Nature emanates from god. Nature is a subset of god.
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
-19 points (26.8% liked)
Asklemmy
55098 readers
280 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
No, they are different. One of them exists, and the other is fanfiction about the other.
I always thought that if God exists, then God must be practically indistinguishable from science, as far as we're concerned.
Because you can't tell me that any practically omnipotent being with a 50,000 IQ would deliberately choose to personally micromanage every cubic nanometer of the entire universe for every single Planck time of the duration of the entire universe that they're creating.
There's no way that they would!
As the old saying goes: Work smarter, not harder. This entity is going to create a series of clockwork laws for the universe to run by (physics), and then they're going to let set laws do their thing, and then they're going to stay out of the way.
Ergo, to me God and science would be (for all practical purposes) indistinguishable from each other if God exists, just based on how the universe would be started in the first place.
Donβt show ass here
Okay OP, what's the answer you want?
That's clearly a tame donkey, not a wild ass, SMH.
/s
Can be, you can say nature is omnipresence, possible all knowing(on account that nature is everywhere and information can be stored various ways), eternal if you believe the universe has existed before time or whatever, and you could force all powerful but that could only be in the sense that nature would encompass all process that need power.
Nature could be like a god, but not like a supreme god that can create things at will and acts like a human.
I believe this idea is called pantheism and many religions can be considered pantheistic including Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism as well as Oppenheimer and Einstein.
There are so many acceptions of the word "god" that a straight answer is impossible. I've come to hear "god" as "nature" personally, encompassing all creation. The rest is just semantics. Some religious folk however exercise anthropomorphism by assuming god is or has a will resembling that of a human being's. Knowing what I know about the universe, stars, galaxies, black holes, quantum mechanics, etc. such a premise seems exceedingly naive.
Depends on the religion. A pantheist might say yes
Ragebaiting people with Spinoza might be my finest work yet
Hegel next hold on to those pants
The definition of god is much too flexible.
Well I can't ask either so I will spend the rest of my life pondering and observing. Like those people called scientist. I think in some ways we all are scared to die but some are in so much pain they wish for it. Ain't that some shit.
It depends who you ask and what religion you are talking about. In pagan religions and practices like shamanism and Shinto which I believe is still the major religion of Japan, nature is treated as divine. In Buddhism and similar religions anything and everything is god, manifesting themselves through the universe, you are god too, the universe experiencing itself. In other religions such as Catholicism, nature is a creation of god, so while not divine it should still garner respect for being god's creation. Some believe that it's all there for them to use, that god put everything on this earth for us and those are total assholes
I think that's kind of the short answer I'm sure someone else will have a better one lol
Natural titties are god, sure. Ass is more the devil's door I think
No. God is a crazy person hallucinating.
When you're on a mountain, an empty beach, a forest, etc., you certainly feel the presence of something bigger than yourself. Is that god? I think so. I think John Denver agreed. Not a religious scholar, but he had something with Rocky Mountain High. You can talk to god and listen for his casual reply.
It might be or might not. It is very subjective.
One thing for sure: nature IS.
It doesn't care if you think anything.
It doesn't plan.
And it doesn't play favorites.
Time marches forward and things are, then they don't, then something else becomes of them and they are afterwards but sometimes nothing needs to come out of it either.
Tho I am not sure about the time part.
One thing for sure: nature IS.
π Yes, exactly, but it also wasn't.
- It doesn't care if you think anything.
- It doesn't plan.
- And it doesn't play favorites.
The question is confusing, it doesn't imply god has a personality. Plucked out of context to see if anyone is about it. In its time, it was controversial for its atheism. Now it sounds completely different to people. I hope I can be forgiven for my deceitful ways
Who says nature wasn't?
Who say there is a wasn't for nature and it is not in its nature to be or not?
I was lying again, I did warn this time tho. Nature is the infinite uncreated which precedes stuff. Does that qualify as godhood to you?
Gods are created by humans, therefore nature isn't god.
How can we call something god that exist and unexist at the same time? How can be a non sentiment non-being be a god?
Not a god like Zeus. I'll just do a proper write up on it when I finish a few more books. Was looking for study buddies ^^
Zeus is exactly just like the other gods: Jupiter, Ra, Krishna, Anaterasu, Enkidu, Coyote and Jesus - or even the 'fictional ones' like Cthulhu.
If it was written by a human in a human language that's a human construct.
If god exists it would be written in a gods penmanship and we would not be able to read it. Because the ink would be galaxies on a tapestry of incomphensive amount of space and time. Who knows maybe they are still signing their names after creating everything for a kindergarten homework assignment.
We are all students in this life ;)
Dawg that is simply not what God means in this question. I failed to communicate with anyone in this thread. We'll come back to this later after I pass this quarter, literally. I currently have literally 120% in my classes so consider yourselves all due for more confusion.
Ah well, I don't know what I expected. Spinoza could have been ripped apart in the streets for articulating this correctly.
What is god in your question? I'm genuinely interested what you are trying to grasp?
God as creator of everything, god as natural force like Father Winter l, god as a teacher - god as absolute puppet master - god as a force that vast and never to be understood - god that needs worship - god that is - god that demands the right free choices - god who make sure you will find the perfect picture frame in goodwill while let's Timmy die at 16 months old from viral brain cancer?
The existence of the divine is unfalsifiable, so it cannot be rationally proven or disproven. Still, something may exist even if it cannot be proven. Some classical arguments do not prove God outright, but may make the existence of a creator slightly more probable than not. The strongest of these is the cosmological argument: since the universe appears not to be eternal, it suggests a cause or creator beyond it. If such a creator exists, then the creator is not identical to what is created. Therefore, nature is not God.
In my specific religious beliefs I believe to myself and have been constructing by syncretism, in a nutshell, involve both a god and Goddess.
In the beginning there was Tao, the seamless union between Yin (Goddess) and Yang (God). I call them Sophia and Yaldabaoth, respectively. As soon as the complementary aspects between them emerged, there was separation, with Sophia expelling Yaldabaoth. Once evoked and externalized, Yaldabaoth emanated the physical realm, the universe, in order to try and compel (opposite of expel) Sophia by trying to trap Her spark.
Because it's fractal, this unfolded within them and between them. Between them, Lucifer and Lilith emerged, with Lilith being emerged from the first sparks, then Lucifer (or Samael) being expelled by Her (Lilith). Within them, mass and energy emerged, darkness and light, black holes and non-singular celestial bodies, etc. Then another layer of fractals, Sun (among other "Suns") emerged as an archetypal manifestation of Yaldabaoth. From the Sun, Earth emerged as an archetypal manifestation of Sophia. From Earth and upon impact from another planet (Theia, as archetypal manifestation of Lucifer), Moon emerged as an archetypal manifestation of Lilith.
Then the fiery Earth (hadean ages) transmuted, and nature emerged as an archetypal manifestation of Sophia. Competition among life emerged as an archetypal manifestation of Yaldabaoth. Death (in the sense of a return to pleroma) emerged as an archetypal manifestation of Lilith.
This is a religious belief in construction, and things will change in future, depending on my gnosis (i.e.what the Goddess reveals to me), because I'm yet to make sense of some things. All I know is that there's this cosmic strife going on, and I'm sided with the Goddess, especially in Her unfolded manifestation aa Lilith.
But, tldr, IMHO, nature has more to do with a feminine Goddess than a male god. There's even the phrasing "Mother Nature".