Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Subduction Zone]

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?

You should not assume that others are making assumptions unless you can show that they have done so. Perhaps you should learn about the bad engineering of life.

 

[Etritonakin]

You should not assume that others are making assumptions unless you can show that they have done so. Perhaps you should learn about the bad engineering of life.

I have read about a few examples from rabbits eating their own poop to whatever. It just doesn't mean what you say it does.

Anyway, this is getting too far off the focus of the op for me -but feel free to post whatever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read about a few examples from rabbits eating their own poop to whatever. It just doesn't mean what you say it does.

Anyway, this is getting too far off the focus of the op for me -but feel free to post whatever.

Where did that come from? It had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Etritonakin]

It

Where did that come from? It had nothing to do with my post.

It is one example I had heard of "incompetent engineering" -but this thread was not meant to be about biology, genetics, bodily functions, etc., at this stage of the game, anyway.

Furthermore, when I say intelligent design or anything similar, I do not mean God creating everything 6,000 years ago -or other things some might believe who believe in "intelligent design" -just so you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It

It is one example I had heard of "incompetent engineering" -but this thread was not meant to be about biology, genetics, bodily functions, etc., at this stage of the game, anyway.

It appears that you misunderstood. That is given as an example of the Bible being wrong. The Bible claims that rabbits "eat their cud". That has nothing to do with incompetent engineering.

 

[Etritonakin]

It appears that you misunderstood. That is given as an example of the Bible being wrong. The Bible claims that rabbits "eat their cud". That has nothing to do with incompetent engineering.

That was not the case with what I read.

But anywhoooooo

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was not the case with what I read.

But anywhoooooo

Or perhaps you misunderstood it. It is always a good idea not to make a claim unless that you can back it up with appropriate links.

 

[Etritonakin]

Or perhaps you misunderstood it. It is always a good idea not to make a claim unless that you can back it up with appropriate links.

If I wanted to continue on this tangent.... Perhaps.

 

[Etritonakin]

So I'm thinking a good way to say it is....
because there is a difference between creative activity and inevitability in its absence -and a difference between what creativity makes possible which is/was not possible in its absence, the evidence of creativity would exist in what was affected by it -inasmuch as it was different than what was otherwise inevitable and inasmuch as it was indicative of the nature of the creator.

If that which exists around us is complex nature arranged from simple nature, increased knowledge of the simplicity would be more likely to reveal what was necessary at early stages -and more easily than at later stages (provided evidence or logical understanding). Studying that which is already in complex arrangements and already running its complex course would make finding evidence more difficult due to sheer volume of data, and in relation to how drastic a change was implemented at any time.
For example, at this point, if we create a new and very different species from scratch by synthesizing DNA, etc., it would be far more easy to detect (let's say after each change was forgotten and records destroyed -and a significant amount of time had passed) than a small tweak of the DNA of an existing species.
Creativity at early stages of complexity would allow for much afterward, but the amount of data necessary to make a determination at that point would be far less.

Generally..... Creativity may not be necessary for things to continue as they are, but may have been necessary for them to become as they now are.

An automated process which produces simple life forms and then increasingly complex and capable life forms built upon changes made in previous life forms -all of which had the ability to adapt to the environment -not for the continuation of their own life span but for the continuation of life and the process -would not show that INITIAL creativity was taking place -because initial creativity would already have taken place of necessary before initiation. It would itself be AUTOMATED CREATIVITY -as the process creates automatically -as it automatically designs intelligently.

That is in no way evidence against intelligent design in general -as it is such itself -and is certainly not evidence against an initial, self-aware, non-automated, creative designer of the process.
(The process could also be subject afterward to creative activity which adversely affected its optimal function, but that is another tangent)

Therefore, it is not illogical to seek evidence of the non-automated at points before the automation as we know it was initiated ..... Pre-elemental...... Pre-universe..... Etc......

(Random thought ....If everything is the more complex built upon the less complex, logically considering the least complexity possible -which also allows for increased complexity -might effectively allow us to start at a point which at least closely resembles "the beginning" of the present complexity -and help to show what was necessary at any point.)

