Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Thermos aquaticus]

The Lexus RX probably is a example of a certain thing that is possible, but only with intelligent design.

I think the whole things is too obvious to be worth saying.

I was hoping that we could see some examples from biology.

 

[Audie]

I was hoping that we could see some examples from biology.

And Reality calls back, "Fat chance!"

 

[Etritonakin]

And Reality calls back, "Fat chance!"

Unless it is true of biology itself -based on the elements themselves -and those were not possible without creativity being applied to pre-universe stuff.

We have created biological things which would not otherwise have happened -but on a level correlating to our knowledge and ability to interface.

You know, for example, a self-driving Lexus ( maybe not yet a thing) was created because the creator is extremely apparent -but what about the Lexus itself indicates that it is the product of creativity?

Does the universe similarly indicate it is a product of creativity -but on a different level?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Unless it is true of biology itself -based on the elements themselves -and those were not possible without creativity being applied to pre-universe stuff.

I think you would need to work on the "unless it is true" part. If we compare the human and chimps genomes I don't see any differences that are inconsistent with those two lineages evolving from a common ancestor through the known natural processes of mutation and natural selection. The genetic differences are completely in line with what we would expect from the very same natural processes that we see operating in species today.

We have created biological things which would not otherwise have happened -but on a level correlating to our knowledge and ability to interface.

If humans disappeared from the planet today the rest of the species on the planet would continue to evolve through the same natural mechanisms. We didn't even know about DNA or genetics a few centuries ago, yet species were still mutating and still evolving without us knowing about it.

You know, for example, a self-driving Lexus ( maybe not yet a thing) was created because the creator is extremely apparent -but what about the Lexus itself indicates that it is the product of creativity?

The inability to reproduce is a pretty glaring sign.

Does the universe similarly indicate it is a product of creativity -but on a different level?

Not that I have seen.

 

[Audie]

Unless it is true of biology itself -based on the elements themselves -and those were not possible without creativity being applied to pre-universe stuff.

We have created biological things which would not otherwise have happened -but on a level correlating to our knowledge and ability to interface.

You know, for example, a self-driving Lexus ( maybe not yet a thing) was created because the creator is extremely apparent -but what about the Lexus itself indicates that it is the product of creativity?

Does the universe similarly indicate it is a product of creativity -but on a different level?

creativity, pre universe..if one is amused by baseless
speculation, go ahead.

The thread is about "prove god". Nothing remotely of the sort has taken
place.


what about the Lexus itself indicates that it is the product of creativity?

You have, perhaps unwittingly, come up with a pretty legit q, even if not actually applicable to a Lexus.

Archaeologists often have a hard time determining
if an object is an artifact, or of natural origin.

Some things are easy. The ocean is not man made.
A Lexus clearly is. We could not make an ocean.
"Nature" cant make a Lexus. Obvious

No known natural forces could make a Lexus, and
I am highly confident that no unknown ones would either. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

Coming up with a general rule that covers everything,
though, a way to definitely say what is the product of
design and what is natural, that has been and likely will remain elusive.

I dont think the universe "indicates" anything. Indicate is a verb,
and the universe... you know?

Do I think it a reasonable guess that something had to design the universe?
No. "Creativity" requires that there be a creator, a being, an entity of some sort. Zinc, say, does not do creativity.

My take is that if the universe is not itself 'simply" a mathematical construct,
then it is at least, as per Einstein, written in math.

And I think math would exist even if this or any other universe did not.

If that will do for "creativity" then blame calculus.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think you would need to work on the "unless it is true" part. If we compare the human and chimps genomes I don't see any differences that are inconsistent with those two lineages evolving from a common ancestor through the known natural processes of mutation and natural selection. The genetic differences are completely in line with what we would expect from the very same natural processes that we see operating in species today.



If humans disappeared from the planet today the rest of the species on the planet would continue to evolve through the same natural mechanisms. We didn't even know about DNA or genetics a few centuries ago, yet species were still mutating and still evolving without us knowing about it.



The inability to reproduce is a pretty glaring sign.



Not that I have seen.

I am not referring to the level where chimps and humans might share a common lineage -but the level BEFORE elements formed and differentiated -which is the common origin of all PHYSICAL life -which allowed for genetics in the first place.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am not referring to the level where chimps and humans might share a common lineage -but the level BEFORE elements formed and differentiated -which is the common origin of all PHYSICAL life -which allowed for genetics in the first place.

