being exactly the same thing as god, so conflating the terms accomplishes nothing good as far as believers are concerned.

And for non-believers, there's no compelling reason to bring the "god" term into it at all.

Agreed. Confounding the two concepts just muddies the waters regarding theology and science, and for believers it immediately calls forth the need to explain away all sorts of contradictions.

Unless, of course, one feels that the contradictions and incomprehensibility is the appeal.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let’s look at your first paragraph.
>
> Since language is a human invention, the human
> meaning of nature is what matters.

No, this is not so. The word is not the thing--in ANY language or in any earthly reality. Words are, necessarily, spoken or written metaphors to indicate or to describe reality, but are NOT themselves that reality.

> So if humans
> use that word in the sense of a software
> application, isn’t that exactly what it is?

The word nature could indeed be used in the sense of a software application, but again, THAT [new] meaning doesn't mean what is today commonly understood as the existence, or the evolving process, of nature (as we use this word in English today).


> Nature then is to God as an app is to an operating
> system or, if one must, to Steve Jobs. The app is
> not Steve Jobs.

What we understand as nature, and (at least in Judaism and Hinduism) what we understand as God, are different "perspectives" on the same thing.

This is probably a flawed analogy vis-a-vis an app, but: A mother conceives and creates (with the help of a particular spermatozoa) a baby, but neither she, nor the father, ARE the baby, even though both of them created that baby using (for the purposes of this post) natural processes.

The "natural processes" can be conceived of as [a part of] the concept of God....and from this perspective, co-existent with nature.

Tevai,

Words are ineluctably and inevitably human constructs. Yes, they indicate realities that are more complex (Plato here), but if that were absolutely true there could be no communication. When someone uses a word like pen in a letter to someone else, they agree on 80 or 90% of the phenomenon because of common usage. For people to understand each other, they need to stick with the generally accepted meaning of the words they employ.

That is my problem with Koriwhore's arbitrary interpretation of the word "God." He deprives it of so much of its common meaning that he might as well use the term Blueberry Pancakes or Bengan Bharta. At that point words are meaningless and mutual comprehension impossible.

The bottom line is that you are defining nature and God in your own idiosyncratic way. You acknowledge that below when you describe Deity as "All That Is," which is not standard English. I am entirely comfortable joining you in that usage when we are discussing the major Indian traditions or esoteric Judaism, but it is essential to define those terms before embarking on a conversation lest others misunderstand.

In more general discourse, nature is not the same thing as God.

It's a variation of the bogus "god is everywhere" argument.

who use a capitalized "Universe" as a synonym for God. Basically, the same idea. God is everywhere and we are god and god is in us and we are all connected, but bubble-ized parts of god as god seeks to explore and play with himself/herself/verself/perself....in a grand one-god show featuring a cast of trillions of sock-puppets. I hope I'm being a good sock-puppet for Universe...I mean God...for God/Universe/the Unity of All Things...I hope I'm a good sock-puppet for that. I try to be entertaining.

It’s one big bubble bath in 11 dimensions. Joseph Smith blew his own bubbles. Brigham Young farted in the tub.

It depends on the meaning of “is”. If God is seen as an experiential phenomenon, God can be whatever conjures the God feeling. Nature is God-like in that it sees us through God’s eyes. At least until the bear has you for lunch.

God is in the eye of the beholder. I can see the wisdom of Joseph Smith, if you can call it that. It takes a deluded con man to start a religion. Whatever he started worked to help people experience God. I know I did. That’s what was so confusing when I learned it was all made up. It turns out it was all faith. The particular points of doctrine were just things to agree on. So now it’s my fault that I can’t agree with made-up BS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 05:52AM by babyloncansuckit.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a variation of the bogus "god is everywhere"
> argument.

This would depend on the definition of "God" being used.

My personal definition of God is: "All That IS."

From a contrasting Christian perspective, is God supposed to be in Hell?

[I am not a Christian; I literally do not know the answer to this question, especially since I do not believe in Hell.]

The answer, for a Christian, is that hell is not God's realm. God created it, or allowed it to be created, by Satan and his evil followers. Most Christians would have a hard time blaming God for the creation of evil, but they firmly believed he created the conditions that allowed it to come into existence.

The general theory is that God allows free agency, and that sometimes results in evil (and hell). God thus ends up tolerating the suffering of the innocent victims of evil, which leads to another range of contradictions.

Thank you for the explanation, Lot's Wife.

I understand your words, but I will have to work on understanding the concept.

During my life, I have gradually come to realize that I am really not a dualist in any way, and this is a further example of this.

To me, this just doesn't make logical sense.

It doesn't make sense for me, either.

I don't get it either. My wife and I were talking about this a couple months ago after somebody's talk during SM.

DW: Satan isn't allowed to tempt children.

