Evolution of God Logical/Necessary? Initial Environment/Processes.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know, the one I replied to. I mean, you made a claim (with seeming certainty) with the assumption that God is limited by time. So why can't I make the opposite assumption?

Because the opposite assumption makes no sense.

 

[Etritonakin]

Since decision making is something that occurs in rather complex biological machinery (brains), it is rather obvious that it came last.



Physics, then chemistry and eventually biology.



Why would that have to be the case?

Complex, yes -but not necessarily BIOlogical.
Different -even simpler or more basic -things can have similar function and arrangement.

(Calculators were made long ago employing water rather than electrons, computers show that decision does not require biology, etc.)

Creativity is a necessary intermediate development between what is possible without it -and with it.
It literally allows more states to become possible.

 

[Etritonakin]

Physics, then chemistry and eventually biology.

Physics as we know it is far removed from greatest possible simplicity -though most basic physics allowed for present extremely-complex physics.
The question is whether most basic physics required creativity to become present physics.
Present physics once did not exist as such -but is an arrangement of more basic physics -what was became what is.

Even on our level, there are things which could not simply develop -which require that creativity first develop and exist in order to accomplish.

Human creativity is reality having the capability to understand and interface with itself enough to change its configuration in ways which were not otherwise possible.
However, we represent a very small portion of a reality which is already extremely complex.
There is no reason this could not have happened in a pre-unverse environment -and it is also the most likely suspect (if not the only) for extreme purposeful complexity.
It is a perfectly natural and logical intermediate stage -and is not dependent upon the existence of atoms, etc., specifically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Complex, yes -but not necessarily BIOlogical.

What else do you propose?
Because I know of only 2 kinds of "decision makers".
The first are biological entities and the second are devices made by biological entities.

If you are going to propose a third, I'm going to require you to demonstrate the existence of such.

Different -even simpler or more basic -things can have similar function and arrangement.

Such as?

(Calculators were made long ago employing water rather than electrons, computers show that decision does not require biology, etc.)

Both computers and calculators are things made by biological entities, so in fact, they DO require biological entities to exist. Not to mention that they also require biological entities to operate them and / or keep them running.

Creativity is a necessary intermediate development between what is possible without it -and with it.
It literally allows more states to become possible.

Sure. What does that have to do with the matter at hand?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Physics as we know it is far removed from greatest possible simplicity -though most basic physics allowed for present extremely-complex physics.

You are moving the goalposts.
Your comment was about how we got to today's complexity from the simple beginnings at the big bang.

And the answer to that is physics, followed by chemistry, followed by biology.

The question is whether most basic physics required creativity to become present physics.

Is it?
Because it sounds more like the only reason you actually ask the question, is because you already started out with the answer. As in, you're framing it because you have an assumed conclusion in mind already.

It's essentially a loaded question.

Present physics once did not exist as such -but is an arrangement of more basic physics -what was became what is.

That seems like a rather empty statement. Don't really know what you mean.
I'm guessing it's part of the whole framing thing. Just you trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow.

Even on our level, there are things which could not simply develop -which require that creativity first develop and exist in order to accomplish.

That's quite a serious claim. So I'll demand serious evidence.
Give an example. And do not forget to mention how you have determined that it "could not simply develop".

Also, this smells HEAVILY like an argument from ignorance.
It seems to me to be utterly impossible to be able to determine a priori that some thing is "impossible to develop". It could also be that you simply aren't aware / are ignorant of the process that actually can accomplish it.

Meaning that to be able to conclude that "some entity dun it" ( ), you would actually be required to demonstrate that statement. Merely pointing out that you don't know how it could come about naturally, is not a proper valid reason to claim that "some entity dun it". That's textbook argument from ignorance.

Human creativity is reality having the capability to understand and interface with itself enough to change its configuration in ways which were not otherwise possible.
However, we represent a very small portion of a reality which is already extremely complex.
There is no reason this could not have happened in a pre-unverse environment -and it is also the most likely suspect (if not the only) for extreme purposeful complexity.