Then your posts are a bit confusing:

"We have created biological things which would not otherwise have happened -but on a level correlating to our knowledge and ability to interface."

Humans don't go back to the origin of the universe and tweak the natural laws of the universe so that we can get labradoodles and border collies. Humans don't go back to the origin of the universe and tweak the constants of the universe so that the Mona Lisa naturally appears. Perhaps humans aren't the best thing to compare to in order to get your ideas across.

 

[Etritonakin]

creativity, pre universe..if one is amused by baseless
speculation, go ahead.

The thread is about "prove god". Nothing remotely of the sort has taken
place.


what about the Lexus itself indicates that it is the product of creativity?

You have, perhaps unwittingly, come up with a pretty legit q, even if not actually applicable to a Lexus.

Archaeologists often have a hard time determining
if an object is an artifact, or of natural origin.

Some things are easy. The ocean is not man made.
A Lexus clearly is. We could not make an ocean.
"Nature" cant make a Lexus. Obvious

No known natural forces could make a Lexus, and
I am highly confident that no unknown ones would either. It is silly to suggest otherwise.

Coming up with a general rule that covers everything,
though, a way to definitely say what is the product of
design and what is natural, that has been and likely will remain elusive.

I dont think the universe "indicates" anything. Indicate is a verb,
and the universe... you know?

Do I think it a reasonable guess that something had to design the universe?
No. "Creativity" requires that there be a creator, a being, an entity of some sort. Zinc, say, does not do creativity.

My take is that if the universe is not itself 'simply" a mathematical construct,
then it is at least, as per Einstein, written in math.

And I think math would exist even if this or any other universe did not.

If that will do for "creativity" then blame calculus.

Just as some were amused at the prospect of space travel -(and most everything else at some point) while most scoffed at it -called it silly.

I am extremely amused and fascinated.

Whether there WAS a pre-universe creator or not, considering creation on that level s not a waste of time -and can lead to increased ability for ourselves.

As for proving God -we would not necessarily realize it if we did -or had enough evidence -until we considered it -which is less likely if we scoff at the idea.

The Lexus itself actually indicates that it was created because it could not otherwise have been configured. We know this because we have evidence thereof on our level -at this point.

The universe would similarly indicate that it was created because it could not otherwise have been configured (but we are here, not there, now, not then). Enough evidence -and reading it correctly -would reveal whether a creator was required.

If, as you pointed out, the universe was written in math (and logic, etc.), then we could prove such by doing -or reverse-engineering -the math (and logic, etc.)

Are there levels of math and logic which require a "mind" to be brought to such levels -after the mind was brought to its level?

My q was quite wittingly, by the way.

 

[Etritonakin]

Then your posts are a bit confusing:

"We have created biological things which would not otherwise have happened -but on a level correlating to our knowledge and ability to interface."

Humans don't go back to the origin of the universe and tweak the natural laws of the universe so that we can get labradoodles and border collies. Humans don't go back to the origin of the universe and tweak the constants of the universe so that the Mona Lisa naturally appears. Perhaps humans aren't the best thing to compare to in order to get your ideas across.

That is not the idea I was trying to get across.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The universe would similarly indicate that it was created because it could not otherwise have been configured (but we are here, not there, now, not then). Enough evidence -and reading it correctly -would reveal whether a creator was required.

What type of evidence do you think this would be?

With the Lexus we have other objects to compare it to, objects that came about through natural means. We only have one universe and nothing to compare it to. That would seem to be the first problem.

If, as you pointed out, the universe was written in math (and logic, etc.), then we could prove such by doing -or reverse-engineering -the math (and logic, etc.)

What do you mean by this?

 

[Audie]

Just as some were amused at the prospect of space travel -(and most everything else at some point) while most scoffed at it -called it silly.

I am extremely amused and fascinated.

Whether there WAS a pre-universe creator or not, considering creation on that level s not a waste of time -and can lead to increased ability for ourselves.

As for proving God -we would not necessarily realize it if we did -or had enough evidence -until we considered it -which is less likely if we scoff at the idea.

The Lexus itself actually indicates that it was created because it could not otherwise have been configured. We know this because we have evidence thereof on our level -at this point.

The universe would similarly indicate that it was created because it could not otherwise have been configured (but we are here, not there, now, not then). Enough evidence -and reading it correctly -would reveal whether a creator was required.

If, as you pointed out, the universe was written in math (and logic, etc.), then we could prove such by doing -or reverse-engineering -the math (and logic, etc.)

