Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Etritonakin]

And why can't it be that - just as gravity is a force in effect at all times, ready to do its "job" as mass coalesces with mass - "life" is simply awaiting the right conditions, its antecedents always among the stable configurations of matter that is being strived for, and the "spark" ultimately introduced that separates "life" from "non-life" something that very rarely happens, but will eventually given time and optimal conditions? That the fundamentals we see before us in activity and rest are the things that "just [are]?"

Why MUST a "consciousness" of any form (self-aware or not) be invoked at any time? It is completely unnecessary, and an idea that lends itself much better to fiction given the reality before us - in which we can see life and non-life managing on its own at all times, all around us... but have NEVER ONCE seen that same life requiring support/urging/coercion/manipulation by God.

In believing in a creator -or attempting to prove the existence or necessity of a creator, I am not simply throwing out the idea of evolution.

However, the reality we are able to observe is not "just that".
It is not "just" evolution. It is both evolution and creation.
What we are able to observe at our level and by our own example is evolution leading to creation.

We are examples of something "natural" in its broadest sense becoming able to change the course of nature by decision.

So.. It is "natural" for evolution in its broadest sense to lead to decision.

Evolution in its broadest sense did not begin with RNA or DNA -it includes every interaction and change which has ever happened -not only beginning with the singularity or Big Bang, but everything which allowed for those or preceded those.

Our decisions can only affect a very small portion of that which exists because of our position -because we are subject to the laws written into reality by the singularity and Big Bang.

I'm merely saying that what is believed of us may have happened on a larger -perhaps all-inclusive -scale... Yet also on a more basic (higher by not being subject) level -which would allow for manipulation on that level -and that manipulation on that level may have been absolutely necessary to produce our level -to take pre-universe nature where it could not otherwise go.

 

[Etritonakin]

But the fact remains that completely automatic processes take care of ALL of that. This is not true for anything humans can create that otherwise could not have been created without the human element of creativity. A painting can not spontaneously form. A watch cannot build itself via natural processes. There is a stark difference between things that are "organic" in nature, and follow their course according to automated "rules of nature", and those items that are delineated from nature - that is, take on forms that specifically break the mold of things that occur naturally. We have mostly even been able to TRACE BACK any object we see that breaks these molds, and find its origin. Such as a seashell. But there is absolutely no way to trace ANYTHING back to God.

Not true. Humans can and do create completely automatic processes -and employ them to make things which could not be produced spontaneously -initially.

The automated rules of nature as we know them have not always existed.
Tracing something back to God might require knowledge of what existed before they existed -before the automatic process was initiated.

Humans are made by what we see to be a completely automatic process, but humans themselves have changed the course of that process by decision.

If God both initiated the automatic process which once was not a process, and made changes on the fly, then we would need to understand the evidence left by such changes.

Man is now making changes to the evolutionary process on the fly -and learning to create similar automatic processes -so we might begin to know what to look for.

Any creation is essentially making changes to some automatic or dynamic process -but we are very deep in an automatic process which is extremely complex and already in motion.

A painting cannot spontaneously form -but painting does take advantage of the now-automatic processes which allow for ourselves, the brush, the paint, etc. -and those now-automatic processes continue on a now-different course. Whatever then happens to the painting will be spontaneous.

The question is whether or not a universe can spontaneously form -and the issue can be clouded by observing its then-spontaneous nature -and may have been formed by decision by deciding the course of something different or more basic which was also of a spontaneous nature.

 

[HonestJoe]

Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

No. All you’ve presented here is a very ill-defined hypothesis. You’re in desperate need of a technical editor to turn all this in to anything meaningful.

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.

That should include the name “God”. If you’re talking about some form of creative intelligence, talk about that. Implicitly tying the name “God” to it (especially capitalised) suggests you’re working within the context of theological bias (as does your last statement, or should I say “conclusion”).

Put simply, there is nothing that says there can’t be (or have been) some form of intelligent creative force but equally there is nothing to say any such force must exists/have existed. We don’t know and quite possibly never can.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We may have not seen any involvement by God -but we may not know what we are looking for. Man is beginning to manipulate life forms by decision on a DNA level -and has historically manipulated life forms by selective breeding, etc., but few have considered what sort of evidence might be left in the life form itself -if any -for those examining life forms in the future.

Would God purposefully and intentionally act in such a way that it would look like natural processes did it? That's the first question we need to answer. If we agree that God would not try to deceive us, then I think we could detect the actions of God.

Let's take a look at how humans genetically modify organisms. What we do is take a gene from one species and put an exact or nearly exact copy of that gene into a very different species. For example, the mouse below glows green because it carries an exact copy of a jellyfish gene called green fluorescent protein, or GFP.