1. There are very good reasons why the very concept of "pre-universe" is a nonsensical notion. Like "north of the north pole".

2. your emphasis on "complexity" reveals a typical creationist misunderstanding. You seem to be of the opinion that complexity is an indicator of design. That simply is not the case at all.

It is a perfectly natural and logical intermediate stage -and is not dependent upon the existence of atoms, etc., specifically.

No idea what you are on about.

 

[Etritonakin]

You are moving the goalposts.
Your comment was about how we got to today's complexity from the simple beginnings at the big bang.

I don't believe I actually said that -and certainly did not mean that.
One of my basic points here is the difference between -and what lies between -what must have been a very complex singularity and initial simplicity.
Fairly sure you equated initial simplicity to the big bang -not me.

 

[Etritonakin]

I do not believe or suggest complexity alone is evidence of creativity.
Naturally-increasing complexity would necessarily result in creativity, but creativity makes possible extreme purposeful complexity. It is that which is able to understand natural processes enough to alter them in otherwise-impossible ways.
Just look around...
In the absence of creativity, a 1974 Ford F100 Custom longbed with a 5.0 could not simply develop naturally.
The same us true for many things all around us.

The specific nature of the universe produced indicates both specificity and complexity -including extreme purposeful complexity -in the singularity itself. It would be no more the very beginning than a seed of a specific tree.
As it is not greatest possible simplicity -which would naturally be non-complex and non-specific -there is certainly north of that north.

Continuing north until you can't is the idea -otherwise there is always north of north.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe I actually said that -and certainly did not mean that.
One of my basic points here is the difference between -and what lies between -what must have been a very complex singularity and initial simplicity.
Fairly sure you equated initial simplicity to the big bang -not me.

Then I don't get your point and even less what you think you can conclude from that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not believe or suggest complexity alone is evidence of creativity.
Naturally-increasing complexity would necessarily result in creativity, but creativity makes possible extreme purposeful complexity.

Define "extreme purposeful complexity" so that it can be distinguished from "unpurposeful complexity".
And I guess you also mean to say that "extreme purposeful complexity", however you define it, can only be the result of some agent consciously creating it I bet? I'm gonna need you to explain how you reached that conclusion also.

Just look around...
In the absence of creativity, a 1974 Ford F100 Custom longbed with a 5.0 could not simply develop naturally.
The same us true for many things all around us.

Such as?

The specific nature of the universe produced indicates both specificity and complexity -including extreme purposeful complexity -in the singularity itself.

Claiming it doesn't make it so. Explain and support this statement.

 

[Etritonakin]

Define "extreme purposeful complexity" so that it can be distinguished from "unpurposeful complexity".
And I guess you also mean to say that "extreme purposeful complexity", however you define it, can only be the result of some agent consciously creating it I bet? I'm gonna need you to explain how you reached that conclusion also.





Such as?



Claiming it doesn't make it so. Explain and support this statement.

The extreme part would be extreme due to its not being able to happen without creativity -correct.
Some things cannot happen without conscious alteration and application thereof.

Would you at least agree with that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The extreme part would be extreme due to its not being able to happen without creativity -correct.

Ok, so how do you test for that?
How do you disginguish the "extreme" from the "common"?

Some things cannot happen without conscious alteration and application thereof.
Would you at least agree with that?

Sure, but you can't go running around making bare declarations about what can and can't happen.
Such things would have to be supported and demonstrated.

 

[Wandering Monk]

God evolved because societies evolve. Men create gods in their own image.

 

[Etritonakin]

Ok, so how do you test for that?
How do you disginguish the "extreme" from the "common"?



Sure, but you can't go running around making bare declarations about what can and can't happen.
Such things would have to be supported and demonstrated.