Are there levels of math and logic which require a "mind" to be brought to such levels -after the mind was brought to its level?

My q was quite wittingly, by the way.

It is not "just as" at all.

Space travel is still pure sci fi.-pure, baseless speculation.
Getting to the moon is like walking to the back fence
compared to "space travel".

I am extremely amused and fascinated.

A waste of time, but otherwise harmless if you dont
get obsessive about it.

Basic research is not to be "scoffed" at. If such leads
to the discovery of god or any of that other stuff, fine.

Being a bit tech. here, but the presence of the Lexus
indicates something. The Lexus itself does not. Lexi
weaveth not, nor to they sew. Nor yet to they indicate.

created because it could not otherwise have been configured.
We know this because we have evidence thereof on our level -at this point.

I think you are confusing yourself thro; turgid prose by which you overstate the obvious

Lots of evidence wont prove anything, no matter how you configure your prose.


Wittingly-speaking I am not so sure you did know what that was about.

created because it could not otherwise have been configured.

Remember the thing about archaeologists trying to figure out if something
is manmade? IF this broken rock is man made, it is no mystery how
The mystery is if it is an artifact, or natural. There are lots of things
people find and think they must be the product of design, when they are not.
or cannot be shown to be.

So while created because it could not otherwise have been configured.
applies just fine to Lexi, it is not useful as a general rule.

You understand the need for a general rule?

 

[Audie]

That is not the idea I was trying to get across.

That is exactly why I have been trying to prod you
toward using simple declarative sentences.

 

[WalterTrull]

Why would those be absurdities if there was no God?

Our existence, how,when,why, and who doesnt prove a creator. If it does, go deeper. How so?

OK, I was thinking about responding earlier, although, I know from experience that if you don’t already somewhat sense these absurdities, then my explanations won’t mean much to you. I’ve expressed these views in other posts.

1. We exist. I’m guessing we can all agree on that. However, the materialistic view, that we are built of atoms that create cells that somehow create us and our consciousness, just seems incredibly implausible, way, way too complicated, and dependent upon wildly improbable chance and/or a version of those million typing monkeys. Life, the universe, and us being the images of a single awareness seems so much simpler, thence much more plausible to me.
   
   
2. There are many of us. That's interesting. Why not just me? Billions upon billions of happy accidents creating not just me all the rest of you. Uhm… again, unlikely. I’m assuming an underlying connection.
   
   
3. We communicate. I’m an adherent to the notion that only the self is knowable. I mean, totally separate entities simply would have no means of being aware of each other. So, we must not be separate. Must be there’s an underlying consciousness that we are somehow a part of. (pardon the trailing preposition)
   
   
4. We breed, - a fascinating concept. Pretty unlikely that those billions of accidents can replicate more accidents. However, a consciousness, growing, building, expanding, combining existing concepts into more advanced concepts is something I can get my head around (figuratively of course)
   
   
5. We all die. On the surface, preposterous, yet it seems like we do. An obviously self-healing entity just ends? That makes no sense, unless… it doesn’t end. That’s plausible: a transformation, a metamorphosis, consciousness shedding a no longer needed skin. Hmm…
   

It seems to me that all these propositions require an underlying, unifying, all-encompassing consciousness. My name for that is God.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We exist. I’m guessing we can all agree on that. However, the materialistic view, that we are built of atoms that create cells that somehow create us and our consciousness, just seems incredibly implausible, way, way too complicated, and dependent upon wildly improbable chance and/or a version of those million typing monkeys. Life, the universe, and us being the images of a single awareness seems so much simpler, thence much more plausible to me.

That's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Reality doesn't have to conform to what we find plausible.

There are many of us. That's interesting. Why not just me? Billions upon billions of happy accidents creating not just me all the rest of you. Uhm… again, unlikely. I’m assuming an underlying connection.

Biological reproduction and developmental biology are really well understood sciences, so I think you are embarrassing yourself a bit on this one.

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”--Neil deGrasse Tyson

I mean, totally separate entities simply would have no means of being aware of each other.

My eyes and ears seem to do quite well at sensing other people without needing a supernatural consciousness to tie it all together.

We breed, - a fascinating concept. Pretty unlikely that those billions of accidents can replicate more accidents.

What you call "unlikely" occurs all of the time. Perhaps you should rethink what you call "unlikely".

We all die. On the surface, preposterous, yet it seems like we do. An obviously self-healing entity just ends? That makes no sense, unless… it doesn’t end. That’s plausible: a transformation, a metamorphosis, consciousness shedding a no longer needed skin. Hmm…
It seems to me that all these propositions require an underlying, unifying, all-encompassing consciousness. My name for that is God.