What we should see if God designed organisms is numerous and clear examples of violations of the expected evolutionary phylogenies. Evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't take a jellyfish gene and put it into mice. A designer like God can. There is absolutely no reason that God would need to change genomes in a way that mimics evolution.

How can we look at any DNA and know it was manipulated without much more evidence?
With man, there might be records or evidence of activity, but a God acting by "fiat" (let there be.....) -an internal or more direct interface rather than a body? How would one know it was taking place -or did take place?

We would know that a genome was manipulated if a genome is a mish mash of genes from different and divergent species. What we see instead is all the hallmarks of natural processes acting on genomes, and there is no reason we should see this unless God was trying to trick us.

 

[Etritonakin]

Would God purposefully and intentionally act in such a way that it would look like natural processes did it? That's the first question we need to answer. If we agree that God would not try to deceive us, then I think we could detect the actions of God.

Let's take a look at how humans genetically modify organisms. What we do is take a gene from one species and put an exact or nearly exact copy of that gene into a very different species. For example, the mouse below glows green because it carries an exact copy of a jellyfish gene called green fluorescent protein, or GFP.

What we should see if God designed organisms is numerous and clear examples of violations of the expected evolutionary phylogenies. Evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't take a jellyfish gene and put it into mice. A designer like God can. There is absolutely no reason that God would need to change genomes in a way that mimics evolution.



We would know that a genome was manipulated if a genome is a mish mash of genes from different and divergent species. What we see instead is all the hallmarks of natural processes acting on genomes, and there is no reason we should see this unless God was trying to trick us.

Say there is some dark age and the mouse is forgotten -and we re-learn genetics, etc. -species evolve -even those modified.
How easy would it be to determine that the new mice were descendents of a modified mouse?

I am saying that what we call natural processes began with the universe -and God is generally credited by some with the creation of the universe -with the intention of it being inhabited.

Consider this scenario.... evolution occurs "naturally" after the Big Bang -resulting in earth life and eventually humanoids/humans by scientific definition.
Some sort of extinction event occurs which destroys most earth life.
An immortal being with creative power -acting by fiat/direct interface RE-creates some extinct species from existing material/DNA record and repopulates the earth. Then that being similarly produces one man and woman -intending to make them more like that being and eventually give them eternal life -and their descendents (let's assume they were not a different species -only "special" due to the intent of their re-creator) mix with "humans" already in existence elsewhere on earth.

What sort of evidence might we find today?

 

[Etritonakin]

I appreciate all of your responses -will try to reply as able.

 

[Etritonakin]

No. All you’ve presented here is a very ill-defined hypothesis. You’re in desperate need of a technical editor to turn all this in to anything meaningful.

That should include the name “God”. If you’re talking about some form of creative intelligence, talk about that. Implicitly tying the name “God” to it (especially capitalised) suggests you’re working within the context of theological bias (as does your last statement, or should I say “conclusion”).

Put simply, there is nothing that says there can’t be (or have been) some form of intelligent creative force but equally there is nothing to say any such force must exists/have existed. We don’t know and quite possibly never can.

I don't think it possible to mention any sort of overall creator without it suggesting various things to various people.

If you are referring to my statement about what the bible did not actually say, it was intended to address what some might assume which could detract from my point.

My point is that if we knew the most basic nature of "nature" -or enough of it -we could indeed determine whether or not an intelligent creative force (which would or would not itself exist by that same most basic nature) was necessary for the existence of the universe -and we may have what we need, but not yet know how to read it correctly to make a conclusion acceptable to all (which may not be possible regardless of fact).

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Say there is some dark age and the mouse is forgotten -and we re-learn genetics, etc. -species evolve -even those modified.
How easy would it be to determine that the new mice were descendents of a modified mouse?

Pretty easy. The GFP gene would stick out like a sore thumb.

I am saying that what we call natural processes began with the universe -and God is generally credited by some with the creation of the universe -with the intention of it being inhabited.

That makes the question of God irrelevant to how species changed over time (i.e. evolved).

An immortal being with creative power -acting by fiat/direct interface RE-creates some extinct species from existing material/DNA record and repopulates the earth. Then that being similarly produces one man and woman -intending to make them more like that being and eventually give them eternal life -and their descendents (let's assume they were not a different species -only "special" due to the intent of their re-creator) mix with "humans" already in existence elsewhere on earth.

What sort of evidence might we find today?

First, God wouldn't have to use existing DNA. God could invent entirely new DNA, entirely new genetic systems, and entirely new metabolic pathways. For God, starting from scratch would be as easy as re-using DNA.

