Seeking rebuttal?

Question

The question was asked "Is God independent of nature"?
This is my answer. Looking for opposing points of view based on logic.

The concept of God didn't exist until man defined it. Man is recent product of nature. Therefore, God too is recent. Nature exists all around you. God exists in your mind. Nature is expressed in the physical laws of the universe. God is expressed in the words of man. Natures laws are inviolate. Gods laws are transient. Nature serves all living things. God serves mans desire for enlightenment. We are an expression of nature. God is an expression of us. Nature doesn't need man to still be. God needs man or he ceases to be

Answer 1

I'd like to rebut your statement. However, I tend to believe you are right. I'll be interested in reading a well written rebuttal, if anyone puts one up.

While this is not a rebuttal, it occurred to me that if God existed, yet created nothing, would there be any proof s/he/it existed?

And if all things that God created lacked consciousness, again, there would be nothing to "recognize" God.

So it seems that God only comes into "conscious being" when something exists that can imagine God to be.

But why does God need a witness to his/her/its existence? It seems more likely that an insecure, egotistical being with a curious and perhaps confused brain would create a "creator" to justify their presumed elite position among "all God's other more lowly creations". That is, as opposed to a supreme being that needs some seriously flawed human being to witness her/his/its ultimate existence and bow in subservience.

If God does exists s/he/it does not need us to realize her/his/its existence, just to feel good about her/his/its supreme position over all things. A supreme being would not need to create a bunch of (human) admirers. Neither would we need to admire him/her/it. What we owe, we owe to each other, not God.

Answer 2

When eternal thought expresses itself within the frame work of space and time, it becomes matter. Our thoughts within the box of space and time cannot know anything first hand except material things. But we can deduce that outside the box of space and time is eternal thought. It is what we are and that which we call God.

Project (verb): to extend forward or out.
Project (noun): a plan in the mind.

Whenever projection in its inappropriate sense is utilized,(the noun form) it ALWAYS implies that some emptiness (or lack of everything) must exist, and that it is within man’s ability to put his own ideas there INSTEAD of the truth. If you will consider carefully what this entails, the following will become quite apparent:
First, the assumption is implicit that what God has Created can be changed by the mind of Man.
Second, the concept that what is perfect can be rendered imperfect (or wanting) is intruded.
Third, the belief that man can distort the Creations of God (including himself) has arisen, and is tolerated.
Fourth, that since man can create himself, the direction of his own creation is up to him.
These related distortions represent a picture of what actually occurred in the Separation. (The eviction from the Garden of Eden) None of this existed before, nor does it actually exist now. The world, as defined above, WAS made as a natural grand division, or projecting (this refers to the verb form) outward of God. That is why everything which He Created is like Him.

The Garden of Eden, which is described as a literal garden in the Bible, was not originally an actual garden at all. It was merely a mental state of complete need-lack. Even in the literal account, it is noteworthy that the pre-Separation state was essentially one in which man needed nothing. The Tree of Knowledge, again an overly-literal concept, (as is clearly shown by the subsequent reference to “eating of the fruit of the tree”) is a symbolic reference to some of the misuses of knowledge.
Projection, as defined above, (the verb form) is a fundamental attribute of God, which he also gave to his Son. In the Creation, God projected his Creative Ability out of Himself toward the Souls which He created, and also imbued them with the same loving wish (or will) to create. The Soul, because of its own likeness to its Creator, is creative. No Child of God is capable of losing this ability, because it is inherent in what he IS.

(Things unseen from since the creation of the world have been revealed and can be clearly seen so that there is no doubt or misunderstanding of their manifestation being brought fourth by an eternal power and Godhead. Knowing fully in our minds, the validity of God, we refused to give glory, or be thankful, and by our own choice see ourselves vain, and as a result of our showing a lack of respect, our foolish minds have been darkened.)

Answer 3

interesting observation...

Some criticism:
You say "the concept of God didn't exist...Man is recent...Therefore, God too is recent" --wouldn't it be "the concept of God is recent"...

So-- your argument is only valid if you replace "God" with "the concept of God".. and then one could argue that God and the concept of God are different. God can exist without there being a concept of him --just as bacteria existed without us having a concept of it (whenever that was)..

Answer 4

Or maybe Nature needs God or it ceases to be.

You may not like it but you can't prove it isn't true.

Love and blessings Don