Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Etritonakin]

It has been believed that phenomena in nature were the direct product of a deity, be it lightning or weather. Time after time we have found natural processes that are behind those phenomena. Not once have we had a natural explanation that was later replaced by a verified supernatural explanation.



We are all well aware that humans are fallible so that our conclusions should be tentative. I don't see how that leads to the conclusion, "Therefore, God did it".

Supernatural is not unnatural -it is a different level of natural -or thematically accessed on a different level in order to change it.
Even when we do something which the present course of nature would not have otherwise done, we are doing something that is SUPERnatural. We are "above" nature by understanding and ability -though we are also composed of "nature".

On an overall scale, the supernatural would also not be or even necessarily appear UNnatural -except that it would not have otherwise happened as it did.

When creativity is applied, the natural course is changed -then continues on its new natural course.

"Therefore, God did it" would be shown by showing somehow that the natural course was changed on a "God" level -perhaps before the present course of nature we see began its course.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Supernatural is not unnatural -it is a different level of natural -or thematically accessed on a different level in order to change it.

Supernatural appears to be whatever you want it to be at any given moment.

What wouldn't be supernatural?

Even when we do something which the present course of nature would not have otherwise done, we are doing something that is SUPERnatural. We are "above" nature by understanding and ability -though we are also composed of "nature".

Humans are just as natural as any other species. We don't think birds are supernatural because they are able to build nests that would not otherwise exist in their absence.

On an overall scale, the supernatural would also not be or even necessarily appear UNnatural -except that it would not have otherwise happened as it did.

When creativity is applied, the natural course is changed -then continues on its new natural course.

"Therefore, God did it" would be shown by showing somehow that the natural course was changed on a "God" level -perhaps before the present course of nature we see began its course.

If lightning didn't strike at a certain spot in a dried out forest then a forest fire wouldn't have started in that location. Does that make lightning supernatural?

 

[Etritonakin]

Supernatural appears to be whatever you want it to be at any given moment.

What wouldn't be supernatural?



Humans are just as natural as any other species. We don't think birds are supernatural because they are able to build nests that would not otherwise exist in their absence.



If lightning didn't strike at a certain spot in a dried out forest then a forest fire wouldn't have started in that location. Does that make lightning supernatural?

OTHERWISE

Nothing is basically unnatural -but we tend to consider things supernatural because we cannot do them -not that they cannot be done.

If Tesla made lightning in the dried out forest, it would be supernatural compared to natural lightning. What would be seen was a lightning strike, etc. -but that is repeating something natural supernaturally.

The bird is not -in its present state -supernatural -as it is on its present course of being a bird.
The bird does supernaturally build with materials from the perspective of where the materials would otherwise have been. It may build the same sort of nest by instinct, but it does otherwise have some decision-making power over the otherwise-natural course of the materials.

If water was turned to wine by will -it would not be unnatural -it would be greater power over the natural -and there would be a logical (albeit mysterious at the time) explanation of how it was possible -how a mind can interface on that level with the environment -without the human body.

When we use super in any other way it does not mean impossible... It means on another level -but impossible on lower levels.

A supergroup is still a musical group -they just rock more.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

OTHERWISE

Nothing is basically unnatural -but we tend to consider things supernatural because we cannot do them -not that they cannot be done.

I can't run an 11 second 100 m dash, but I don't think Usain Bolt is supernatural.

If Tesla made lightning in the dried out forest, it would be supernatural compared to natural lightning. What would be seen was a lightning strike, etc. -but that is repeating something natural supernaturally.

I don't know of a single person who thinks what humans do is supernatural. You seem to be using your own personal definition on this one.

The bird is not -in its present state -supernatural -as it is on its present course of being a bird.
The bird does supernaturally build with materials from the perspective of where the materials would otherwise have been. It may build the same sort of nest by instinct, but it does otherwise have some decision-making power over the otherwise-natural course of the materials.

How is a bird making a nest any different than a human making a car?

If water was turned to wine by will -it would not be unnatural -it would be greater power over the natural -and there would be a logical (albeit mysterious at the time) explanation of how it was possible -how a mind can interface on that level with the environment -without the human body.

But humans making wine from grape juice and yeast is not supernatural?

 

[Etritonakin]

I can't run an 11 second 100 m dash, but I don't think Usain Bolt is supernatural.