Second, God could mix and match DNA from many different species, and this would result in a genome that does not look evolved.

What you seem to be doing is inventing a scenario for the sole purpose of making God's actions indistinguishable from natural processes. From first principles, there is no reason that God would need to create in such a fashion so there is no reason to expect a creative act to mimic natural processes.

 

[Etritonakin]

Pretty easy. The GFP gene would stick out like a sore thumb.



That makes the question of God irrelevant to how species changed over time (i.e. evolved).



First, God wouldn't have to use existing DNA. God could invent entirely new DNA, entirely new genetic systems, and entirely new metabolic pathways. For God, starting from scratch would be as easy as re-using DNA.

Second, God could mix and match DNA from many different species, and this would result in a genome that does not look evolved.

What you seem to be doing is inventing a scenario for the sole purpose of making God's actions indistinguishable from natural processes. From first principles, there is no reason that God would need to create in such a fashion so there is no reason to expect a creative act to mimic natural processes.

Starting from scratch would be inefficient and unnecessary.

Will check out the GFP thing.

God would not be irrelevant if God initiated the process -only further consideration would be unnecessary afterward -unless a specific change was to be made afterward.

I am not inventing the scenario in the post above so much as presenting what biblical scripture actually suggests and allows for (at least to me after doing my best to do away with preconceptions) while trying not to mention the bible, as it has a tendency to bring up all sorts of preconceptions.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Starting from scratch would be inefficient and unnecessary.

It is inefficient for humans to start from scratch because we have limited knowledge, limited resources, and limited time. For a being with unlimited knowledge, time, and resources it would be just as easy to start from scratch as it would be to re-use stuff. What you seem to be doing is projecting human limitations onto God.

God would not be irrelevant if God initiated the process -only further consideration would be unnecessary afterward -unless a specific change was to be made afterward.

The process would be exactly the same whether God started it or not which makes God irrelevant to the question of how the process occurs.

I am not inventing the scenario so much as presenting what biblical scripture actually suggests (at least to me after doing my best to do away with preconceptions) while trying not to mention the bible, as it has a tendency to bring up all sorts of preconceptions.

I have read the Bible and I am unaware of any reference to God re-using DNA to create humans.

 

[Etritonakin]

Pretty easy. The GFP gene would stick out like a sore thumb.



That makes the question of God irrelevant to how species changed over time (i.e. evolved).



First, God wouldn't have to use existing DNA. God could invent entirely new DNA, entirely new genetic systems, and entirely new metabolic pathways. For God, starting from scratch would be as easy as re-using DNA.

Second, God could mix and match DNA from many different species, and this would result in a genome that does not look evolved.

What you seem to be doing is inventing a scenario for the sole purpose of making God's actions indistinguishable from natural processes. From first principles, there is no reason that God would need to create in such a fashion so there is no reason to expect a creative act to mimic natural processes.

Are you saying it would be obvious because the mice would still be glowing?

If the jellyfish and non-modified mice were no longer available for reference? What then?

 

[Etritonakin]

It is inefficient for humans to start from scratch because we have limited knowledge, limited resources, and limited time. For a being with unlimited knowledge, time, and resources it would be just as easy to start from scratch as it would be to re-use stuff. What you seem to be doing is projecting human limitations onto God.



The process would be exactly the same whether God started it or not which makes God irrelevant to the question of how the process occurs.



I have read the Bible and I am unaware of any reference to God re-using DNA to create humans.

God would not be irrelevant if God was required and it could not be the same without God.

I am not saying there is direct reference -but suggestion and allowance.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Are you saying it would be obvious because the mice would still be glowing?

A nearly exact copy of a jellyfish gene appearing in mice but not in any other mammal would stick out like a sore thumb to anyone studying these genomes.

If the jellyfish and non-modified mice were no longer available for reference? What then?

You would have a gene with no ortholog in any other mammal species, and it would seriously stick out like a sore thumb. I am sure that there are thousands of species of jellyfish, so it would be a bit weird that they would all suddenly disappear.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

God would not be irrelevant if God was required and could not be the same without God.

Then you need to show that this is the case.

I am not saying there is direct reference -but suggestion and allowance.

Examples?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not true. Humans can and do create completely automatic processes -and employ them to make things which could not be produced spontaneously -initially.

HUGE difference... our automated processes are known to be of a temporary nature. Eventually, without upkeep, all machinery will run down. The same just doesn't seem plausible for something like gravity. It doesn't have moving parts. Doesn't require energy to be input. From all indications it is one of those things that simply "is", and has been. Much like many of the base functionality of nature. We can't make automated processes like those. And we have NEVER come in contact with, nor have any reference point to set our eyes on something that can.

