Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[WalterTrull]

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?

I do understand your viewpoint. However, I suspect many, if not most, scientific breakthroughs began with someone's intuition.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I do understand your viewpoint. However, I suspect many, if not most, scientific breakthroughs began with someone's intuition.

So have many scientific failures. What separates the scientific failures from the breakthroughs is verification through experimentation. We check our intuition against reality, and we do that because our intuition is fallible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Yes, it does! And I have the proof:

 

[Audie]

Again, ah well. Our reasonings are totally askew.

Again, ah well. Our reasonings are totally askew.

"Our"? Your.

 

[Etritonakin]

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?

Between the Earth and moon is not grass. The point was valid.
If that is what you mean by prodding, it is only effective at exhausting me.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.



What do you mean by this?

Math and logic have been used thus far to reverse-engineer our universe quite effectively -so that we now have a general (though as yet incomplete) understanding of what must have happened to produce that which now exists -and this is possible because we are essentially dealing with the same stuff in a different configuration.

Most are happy with the fact that they "do not see a need for a creator" -and in disproving a few points concerning creationISM.
There has not yet been great interest in the scientific community as a whole to question whether or not creativity was at work at any point -but the same tools could be used.

A creator -whether existing prior to the universe or otherwise -would be a scientific fact worth discovery -and no more ridiculous than searching for other, more similar, life forms.

I think it is not so much that we do not have objects to compare to the universe -but that we cannot easily identify a creator.
I also believe we may not have to compare the universe with anything -but, rather, understand it more completely.

If I were not similar to a human or earth life, and a Lexus landed on my very different planet (or something like Voyager was found by a dissimilar life form), the thing itself would reveal much about itself -its history -and us.

We do have something to compare the universe to, actually -and that is what it was before being what it is now.

We have learned a great deal by comparing the universe to the universe -more correctly, its previous states -but we have not been extremely interested in using that to consider a creator.

We do not have the previous states of the universe avai

Some say it is because it has not yet indicated a creator exists, but this is mostly due to their preconceptions about a creator -and the idea that a creator cannot be shown to be necessary without being able to show the creator.

I will try to collect stuff I have thus far about why the universe indicates it required a creator (arguably, needless to say).

(Some random thoughts...... If the universe was written in math and logic -rather, higher math and logic from the most basic -did it require simple math/logic to lead to that which was able to consciously conceive of and "do" that higher math/logic -to bring that higher math/logic into existence from the more simple?
Is the fact that extremely complex math/logic was written -which requires the skills of an extremely capable mathematician/logician to understand and reverse-engineer -proof -in and of itself -of the existence of a first extremely capable mathematician/logician? [acknowledging the difference between doing math/logic and having math/logic done to something -and that a mathematician/logician can write automated programs])

 

[WalterTrull]

reverse-engineer our universe quite effectively

I know you believe that your choice of engineering firms is the best. However, I've chosen a different one, and there are many, many others.

 

[WalterTrull]

"Our"? Your.

Ah, bad choice of words on my part. Better ones would be skewed or oblique. We are talking past one another. Happens a lot to me, not unexpected. Different shores, different seas.

 

[Etritonakin]

I know you believe that your choice of engineering firms is the best. However, I've chosen a different one, and there are many, many others.

What do you mean?

It has generally been done on a basic level -and the principle is still sound, even if science does not have everything right so far.
Knowing the complete present state of "everything" could reveal a complete history of everything -as long as the data could be read correctly.

More locally, collecting data about the present state of the solar system and how things interact is revealing how the local planets and moons were formed, etc.

 

[WalterTrull]

What do you mean?

It has generally been done on a basic level -and the principle is still sound, even if science does not have everything right so far.
Knowing the complete present state of "everything" could reveal a complete history of everything -as long as the data could be read correctly.

More locally, collecting data about the present state of the solar system and how things interact is revealing how the local planets and moons were formed, etc.

Well, my engineering firm says your firm's data is subjective and that the present state of “everything” is quite impermanent. My engineering firm is trying to understand the way that information is gathered and possibly from that deduce the method of subjugation. If the method is grasped we may see the truth of "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, …”

 

[Etritonakin]

Wanted to add to this a bit......

(Some random thoughts...... If the universe was written in math and logic -rather, higher math and logic from the most basic -did it require simple math/logic to lead to that which was able to consciously conceive of and "do" that higher math/logic -to bring that higher math/logic into existence from the more simple?
Is the fact that extremely complex math/logic was written -which requires the skills of an extremely capable mathematician/logician to understand and reverse-engineer -proof -in and of itself -of the existence of a first extremely capable mathematician/logician? [acknowledging the difference between doing math/logic and having math/logic done to something -and that a mathematician/logician can write automated programs])

Not to bring this around to the bible, but the bible does describe attributes of a creator which I wanted to point out in order to show how it might be easier to reveal one through the/a creation -or by math/logic rather than "find" said creator -or "direct evidence" of one.

First... the overall creator/planner being both the mind of everything and everything being its body -so nothing else can actually be experienced and we could not see the forest for the trees, as it were.

The creator might act by fiat -saying "let there be" -rather than having to manipulate things on the same level we do -using physical hands and tools, etc. -which would equate to a more direct interface -or working behind the scenes -through things rather than by external manipulation.

That concept is described as a "glorious body" -according to the working thereof the original creator is able to "subdue all things unto himself" -as opposed to our present "vile body".

In other words, an extremely capable interface with capabilities built in (which we presently would have to gain by external tools or by extreme modification of our present bodies to the point that we could no longer be considered "physical", but spirit) -which was "as the sound of the wind" -so that one could not tell from whence it came or where it went -and could move upon things while not being subject to them in the same way we are.

-and all of that coupled with a mind capable of arranging all into its present state (including automation) from its most simple state -and all of that once having been the most simple state -now being the present state -including ourselves.

Such would be difficult to find -unless such decided to reveal itself -but evidence would exist in that which was affected -by the fact that how it was affected could otherwise not have been.

 

[Etritonakin]

Well, my engineering firm says your firm's data is subjective and that the present state of “everything” is quite impermanent. My engineering firm is trying to understand the way that information is gathered and possibly from that deduce the method of subjugation. If the method is grasped we may see the truth of "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, …”

Everything does make it more difficult to study by moving a bunch -but it does so in somewhat repetitive and cyclical ways.
I guess one of the basic rules is "this is going to change" -but each change was generally allowed for and specifically caused by each previous change.
I do not at this point accept that the dynamic nature of everything cannot be stabilized while still being dynamic -and believe the naturally-developing force which might accomplish that is what we call conscious will -but to stabilize everything, it would have to be able to affect everything.

 

[Audie]

Ah, bad choice of words on my part. Better ones would be skewed or oblique. We are talking past one another. Happens a lot to me, not unexpected. Different shores, different seas.

Of course anything I say sails past you.

You dodge, or it goes over your head.

Anyway never mind, we definitely are on different planes,
and ne'er the twain shall mert.

 

[WalterTrull]

but evidence would exist in that which was affected -by the fact that how it was affected could otherwise not have been.

It does seem we are thinking along similar lines. I actually wrote the next reply before seeing your edit.

I guess one of the basic rules is "this is going to change" -but each change was generally allowed for and specifically caused by each previous change.

That is certainly what some of us are trying to study. It is proposed that things change because of those rules. If so, is there a way to change those rules so as to change things in a way we’d prefer? I think so. I also think that many of the "holy" books attempt to explain such a methodology.

 

[tayla]

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.

I doubt using logic can prove anything about God and his nature. God transcends our mind and its use of reason and argument.

 

[Etritonakin]

I doubt using logic can prove anything about God and his nature. God transcends our mind and its use of reason and argument.

I disagree -but I believe we are made in the image of God.
We are nowhere near his level of artistry, complexity, etc, but it is his intent that we increase in all things.

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

[Etritonakin]

It does seem we are thinking along similar lines. I actually wrote the next reply before seeing your edit.



That is certainly what some of us are trying to study. It is proposed that things change because of those rules. If so, is there a way to change those rules so as to change things in a way we’d prefer? I think so. I also think that many of the "holy" books attempt to explain such a methodology.

The more you complicate things -or make things complicated -you effectively make new rules apply. The MOST basic rules can not be changed, but what we effectively have to deal with are those basic rules arranged into new, more complicated, rules. We increase our power over the changeable rules by understanding more about their more simple components and changing things at their level.
However, we must find a way to interface at that level by creating tools, etc. -because our specific existence is composed of and dependent upon the complicated.
If we were composed of the less complicated, we would naturally interface at that level.

Apart from limited knowledge, our limitations are due to the fact that we are subject to the complicated rules.

 

[Etritonakin]

Another way to state my original question is....

Did evolution -in its broadest sense and from its most simple state -and all-inclusively -occur before the universe -resulting in all becoming aware, self-aware, intelligent and creative?

Was that required in order for our universe to be written in "higher" math and logic than was possible before natural simple math and logic led to all becoming a capable mathematician and logician -similar to how such is required for us to move the present configuration of what we call "nature" beyond its own capabilities?

And... Did we, by observation and investigation, prove that to be a necessity by studying our own activities, discovering the process of evolution -as well as various mathematical and logical principals -even if we do not yet realize that we have -and even as certain ideas about God and creation are being shown to be false?

 

[tayla]

I believe we are made in the image of God.
We are nowhere near his level of artistry, complexity, etc, but it is his intent that we increase in all things.

Yes, I totally agree. But surely there are limits to what we can know. Otherwise we would be God instead of humans.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes, I totally agree. But surely there are limits to what we can know. Otherwise we would be God instead of humans.

I think we literally could not catch up, as they say -unless God granted it.

As newly-created beings were potentially destructive, keeping some secrets was also just plain wise. Not that God could be destroyed (whole other subject), but limiting destructive capabilities to those necessary for learning is efficient.

Granting knowledge and power to those no longer a potential threat to anything would be the way to go.