Me: Since when does Satan care about what's allowed? Allowed by whom?

DW: Allowed by God. Satan fulfills a purpose in God's plan, and he cannot overstep God's plan.

Me: Satan's purpose is to lead people away from God?

DW: Yes.

Me: God's plan is to have Satan subvert his plan?

DW: No, that's not what I said!

Me: Well, what did you say, then?

DW: God allows Satan to tempt His followers.

Me: So, you're saying that God is able to stop Satan if he wanted to?

DW: Yes.

Me: So, why doesn't he stop Satan?

DW: Because it would offend our agency.

Me: God allows evil in the world, even requires it, as a part of his plan?

DW: Yes.

Me: Doesn't that sound a little evil to you?

DW: No, you need evil for there to be good.

Me: But it sounds like the only reason there is evil is because that's the way God wants it. Couldn't he just as easily want there to be no evil and for Satan to be good?

DW: You don't understand.

Your dialogue reminds me of all the times as a child in church I heard the phrase, "You must taste the bitter to know the sweet." I bought that hook, line, and sinker. Very catchy phrase--that. On the surface seems so profound. So wise. But . . .



The thing is your really don't need evil in order to have good.

Goodness is fully capable of existing on its own. Can you not appreciate a sweet juicy apple if you have never tasted a sour lemon? Of course you can. Does a parent not know love for a child unless hate is lingering nearby? Isn't a smile from a stranger still something to brighten the day with no context to it at all?



To make goodness dependent on the existence of evil may actually be evil.

Religious love that word because there could be no religion with out evil. They are the ones dependent on it.

This, so much this! God's "plan" requires evil to the point that he not only allows Satan to run around, but created him in the first place. He places limits but not such that he actually stops him.

Why couldn't an all powerful, all knowing, benevolent "god" created the universe with rules allowing for "good" without evil? He created these rules, if he's god, no one forced them on him.

The other problem is the whole concept of Hell. What kind of "loving" parental figure not only allows but incorporates an eternal horrifying torture chamber into their plan???

Yet, many christians, who claim moral superiority, gleefully tell others that they will be condemned to the pits of hell for eternity for some perceived slight?

I have problems with the current US prison system, the Christian idea of hell is several orders of maginitued more horrifying than that.

Please stop opening the box. You're wrecking it for everyone!

Maybe "god" is just a term that humans use to describe what they want and wish for in a protector from their enemies, and provider of their needs.

And maybe "nature" is just a term that humans use to describe what we see and experience around us.

Inside the box, god simultaneously exists and doesn't exist.

Inside the box, nature simultaneously is god and isn't god.

As soon as you open the box and start the discussion about what's inside, god either exists or doesn't and nature is either god or isn't. One or the other.

And that discussion goes no where, so its repeated again and again.

I prefer to let them coexist peacefully inside the box so I can focus on other things that have more impact on my existence and happiness and that of others.

I don't believe in nature.

The magnificence of nature should not be downgraded and denigrated by attaching the word god to it.

It seems that no matter what one's starting point, confounding the two concepts leads to the denigration of the one that the person cherishes more.

Adding "God" to anything mostly just adds a layer of unnecessary confusion.

If someone goes to the trouble to define what the word "God" means to them, they use words we already have, like "all there is" or "nature" or "unknown" or "exalted human in the sky" or whatever hundreds of descriptions of God people have.

It seems the word "God" is undefined gobbledygook intended to elevate something else. Unfortunately, it instead adds an additional layer of complexity to things to explain.

Yes. You are killing it lately.

Using "the word God as undefined gobbledygook intended to elevate something" that already stands on its own, like nature, and inserting God into everything lovely in life, instead of appreciated the nature or the wonder just for its unique self, is just empty preaching.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. You are killing it lately.
>
> Using "the word God as undefined gobbledygook
> intended to elevate something" that already stands
> on its own, like nature, and inserting God into
> everything lovely in life, instead of appreciated
> the nature or the wonder just for its unique
> self, is just empty preaching.


She is... she always does.

God can be found in nature.

When going to church camp as a teen I recall myself and my youth peers feeling closer to God when we were in nature than we did @ church.

So many people feel the same way - they find their inner zen outdoors taking nature walks or hikes than inside. Whether a pretty garden, a park, or somewhere to meditate and just be in the moment.

>> God can be found in nature.

Oh boy, here we go again.

>> When going to church camp as a teen I recall myself and my youth peers feeling closer to God when we were in nature than we did @ church.

When I was a teen, I recall myself and others feeling closer to nature when we were in nature, than we did in church, meaning we liked nature better than church.

>> So many people feel the same way - they find their inner zen outdoors taking nature walks or hikes than inside. Whether a pretty garden, a park, or somewhere to meditate and just be in the moment.