The automated rules of nature as we know them have not always existed.

And you know this to be true how? Because even science has the "Big Bang?" Who cares how many "in the beginning" stories there are? None of them are any more established as "true" than any other theory... which includes the idea that the matter/energy of the universe has simply been in motion in some form or another, adhering to the fundamental laws as can be witnessed, always. Point being - we don't know until we know. And positing a "beginning" is a shot in the dark - as is ANY postulation as to a supposed "origin" of the universe.

Humans are made by what we see to be a completely automatic process, but humans themselves have changed the course of that process by decision.

We've also changed canines dramatically through breeding... relying on (it's quickly becoming a theme) completely automated processes. Minus those automated processes we currently have nothing in that area. We couldn't (and still can't) have simply "engineered" a new breed of dog. Our decisions influencing any change in canines or ourselves is nothing more than artificial pressures that could have been applied organically by nature, had the need arisen. It still doesn't make the process "ours" or our "creation". Not by a long shot.

If God both initiated the automatic process which once was not a process, and made changes on the fly, then we would need to understand the evidence left by such changes.

Can we at least agree that that's a BIG "if", and that no such evidence has been found as yet?

Man is now making changes to the evolutionary process on the fly -and learning to create similar automatic processes -so we might begin to know what to look for.

But there will always be automated pieces of the processes that we will HAVE TO rely on. Even the greatest of our current technology relies on "the way things are" - we don't MAKE those things work - like the flow of electricity from high potential to low, or the properties of a vacuum, or gravity - we are only able to rely on their consistency - that these items are consistent in their behavior. Without that we have NOTHING.

Any creation is essentially making changes to some automatic or dynamic process -but we are very deep in an automatic process which is extremely complex and already in motion.

You forgot the part about how we don't know the origins of said automatic process, or even if there was, indeed, a specific "origin" at all.

A painting cannot spontaneously form -but painting does take advantage of the now-automatic processes which allow for ourselves, the brush, the paint, etc. -and those now-automatic processes continue on a now-different course. Whatever then happens to the painting will be spontaneous.

All of it, however, relying on the consistent activity of the natural world for things like the absorption of paint by the canvas, the evaporation of fluids causing the paint to dry, etc. We have never been given a reason to suspect that the automated processes change or have ever changed. Why postulate such without knowing? Where does it get you? If the laws of physics suddenly change one day I'll be the first to eat my words... but the safer bet is on them not changing... because we see no force capable of doing so in any aspect of our universe, and we have thousands (and more) years of evidence and experience to tell us that some things simply don't change.

The question is whether or not a universe can spontaneously form -and the issue can be clouded by observing its then-spontaneous nature -and may have been formed by decision by deciding the course of something different or more basic which was also of a spontaneous nature.

Again, there's no reason to require a "beginning" to the universe. None at all. The only reason I can possibly see is so that you can feel secure in the knowledge that it is familiar. Most things we've become comfortable with seem to have beginnings and endings, and without them, it becomes hard to comprehend what that means. I'm not going to go around pretending I know one way or the other. I will likely end before we ever find out... that is, assuming we ever do.

 

[Etritonakin]

HUGE difference... our automated processes are known to be of a temporary nature. Eventually, without upkeep, all machinery will run down. The same just doesn't seem plausible for something like gravity. It doesn't have moving parts. Doesn't require energy to be input. From all indications it is one of those things that simply "is", and has been. Much like many of the base functionality of nature. We can't make automated processes like those. And we have NEVER come in contact with, nor have any reference point to set our eyes on something that can.


And you know this to be true how? Because even science has the "Big Bang?" Who cares how many "in the beginning" stories there are? None of them are any more established as "true" than any other theory... which includes the idea that the matter/energy of the universe has simply been in motion in some form or another, adhering to the fundamental laws as can be witnessed, always. Point being - we don't know until we know. And positing a "beginning" is a shot in the dark - as is ANY postulation as to a supposed "origin" of the universe.

We've also changed canines dramatically through breeding... relying on (it's quickly becoming a theme) completely automated processes. Minus those automated processes we currently have nothing in that area. We couldn't (and still can't) have simply "engineered" a new breed of dog. Our decisions influencing any change in canines or ourselves is nothing more than artificial pressures that could have been applied organically by nature, had the need arisen. It still doesn't make the process "ours" or our "creation". Not by a long shot.

Can we at least agree that that's a BIG "if", and that no such evidence has been found as yet?