You seem to just be making stuff up at this point. Do you have any evidence to back all of this stuff up?

 

[Audie]

That's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Reality doesn't have to conform to what we find plausible.



Biological reproduction and developmental biology are really well understood sciences, so I think you are embarrassing yourself a bit on this one.

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”--Neil deGrasse Tyson



My eyes and ears seem to do quite well at sensing other people without needing a supernatural consciousness to tie it all together.



What you call "unlikely" occurs all of the time. Perhaps you should rethink what you call "unlikely".



You seem to just be making stuff up at this point. Do you have any evidence to back all of this stuff up?

OK, I was thinking about responding earlier, although, I know from experience that if you don’t already somewhat sense these absurdities, then my explanations won’t mean much to you. I’ve expressed these views in other posts.

1. We exist. I’m guessing we can all agree on that. However, the materialistic view, that we are built of atoms that create cells that somehow create us and our consciousness, just seems incredibly implausible, way, way too complicated, and dependent upon wildly improbable chance and/or a version of those million typing monkeys. Life, the universe, and us being the images of a single awareness seems so much simpler, thence much more plausible to me.
   
   
2. There are many of us. That's interesting. Why not just me? Billions upon billions of happy accidents creating not just me all the rest of you. Uhm… again, unlikely. I’m assuming an underlying connection.
   
   
3. We communicate. I’m an adherent to the notion that only the self is knowable. I mean, totally separate entities simply would have no means of being aware of each other. So, we must not be separate. Must be there’s an underlying consciousness that we are somehow a part of. (pardon the trailing preposition)
   
   
4. We breed, - a fascinating concept. Pretty unlikely that those billions of accidents can replicate more accidents. However, a consciousness, growing, building, expanding, combining existing concepts into more advanced concepts is something I can get my head around (figuratively of course)
   
   
5. We all die. On the surface, preposterous, yet it seems like we do. An obviously self-healing entity just ends? That makes no sense, unless… it doesn’t end. That’s plausible: a transformation, a metamorphosis, consciousness shedding a no longer needed skin. Hmm…

It seems to me that all these propositions require an underlying, unifying, all-encompassing consciousness. My name for that is God.

We all die. On the surface, preposterous, yet it seems like we do. An obviously self-healing entity just ends? That makes no sense, unless… it doesn’t end.

Bacteria, brachiopods and blatherskites All self-healing entities.that do not die but live on. Carrots and cabbage and crocodiles too. Coconuts and crabs.

There must be quire a place somewhere, filling up with all them entities. Makes perfect sense, tho ,no?

 

[WalterTrull]

That's a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Reality doesn't have to conform to what we find plausible.



Biological reproduction and developmental biology are really well understood sciences, so I think you are embarrassing yourself a bit on this one.

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”--Neil deGrasse Tyson



My eyes and ears seem to do quite well at sensing other people without needing a supernatural consciousness to tie it all together.



What you call "unlikely" occurs all of the time. Perhaps you should rethink what you call "unlikely".



You seem to just be making stuff up at this point. Do you have any evidence to back all of this stuff up?

Ah well, told ya.

 

[WalterTrull]

We all die. On the surface, preposterous, yet it seems like we do. An obviously self-healing entity just ends? That makes no sense, unless… it doesn’t end.

Bacteria, brachiopods and blatherskites All self-healing entities.that do not die but live on. Carrots and cabbage and crocodiles too. Coconuts and crabs.

There must be quire a place somewhere, filling up with all them entities. Makes perfect sense, tho ,no?

Again, ah well. Our reasonings are totally askew.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Ah well, told ya.

The mistake you are making is in thinking that human intuition is accurate. Just because we think something is absurd does not force reality to make it absurd. People once thought it was absurd that there could be billions of galaxies in the universe, but that doesn't change the fact that there are billions of galaxies in the universe. This is why the argument from incredulity is considered to be a logical fallacy.

 

[WalterTrull]

The mistake you are making is in thinking that human intuition is accurate.

Oh my goodness. Sometimes it really is. You're welcome to visit my planet someday. I will alert the gate.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Oh my goodness. Sometimes it really is.

Sometimes it really isn't. The reason we use the scientific method is that human intuition isn't accurate.

At one time, human intuition told us that the Sun moved about the Earth. Does the Sun orbit the Earth?