I don't know of a single person who thinks what humans do is supernatural. You seem to be using your own personal definition on this one.



How is a bird making a nest any different than a human making a car?



But humans making wine from grape juice and yeast is not supernatural?

Let's just say that your definition of supernatural is impossible?

 

[Etritonakin]

wrote a long response and iPad messed up -will post it later

 

[Etritonakin]

I can't run an 11 second 100 m dash, but I don't think Usain Bolt is supernatural.



I don't know of a single person who thinks what humans do is supernatural. You seem to be using your own personal definition on this one.



How is a bird making a nest any different than a human making a car?



But humans making wine from grape juice and yeast is not supernatural?

Bear with me 'til the end....

A bird making a nest is different than a man making a car (both supernatural by "my" definition which others use -though one more so because it is more super) because the nest is simple and made by a life form with simple creativity, and the car is made by a life form with more complex creativity.

A bird makes a nest instinctively -based on necessity, and has limited decision-making/creative power employed to build the nest from materials available where they are -where the nest is to be built.
This is made possible by simple and minimal processing, memory, imagination, interface, etc.
A bird cannot make a car.

Man makes a car out of necessity and desire based on a future man intends to create, wherein man can go far, fast, in an attractive, sweet ride which will impress the opposite sex and without having to walk or pick up horse poop.
This is made possible by more complex and increased processing, memory, imagination, interface, etc.
Man can make much greater things, but man cannot make a universe.

At the very least, you should understand why it seems logical to some that the universe had a creator with much more complex and increased processing, memory, imagination, interface, etc.

However, the universe would be made from that which existed prior to the universe, by one existing prior to the universe -all made possible by pre-universe stuff.
And..... The question remains as to how that creator existed/developed in the previous or first place/state.

Nature produces creativity. Creativity can do what nature alone could not, but creativity can also reproduce that which nature can do at times when it would not have otherwise done it.
Nature produces that which decides its course by decision -or that which takes creative control of itself. Man is an example on a small scale, God could be an example on a greater or overall scale.

It does not appear to some that the universe had a creator because it was created by an automated process and the creator/the creator's activity is not readily apparent -but automation does not mean creativity was not applied -as we see by the fact that even cars are produced by increasingly automated processes.

What we see as "natural" -which is really only natural NOW that it has already been initiated by whatever -may be similar (very simple example) to falling dominoes -not having seen the setup or initial push.

There are things about the nest and car that make creativity SELF EVIDENT -can we say the same about the universe? (Yes -but more on that later)

So.... The idea of a creator is NOT ridiculous.... NOT illogical....
However, the questions still remains as to the nature of pre-universe stuff (that which could be arranged into the universe stuff)... And how a pre-universe being possessed of the processing, memory, imagination, interface necessary to design and create the universe and the automated process involved existed/developed in the first place/state.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Let's just say that your definition of supernatural is impossible?

Why?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

A bird makes a nest instinctively -based on necessity, and has limited decision-making/creative power employed to build the nest from materials available where they are -where the nest is to be built.
This is made possible by simple and minimal processing, memory, imagination, interface, etc.
A bird cannot make a car.

That is only a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

It also makes me ask what wouldn't be supernatural. Can you point to anything that is not supernatural?

At the very least, you should understand why it seems logical to some that the universe had a creator with much more complex and increased processing, memory, imagination, interface, etc.

I can understand that people will believe in something despite not having a logical argument to back it. I can also understand why people would think that their beliefs are logical even when they are not. Apparently, some people are under the impression that putting "it's logical" at the end of a sentence makes an argument logical. I have found that it is exceedingly rare for someone who believes in a designer to also understand how logic works. For example, you continuously shift the burden of proof which is a logical fallacy.

It does not appear to some that the universe had a creator because it was created by an automated process and the creator/the creator's activity is not readily apparent -but automation does not mean creativity was not applied -as we see by the fact that even cars are produced by increasingly automated processes.

And there is the illogical shift in the burden of proof.

So.... The idea of a creator is NOT ridiculous.... NOT illogical....

Your arguments for a creator are illogical. I have yet to see an argument for a creator that is logical.

 

[Etritonakin]

That is only a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.

It also makes me ask what wouldn't be supernatural. Can you point to anything that is not supernatural?



