Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?
Science has shown a number of beliefs about God and creation to be false -but, in doing so, has science unwittingly revealed the nature of -and necessity for -God?
For the sake of clarity at this point, let's throw out any ideas about God except that of an overall creative mind ultimately responsible for the universe and all therein.
The great and wise philosopher Mr. Rogers once said something to the effect of..... "Nothing gets made without people". He was correct on a certain level, but in order for people to make things, people -as well as the material from which they make things -must first exist. Nothing gets made without people, except, of course, people and everything else they did not make.
On our human level, some things are obviously "made" by creative people -and some things, including people, some consider to have been "formed" somehow without creativity. Some others believe people and nature were formed by being "made" by a creative process.
We can determine with certainty that something was "made" by employing creativity if it is different than that which was otherwise possible -different than "nature" (without the conscious decision of a self-aware, creative intelligence) could produce on its own.
We KNOW that we did not create what we call nature -and that we did not create ourselves. Each individual human becomes personally aware at a specific point, within a body and environment which are already extremely complex.
Even so, certain arrangements and levels of complexity are only possible after we become aware and use our pre-existing mental and physical abilities. Though "composed" of that which is natural, we are able to change the course nature would otherwise take -by decision.
Some things must precede and allow for "decision" -and decision must precede and allow for some things.
We could not have created the basic materials we use to create -which are the same basic materials which allow for our own existence, and we could not have initiated the process which caused our own selves to become aware.
As that which now exists is the same basic material which has existed (perhaps "always") -in a different arrangement -then those basic facts should apply at every level.
If God is "eternal", then it is impossible for God to have initiated his own awareness -and it is impossible for God to be responsible for that which allows for his own existence. As something can not come from absolute nothing -and that which exists now is the same basic material which did exist -but in a different arrangement -God would essentially be composed of that same material -and would create using that material.
However, God would represent the sum of all -whereas we each represent a portion of all. That position would allow for omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.
Some believe man is the first example of a life form able to -by conscious decision -change the course nature would otherwise take -and it should be acceptable to all to say that "nature" inevitably produces awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc......
So why would this not be true on an all-inclusive level?
It should be noted that what we call "nature" once did not exist as such. The atoms of the elements -from which our "nature" is formed once did not exist. Their material was not always in this arrangement. However, it still existed and was still the same basic stuff.
Nothing can be created unless things happen and exist "on their own" -and an "eternal" God is not even possible unless things (God in this case) happen and exist "on their own" -but certain things cannot happen "on their own". A creative mind requires certain things, and certain things require a creative mind -and nothing is possible unless the most basic nature of all things is dynamic.
Science has shown that humans are part of -and the result of -an evolutionary process which involved many steps over a great amount of time -which indicates that certain other claims are false, but that does not prove there was no creative input at all -as our own creative input which alters evolution shows it is possible at any point.
Some see the fact that DNA does not require creative input as proof that God did not create earthly life -but earthly life is dependent on the Big Bang, atoms, etc., and God is generally credited with the creation of those things. It is apparent that God did not create everything 6,000 years ago (which is not actually what Genesis or the bible states, anyway), but a more basic and important question is whether or not the universe itself -atoms, etc. -required a creator -acknowledging that creation is arrangement of things already of a dynamic nature themselves -but sometimes in arrangements not otherwise possible (or at times not otherwise inevitable).
As with our creative activity within our present environment, it would also be true that pre-universe stuff could not be arranged into certain configurations except by conscious decision -unless some "one" could change the course nature would otherwise take.
Yet... that "one" (sum of all things) must first exist/develop and be creative before certain things were possible -and it is "natural" that the basic nature of the basic material would lead to such -or was always such in a different -less complex -state -moving toward complexity.
The individual steps which led to our present state did not happen to us individually -they happened in many places at many times -and even to other life forms before us.
However... All things would happen to "One" who represented the sum of all things personally and individually as that one developed the ability to move "nature" beyond nature by decision.
On an all-inclusive level, that "one" would not become aware within a body and environment which was already extremely complex. That "one" would experience every step of the process -every step of becoming aware, self-aware, creative, etc. -experiencing it in a more complex way as that "one" became a more complex self -and increasingly "personally" responsible and able to change course by decision.
(Cataloging each individual step -wherever it took place -toward our own present state of self-awareness and creativity would be quite revealing)
We do not presently understand the specifics about the most basic nature of nature -the most simple things possible -from a scientific perspective -but we do know that we are working with the same material which was once in a different state.
Just as we know some things are not possible without our creativity, so we could prove what was not possible without God's creativity -if we understood the most basic nature of nature.
We may already have enough evidence to prove that "God" was necessary for the universe to exist -even if we do not know every specific -but we may not know how to read the available evidence.
So... Could pre-universe nature have become the universe without conscious decision -and how would we make that determination? We know what certainly indicates man's intelligence, self-awareness and creativity -but what indicates those things in and of themselves? How can we use pre-universe nature as a reference for what was possible and not possible?
Can we say that nothing gets made without God -except God and that from which God creates?
"If God created everything, then who created God?" and "God could not have created himself" are things often considered -but those same things would apply to everything and anything on a most basic level. At some point, something "just was" and was never not -and it became everything else.
Every present state was preceded by a state which both generally and specifically allowed for it and produced it.
Technically, it is more correct to say that God could not have initiated himself -but could have created himself as able -first without understanding and forethought and traveling step-by-step toward understanding and forethought. That might seem like cheating or semantics, but if we consider ourselves, because we have identity and are seen as individuals, we are said to be responsible for doing things even if we do not understand them or did not plan to do them. "I" often bump into things even though "I" really didn't. Similarly, if God is the sum of all things, "God" could have done things before God "knowingly" did things.
(Surprising as it may seem -none of that is actually against biblical scripture. God does not claim responsibility for himself or his own basic nature or existence. He says that he is that is -that he is the beginning and end -that which was, is and will be -the most high, etc.)
