The Correlation Between Nature and God

Written by Matthew A Cruz

First I must simply ask, what is the difference between nature and God? It is a

question of pure ambiguity and of ultimate spirituality, yet dispersed throughout a

crossroad, where the phenomena of physical reality and the complexity of focal

ideology once met. I mention pure ambiguity because the question is convoluted and

abstract—full of endless meaning of the two central words. Yet, nature and God have a

soul between the two; a bridge where life abruptly exists due to the thought of a

designer. So yeah, I must ask, what is the difference—the totality of the question

answered by speculation on how the thought manifested into existence.

Nature is defined as, the phenomena of the physical world

collectively—according to the Lexico definition. We must understand the definition and

personification of the word before I further my reasoning of the two. Visually speaking,

imagine nature as the Aspen trees and Pine trees dipped in the frost snow, hundreds of

them stretched out over the mountainous landscape. How did these trees first come to

exist? Was the snow purposely placed on these trees, especially with every snowflake as a

different pattern in shape? But the defining question towards this visual, is the

correlation between nature and the Goddess. Rather than whom—since

presumptuously God is assumed as the who to create life, but how did life come to

be—and why? You see, life is continuous in growth, activity, potential procreation, as

opposed to inanimate objects or death. However, the general thought of nature is

viewed to be as all things but humans or human creations. From a secular scientific

thought, isn’t the idea of God, a human creation?

One of the most controversial, principal questions to had ever been asked, is who

is God? But I present this document as avoidance on seeking the Goddess’s identity or

personality, instead, what is this deity? Let’s focus on a characteristic—one, God

being omniscient. I believe to be omniscient, to know all things is to exist in all things;

omniscience is omnipresence. For example, to know everything about a Pine tree, is to

know how it came to be, its sensibility and sensuality, its anatomy and its population;

but to an absolute extent, as to experience being every Pine tree, ever. It is directly

perceiving from every possible angle of this botany. To conclude this thought, I assume

God has lived around, within, as every Pine tree possible—obtaining absolute

understanding, the truest cognition of its nature.

But is the idea of this omniscient being, human-made? For the sake of this

document, let’s say yes AND no. Because regardless, the idea of God is human-made,

whether its existence is true or not. To justify this thought is to cycle back on

omniscience, for God to know all things, it is to know all humans; and to know all

humans is to exist around, within and as all humans—thus God is human and is

human-made. I am still in need to rationalize the concept of nature, its structure being

humanless and non human-made life.