Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Etritonakin]

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.

What has you confused?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which premise?

You don't even know what your premise was? No wonder you fail at logical arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What has you confused?

I am not the one that is confused. Try again.

 

[Etritonakin]

I am not the one that is confused. Try again.

So I guess you are going to take your ball and go home so we can't play no more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I guess you are going to take your ball and go home so we can't play no more?

Nope, I am still here to help you.

 

[Etritonakin]

Nope, I am still here to help you.

Like explaining what you were saying which would make saying it worthwhile?

Ok -go.

Which premise? What do you think was my premise? I ask because you keep saying I am saying things I am not saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like explaining what you were saying which would make saying it worthwhile?

Ok -go.

Which premise? What do you think was my premise? I ask because you keep saying I am saying things I am not saying.

Though poorly formed this was your premise:

""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."

Actually it even lacks a proper premise. It was far from logical.

 

[ecco]

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

Why would you think that?


The concept of Quantum Fluctuations seems to be very illogical, but has been shown to be real.

When it comes to truly understanding the universe, logic, or common sense, is not the best guide.

It is illogical to assume we could be standing on a sphere that is spinning at 24,000 miles per hour. We would be hurled into space. That's why, for most of human history, man believed the earth to be flat and stationary. Some still do.

It is not made less logical by the fact that "God" would also need to be explained.

Gods are, as I previously posted, creations of man's imaginings. Man wanted answers to, at the time, unanswerable questions. Man came up with goddidit.

Simplistic answers are not necessarily the right answers. What causes volcanoes?
Simplistic answer: goddidit
Realistic answer (highly simplified): The earth's crust moving over hot spots.

It is actually more logical that what we believe of the universe is more likely true of the mind which made it.

See above.

The fact that we have not met that creator in any acceptable way to "science" or some individuals...

We cannot meet figments of man's imaginings. Do you expect to meet leprechauns?

 

[Etritonakin]

Though poorly formed this was your premise:

""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."

Actually it even lacks a proper premise. It was far from logical.

That quoted part is actually true whether God exists or not.
You do not see the need for a mind because you have not seen it -you cannot see what is self-evident, because -though proud of your knowledge -you have learned too little, and perceive based on that limited knowledge. You seem unable and unwilling to think beyond it even to see what is evident all around you.
You learned enough to, say, show that the earth was not made 6,000 years ago -that evolution happens, etc., and you are satisfied.

It is understandable that science must abide by certain rules to do what it does, but it also must accept that it has incomplete information.

As you are being quite unpleasant, I will continue without responding directly to your posts -but feel free to continue to post.
Though I do not need you to agree with what I know to be basically true and self-evident (actually partly due to evidences which I cannot reproduce for you -so I understand your current position even though I know it will change), I will do my humble best to make the self-evident acceptable even to the uninterested scoffer.

 

[Etritonakin]

Why would you think that?


The concept of Quantum Fluctuations seems to be very illogical, but has been shown to be real.

When it comes to truly understanding the universe, logic, or common sense, is not the best guide.

It is illogical to assume we could be standing on a sphere that is spinning at 24,000 miles per hour. We would be hurled into space. That's why, for most of human history, man believed the earth to be flat and stationary. Some still do.



Gods are, as I previously posted, creations of man's imaginings. Man wanted answers to, at the time, unanswerable questions. Man came up with goddidit.

Simplistic answers are not necessarily the right answers. What causes volcanoes?
Simplistic answer: goddidit
Realistic answer (highly simplified): The earth's crust moving over hot spots.


See above.


We cannot meet figments of man's imaginings. Do you expect to meet leprechauns?

Will respond when I have time to do so properly.

For now...
Acknowledging that man has often just made stuff up.... Now and in the past...
People in the past were not stupid simply because they lived in the past...

Forgetting any particular fictional characters...
We do -and they did -have many examples of gods -by comparison.
That is to say... Some life forms are capable of things others are not -and this is due to their nature.
Some life forms have dominion over others -and have the ability to decide the future of others because they are more knowledgeable, have greater mental capacity, etc., etc.
Even the food chain is somewhat similar.

It is obvious that something greater than man decides man's course where man cannot -that man does not have overall dominion. It is also obvious that nature provides for all life forms.
Adding a mind is no great leap -but that is not to say it is an unreasonable leap -it is just taking the evident to a higher level.
Though much more is involved, it is BASICALLY similar to seeing a pattern of numbers, letters, etc., and knowing what is next in the pattern -even if not given.
It is not an illogical direction in which to think -but the particulars are another story.

Then there is the subject of a being with overall dominion being responsible for all else in the first place....


To be continued

 

[Subduction Zone]

That quoted part is actually true whether God exists or not.
You do not see the need for a mind because you have not seen it -you cannot see what is self-evident, because -though proud of your knowledge -you have learned too little, and perceive based on that limited knowledge. You seem unable and unwilling to think beyond it even to see what is evident all around you.
You learned enough to, say, show that the earth was not made 6,000 years ago -that evolution happens, etc., and you are satisfied.

It is understandable that science must abide by certain rules to do what it does, but it also must accept that it has incomplete information.