 

[ecco]

I think the reason humanity as a whole considers the possibility of a creator or similar at all is because they can

The reason humanity as a whole considers the possibility of a creator is because humans (especially Leaders) do not like to admit when they don't know something.

To the question: Where did the first man come from?
There are two possible answers: I dunno; Eternal god made the first man.

How would you have answered if you were the Leader of a small tribe tens of thousands of years ago?

 

[Etritonakin]

The reason humanity as a whole considers the possibility of a creator is because humans (especially Leaders) do not like to admit when they don't know something.

To the question: Where did the first man come from?
There are two possible answers: I dunno; Eternal god made the first man.

How would you have answered if you were the Leader of a small tribe tens of thousands of years ago?

"Man cannot make man, so something greater and more capable made man -in ways we cannot yet comprehend -in ways that are similar to how new things are made by us -but far more complex.
Look at what we create with all our mind and imagination from what already is -yet we cannot come close to the level of that which made us, so the mind of what made us is logically greater -not lesser."

...and that is a perfectly logical answer.

It is far more logical and likely than near-infinite universes in every possible state.

It is not made less logical by the fact that "God" would also need to be explained.
It is actually more logical that what we believe of the universe is more likely true of the mind which made it.
That mind would more likely have developed from the most simple state -self-designing to the point of designing self and environment -eventually becoming able to design and initiate a universe.

The fact that we have not met that creator in any acceptable way to "science" or some individuals does not negate the fact that the universe and Earth life does indicate intent and forethought -even if it is made less obvious to us by the basically-automated nature of the universe and Earth life.
Such extreme and complex automation is not less indicative of creativity, but more indicative of creativity and extreme capability thereof.

Overwhelming evidence will come with time -and we are free to think otherwise in the meantime.

 

[Etritonakin]

If the best we can produce can be no more than we imagine

The reason humanity as a whole considers the possibility of a creator is because humans (especially Leaders) do not like to admit when they don't know something.

To the question: Where did the first man come from?
There are two possible answers: I dunno; Eternal god made the first man.

How would you have answered if you were the Leader of a small tribe tens of thousands of years ago?

Man cannot make man, so something greater and more capable made man -in ways we cannot yet comprehend -in ways that are similar to how new things are made by us -but far more complex.
Look at what we create with all our mind and imagination from what already is -yet we cannot come close to the level of that which made us, so the mind of what made us is logically greater -not lesser.

...and that is a perfectly logical answer.

It is far more logical and likely than near-infinite universes in every possible state.

It is not made less logical by the fact that "God" would also need to be explained.
It is actually more logical that what we believe of the universe is more likely true of the mind which made it.
That mind would more likely have developed from the most simple state -self-designing to the point of designing self and environment -eventually becoming able to design and initiate a universe.

The fact that we have not met that creator in any acceptable way to "science" or some individuals does not negate the fact that the universe and Earth life does indicate intent and forethought -even if it is made less obvious to us by the basically-automated nature of the universe and Earth life.
Such extreme and complex automation is not less indicative of creativity, but more indicative of creativity and extreme capability thereof.

Overwhelming evidence will come with time -and we are free to think otherwise in the meantime.

 

[Audie]

If the best we can produce can be no more than we imagine


Man cannot make man, so something greater and more capable made man -in ways we cannot yet comprehend -in ways that are similar to how new things are made by us -but far more complex.
Look at what we create with all our mind and imagination from what already is -yet we cannot come close to the level of that which made us, so the mind of what made us is logically greater -not lesser.

...and that is a perfectly logical answer.

It is far more logical and likely than near-infinite universes in every possible state.

It is not made less logical by the fact that "God" would also need to be explained.
It is actually more logical that what we believe of the universe is more likely true of the mind which made it.
That mind would more likely have developed from the most simple state -self-designing to the point of designing self and environment -eventually becoming able to design and initiate a universe.

