Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Nature can “create”(yes, it is in quotation marks), but without the participation of some higher intelligence. In this sense, the actions of nature are in no way equivalent to the actions of God. These are basically different concepts, or even completely opposite.
When they say that nature creates,they mean natural processes without the intervention of any intelligence. If the intervention of some reason is implied by someone, then this already becomes a religious position.
Nature and God are inseparable, and therefore the point of view that nature itself creates, without God, is simply not justified.
Both “creative Nature” and” creative God ” are just constructs, images.�
There is no aunt Nature who is creative. And uncles of God (in the same image and likeness, right?) “not either.
At the same time, there are phenomena and processes in nature that can be observed, reconstructed, and predicted. There is, for example, tectonic and volcanic activity. If you refer the creation of reliefs to “creation”, then the reasons and dynamics of such changes were once incomprehensible to people. Now those who wish can simply study how the mountains are “created”. And Hephaestus, or Geb and Osiris, or the Trinity… Well, to begin with, it would be nice to somehow make sure that these entities exist at all, and only then: and they create something, do not create, if they create what exactly… So volcanoes themselves, without Hephaestus and the Trinity, are created…
Because from the point of view of the paradigm that these people adhere to, Nature is real, and God is purely imaginary. Accordingly, they interpret” creativity”: in relation to Nature figuratively, and in relation to God as imaginary as God himself.
God creates systems, not controls all the small processes. Nature is a system, man is a system, land, sea, and so on… god does not touch the internal process within the system, because it is assigned to the system itself. And if we say a little about the systems as such, then this is something inside which something should move… the movement itself is generated by the system into energy, which is distributed throughout the system itself, accumulated or released as a surplus… movement itself is life. The movement itself, which is enclosed in a cycle, not only generates energy, but also creates a collective mind. (anthills, bees, and other systems live by the laws of the collective mind.) Even the person himself is mesmerized by the system… he is its prisoner, because he himself uses the collective mind, develops rules, laws and other postulates that are necessary for the system… but whether a person can break out of the system. this is another question, especially since it is a system itself. Stopping something in the system (air, blood, heart…). will lead to the death of the system. But in any case, a person can also be a god. Because he has learned to create his own systems, to influence them… I will not talk about the parasites of the system that destroy them…
Those who adhere to this concept are materialists who briefly think about this issue from a logical point of view. Such people need well-founded laws that clearly describe events in a sequence of actions. From here, the theory of species evolution.
Second, it is abstract thinking, it is inherent only in man. But, at the same time, nature is given laws and the power with which it creates, this power is Spirit (as it is commonly called) spirit comes from God. Accordingly, everything is one, and under the authority of God, the Creator of heaven and earth (as the Bible says)
They simply attribute to nature, that is, to God's creation, the possibilities of God himself. In fact, they deify nature and thereby create their own new religion
Before you can say this, you need to understand-and what is GOD?
God is the Creator and Creator!.
Nature is the total creation of all living beings. The more consent there is in the process of creation( YES), the more beautiful Nature is.
You yourself write that “some people”… From the point of view of “some people”, there is no God at all … You never know on earth there are different “points of view” Now it is generally fashionable to say that how many people have so many opinions …
It's really interesting how intelligent people believe in non-intelligent molecules, which, it turns out, create something by themselves.
And not just anything, but very complex creatures. And not just one creature, but a multitude of creatures and laws that interact in harmony, which promotes and supports life.
And the question of where they came from does not bother them. Very strange. Very religious people.
because nature consisting of material interacting objects obviously exists, and god is an extra entity that is not needed to explain any real events or phenomena.
In general, the creative process is the creation of something unique, unrepeatable. Where the final destination is not practical significance (like, for example, an anthill or spider webs), but artistic significance, aesthetic value. And the starting point is the artistic idea of the creator of this work (picture, novel, film, etc.), which implies that the creator has self-awareness. If we proceed from this, then nature can create something only if it is deified in the manner of Mother Nature, Mother Progenitor, endow it with anthropomorphic properties such as the need for self-realization, the need for beauty, aesthetic taste, the ability to imagine and artistically display a certain emotional state and internal experiences, mental images. The spiritualization of nature is like equating nature with God. Nature (Universe) = God, God = nature. The peoples of the Ancient world did this: the Egyptians, the Hellenes, the Indians, the African or Australian tribes built their belief system in a deified nature, where the gods of rain, sun and thunder usually became the key ones. Later, the idea of the divinity of the world was transformed into the idea of a divine Absolute. Which first appeared in ancient Egypt. Where there is one deity, and everything else is the sphere of application of his creative or destructive efforts. Nature has become only a material, a medium, a means of manifesting the divinity of this invisible Absolute. This is the interpretation of the world from the standpoint of unscientific perception of the world. From a scientific point of view, only a person can create. Which is anthropocentric, of course. But at least tangibly, this is not in doubt, since it is easy to prove empirically.
By arbitrarily introducing concepts like “nature” into your reasoning, you continue to engage in metaphysics, even if you have already been freed from the one creator God. For me, this concept does not refer to anything, because it contains such an excessive generalization that it can mean too many objects at once.
It's the same with “creation”. The logic of intelligent creation does not apply to the physical world of phenomena. Therefore, as an atheist, I do not believe that nature is capable of creating anything. This is a tautology and nonsense. If only because the so-called ” creations “are part of this”nature”.
From the point of view of atheists, God does not exist, so those who do not exist cannot create. And atheists study and learn the laws of Nature, unlike believers, for whom it is a dark forest.
I will not answer you either from the point of view of atheists or believers, I have my own faith, although I know that Christ was and is. you are wrong in your question. What is nature to you? It cannot be separated from God. So this is not a question for atheists. Nature is an entity. For atheists, this is a dark forest.