Presently, that essentially IS the accepted test.
The test for whether something was created by man (and is not simply a repetition of what nature could produce [as per past discussions with others]) is that it could not have been produced by..... and this IS important ...PRESENT nature. This can be determined by understanding enough about present nature. Nature might make a round metal thingy -mayyyybe even multiples -and might make round rubberlike thingies/multiples... but nature is not going to mount mass-produced 235/70r15s on some nice rims, balance them and wipe 'em down with armor all.
It might do something more impressive, but the above specifically requires an understanding and interface with nature sufficient to cause nature to do what it otherwise would and could not.

It is also true that created things often have a purpose/function which nature alone would not produce -which indicates something about the needs, desires, psychology, capability -even form -of the creator. Nature in the absence of a psychology would not and could not produce that which a psychology makes possible and necessitates -to any great degree (though it would make it possible by its nature for the psychology to alter that nature thusly).

Once we alter nature in such a manner... we may alter what nature will "naturally" do in our absence!
Even the simple act of consciously changing the position of something can cause nature to do what it otherwise would not. The level and all else at which we make conscious change is also important to the results.
(The dorsal fins of some sharks were mutated by radiation from a nuclear weapon -and the mutation was passed on. Even if nature could have caused a nuclear explosion in the area -it would not have at that time. The timing required man).

In order to determine whether the universe or whatever required a creator, we would need to reference the configuration of nature that existed before it -even back to greatest possible simplicity.
As for demonstration, we really can't reproduce a big bang, but we can reverse-engineer the configuration of present nature.
Most have not considered much before the big bang -not seeing much need -and we can not make everything as simple as it once was -but we have the language of reality -the logic and math -and can continue to reverse-engineer if willing.

Starting from greatest possible simplicity, it could be determined what nature would do before and after the development of self-awareness, creativity, etc.

We usually assume the singularity WAS greatest possible simplicity, but there really is no good reason to assume that -and it really could not have been very simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Presently, that essentially IS the accepted test.
The test for whether something was created by man (and is not simply a repetition of what nature could produce [as per past discussions with others]) is that it could not have been produced by..... and this IS important ...PRESENT nature. This can be determined by understanding enough about present nature. Nature might make a round metal thingy -mayyyybe even multiples -and might make round rubberlike thingies/multiples... but nature is not going to mount mass-produced 235/70r15s on some nice rims, balance them and wipe 'em down with armor all.
It might do something more impressive, but the above specifically requires an understanding and interface with nature sufficient to cause nature to do what it otherwise would and could not.

It is also true that created things often have a purpose/function which nature alone would not produce -which indicates something about the needs, desires, psychology, capability -even form -of the creator. Nature in the absence of a psychology would not and could not produce that which a psychology makes possible and necessitates -to any great degree (though it would make it possible by its nature for the psychology to alter that nature thusly).

Once we alter nature in such a manner... we may alter what nature will "naturally" do in our absence!
Even the simple act of consciously changing the position of something can cause nature to do what it otherwise would not. The level and all else at which we make conscious change is also important to the results.
(The dorsal fins of some sharks were mutated by radiation from a nuclear weapon -and the mutation was passed on. Even if nature could have caused a nuclear explosion in the area -it would not have at that time. The timing required man).

In order to determine whether the universe or whatever required a creator, we would need to reference the configuration of nature that existed before it -even back to greatest possible simplicity.
As for demonstration, we really can't reproduce a big bang, but we can reverse-engineer the configuration of present nature.
Most have not considered much before the big bang -not seeing much need -and we can not make everything as simple as it once was -but we have the language of reality -the logic and math -and can continue to reverse-engineer if willing.

Starting from greatest possible simplicity, it could be determined what nature would do before and after the development of self-awareness, creativity, etc.

We usually assume the singularity WAS greatest possible simplicity, but there really is no good reason to assume that -and it really could not have been very simple.

What a convoluted way to express a cliché argument from ignorance.


Btw, we determine "artificial design" by looking for signs of manufacturing.
You can't go around making bare claims of design without evidence.

Not knowing how something can come about naturally, is not enough to declare it to be unnatural.
That's the argument from ignorance right there.

