Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Thermos aquaticus]

If I show you an automated watch factory, that gets us further away, not closer to, an ultimately 'spontaneous' explanation for the watch

The problem is that Etritonakin thinks everything is an automated system. Cloud production? Automated system. Lightning? Automated system. Planets moving about the Sun? Automated system. It becomes pretty meaningless when everything is an automated system.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that Etritonakin thinks everything is an automated system. Cloud production? Automated system. Lightning? Automated system. Planets moving about the Sun? Automated system. It becomes pretty meaningless when everything is an automated system.

Our creo friends can never actually generate any data
to disprove ToE, so, they generate analogies.

 

[Etritonakin]

The problem is that Etritonakin thinks everything is an automated system. Cloud production? Automated system. Lightning? Automated system. Planets moving about the Sun? Automated system. It becomes pretty meaningless when everything is an automated system.

No. Not what I said at all.

 

[Etritonakin]

Our creo friends can never actually generate any data
to disprove ToE, so, they generate analogies.

Do you even read what I write? Not trying to disprove ToE at all.

 

[Audie]

Do you even read what I write? Not trying to disprove ToE at all.

I did say "friend(s).
I dont pay much attention to what you write, it is generally an exercise in
obscurantism, and not much worth trying to puzzle it out.

I am not the only one who finds it hard to wade thru.
Notice how you corrected someone else...No. Not what I said at all.

Are you trying to show some fault or weakness in ToE?

 

[Etritonakin]

I did say "friend(s).
I dont pay much attention to what you write, it is generally an exercise in
obscurantism, and not much worth trying to puzzle it out.

I am not the only one who finds it hard to wade thru.
Notice how you corrected someone else...No. Not what I said at all.

Are you trying to show some fault or weakness in ToE?

Evolution happens -and we don't know everything about it.
Any fault or weakness would be with our incomplete knowledge and understanding.

I am including the following for background because it contains quotes from someone who may be more readily heard by some than myself -not because I agree with one "side" or another on every point.... I find that taking sides is counterproductive.....

"What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: (voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.
Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point."

(Quote above from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed)

I agree that it is illogical for anything of an already-complex nature -such as God or any other capable creator -or anything else (such as an extremely complex and specific universe) -to have just poofed into existence.

I am simply saying (though it is not all I have discussed herein) that "elsewhere in the universe" does not have to mean "after the Big Bang".
There is no reason to assume that the universe is "everything" -or that nothing happened before the singularity was the singularity.
Even if the universe is everything -or we take the word universe to mean everything which became everything else -there is plenty of reason to look backward in sequence beyond the singularity -primarily it's already-complex and -specific nature.

 

[Audie]

Evolution happens -and we don't know everything about it.
Any fault or weakness would be with our incomplete knowledge and understanding.

I am including the following for background because it contains quotes from someone who may be more readily heard by some than myself -not because I agree with one "side" or another on every point.... I find that taking sides is counterproductive.....

"What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: (voiceover, not part of interview) Wait a second, Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit.
Prof Dawkins: Um..and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.
Ben Stein: But, but
Prof Dawkins: But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, he couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that’s the point."

(From "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed)
I agree that it is illogical for anything of an already-complex nature -such as God or any other capable creator -or anything else -to simply have poofed into existence.

I am simply saying that "elsewhere in the universe" does not have to mean "after the Big Bang".
There is no reason to assume that the universe is "everything" -or that nothing happened before the singularity was the singularity.
Even if the universe is everything -or we take the word universe to mean everything -there is plenty of reason to look backward in sequence beyond the singularity -primarily it's already-complex and -specific nature.

Ok..I think that you'd find broad agreement on that last paragraph.

What on earth are you doing quoting from or watching "expelled"?

 

[Etritonakin]

Ok..I think that you'd find broad agreement on that last paragraph.

What on earth are you doing quoting from or watching "expelled"?

I like to take in information from many sources on many "sides" of issues -because all sides usually have some good points the other sides refuse to consider.
The truth does not have any sides.

Also... analogies are extremely useful -even crucial -to learning. Everything is somewhat similar and somewhat different.

 

[Audie]

I like to take in information from many sources on many "sides" of issues -because all sides usually have some good points the other sides refuse to consider.
The truth does not have any sides.

Also... analogies are extremely useful -even crucial -to learning. Everything is somewhat similar and somewhat different.

As it suits you. Agitprop like expelled are low on my list
tho.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. Not what I said at all.

You said all of nature is an automated process, correct?

 

[Audie]

You said all of nature is an automated process, correct?

oh now you are just getting all literal

 

[gnostic]

I agree that it is illogical for anything of an already-complex nature -such as God or any other capable creator -or anything else (such as an extremely complex and specific universe) -to have just poofed into existence.

I wouldn’t say god or Creator to be “already-complex nature”, since all evidences point to man inventing their respective deities, and not deities creating anything.

All evidences showed that weren’t very intelligent, logical and knowledgeable, so they created supernatural entities (called him god, Creator, Designer, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Re, Odin, Brahma, etc) in attempts to describe how “nature” came to be.