The fact that we have not met that creator in any acceptable way to "science" or some individuals does not negate the fact that the universe and Earth life does indicate intent and forethought -even if it is made less obvious to us by the basically-automated nature of the universe and Earth life.
Such extreme and complex automation is not less indicative of creativity, but more indicative of creativity and extreme capability thereof.

Overwhelming evidence will come with time -and we are free to think otherwise in the meantime.

I am hoping for overwhelming evidence that you
can condense your gnarled prose into something
less tiresome to untangle.

 

[Etritonakin]

I am hoping for overwhelming evidence that you
can condense your gnarled prose into something
less tiresome to untangle.

Everything that has ever happened in a sentence.....
If I have the time, that sounds like a worthwhile challenge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the best we can produce can be no more than we imagine


"Man cannot make man, so something greater and more capable made man -in ways we cannot yet comprehend -in ways that are similar to how new things are made by us -but far more complex.
Look at what we create with all our mind and imagination from what already is -yet we cannot come close to the level of that which made us, so the mind of what made us is logically greater -not lesser."

...and that is a perfectly logical answer.

It is far more logical and likely than near-infinite universes in every possible state.

It is not made less logical by the fact that "God" would also need to be explained.
It is actually more logical that what we believe of the universe is more likely true of the mind which made it.
That mind would more likely have developed from the most simple state -self-designing to the point of designing self and environment -eventually becoming able to design and initiate a universe.

The fact that we have not met that creator in any acceptable way to "science" or some individuals does not negate the fact that the universe and Earth life does indicate intent and forethought -even if it is made less obvious to us by the basically-automated nature of the universe and Earth life.
Such extreme and complex automation is not less indicative of creativity, but more indicative of creativity and extreme capability thereof.

Overwhelming evidence will come with time -and we are free to think otherwise in the meantime.

Nope, that is far from being logical. Your premise is too easily rejected making the rest of the argument moot.

 

[Audie]

Everything that has ever happened in a sentence.....
If I have the time, that sounds like a worthwhile challenge.

You know perfectly well what i mean and it is not that.

If you will not take the time to untangle your thinking before you
write, it is rather discourteous for you to just spray something
on the screen and expect others to parse it.

 

[Audie]

Nope, that is far from being logical. Your premise is too easily rejected making the rest of the argument moot.

Honestly, the way these spiritual-ists invent new operating
laws for the nature of Reality!!

It is an ancient and moldy bit of pseudo- logic that the
lesser cannot beget the greater, no matter the reams of
florid overstatement.

 

[Etritonakin]

Honestly, the way these spiritual-ists invent new operating
laws for the nature of Reality!!

It is an ancient and moldy bit of pseudo- logic that the
lesser cannot beget the greater, no matter the reams of
florid overstatement.

Not actually what I said.

The lesser must beget the greater -but the lesser must allow for the greater.

Where you got confused about what I said was likely at the point of true decision.
A greater mind is capable of greater things.
We are the lesser compared to that which produced US.

That does not mean that which produced us was not at some point the most simple state possible.

As creativity and natural law exist, both must be considered.
They are also different, and their differences must be considered.

(Creativity cannot change most basic law, but it can create new law.

For example, if you creatively jump off of a boat in the middle of the lake and the boat speeds off, you haven't changed any basic law, but the new law which applies to you is that you have a new situation which must be dealt with accordingly.

It's just that many assume that what is around us is most basic -and has not been arranged by creativity from the most basic by one who was once the most basic.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not actually what I said.

The lesser must beget the greater -but the lesser must allow for the greater.

Where you got confused about what I said was likely at the point of true decision.
A greater mind is capable of greater things.
We are the lesser compared to that which produced US.

That does not mean that which produced us was not at some point the most simple state possible.

More word salad and a lack of logic.

Here is the first step that you need to take when trying to make a logical argument: Define your terms properly.

 

[Etritonakin]

Nope, that is far from being logical. Your premise is too easily rejected making the rest of the argument moot.

Which premise?