Skip to main content

Skeptical of Term "Mother Nature"

I just heard commentators on Fox News suggest that "Mother Nature" was selective in that it (she) picked some houses to destroy with a tornado while it left others.

While it's one thing to speak of a storm affecting some houses and not others, to go beyond this to speak of "Mother Nature" is to enter the level of motive and purpose behind the storm. While I do not disagree that motive and purpose is found in or behind storms, I point out there's much greater evidence pointing to the Christian God than to "Mother Nature".

While references to "Mother Nature" might reasonably be expected among popular culture, is it too much to expect more of professional news reporters?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
73 comments
Read more

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God Tags: #christianity #apologetics #faith #logic #theology There’s a term some atheists like to throw around—“sky daddy.” You’ve probably seen it in comment sections or memes, tossed like a grenade meant to shut down the conversation. It's not meant to spark discussion; it’s meant to ridicule. But here’s the thing: It’s not an argument. It’s a caricature. And like most caricatures, it reveals more about the one mocking than the one being mocked. 1. It’s Based on a Straw Man No serious Christian believes God is some bearded man living in the clouds. That’s a cartoon version. The actual Christian claim is far richer, deeper, and more philosophically grounded. Scripture describes God as: Eternal (Psalm 90:2) Spirit, not material (John 4:24) The sustainer of all things (Colossians...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why You Shouldn't Trust Methodological Naturalism Beyond Practical Science

#apologetics #christianity #worldview 1. The Scope of the Tool Is Narrow Methodological naturalism is the operating assumption of modern science: it limits investigation to natural causes. That’s fine when you're studying combustion engines or bacterial infections. But it’s not a philosophy of truth—it’s a restriction. MN says, “Even if supernatural causes exist, we will act as though they don’t.” That may help in a chemistry lab. It collapses entirely when asking where laws of logic, morality, or the universe itself come from. Using MN to study metaphysics is like using a metal detector to search for love—it simply can’t detect what it refuses to consider. 2. It Silently Smuggles in Metaphysics Naturalistic science pretends to be neutral. It’s not. It assumes that only material causes are valid. But that’s not a scientific conclusion—it’s a metaphysical stance. Ask: What test confirmed that only physical things exist? None. It’s a belief baked into the method, not a discove...
Post a Comment
Read more

Search This Blog