I can understand that people will believe in something despite not having a logical argument to back it. I can also understand why people would think that their beliefs are logical even when they are not. Apparently, some people are under the impression that putting "it's logical" at the end of a sentence makes an argument logical. I have found that it is exceedingly rare for someone who believes in a designer to also understand how logic works. For example, you continuously shift the burden of proof which is a logical fallacy.



And there is the illogical shift in the burden of proof.




Your arguments for a creator are illogical. I have yet to see an argument for a creator that is logical.

The burden of proof must be shifted to where the proof would be -and cannot remain where it is not.
That is how logic works.

The supernatural is either impossible, or it is possible because "nature" allows for it. As it is "super", it would be at a higher (in terms of greater capability) and/or more basic (at or more toward the root of a thing -allowing for greater capability) level.

Moving on..... Will be addressing....
What about the universe exhibits self-apparent creativity?
And.... How could/did a universe-creator exist/develop?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The burden of proof must be shifted to where the proof would be -and cannot remain where it is not.

That is illogical. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If you claim that there is a creator then the burden is on you to supply positive evidence for this creator. Saying that there is no evidence against a creator is a logical fallacy.

The supernatural is either impossible, or it is possible because "nature" allows for it. As it is "super", it would be at a higher (in terms of greater capability) and/or more basic (at or more toward the root of a thing -allowing for greater capability) level.

Can you name anything in the universe around us that is not supernatural?

 

[Etritonakin]

That is illogical. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If you claim that there is a creator then the burden is on you to supply positive evidence for this creator. Saying that there is no evidence against a creator is a logical fallacy.



Can you name anything in the universe around us that is not supernatural?

Supernatural compared to what? You are not quite getting the idea behind the "super"lative.

As the burden of proof in a discussion may be on me -that would in turn shift/transfer that burden logically to where the proof would be -so you can't just keep throwing "it is not in the place it is not" at me.
That is "self evident"

Stop telling me essentially that the dominoes fall "naturally" when the proof would be in the setup and initial push -if one is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the dominoes must necessarily have been set up and pushed because it is not yet obvious to them.

If the burden of the proof of a creator of the universe is on me, I'm saying the proof of a creator of the universe -anywhere other than being obviously self-evident BY the universe, it's characteristics, the necessity for a setup and push -would be before the universe existed -so quit bring it back around to other points.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Supernatural compared to what? You are not quite getting the idea behind the "super"lative.

So can you point to anything in the universe that is not supernatural? Yes/No?

As the burden of proof in a discussion may be on me -that would in turn shift/transfer that burden logically to where the proof would be -so you can't just keep throwing "it is not in the place it is not" at me.
That is "self evident"

That is not how logic works.

Stop telling me essentially that the dominoes fall "naturally" when the proof would be in the setup and initial push -if one is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that the dominoes must necessarily have been set up and pushed because it is not yet obvious to them.

Where is the evidence that the push was given by a creator?

If the burden of the proof of a creator of the universe is on me, I'm saying the proof of a creator of the universe -anywhere other than being obviously self-evident BY the universe, it's characteristics, the necessity for a setup and push -would be before the universe existed -so quit bring it back around to other points.

"It's self evident" is not a logical argument. In fact, it is an absence of an argument altogether.

It is self evident that Leprechauns make rainbows.

It is self evident that invisible pink unicorns make lightning.

It is self evident that the Flying Spaghetti monster pushes Mars around the Sun.

Do any of those look logical to you?

 

[Etritonakin]

When considering whether or not creativITY is self-evident in the universe itself, we ought to consider the characteristics of the universe itself -a description of what it is -which might reveal creativity -rather than the process which caused it to be.

That could actually reveal THAT it was created -even if HOW is not yet fully understood.
To identify creativity, we need to understand creativity ITSELF -NOT necessarily the specific creative process employed.

When specifically considering HOW it was creatED, we ought to consider the process which caused it to be -which would include anything which preceded the singularity and Big Bang.

It is believed that we generally understand what must have happened (how it was created by God or otherwise) from the Big Bang onward -but the singularity has been described as another way of saying "we don't know" -except that it was of a nature to specifically produce the universe.

It is understandable thus far to say that creative input Is not evident from the point of the Big Bang -but a creator of the universe would precede it -and we cannot conclude that an automated process did not require creative input before it was initiated simply because it is automated.