As you are being quite unpleasant, I will continue without responding directly to your posts -but feel free to continue to post.
Though I do not need you to agree with what I know to be basically true and self-evident (actually partly due to evidences which I cannot reproduce for you -so I understand your current position even though I know it will change), I will do my humble best to make the self-evident acceptable even to the uninterested scoffer.

I understand a fair stick of how the Earth formed and how life evolved,. Just because you don't know you should not assume that others do not know too.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Sorry, but evolution cannot exist before life began.

There has to be life first, with the ability to reproduce, and pass down the necessarily genetic makeup (eg nucleic acids, like RNA & DNA) to offspring. Evolution only occur when organisms are able to pass genes to the next generations...and of course, require the abilities to adapt in environment to survive.

One of The necessarily requirements for life are carbon-based molecules or compounds. Proteins, nucleic acids (RNA & DNA), carbohydrates, are all essential in biology, because cells, whether it single-cells or multicellular organisms, would contain them.

And proteins can be broken down even further to one of many types of amino acids, which biologists and biochemists considered to be building block to life.

But there were no life at the Big Bang, because carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, didn’t exist before BEFORE the first generation of earliest stars, classified as Population III stars.

These earliest stars are metal-free, containing nothing heavier than helium atoms.

Our star, the Sun, is a Population I star, meaning it is a 3rd or even 4th generation star, and our solar system (which would include planets, dwarf planets, moons, asteroids, comets) were formed from gases and debris of nearby earlier supernovas. Population I stars mean these stars are “metal-rich” meaning there are trace elements of elements heavier than helium.

It is the stars that create heavier elements, but they only begin to so when it run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium.

If stars, like our Sun, depleted its hydrogen fuel, it will start to fuse helium atoms into carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. And that required the sun to become hotter than it is now; fusing anything elements heavier than hydrogen, required the temperature to higher. The size of yellow dwarf star, will turn into a red giant star, causing the sun to grow larger in size, swallowing Mercury and possibly Venus too. The outer layers of sun, will star to break away, sending debris and dust into space, until eventually only the core of the sun is left, and our sun will turn into a white dwarf star.

That’s the fate of our sun. Our sun doesn’t have enough mass to explode, like supernova. Only stars about 8 times more mass than our sun will go the supernova route.

It is these supernovas that will create elements as heavy as iron. This is why astronomers and astrophysicists think the formation of our solar system were created by nearby supernovas (from Population II stars).

But getting back to the question about life. During the earlier formation of the earliest stars, there were no planets and no carbon, until these earliest stars begins to die. And there being the case, no life could have exist until Population I (most likely) and Population II (possibly).

We don’t know with 100% certainty of how life began on Earth, but there are two main possibilities:

1. It could have started on Earth, with mixture of gases (from atmosphere and from volcanic activities) and water, starting the process of forming amino acids.
2. The 2nd possibility is from comets and meteorites. When the Earth was still young, it has been bombarded by meteors and comets.

Example on the 2nd point, I cannot remember where in Australia, but in the mid-1960s, a meteorite crashed near a small towns, and what they discovered was at least 90 different types of amino acids from this meteorite. As I understand it, there are less than 20 amino acids that occurred naturally on Earth.

But who’s to say that the origin didn’t come from both sources.

 

[Etritonakin]

Sorry, but evolution cannot exist before life began.

There has to be life first, with the ability to reproduce, and pass down the necessarily genetic makeup (eg nucleic acids, like RNA & DNA) to offspring. Evolution only occur when organisms are able to pass genes to the next generations...and of course, require the abilities to adapt in environment to survive.

One of The necessarily requirements for life are carbon-based molecules or compounds. Proteins, nucleic acids (RNA & DNA), carbohydrates, are all essential in biology, because cells, whether it single-cells or multicellular organisms, would contain them.

And proteins can be broken down even further to one of many types of amino acids, which biologists and biochemists considered to be building block to life.

But there were no life at the Big Bang, because carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, didn’t exist before BEFORE the first generation of earliest stars, classified as Population III stars.

These earliest stars are metal-free, containing nothing heavier than helium atoms.

Our star, the Sun, is a Population I star, meaning it is a 3rd or even 4th generation star, and our solar system (which would include planets, dwarf planets, moons, asteroids, comets) were formed from gases and debris of nearby earlier supernovas. Population I stars mean these stars are “metal-rich” meaning there are trace elements of elements heavier than helium.

It is the stars that create heavier elements, but they only begin to so when it run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium.

If stars, like our Sun, depleted its hydrogen fuel, it will start to fuse helium atoms into carbon, oxygen or nitrogen. And that required the sun to become hotter than it is now; fusing anything elements heavier than hydrogen, required the temperature to higher. The size of yellow dwarf star, will turn into a red giant star, causing the sun to grow larger in size, swallowing Mercury and possibly Venus too. The outer layers of sun, will star to break away, sending debris and dust into space, until eventually only the core of the sun is left, and our sun will turn into a white dwarf star.

That’s the fate of our sun. Our sun doesn’t have enough mass to explode, like supernova. Only stars about 8 times more mass than our sun will go the supernova route.

It is these supernovas that will create elements as heavy as iron. This is why astronomers and astrophysicists think the formation of our solar system were created by nearby supernovas (from Population II stars).

But getting back to the question about life. During the earlier formation of the earliest stars, there were no planets and no carbon, until these earliest stars begins to die. And there being the case, no life could have exist until Population I (most likely) and Population II (possibly).

We don’t know with 100% certainty of how life began on Earth, but there are two main possibilities:

1. It could have started on Earth, with mixture of gases (from atmosphere and from volcanic activities) and water, starting the process of forming amino acids.
2. The 2nd possibility is from comets and meteorites. When the Earth was still young, it has been bombarded by meteors and comets.

Example on the 2nd point, I cannot remember where in Australia, but in the mid-1960s, a meteorite crashed near a small towns, and what they discovered was at least 90 different types of amino acids from this meteorite. As I understand it, there are less than 20 amino acids that occurred naturally on Earth.

But who’s to say that the origin didn’t come from both sources.

Not what I meant or said
I meant evolution in its broadest sense -and NOT DNA-based physical life -as stated early in the thread.
Really don't have time to read all that now.

 

[gnostic]

Not what I meant or said
I meant evolution in its broadest sense -and NOT DNA-based physical life -as stated early in the thread.
Really don't have time to read all that now.

The problem is you don’t understand the Big Bang, and you don’t understand how matters (eg atoms) form in the place, so why bring them up at all?

The only evidences that we have are what happened on Earth, and the meteorites or comets that have crashed on Earth. Why speculate on what happened before the Earth formation?

Bringing up the Big Bang or the universe, don’t help your argument, particularly you alluding to events that you have no real interests in learning more about.

 

[Etritonakin]

The problem is you don’t understand the Big Bang, and you don’t understand how matters (eg atoms) form in the place, so why bring them up at all?

The only evidences that we have are what happened on Earth, and the meteorites or comets that have crashed on Earth. Why speculate on what happened before the Earth formation?

Bringing up the Big Bang or the universe, don’t help your argument, particularly you alluding to events that you have no real interests in learning more about.

I have read -generally -how the atoms formed.

However -I have no clue what you are saying otherwise. It does not seem to relate to what I am saying.

I don't expect anyone to read the entire thread, but you are not really commenting on what is actually going on here -and especially not what was originally intended.

 

[gnostic]

I don't expect anyone to read the entire thread, but you are not really commenting on what is actually going on here -and especially not what was originally intended.

Perhaps not.

But I am pointing out, that (you) by bringing up the Big Bang in the first place, you are the one who have complicated your thread.

I think you have overplayed your hand.

 

[Etritonakin]

Perhaps not.

But I am pointing out, that (you) by bringing up the Big Bang in the first place, you are the one who have complicated your thread.

I think you have overplayed your hand.

That is because I am not playing a hand in the game you are discussing.
I am in the kitchen making nachos, as it were.

I am not focusing on DNA-based life, but will do so briefly to illustrate one of my points.

It had been believed that life as we know it required certain things to survive and thrive -and many of those beliefs have been shown to be wrong. It is sometimes of an unexpected nature, sometimes thrives in environments we thought impossible, etc...

The same is true of memory and learning. We believe they required certain things and have seen evidence of memory and learning where we believed they should not be possible.

One of my points is that we cannot be certain that life, memory, learning, etc. are NECESSARILY dependent on the elements AT ALL -and that such may EVOLVE or exist wherever there is sufficient interaction, etc., of ANY kind -something from which a system may be arranged -and in a way that is different than DNA-based evolution.

Will post something on the original subject later.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

"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.

A man and a woman can make a new human, and it is an entirely natural process.

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.

You are assuming that a mind made the universe without any evidence to support that assumption.

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.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You do not see the need for a mind because you have not seen it -you cannot see what is self-evident, because -though proud of your knowledge -you have learned too little, and perceive based on that limited knowledge. You seem unable and unwilling to think beyond it even to see what is evident all around you.

It is up to you to present evidence that this creator exists and that this creator did any creating. The burden of proof lies with you. You need to provide us with facts to consider, not beliefs.

It is understandable that science must abide by certain rules to do what it does, but it also must accept that it has incomplete information.

Beliefs are not information.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It had been believed that life as we know it required certain things to survive and thrive -and many of those beliefs have been shown to be wrong. It is sometimes of an unexpected nature, sometimes thrives in environments we thought impossible, etc...

It has been believed that phenomena in nature were the direct product of a deity, be it lightning or weather. Time after time we have found natural processes that are behind those phenomena. Not once have we had a natural explanation that was later replaced by a verified supernatural explanation.

One of my points is that we cannot be certain that life, memory, learning, etc. are NECESSARILY dependent on the elements AT ALL -and that such may EVOLVE or exist wherever there is sufficient interaction, etc., of ANY kind -something from which a system may be arranged -and in a way that is different than DNA-based evolution.

Will post something on the original subject later.

We are all well aware that humans are fallible so that our conclusions should be tentative. I don't see how that leads to the conclusion, "Therefore, God did it".