Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[ecco]

Your universal response! "Do you read what I write-do you read what you write".

But you dont think of applying it to your own labyrinthine prose?

You may have something to say but it gets lost in the maze;
and then you think it is the readers' fault that they cannot make sense of any of it.

labyrinthine prose

Audie,

You do have a way with words.

 

[Audie]

Anyway....

From a quick search....

"Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and somehow valuable is formed. The created item may be intangible or a physical object."

One thing which indicates creativity is value or purpose -and more so with increased complexity, specific function, etc.
Some things may be used for a purpose, and some things are definitely being used for a purpose.

If something landed on our planet from out of space -and we could see that it had purpose, value, function, etc., we would be correct to believe it was created.

We would be more likely -at least now -to believe so if it was not similar to what we see produced by "nature" -and, quite ironically, if it was LESS complex than what we see produced by nature.

Why? Because we see no need for a creator.

Why? Because we are looking in the wrong place.

(An original creator [most simple nature first developing identity and creativity before creating that which required it] would logically have developed from the more simple -but it would itself not indicate creativity was necessary until it increasingly developed to the point of true creativity -complex function, purpose, etc.

The singularity/universe and that which it became -including us- however, is chock full of complex function, purpose, value etc.)

I CAN know THAT the universe was created by its nature alone -regardless of how, though how would show some of the nature of the creator -but I understand that "science" in general can not -and will wait for other types of evidence which will satisfy it.

You got that from WIKI, and you are again taking part of
a definition and making it into something it is not;

Creativity is a human property, not something inanimate.

 

[Etritonakin]

You got that from WIKI, and you are again taking part of
a definition and making it into something it is not;

Creativity is a human property, not something inanimate.

You can find that idea in many places -and you are again wrong about me doing that.

Not only human -human more so than some others.

So tell me how nature itself GOT creative -because it got really creative, and more so than humans -not HOW things WERE created after the point of the singularity -and don't just guess.

If one is to write of a labyrinth, expect the prose to be labyrinthine.

(Similar -yet different.)

 

[Etritonakin]

What I would really like to know is how to make an iPad keyboard one again.



Edit: I figured it out

 

[Etritonakin]

That which exists now is an arrangement of that which did exist -and very basic things became arranged into complex things.
That which exists now once existed in very simple form.

Our OWN awareness, self-awareness, creativity and everything else which makes us alive or "animate" are by arrangement of that which was once most simple and dynamic (most simply animate as animate depends on dynamic?) -so that which existed has always allowed for such generally -and certain things had to happen in order to allow for such specifically.

Where it gets confusing is that as things become more complex, certain aspects of the basic things which "always" existed can become augmented or somewhat far removed in relation to others -even though all always exist to some degree. As they are interdependent, however, the complexity and nature of one requires certain things of others.

For example, to say that DNA-based evolution is NOT intelligent design is technically incorrect -it's just that we tend to think of intelligence as something which must directly accompany self-awareness, identity, etc.

Evolution designs intelligently. However, it -in and of itself -is not self-aware in any complex way -does not have a self-identity -does not have a central processor, etc.
It does have an identity of sorts -as we named it. We can't talk to it -but we can interact with it.
However, that is not to say it was not necessarily preceded by the development of an identity, self-awareness, purpose, intent, etc.

Similarly, creativity cannot be completely separated from evolution or design -whether in their broadest sense or otherwise.

The truth is that evolution, creativity and design all exist -all happen -and what is necessary is to understand which was necessary to what degree at any point.

When something develops, it is created. It is of a design and the design changes -or evolves, etc.

Certain levels or levels of complexity of each specifically allow for other things otherwise impossible -and those things are themselves the evidence of the level or level of complexity required.

When design is evolved enough to allow for identity, self-awareness, purpose, intent, memory, data processing, modeling, etc., certain things may be created which otherwise were not -and those things would indicate identity and self-awareness, etc. were necessary.

 

[gnostic]

That which exists now is an arrangement of that which did exist -and very basic things became arranged into complex things.
That which exists now once existed in very simple form.

Our OWN awareness, self-awareness, creativity and everything else which makes us alive or "animate" are by arrangement of that which was once most simple and dynamic (most simply animate as animate depends on dynamic?) -so that which existed has always allowed for such generally -and certain things had to happen in order to allow for such specifically.