Finding you inner Zen in nature isn't finding "god". Its finding yourself feeling calm, mindful, etc. when in nature.

Jeez!

I know, right?

How come they don't say how they felt close to God when they have a good bowel movement? If they poop in the forest is that closer to God?

Mother Nature, (and I) give you a big thumbs up?

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> God can be found in nature.
>
> Oh boy, here we go again.

I think this is a perfectly acceptable statement, and certainly in our culture. It may not be what you believe, but there is a large body of highly respected thought (Ralph Waldo Emerson, etc.) in which this concept is foundational.


> >> When going to church camp as a teen I recall
> myself and my youth peers feeling closer to God
> when we were in nature than we did @ church.
>
> When I was a teen, I recall myself and others
> feeling closer to nature when we were in nature,
> than we did in church, meaning we liked nature
> better than church.

I think you are misunderstanding here. You are assuming a "like" (which may well be an "also true"), but what is being described is different. Dr. Henry Abramson, in one of his YouTube lectures on Jewish history, talks about his (and others) academic observation that there appears to be a connection between time intentionally spent in nature and advanced spiritual thought. Although Dr. Abramson was talking about creative events in Jewish history, I think this observation would also apply to both Hinduism and Buddhism.


> >> So many people feel the same way - they find
> their inner zen outdoors taking nature walks or
> hikes than inside. Whether a pretty garden, a
> park, or somewhere to meditate and just be in the
> moment.
>
> Finding you inner Zen in nature isn't finding
> "god". Its finding yourself feeling calm,
> mindful, etc. when in nature.

What you are describing are "also trues," but you are not understanding other experiences which also occur, which allow the brain access to more creative and mystical areas.

Most any creative person (artist, writer, poet, composer, theoretical scientist, mathematician, etc.) has had the experience of entering into a mental and physical state where they are (in effect) "taking dictation." Suddenly, out of "nowhere," words appear in their mind, or they see a picture in their mind, or they hear a bit of music, and THEY have not consciously conjured this up--it just "appears" in their mind. The stories about personal experiences with this are a standard in our culture: Einstein, etc.

This can happen at any time (including when asleep), and although this mental state cannot be ordered up, it can be "prompted" (maybe, perhaps, sometimes, on occasion) by taking a walk, or just sitting, in nature. As a practical working technique it doesn't always work, but sometimes it DOES work. Most genuinely creative people are consciously aware of this process, and use it to their advantage.

There CAN be a connection between nature and more advanced thought/insight, and most truly creative and/or mystical people tend to realize this at fairly early stages in their creative (etc.) lives.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:16PM by Tevai.

Except Emerson had rejected the concept of a personal God. He basically proves the point that if you believe in an omnipotent God, either per se or as the author of nature, you end up with moral and intellectual contradictions that vitiate the whole scheme.

He was a radical who represented a counter-current in Western religious thought, not someone whose views were in any way mainstream. He may have fit in "our culture" if meant as YOUR culture, or mine, but his teachings and beliefs were not at all like Christianity and he did not believe in enduring spiritual identities such as the sort that visit Amyjo and many other conventionally religious Americans in their dreams.

Emerson pretty much makes the point that to avoid the contradictions, a person cannot identify an omniscient and omnipotent God with nature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:29PM by Lot's Wife.

Whoever finds God in nature, please get footage, photos, note location, time, and date and post them. Sightings of Big Foot do not count. We want white and glowing. And no burning bushes. It's been done.

What I don't get is believing that Moses saw God's finger write the tablets, saw God in a burning bush, watched God turn a staff to snakes like magic and then claiming that this was nature doing it? Nature killed all the first borns? Nature order Isaac to kill his son? That is the Jewish Bible also accepted by the Christians. No?

So. Old Testament God as nature?

Dave was right. This is truly moving the goal posts by saying God is anything you say he is.

There is this thing called the "Essence of Life." Has nothing to do with any God. But it is so wonderful, so forceful,so undeniably brilliant, that the religious want to claim it as their own and add their own agendas and interpretations to it--because that is useful to them. The easiest way to do that, and the laziest is to call it God.

All fine and well, but nothing to do with god being nature and nature being god.

>> "What you are describing are "also trues," but you are not understanding other experiences which also occur, which allow the brain access to more creative and mystical areas.

Most any creative person (artist, writer, poet, composer, theoretical scientist, mathematician, etc.) has had the experience of entering into a mental and physical state where they are (in effect) "taking dictation." Suddenly, out of "nowhere," words appear in their mind, or they see a picture in their mind, or they hear a bit of music, and THEY have not consciously conjured this up--it just "appears" in their mind. The stories about personal experiences with this are a standard in our culture: Einstein, etc.

