Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[gnostic]

"Nothing gets made without people""

I think that might get to the heart of it. It's clear that people can create truly novel things- information systems, simulated realities, through their creative intelligence. And it's not entirely clear that it can be done by any other means.- creation without creativity... gets logically problematic

It is one thing for people creating something, eg bake a cake, construct a car, a bridge or the Eiffel Tower, but it is very different that some invisible gods can create light with just a few words (which awfully like a witch casting a spell) or turning dust or clay into living adult human (again, it sounds like more magic). They are very different.

People, “humans”, are real.

God, Creator and Designer are not real, because it require belief and blind faith to believe that they exist. Invisible beings are not natural, no more than spirits, ghosts or fairies are real.

The Intelligent Designer is as much a superstitious fantasy as the Genesis Creator, or John’s Logos (in this case, Jesus being the “Creator”).

 

[Etritonakin]

I barely have time to post in here myself, so I am not really able to read all of your posts -much less respond to every point.

I do plan to continue posting, but it will not be often -very busy week.
Meanwhile, feel free to imagine various scenarios relating to my decreased posting.

I appreciate all serious responses and even some of the ridiculous ones which actually led to worthwhile realizations (and I'm not just talking about realizing that being reclusive is a good thing).

 

[Etritonakin]

"Nothing gets made without people""

I think that might get to the heart of it. It's clear that people can create truly novel things- information systems, simulated realities, through their creative intelligence. And it's not entirely clear that it can be done by any other means.- creation without creativity... gets logically problematic

Whereas evolution in its broadest sense -development -leading first to simple creativity and then complex -and then to creation -is not problematic.

There is a difference between what may develop into creativity -and what may be developed employing creativity -and it would also be evident in the thing in question.

It seems -because we do not see a creator or necessity for one -and because we developed into creative beings -that we are the first example of evolution of any kind leading to our level of creativity, but much about the universe, Earth, Earth life and ourselves DO indicate that creativity was employed.

Finding the words to express exactly why and how is the next step.

Some say they see no need for a creator, but simply looking at the fact that the process which led to us seems completely automated -for/as evidence a creator was not required -is the WRONG place to look.
The product -which is far beyond anything our minds could presently design -and how the process became automated in the first place -are the RIGHT places to look -as well as the nature of the process itself -NOT the mere fact that it is automated.

We may consider our own minds, and say they are far beyond what our own minds could presently design -then consider it evidence that evolution alone produced that which a mind could not -but that is based on the assumption that they were not designed.

More importantly, WE -especially as individuals -had absolutely no input into our own design.
The fact that we are essentially MASS-produced is also significant.

It is true that evolution in its broadest sense -if the case -would have had to lead to a mind of an overall creator -and that mind could not have INITIATED itself -but an original would not be mass-produced. An original would be produced as an original -and, as we are talking about a creative mind being produced, any part of the production which required creativity and not simply evolution/development would be by increasing levels of creativity of that mind itself.
It would develop, increasingly self-develop as able, self-produce as able -before reaching the point of being a self able to produce or mass-produce anything else.

We do not see that as necessary because "natural" laws produced us -natural law obviously naturally mass-produces -but those laws are the process -not how the process became the process.
The process, the laws thereof and the product -individually and especially collectively -show evidence of creativity being employed.

 

[Etritonakin]

Science has historically been busy reverse-engineering present nature and creating new inanimate things based on its new understanding.

Scientists have not seriously considered their own (and that of humans in general) part in the big picture.

Now -while some still scoff at the idea of a creator -science is reverse-engineering creativity itself -attempting to reproduce self-awareness, true independent decision-making and creativity in programs, A.I., etc.
This may lead to science understanding it well enough to find -to its own satisfaction - that creativity is evident in the universe, natural law and even DNA-based evolution.

(I also find it interesting that many of main points being made in these forums by those on the "side" of science often do not truly reflect current science, scientific thinking or discovery. Science is growing exponentially in a growing number of fields -so much so that it, as a whole [any one scientist or group of scientists, much less all collectively], does not and can not truly understand yet what it has discovered, made possible, etc.)

 

[Etritonakin]

Unnecessary? Ha!

It is only just 3 words. Leaving that part out only show you having something to hide.

Do you have something to hide?

If you are going to quote definition from a dictionary, leave it intact, which would include the dictionary’s original example, and let others decide if it is necessary or not.

But getting back to my original point, you cannot redefined term, like “supernatural”, to suit your agenda.

You keep saying that people making things that nature cannot make on its own (eg making car or bread), could be classified as “supernatural”.

What people do, is not “beyond scientific understanding”, nor what they do, defy “the laws of nature”.

That’s not supernatural. You have quoted a dictionary to me, and yet you don’t understand your own definition.

Man create something are not supernatural. But a god (eg Creator) or Intelligent Designer or Cosmic Consciousness (eg Brahman) create something or everything, are “supernatural”, because these so-called beings (eg Elohim, Yahweh, Allah, Creator, Re, Enlil, Odin, Brahma, Brahman, Intelligent Designer, etc) are themselves “supernatural“.

And some of them being “invisible” or “all-powerful” or “all-knowing” or being. “immortal” are by your dictionary’s definition, “beyond scientific understanding” and defy “the laws of nature”...hence they are “supernatural”.

People change definitions and take parts of definitions all the time in order to make their point.
They even use words in completely new ways -and it's perfectly O.K.

Like.... When someone eats at a greasy spoon and it is not a spoon.

If you were at all interested in my point, you would quickly have seen that the "big" supernatural (which is now called veryultranatural because I can do that, too) is similar to the little supernaturals in my examples.
To US -supernatural is really just something we cannot do or do not believe is possible (hey, I can paraphrase, too!) -which has nothing to do with whether it can be done at all or is possible.

While it is not specifically stated, the use of the words beyond, usual, normal and appear below do suggest and allow for things which are actually natural, but of a higher order or level.

Here is the definition from Webster's....... (bold and underline mine)

Definition of supernatural
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

It is perfectly acceptable to use the first part of definition 1 without the second part after the semicolon.

It is also perfectly acceptable to use definition 2a without 2b.

That really is how dictionaries work.

 

[ecco]

People change definitions ... all the time in order to make their point.

So, I can correctly and honestly state...

Etritonakin does not believe in the supernatural.​

... if I define...

supernatural
1. an entity that delivers toys to all children at xmas time in a sled pulled by reindeer.

​

While it is not specifically stated...<snip>

It is perfectly acceptable to use the first part of definition 1 without the second part after the semicolon.
It is also perfectly acceptable to use definition 2a without 2b.

It depends on the reason for doing so. If it is done to mislead or obfuscate, then it is not acceptable.

 

[Etritonakin]

So, I can correctly and honestly state...

Etritonakin does not believe in the supernatural.​

... if I define...

supernatural
1. an entity that delivers toys to all children at xmas time in a sled pulled by reindeer.

​

It depends on the reason for doing so. If it is done to mislead or obfuscate, then it is not acceptable.

No. I do not.

And... I agree

Do you think I was doing that or meant to?

As I have said before, consideration of that which was considered impossible, fiction -or even supernatural -has led to humans being able to do many such things.

Do you believe that consideration of God and the godlike has ...say ....helped humanity become more fit to survive? If all of this has been purely evolution thus far, there has still been some benefit to considering such things. No?

 

[Audie]

No. I do not.

And... I agree

Do you think I was doing that or meant to?

As I have said before, consideration of that which was considered impossible, fiction -or even supernatural -has led to humans being able to do many such things.

Do you believe that consideration of God and the godlike has ...say ....helped humanity become more fit to survive? If all of this has been purely evolution thus far, there has still been some benefit to considering such things. No?

Far far far more waste and confusion than benefit.

 

[Etritonakin]

Far far far more waste and confusion than benefit.

How so?

Also.. from a purely evolutionary standpoint -why does the consideration exist?

 

[gnostic]

People change definitions and take parts of definitions all the time in order to make their point.
They even use words in completely new ways -and it's perfectly O.K.

Like.... When someone eats at a greasy spoon and it is not a spoon.

If you were at all interested in my point, you would quickly have seen that the "big" supernatural (which is now called veryultranatural because I can do that, too) is similar to the little supernaturals in my examples.
To US -supernatural is really just something we cannot do or do not believe is possible (hey, I can paraphrase, too!) -which has nothing to do with whether it can be done at all or is possible.

While it is not specifically stated, the use of the words beyond, usual, normal and appear below do suggest and allow for things which are actually natural, but of a higher order or level.

Here is the definition from Webster's....... (bold and underline mine)

Definition of supernatural
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

It is perfectly acceptable to use the first part of definition 1 without the second part after the semicolon.

It is also perfectly acceptable to use definition 2a without 2b.

That really is how dictionaries work.

Is that really how you use a dictionary?

That you can only accept definitions that you “like” or that “agree with you”?

I thought using dictionary mean that you need “to understand” what the word mean, not because you “like” or “dislike” a definition or definitions.

I have got nothing to hide, and that’s why I quoted the full definitions from Merriam-Webster, both 1 & 2, and both 2a & 2b.

I would agree with you if you selectively ignore 2b if it had a completely different meaning, but it is not.

For example if “supernatural” (hypothetically) mean “An American alternative rock band of the late 1970s”. If that what’s the dictionary mean for 2b, then I would have no problem with you leaving that out because it is irrelevant to the debate we are having right now...but it isn’t.

They may have divided 2a & 2b, but clearly they are related to each other, hence the division.

Ans if the definitions are clearly related, then you shouldn’t have to hide the full definitions.

Right now, you are you making excuses as to what is relevant and what isn't. In your original Oxford quote you left something out, and I didn't with MW quote. Who do you think is hiding something?

If you really had nothing to hide, Etritonakin, how about the next time you quote from a dictionary, don't hide anything, and let us decide what's relevant or not?

 

[Etritonakin]

Is that really how you use a dictionary?

That you can only accept definitions that you “like” or that “agree with you”?

I thought using dictionary mean that you need “to understand” what the word mean, not because you “like” or “dislike” a definition or definitions.

I have got nothing to hide, and that’s why I quoted the full definitions from Merriam-Webster, both 1 & 2, and both 2a & 2b.

I would agree with you if you selectively ignore 2b if it had a completely different meaning, but it is not.

For example if “supernatural” (hypothetically) mean “An American alternative rock band of the late 1970s”. If that what’s the dictionary mean for 2b, then I would have no problem with you leaving that out because it is irrelevant to the debate we are having right now...but it isn’t.

They may have divided 2a & 2b, but clearly they are related to each other, hence the division.

Ans if the definitions are clearly related, then you shouldn’t have to hide the full definitions.

Right now, you are you making excuses as to what is relevant and what isn't. In your original Oxford quote you left something out, and I didn't with MW quote. Who do you think is hiding something?

If you really had nothing to hide, Etritonakin, how about the next time you quote from a dictionary, don't hide anything, and let us decide what's relevant or not?

Ummmmm... no

 

[gnostic]

Ummmmm... no

No, what?

No, you are not choosing what you think is relevant definition to "you"?

No, you are not hiding anything from omission?

Or, no, you think we are not capable of deciding what is relevant or irrelevant definition?

You were the one who started the whole supernatural definition in the first place.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, what?

No, you are not choosing what you think is relevant definition to "you"?

No, you are not hiding anything from omission?

Or, no, you think we are not capable of deciding what is relevant or irrelevant definition?

You were the one who started the whole supernatural definition in the first place.

Dude. Just no. You kind of need to chill.

 

[Audie]

Dude. Just no. You kind of need to chill.

You might stop saying ridiculous things if you dont
want to be called on them.

 

[Etritonakin]

You might stop saying ridiculous things if you dont
want to be called on them.

You mean like that my use of the word supernatural is perfectly acceptable according to Webster's dictionary -which folks were wrong about and wasted valuable time and energy obsessing about while not even addressing the general idea of the thread?

I don't mind folks being wrong -but they should.

I understand that events throughout history have resulted in minds slamming shut and people rage-quitting conversations or turning them down logical dead ends whenever "God" is mentioned -and I actually agree with many points against many illogical ideas about God,

However, considering creation on a pre-universe or pre-elemental level is not ridiculous.
Manipulation of matter on a SUBatomic level is almost synonymous -except that we do it after the fact and we are not yet to the very root of the matter (pun intended). It is now quite commonplace. Back in the day, however, some might have called it veryultranatural.

Do you think it possible that considering beings with extreme power has led some to say "hey, let's try it!" ?

 

[ecco]

Another definition for Supernatural...
BS.

Need I define BS?

 

[Etritonakin]

Another definition for Supernatural...
BS.

Need I define BS?

That is actually an accurate paraphrasing of one acceptable definition of supernatural, but one which has nothing to do with anything I said or the thread itself.

I honestly don't get why people waste so much time on things which are of no real interest to them.

Anyway. The fact that folks disagree is pretty much a given.
Perhaps I was seeking some common ground for a friendly and meaningful exchange. I should have realized the fact that that usually does not happen -and that meaningless argument is pretty much a given.

I have said that I would just continue on, so that is what I'll try to do.

 

[gnostic]

I understand that events throughout history have resulted in minds slamming shut and people rage-quitting conversations or turning them down logical dead ends whenever "God" is mentioned -and I actually agree with many points against many illogical ideas about God,

The only dead end I see, is that people cannot distinguish reality from personal belief in the supernatural.

And that “supernatural” including -

• believing in supernatural being can create universe or this Earth from nothing,
• believing in turning dust, soil or rock into living human beings,
• believing talking serpent, donkey, ants, etc,
• believing in winged angels,
• believing in demons and exorcism,
• believing in miracles, like healing people just by the touching of hands, or spoken few words,
• believing in astrology, divination (eg prophecies, oracle), alchemy, magic,
• believing in
• and so on...

You say that some ideas and beliefs, are illogical, and yet you don’t find any of the above, as illogical?

However, considering creation on a pre-universe or pre-elemental level is not ridiculous.

What pre-universe are you talking about?

Are you talking about God?

Can you clarify or be more specific?

 

[Etritonakin]

The only dead end I see, is that people cannot distinguish reality from personal belief in the supernatural.

And that “supernatural” including -

• believing in supernatural being can create universe or this Earth from nothing,
• believing in turning dust, soil or rock into living human beings,
• believing talking serpent, donkey, ants, etc,
• believing in winged angels,
• believing in demons and exorcism,
• believing in miracles, like healing people just by the touching of hands, or spoken few words,
• believing in astrology, divination (eg prophecies, oracle), alchemy, magic,
• believing in
• and so on...

You say that some ideas and beliefs, are illogical, and yet you don’t find any of the above, as illogical?



What pre-universe are you talking about?

Are you talking about God?

Can you clarify or be more specific?

You mean like I was trying to do several pages ago before this whole veryultranatural thing started and a single word monkey-trapped the whole thread?

Sure. Lemme see what I can do.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Whereas evolution in its broadest sense -development -leading first to simple creativity and then complex -and then to creation -is not problematic.

There is a difference between what may develop into creativity -and what may be developed employing creativity -and it would also be evident in the thing in question.

It seems -because we do not see a creator or necessity for one -and because we developed into creative beings -that we are the first example of evolution of any kind leading to our level of creativity, but much about the universe, Earth, Earth life and ourselves DO indicate that creativity was employed.

Finding the words to express exactly why and how is the next step.

Some say they see no need for a creator, but simply looking at the fact that the process which led to us seems completely automated -for/as evidence a creator was not required -is the WRONG place to look.
The product -which is far beyond anything our minds could presently design -and how the process became automated in the first place -are the RIGHT places to look -as well as the nature of the process itself -NOT the mere fact that it is automated.

We may consider our own minds, and say they are far beyond what our own minds could presently design -then consider it evidence that evolution alone produced that which a mind could not -but that is based on the assumption that they were not designed.

More importantly, WE -especially as individuals -had absolutely no input into our own design.
The fact that we are essentially MASS-produced is also significant.

It is true that evolution in its broadest sense -if the case -would have had to lead to a mind of an overall creator -and that mind could not have INITIATED itself -but an original would not be mass-produced. An original would be produced as an original -and, as we are talking about a creative mind being produced, any part of the production which required creativity and not simply evolution/development would be by increasing levels of creativity of that mind itself.
It would develop, increasingly self-develop as able, self-produce as able -before reaching the point of being a self able to produce or mass-produce anything else.

We do not see that as necessary because "natural" laws produced us -natural law obviously naturally mass-produces -but those laws are the process -not how the process became the process.
The process, the laws thereof and the product -individually and especially collectively -show evidence of creativity being employed.

Thanks for the detailed response! I think that hits the nail on the head.

If I show you an automated watch factory, that gets us further away, not closer to, an ultimately 'spontaneous' explanation for the watch

automated function ≠ automated origin, if anything the opposite argument is much easier to support