Where it gets confusing is that as things become more complex, certain aspects of the basic things which "always" existed can become augmented or somewhat far removed in relation to others -even though all always exist to some degree. As they are interdependent, however, the complexity and nature of one requires certain things of others.

For example, to say that DNA-based evolution is NOT intelligent design is technically incorrect -it's just that we tend to think of intelligence as something which must directly accompany self-awareness, identity, etc.

Evolution designs intelligently. However, it -in and of itself -is not self-aware in any complex way -does not have a self-identity -does not have a central processor, etc.
It does have an identity of sorts -as we named it. We can't talk to it -but we can interact with it.
However, that is not to say it was not necessarily preceded by the development of an identity, self-awareness, purpose, intent, etc.

Similarly, creativity cannot be completely separated from evolution or design -whether in their broadest sense or otherwise.

The truth is that evolution, creativity and design all exist -all happen -and what is necessary is to understand which was necessary to what degree at any point.

When something develops, it is created. It is of a design and the design changes -or evolves, etc.

Certain levels or levels of complexity of each specifically allow for other things otherwise impossible -and those things are themselves the evidence of the level or level of complexity required.

When design is evolved enough to allow for identity, self-awareness, etc., certain things are then possible which otherwise were not -and those things would indicate identity and self-awareness were necessary.

If it (eg DNA) don’t think or control itself, then I would not call it “intelligence”.

All you are doing attributing anthropomorphic behaviour and traits that don’t exist in DNA.

Plus, you are doing it again.

You are trying to redefine word to fit your worldview or agenda, without actual evidences to support your claim.

You talk of “intelligence”, “self-awareness”, “creativity” and “design”, but you sloppily try to use these terms in your example (DNA), without understanding how DNA works.

Making claims and twisting each of these terms around, are not evidences; they are just your personal view/opinion.

 

[John53]

"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

Bird nests, ant nests, termite mounds, bee hives, rat nests, possum nests can all be made without people getting involved.

 

[Audie]

You can find that idea in many places -and you are again wrong about me doing that.

Not only human -human more so than some others.

So tell me how nature itself GOT creative -because it got really creative, and more so than humans -not HOW things WERE created after the point of the singularity -and don't just guess.

If one is to write of a labyrinth, expect the prose to be labyrinthine.

(Similar -yet different.)

You took an introductory statement from wiki, and presented it as if were
complete as a definition. Why you do this equivocation game, and whether
you even understand that you are doing it, who knows. Your denials, though,
are absurd. As are your contortions with the word "creative".

As for labyrinthine. I used the word correctly, it well describes your tangled
thoughts as presented in your prose, and your "similar but different"
is you just being silly. You are not about t o try to write clearly.

Well, whatever your game is, go play it by yourself, or with someone
more patient.

 

[Audie]

Bird nests, ant nests, termite mounds, bee hives, rat nests, possum nests can all be made without people getting involved.

Not possums, noooooo...

 

[Etritonakin]

If it (eg DNA) don’t think or control itself, then I would not call it “intelligence”.

All you are doing attributing anthropomorphic behaviour and traits that don’t exist in DNA.

Plus, you are doing it again.

You are trying to redefine word to fit your worldview or agenda, without actual evidences to support your claim.

You talk of “intelligence”, “self-awareness”, “creativity” and “design”, but you sloppily try to use these terms in your example (DNA), without understanding how DNA works.

Making claims and twisting each of these terms around, are not evidences; they are just your personal view/opinion.

I only attributed intelligence (not complex intelligence) to evolution overall -which includes DNA.

I was also pointing out that there are simple examples of intelligence, creativity, self-awareness, etc. -and that the most basic components always exist together, regardless of which is most apparent, augmented or complex in any one place.

(If we build a supercomputer in a cave, for example, and then abandon it, our absence has nothing to do with whether or not the supercomputer required us to build it -or whether or not that could be determined by the thing itself -and the thing itself could also tell much about us)

Intelligence by one definition (such as human intelligence) may describe a particular complex system, but that system is made up of smaller systems, components, interactions, etc. -in the way an artificial intelligence might be possible by anything from simple logic gates to circuits and processors of varying complexity.
The A.I. might be said to be intelligent by one definition, but a circuit could be said to be a more simple intelligent process which is part of the overall. Intelligent, but perhaps not an "intelligence" by one definition.