(The earth being found to be unique in a generally-similar universe might understandably raise some questions as to intent and creativity, however)

We would need to consider the nature of the singularity -and how it came to exist.
We do not have the singularity or Big Bang available -but we use the terms because that which now exists has been reverse-engineered using available tools and available evidence.
Because we do not sufficiently understand the singularity and how it came to be, we still don't know the complete story of HOW the universe was created -whether by God or otherwise -but that is where the evidence would be found, even if we can only "go there" in the same way science has already "gone back to" the Big Bang.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

When considering whether or not creativITY is self-evident in the universe itself, we ought to consider the characteristics of the universe itself -a description of what it is -which might reveal creativity -rather than the process which caused it to be.

That could actually reveal THAT it was created -even if HOW is not yet fully understood.

So consider it, and get back to us when you have something conclusive that is backed by evidence. Until then, I see no reason to believe that a creator was involved.

It is understandable thus far to say that creative input Is not evident from the point of the Big Bang -but a creator of the universe would precede it -and we cannot conclude that an automated process did not require creative input before it was initiated simply because it is automated.

And there is that shift in the burden of proof which shows that you are not using logic. It's like saying that we can't conclude that Leprechauns are not involved in the making of a rainbow.

We would need to consider the nature of the singularity -and how it came to exist.
We do not have the singularity or Big Bang available -but we use the terms because that which now exists has been reverse-engineered using available tools and available evidence.
Because we do not sufficiently understand the singularity and how it came to be, we still don't know the complete story of HOW the universe was created -whether by God or otherwise -but that is where the evidence would be found, even if we can only "go there" in the same way science has already "gone back to" the Big Bang.

We have evidence from the Big Bang which can be used to reconstruct what happened.

 

[Etritonakin]

So consider it, and get back to us when you have something conclusive that is backed by evidence. Until then, I see no reason to believe that a creator was involved.



And there is that shift in the burden of proof which shows that you are not using logic. It's like saying that we can't conclude that Leprechauns are not involved in the making of a rainbow.



We have evidence from the Big Bang which can be used to reconstruct what happened.

I acknowledge that you are not interested and are not willing to consider that understanding creativity would reveal creativity even if the creator or specific process was not known -and -if I remember to do so -I will get back to you later with the other stuff.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I acknowledge that you are not interested and are not willing to consider that understanding creativity would reveal creativity even if the creator or specific process was not known -and -if I remember to do so -I will get back to you later with the other stuff.

It doesn't appear that you are willing to consider it, either.

 

[Etritonakin]

It doesn't appear that you are willing to consider it, either.

What's that?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What's that?

You don't seem willing to consider that the universe was begun by a creator and then come up with testable predictions and potential falsifications for the idea.

 

[Etritonakin]

You don't seem willing to consider that the universe was begun by a creator and then come up with testable predictions and potential falsifications for the idea.

I will consider whether that is the case later.

Meanwhile...

I intend to first summarize how and why creativity is apparent/self apparent -and how a thing itself can show THAT it was created -by considering creativity itself.

...and then move on to other things.

(Random thoughts..... some reiteration.....
Many scoff at the idea of a creator simply poofing into existence and then becoming responsible for all else -and I agree that it is not logical to believe such.
However, it is just as illogical to believe a universe poofed into existence and then became responsible for all else.
The singularity -or the universe/state of the universe before the Big Bang -was already of a nature to produce the universe. It was specifically already a pre-packaged universe. If any of the many apparently-necessary variables were different, it would be different. I believe that is what they call fine-tuning.
If "In the beginning was simplicity", then the singularity was not the beginning.
It may have been the most simple state of the complex universe -like a self-extracting program -but it would already be complicated enough to specifically produce the universe.

As it is generally accepted that something cannot come from ABSOLUTE nothing [as opposed to something we call nothing], it is logical that whatever simplicity exited at the beginning simply was -and "always" was -and was of a nature to develop -and this would apply to either a creator or the universe.
Whether considering a creator or not, it is logical to look backward in sequence beyond the singularity to determine how it came to be.
The singularity itself [as opposed to how it came to exist] and the Big Bang do not indicate a development from a most simple state, but a complex state exploding into an extremely complex state.
So what could/would have happened between the most simple state and the complex singularity?

What would the most simple state which would develop.... develop FIRST?)