Such belief seemed to be nothing more than ignorance and superstition. They appeared to be nothing more than wishful thinking, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The problems that people are still following these primitive superstitions, today, despite the evidences for their existence, only exist in myths and allegories.

 

[Etritonakin]

As it suits you. Agitprop like expelled are low on my list
tho.

Not as it suits me.

While "Expelled" may be low on your list, what about what was said by one who is high on the list of many on that "side"?

 

[Etritonakin]

I wouldn’t say god or Creator to be “already-complex nature”, since all evidences point to man inventing their respective deities, and not deities creating anything.

All evidences showed that weren’t very intelligent, logical and knowledgeable, so they created supernatural entities (called him god, Creator, Designer, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Re, Odin, Brahma, etc) in attempts to describe how “nature” came to be.

Such belief seemed to be nothing more than ignorance and superstition. They appeared to be nothing more than wishful thinking, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The problems that people are still following these primitive superstitions, today, despite the evidences for their existence, only exist in myths and allegories.

I said anything -a creator or the universe itself -and whatever also may be.

While you are correct from a general historical perspective, you are speaking from ignorance concerning the God and Christ of the bible -and the bible itself -especially if you liken them to Santa Claus -and that would be true whether the bible were fiction or not.

Your position is understandable, but incorrect.
It also does not seem that you have studied them enough to make such a claim, but lumped them in with other things which you believe are similar.

Unfortunately, many who "believe in" the God and Christ of the bible haven't studied them much, either -and also don't know or understand what is actually written.

Similarly, as evidenced by the past few pages, many assume my position based on many things -and do not attempt to understand what I am actually saying.

And.... In this case and thread, I am not even specifically referring to the God of the bible -but "God" only as all of nature having initially developed into an identity possessed of creativity.
We observe the same on a smaller scale.

 

[Audie]

Not as it suits me.

While "Expelled" may be low on your list, what about what was said by one who is high on the list of many on that "side"?

Why do what does not suit you?

what about what was said by one who is high on the list of many on that "side"?

refer to what was said, and i will comment if it looks interesting.

 

[Audie]

I said anything -a creator or the universe itself -and whatever also may be.

While you are correct from a general historical perspective, you are speaking from ignorance concerning the God and Christ of the bible -and the bible itself -especially if you liken them to Santa Claus -and that would be true whether the bible were fiction or not.

Your position is understandable, but incorrect.
It also does not seem that you have studied them enough to make such a claim, but lumped them in with other things which you believe are similar.

Unfortunately, many who "believe in" the God and Christ of the bible haven't studied them much, either -and also don't know or understand what is actually written.

Similarly, as evidenced by the past few pages, many assume my position based on many things -and do not attempt to understand what I am actually saying.

And.... In this case and thread, I am not even specifically referring to the God of the bible -but "God" only as all of nature having initially developed into an identity possessed of creativity.
We observe the same on a smaller scale.

Similarly, as evidenced by the past few pages, many assume my position based on many things -and do not attempt to understand what I am actually saying

Dont blame the audience.

 

[Etritonakin]

Similarly, as evidenced by the past few pages, many assume my position based on many things -and do not attempt to understand what I am actually saying

Dont blame the audience.

Do you even read what you write?

 

[Audie]

Do you even read what you write?

Your universal response! "Do you read what I write-do you read what you write".

But you dont think of applying it to your own labyrinthine prose?

You may have something to say but it gets lost in the maze;
and then you think it is the readers' fault that they cannot make sense of any of it.

 

[Etritonakin]

Anyway....

From a quick search....

"Creativity is a phenomenon whereby something new and somehow valuable is formed. The created item may be intangible or a physical object."

One thing which indicates creativity is value or purpose -and more so with increased complexity, specific function, etc.
Some things may be used for a purpose, and some things are definitely being used for a purpose.

If something landed on our planet from out of space -and we could see that it had purpose, value, function, etc., we would be correct to believe it was created.

We would be more likely -at least now -to believe so if it was not similar to what we see produced by "nature" -and, quite ironically, if it was LESS complex than what we see produced by nature.

Why? Because we see no need for a creator.

Why? Because we are looking in the wrong place.

(An original creator [most simple nature first developing identity and creativity before creating that which required it] would logically have developed from the more simple -but it would itself not indicate creativity was necessary until it increasingly developed to the point of true creativity -complex function, purpose, etc.

The singularity/universe and that which it became -including us- however, is chock full of complex function, purpose, value etc.)

I CAN know THAT the universe was created by its nature alone -regardless of how, though how would show some of the nature of the creator -but I understand that "science" in general can not -and will wait for other types of evidence which will satisfy it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

One thing which indicates creativity is value or purpose -and more so with increased complexity, specific function, etc.
Some things may be used for a purpose, and some things are definitely being used for a purpose.

Humans find diamonds to be useful, functional, and valuable, so are diamonds the product of a creative automated system?

We would be more likely -at least now -to believe so if it was not similar to what we see produced by "nature" -and, quite ironically, if it was LESS complex than what we see produced by nature.

Humans are produced by nature, and they are quite complex.

The universe and that which it became -including us- however, is chock full of complex function, purpose, value etc.)

So the whole universe is a created automated system?