I said that evolution designs intelligentLY -and that what it does is intelligent design -not that it was itself a complex, self-aware intelligence which designs by extremely complex creativity.

I know enough about evolution to know that it is not all random -and that some changes are purposeful decisions/output based on input.

I am also saying that -overall -when there is extremely complex evolution and design, extremely complex creativity (activity which creates, causes, makes) cannot be lacking -and when that extremely complex evolution and design is extremely purposeful, it is indicative of extremely purposeful creativity -and the same goes for any other aspect (self-awareness, identity, etc.)

Furthermore, we cannot simply look at a process -but whether or not something (even a process) must have initially BEEN PROCESSED -which would indicate a processOR.

 

[Etritonakin]

Bird nests, ant nests, termite mounds, bee hives, rat nests, possum nests can all be made without people getting involved.

Addressed early on -and part of the overall point.

 

[Etritonakin]

You took an introductory statement from wiki, and presented it as if were
complete as a definition. Why you do this equivocation game, and whether
you even understand that you are doing it, who knows. Your denials, though,
are absurd. As are your contortions with the word "creative".

As for labyrinthine. I used the word correctly, it well describes your tangled
thoughts as presented in your prose, and your "similar but different"
is you just being silly. You are not about t o try to write clearly.

Well, whatever your game is, go play it by yourself, or with someone
more patient.

No, I did not.
You did use labarynthine correctly -and I was also correct in writing labarynthine prose to discuss something labarynthine.
You are free to not participate -not that you participated -or desired to -to any significant degree.

I wish you well.

 

[John53]

Not possums, noooooo...

Our Aussie Possums are far more cute than American Possums. (Except when they get into my vegetable garden)

 

[John53]

Addressed early on -and part of the overall point.

Addressed earlier than the statement by Guy? Doesn't really make sense but I checked and can't find it...

 

[Audie]

Addressed earlier than the statement by Guy? Doesn't really make sense but I checked and can't find it...

You noticed a pattern

 

[Audie]

Our Aussie Possums are far more cute than American Possums. (Except when they get into my vegetable gardenA]

You can send some of your pythons to eat them, they are such ugly dirty looking things

 

[Etritonakin]

Addressed earlier than the statement by Guy? Doesn't really make sense but I checked and can't find it...

Earlier in the thread -as examples of simple creativity -to show that various creations require various levels of creative ability -that creations reveal the nature of the creator -to show that it was understandable if people consider a creator able to design a universe and all therein, as that's how things get done which can't otherwise be done (regardless of the use of chain reactions, automation or similar.)

 

[gnostic]

Earlier in the thread -as examples of simple creativity -to show that various creations require various levels of creative ability -that creations reveal the nature of the creator -to show that it was understandable if people consider a creator able to design a universe and all therein, as that's how things get done which can't otherwise be done (regardless of the use of chain reactions, automation or similar.)

The thing is you haven’t demonstrated anything about the Creator or Designer, being responsible for design.

You have shown no evidences for the Designer existence, and no evidences that Designer was responsible for making primitive particles and life.

It just all talk, and your bloody habits of changing definitions of words, to suit your agenda.

 

[John53]

You can send some of your pythons to eat them, they are such ugly dirty looking things

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like pythons.

 

[Etritonakin]

The thing is you haven’t demonstrated anything about the Creator or Designer, being responsible for design.

You have shown no evidences for the Designer existence, and no evidences that Designer was responsible for making primitive particles and life.

It just all talk, and your bloody habits of changing definitions of words, to suit your agenda.

I actually have, but not in a way that is acceptable to you -and if you work by certain rules, that is fine.
I am not finished considering the matter, and have really just started -so I understand I really haven't given you much detail.

If you can accept that you do not need to be presented with "X" -but can instead solve for "X" when considering the necessity for complex creativity (which seems to be just fine to most with every other subject) I might be able to make some points which are acceptable to you.

Meanwhile, please read the following about "semantic change" if you want information about how it is perfectly acceptable for words and meanings to change, to be used in new ways, etc......

Semantic Change - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics