Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Etritonakin]

You do not seem to realize that if you want to claim that there was an intelligent designer that puts the burden of proof upon you. That is why others have asked you for evidence of this designer. All we can say is that the sciences do not indicate any need for an intelligent designer. There is no need for us to refute an intelligent designer any more than there is a need to refute the claim that pixies did it.

As I said, the burden of proof is on anyone who actually wants to prove it one way or the other and to know what happened.
This is just a discussion -so the burden of discussion is on anyone interested.
For whomever may be interested, I will -if I have the time -attempt to describe how a created thing shows that it is so without the necessity of producing the creator for inspection or consideration.
Meanwhile, they can consider the matter if they choose.

We have billions of examples of creative designers creating things which were otherwise not possible -moving "nature" beyond previous nature.
We have zero pixies (though we might create some).

 

[Etritonakin]

It was done when you failed to understand how the burden of proof works. I am more interested in what you can demonstrate to be true than what you can fantasize to be true.

See above.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As I said, the burden of proof is on anyone who actually wants to prove it one way or the other and to know what happened.
This is just a discussion -so the burden of discussion is on anyone interested.

This is why Intelligent Design is not taken seriously in the sciences. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually providing a reasoned argument based on facts there simply isn't one.

We have billions of examples of creative designers creating things which were otherwise not possible -moving "nature" beyond previous nature.
We have zero pixies (though we might create some).

I think we all agree that there are things in this universe that would not otherwise exist if it weren't for the actions of humans. That isn't being denied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, the burden of proof is on anyone who actually wants to prove it one way or the other and to know what happened.
This is just a discussion -so the burden of discussion is on anyone interested.
For whomever may be interested, I will -if I have the time -attempt to describe how a created thing shows that it is so without the necessity of producing the creator for inspection or consideration.
Meanwhile, they can consider the matter if they choose.

We have billions of examples of creative designers creating things which were otherwise not possible -moving "nature" beyond previous nature.
We have zero pixies (though we might create some).

We have just as many pixies as "intelligent designers", as least in the sense of creating life. You are performing an equivocation fallacy when you try to claim that people are "intelligent designers". That is you are using two different definitions of word and trying to imply that because one definition does have observable members that your other definition also is real. Language does not work that way. Nor is that an honest way to debate.

You have lowered yourself even below creationists, if that was at all possible. You won't even try to justify your beliefs. In the sciences that puts you in the realm of "not even wrong" which is worse than wrong. It is being wrong without a chance to learn from your errors.

 

[Etritonakin]

So if you actually got what I was saying in my original question -not statement, mind you -and original post, it was that the most basic nature of all things would reveal what required a creator and what did not at any point -just as our billions of examples are known to be creative because they are different than otherwise possible (unless we repeated something possible) -at that point. Knowledge of us is not technically necessary if we know what would otherwise have inevitably happened.
Note that once we bring something into existence by arrangement, it can make new things possible -which is the case with the elements which once did not exist -which could have been brought into existence purposefully.

Moving on... What about a created thing reveals -if anything -that it is so -in and of itself?
So I'm thinking the place to start would be by taking an example -like the automobile -and determining what about it shows "I" created it rather than "it" created it.
Everything which comes into existence is "created" in one sense -but not necessarily by a creator with self-awareness, will, etc.

What cannot exist without "I"?

Initial thoughts....
A human creator employs a sort of processor to rearrange things in memory/imagination based on the properties of that which is to be rearranged -often (and ideally) for a specific purpose which is beneficial to the self and other selves.
So there is the difference between a process and a processOR, memory/imagination, knowledge of properties, knowledge of self and properties of self, accommodation of self and accomplishment of purpose based on needs and desires of self by interface which may be employed.....

To be continued

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Initial thoughts....
A human creator employs a sort of processor to rearrange things in memory/imagination based on the properties of that which is to be rearranged -often (and ideally) for a specific purpose which is beneficial to the self and other selves.
So there is the difference between a process and a processOR, memory/imagination, knowledge of properties, knowledge of self and properties of self, accommodation of self and accomplishment of purpose based on needs and desires of self by interface which may be employed.....

To be continued

One of the most obvious things to consider is that human creations do not reproduce. Cars don't reproduce. Airplanes do not reproduce. Paintings do not reproduce. Life does reproduce.

 

[Etritonakin]

One of the most obvious things to consider is that human creations do not reproduce. Cars don't reproduce. Airplanes do not reproduce. Paintings do not reproduce. Life does reproduce.

Depends what you mean -and why you are saying in relationship to my post -which I don't quite understand -but a human creation could potentially reproduce as humans reproduce. We could reproduce reproduction and even change it up a bit -make a different sort of reproduction, etc....
We already have the elements which lend themselves to self-replication available -have begun to synthesize DNA, etc., etc.

Are you saying that we could not reproduce that which you believe did not require a mind to produce?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Depends what you mean -and why you are saying in relationship to my post -which I don't quite understand -but a human creation could potentially reproduce as humans reproduce. We could reproduce reproduction and even change it up a bit -make a different sort of reproduction, etc....
We already have the elements which lend themselves to self-replication available -have begun to synthesize DNA, etc., etc.

Let's say I put a single bacterium in a test tube filled with broth. I come back the next day and find trillions of bacteria in that tube. Should I think that some intelligent creator came by during the night and put those bacteria in the tube?

 

[Etritonakin]

Let's say I put a single bacterium in a test tube filled with broth. I come back the next day and find trillions of bacteria in that tube. Should I think that some intelligent creator came by during the night and put those bacteria in the tube?

No -at least not at that point -design can precede automated systems -and I don't know what that has to do with what I am saying (also see edit above)

 

[Etritonakin]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608452/a-new-way-to-reproduce/

 

[Etritonakin]

random thought...
The singularity is seen as the beginning because it is the beginning of our environment (which some also assume to be "everything") -but the big bang would essentially the execution thereof.
Therefore, the singularity was already of a nature to transform what was into what specifically now is.
Whether considering a creator or not, that -at the very least -suggests that the singularity became the singularity -rather than simply being the singularity which was preceded by nothing.

When considering the possibility a creator of our dynamic universe as an environment for physical life, why would one assume that automated or dynamic systems rule out creativity?
The evidence for creativity would be partly in how the singularity came to exist -and if it were otherwise possible.
As we are dealing with the same stuff which transformed at that stage, we might effectively reverse-engineer it.
As for the universe itself, does the nature of the universe and how it came to be (not the automated process, but the nature of that process) indicate a creator? forethought? Intent? Purpose?

First -let's accept that there is essentially nothing that is not a dynamic process -and creativity makes it different.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No -at least not at that point -design can precede automated systems -and I don't know what that has to do with what I am saying (also see edit above)

I was just wondering if life was something you were claiming could only be possible through intelligent design. It appears not.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

random thought...
The singularity is seen as the beginning because it is the beginning of our environment (which some also assume to be "everything") -but the big bang would essentially the execution thereof.
Therefore, the singularity was already of a nature to transform what was into what specifically now is.
Whether considering a creator or not, that -at the very least -suggests that the singularity became the singularity -rather than simply being the singularity which was preceded by nothing.

I don't see how this is different than anything else we see in nature. Before a cloud is a cloud it is water vapor in the atmosphere, and before that it is liquid water on the surface of the Earth.

When considering the possibility a creator of our dynamic universe as an environment for physical life, why would one assume that automated or dynamic systems rule out creativity?

Again, the burden of proof lies with the person who thinks creativity was a part of it. Why would one think that creativity was a part of it?

As for the universe itself, does the nature of the universe and how it came to be (not the automated process, but the nature of that process) indicate a creator? forethought? Intent? Purpose?