But there will always be automated pieces of the processes that we will HAVE TO rely on. Even the greatest of our current technology relies on "the way things are" - we don't MAKE those things work - like the flow of electricity from high potential to low, or the properties of a vacuum, or gravity - we are only able to rely on their consistency - that these items are consistent in their behavior. Without that we have NOTHING.

You forgot the part about how we don't know the origins of said automatic process, or even if there was, indeed, a specific "origin" at all.

All of it, however, relying on the consistent activity of the natural world for things like the absorption of paint by the canvas, the evaporation of fluids causing the paint to dry, etc. We have never been given a reason to suspect that the automated processes change or have ever changed. Why postulate such without knowing? Where does it get you? If the laws of physics suddenly change one day I'll be the first to eat my words... but the safer bet is on them not changing... because we see no force capable of doing so in any aspect of our universe, and we have thousands (and more) years of evidence and experience to tell us that some things simply don't change.


Again, there's no reason to require a "beginning" to the universe. None at all. The only reason I can possibly see is so that you can feel secure in the knowledge that it is familiar. Most things we've become comfortable with seem to have beginnings and endings, and without them, it becomes hard to comprehend what that means. I'm not going to go around pretending I know one way or the other. I will likely end before we ever find out... that is, assuming we ever do.

The universe is thought to be of a temporary nature -expanding and then collapsing unless otherwise stabilized -taking whatever gravity might do here with it.

We can not YET do many things -but CAN by learning and increasing our ability to interface.

Perhaps better to say there was a previous state of the universe which did not resemble a universe and could not be called a universe yet -but was composed of stuff that did not have a beginning as such.

 

[Etritonakin]

A nearly exact copy of a jellyfish gene appearing in mice but not in any other mammal would stick out like a sore thumb to anyone studying these genomes.



You would have a gene with no ortholog in any other mammal species, and it would seriously stick out like a sore thumb. I am sure that there are thousands of species of jellyfish, so it would be a bit weird that they would all suddenly disappear.

Thanks for the explanation.

We are now creating even artificial DNA -adding more pairs than are natural, etc.

If we somehow produced a human from completely new DNA and threw them in with the population, how would it be apparent in their offspring?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The universe is thought to be of a temporary nature -expanding and then collapsing unless otherwise stabilized -taking whatever gravity might do here with it.

We can not YET do many things -but CAN by learning and increasing our ability to interface.

Agreed. Though at a point we'll likely find ourselves faced with the idea that we're simply stuck relying on "the way things are" in a lot of areas, rather than being able to choose or otherwise affect "the way things are".

 

[Etritonakin]

Agreed. Though at a point we'll likely find ourselves faced with the idea that we're simply stuck relying on "the way things are" in a lot of areas, rather than being able to choose or otherwise affect "the way things are".

That is the point to which I refer. We logically can not change the most fundamental things -which are relied upon for any stability and also any change -but learning all there is to learn about them and what they allow -how they can be manipulated -would allow all possible creative power.

 

[Audie]

I am in agreement that -at the most basic level -things simply did what they would do....

However, they could only do so much until they generally allowed for and then specifically caused every level of whatever -including awareness, self-awareness, intelligence and creativity -at which point (or increasingly) that which could only happen by conscious, creative decision was possible.

Humans are believed by some to be the first example of the ability to decide upon that which would not otherwise have happened to such an extreme degree (other life forms have more limited decision-making ability) -to plan the future rather than simply be subject to it -but that principle need not only apply to life after the Big Bang. It may apply to the creator of the universe itself (whose basic existence and development may be dependent upon things which could not have been consciously initiated) -and knowing the nature of the pre-universe stuff (or the most basic nature of that which surrounds us now -being essentially the same stuff) -which we may be able to do by reverse-engineering, science, math and logic -would reveal whether or not that was the case.

At the very least....all should be able to accept that some things cannot happen without "creators" (such as humans) -and some things must precede "creators".

The difference would be whether or not "the universe" could have happened without a similar -but greater -creative mind than that of humans.

Because we cannot show that such a mind exists by examining it, we would need to determine what things -in and of themselves -certainly indicate such. We have both man and his environment to consider -but we have an overall environment which is enormous and complex, to say the least, and a God (even if one believes God exists) who is not extremely apparent or talkative.

The tricky part -which is evidenced by DNA-based "evolution" -is that creation and evolution are as much a part of each other as the radius and diameter of a circle (There is certainly a better analogy, but you get the idea). Evolution creates, creativity evolves, evolution is created -and one generally becomes more complex with the other. The "elegance" which describes evolution is no more or less true of creativity. They are both parts of the same whole. They are not at odds, but dependent upon each other.

Can you make your "in short" shorter?