This can happen at any time (including when asleep), and although this mental state cannot be ordered up, it can be "prompted" (maybe, perhaps, sometimes, on occasion) by taking a walk, or just sitting, in nature. As a practical working technique it doesn't always work, but sometimes it DOES work. Most genuinely creative people are consciously aware of this process, and use it to their advantage.

There CAN be a connection between nature and more advanced thought/insight, and most truly creative and/or mystical people tend to realize this at fairly early stages in their creative (etc.) lives."

I understand this well (as you wrongly assume) because it happens to me all the time, from an early age to present, as a songwriter, arranger, musician, artist, designer, engineer, etc. I'm filled with creative thinking, and as you said, it just happens. My best songs, designs, etc. are the ones that come out of no where and seem to write themselves. I see this as nature...what I was born with. I also see it as having nothing to do with a god or a walk in the woods being some how equivalent.

For me it just happens. Why do I need to assign another source for the inspiration I experience?

Roy, are you familiar with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? He's a professor of psychology, very highly regarded, whose work focuses on the sort of experience you describe: namely, the psychological process of creation. His work analyzes the experience you and others describe.

It's worth looking at his publications to see if any of it appeals. I think some of it will.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There CAN be a connection between nature and more
> advanced thought/insight, and most truly creative
> and/or mystical people tend to realize this at
> fairly early stages in their creative (etc.)
> lives."
>
> I understand this well (as you wrongly assume)
> because it happens to me all the time, from an
> early age to present, as a songwriter, arranger,
> musician, artist, designer, engineer, etc. I'm
> filled with creative thinking, and as you said, it
> just happens. My best songs, designs, etc. are
> the ones that come out of no where and seem to
> write themselves. I see this as nature...what I
> was born with. I also see it as having nothing to
> do with a god or a walk in the woods being some
> how equivalent.
>
> For me it just happens. Why do I need to assign
> another source for the inspiration I experience?

It is not [necessarily] a source, but a venue, and a practical working method [which is sometimes available, but not always].

When I worked for the teen fan magazines, I had to go to many concerts I had no personal interest in, but my assignment was to write appealing stories about the artists who headlined those concerts, and what a "groovy" experience it was to be able to experience (talk to, breathe the same air as), in real life, those rock stars--and what totally appealing human beings they were. ;)

I particularly remember a concert where the featured act was The Who. For me, that concert was unbearable: it wasn't my type of music, and it was over-the-top loud (even for its market segment), and I felt like I was being physically tortured.

So I went out to the lobby and sat down, and I "listened" to the concert there. Mr. Gibb (the father of the BeeGees, who were the secondary act) happened by, and he sat down, and we spent the rest of the concert in conversation about all kinds of things, some of which were useful later, in down-the-line articles into which I had some input.

If "you" had to do something which required the ability to think with concentration (creative work, your tax returns, studying something you needed to learn but were not fully prepared for, etc.), "you" could not have done it in the auditorium of that concert--even if you actually LIKED the music of The Who.

There is an inner rhythm to doing certain types of brainwork, and once you get into that rhythm, you write [or whatever] exceedingly better than you could have if you were sitting in that auditorium during that concert.

This is what [certainly to some creative people] nature can provide: it can be a positive creative venue in itself, and it can also become a "progressing" "vehicle" by which "you" are able to make contact with the creative resources which exist deep within your own, inner, creative abilities--but which are usually, in normal daily life, not available to you.

This same "process" (of utilizing nature) applies equally to how to solve the difficult practical problems of your daily life, or understanding(s) which can be accessed through some kind of spirituality disciplines (concentration, etc.).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 04:56PM by Tevai.

Calling god "nature" is the classic example of the logical fallacy known as "moving the goal posts".
God doesn't make sense so we'll define something else as god.

Maybe *Nature* is what I have always thought of as "that benevolent presence in my life." Even while running (literally) from wildfires last year, I never thought of nature as vengeful, especially since humans started those. Maybe if I had been running from a tidal wave, I'd have thought differently.

Loving people in my life are part of that feeling, plus always having beautiful surroundings (growing up in national parks). Nature has always been good to me.

Today, I'm going to check out a home for sale. The trees there have been destroyed (again, by human carelessness). If I buy the home, house renovations be damned--restoring the trees will be my first order of business.

I am wishing you the best, as you check out what might be your new home.

I am glad that you replanting the trees will be a priority for you, and you planting trees will greatly help your corner of the world to heal.

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2019 02:28PM by Tevai.

Trees are the answer.

What is the question.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trees are the answer.
>
> What is the question.

The question is: What is one of the best ways to heal after personally experiencing the catastrophe of a wildfire?

[If I am remembering correctly, kathleen was one of the victims of the Paradise fire.]

Short people got no reason.

Maybe god is just short.

And if he is nature he is a mother.