I have yet to see anything that would indicate a creator being part of it. Do you have anything that would indicate a creator?

 

[Etritonakin]

I was just wondering if life was something you were claiming could only be possible through intelligent design. It appears not.

It appears -or is not readily apparent -that element-based life required intelligent design because you have not observed intelligent designing on the level or at the point you are considering -but that is about knowledge level and perspective. DNA-based "evolution" does design intelligently -but lacks self-awareness. The question is whether that intelligence was necessarily designed into the system by a self-aware intelligence.
If you consider levels and points before the formation of the elements -or points where self-aware intelligent design may have been applied afterward at any point during the otherwise-automated process, you might find evidence thereof.

In general, that which exists naturally produces "life" -or is alive/dynamic and becomes more complex.
However, it will not naturally or inevitably produce certain types of life in the absence of self-aware intelligent design -just as existing physical life would follow its automated course without our self-aware, creative activity.
The question is whether physical life would not have naturally been produced in the absence of a preexisting self-aware intelligence.
In other words, must life/everything have become an overall self-aware intelligent designer first -before the elements and physical life could be mass-produced.
It cannot be simply assumed that life could not have preceded the formation of the elements.

Would it be UN-natural for "God" to have developed first -and would that not provide the capability of producing that which our minds struggle to even comprehend?
That which exists must be preceded by that which both generally and specifically allows for it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It appears -or is not readily apparent -that element-based life required intelligent design -but that is about knowledge level and perspective.

Based on what knowledge level and what perspective?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears -or is not readily apparent -that element-based life required intelligent design -but that is about knowledge level and perspective.

Why do you make that claim? Please note "it just looks that way" is not a very good argument.

 

[Etritonakin]

Why do you make that claim? Please note "it just looks that way" is not a very good argument.

Please note that I was responding to someone who said something appeared to be so -and I said that what they said appeared to be so -which is that it is NOT readily apparent that life required intelligent design -only appeared to be so -which is not a very good argument.

So.... I agree -and was saying....... Because (physical) life SEEMS as though it did not require an intelligent designer because automated processes were involved, that is not a good argument against an intelligent designer.

 

[Etritonakin]

Based on what knowledge level and what perspective?

That of any human individual and/or group -generally what they have to work with -including collected evidence, lack of evidence, preconceptions, bias -how any might view available evidence -the fact that having enough evidence doesn't mean it is being understood correctly -any number of things...

In this case, the perspective would be looking at the automated processes alone -and knowledge level would be a lack of that which would show conclusively what was a and was not required overall -whether by actual lack of evidence, or by not reading it right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please note that I was responding to someone who said something appeared to be so -and I said that what they said appeared to be so -which is that it is NOT readily apparent that life required intelligent design -only appeared to be so -which is not a very good argument.

So.... I agree -and was saying....... Because (physical) life SEEMS as though it did not require an intelligent designer because automated processes were involved, that is not a good argument against an intelligent designer.

Life only appears designed to the uneducated. Designed life should not have all of the problems that a rather obvious kluge has. That is what we would expect if life was due to evolution where new traits have to be built upon old ones, but not what we would expect to see from an intelligent designer. The at times slapdash engineering of life could only be said to be evidence for an incompetent designer.

 

[Etritonakin]

Life only appears designed to the uneducated. Designed life should not have all of the problems that a rather obvious kluge has. That is what we would expect if life was due to evolution where new traits have to be built upon old ones, but not what we would expect to see from an intelligent designer. The at times slapdash engineering of life could only be said to be evidence for an incompetent designer.

Again... Perspective... Level of knowledge ...The educated claiming incompetence while not being nearly as capable... Saying life does not appear to be designed while assuming what a designer might be trying to accomplish....
As if designing an automated system which allowed for physical life to adapt and provide perhaps infinite variety without continued effort was evidence of incompetence.

Filling potentially a universe with life forms without continued effort would be.... Incompetent?