 

[Etritonakin]

What a convoluted way to express a cliché argument from ignorance.


Btw, we determine "artificial design" by looking for signs of manufacturing.
You can't go around making bare claims of design without evidence.

Not knowing how something can come about naturally, is not enough to declare it to be unnatural.
That's the argument from ignorance right there.

One way is looking for signs of manufacturing -but even that is what nature would not and could not produce.
Manufacturing has different levels. Tools leave different sorts of marks -and some effectively none.
The tool marks left on altered/unnatural DNA, for example, are the differences themselves -the fact that the unnatural happened. Knowing what nature would not do -based on understanding of it -is how we know something is not yet marked by tools.
You also won't find actual tool marks on a split atom -but that definitely leaves characteristic marks on the surroundings which identify that the specific event happened.
Even if nature alone can split an atom, nature would not have split that particular atom at that particular time and place, etc... so the event referenced against nature's otherwise-inevitable course is the tool mark.

Understanding what nature could not produce is not an argument from ignorance.
Understanding what nature could and would produce vs what a psychology could and would produce is not an argument from ignorance.
Nature must first produce a psychology before certain things are possible -which themselves are indicative that a psychology does exist -because a psychology makes them possible.
It is the necessary tool which must first exist.

 

[Etritonakin]

What else do you propose?
Because I know of only 2 kinds of "decision makers".
The first are biological entities and the second are devices made by biological entities.

If you are going to propose a third, I'm going to require you to demonstrate the existence of such.

Working on this....

First.... decision-making (human and all other) develops from -is actually composed of -is an arrangement of -most simple interaction.
Most-simple interaction can be likened to a most-simple logic gate.
If happens =yes... if not happen =no
The composition of the simple mechanism is important -but not as important as its logical function.
The basis -the mechanism -remains as it is and imparts basic characteristics -but the arrangement of such simple logic gates allows for all else in an inevitable step-by-step process (until the otherwise-inevitable may be changed by true conscious decision).

If everything which is complex must be composed of the less complex -but also the least complex -then we have a logical basis for understanding the basis of reality.
We also know that something drives the simple to become arranged in complex ways.

From simplicity, decision-making essentially always existed -and became more complex -with increasing capabilities and features.
For example... evolution -DNA, etc. is both a designer and an intelligent one by one definition -but, due to its arrangement, it lacks what we would call self-awareness.
However, it actually has the basis of self-awareness.... which is also most basic interaction (reaction as awareness of action).
It is just that.... considering evolution as separate from all else (which it actually can not be), its self-awareness is less developed than other aspects.

Design, intelligence and self-awareness all existed as most-simple things -as the most simple thing/s -then became more complex -with the various aspects augmented or diminished in relation to each other in various locations within the overall arrangement.
Everything is OF a design -and by that design increased the complexity of its own design until it produced that which could do things BY what we would call conscious decision and design.
That increasing complexity IS increasing intelligence/arrangement of logic gates.
Awareness and self-awareness in a complex sense are by arrangements of those gates (reaction as awareness of action) into a capable processor.

One very important step in conscious design is separation of self and environment -even though self is technically part of environment.
The border being between the processor/sensor/interface ( "I" ) and that which is external to the processor, etc.
The processor/designer requires memory, sensors, interface mechanisms and a process which allows sensed external or internal states residing in memory to be accessed, altered according to remembered knowledge thereof being rearranged, and then applied by interface mechanisms to the external
.
Only thereby can the otherwise-inevitable and -predictable be changed.
Understanding/knowledge of self/existence of self would lead to and allow for decisions based on that realization -and design of an external environment -suited to the logically-developing needs of the self.
Self and environment would then develop together in tandem -from simple to complex -but BY design rather then simply being OF a design.

Nature can only self-design to a certain point -which is apparently the development of "self" and simple environment (most complex environment possible by nature alone) -then the processor is required for all else.

Our disagreement seems to be about that point -whether it was necessarily before or after the initiation of the physical universe. I don't see that such required atoms and DNA specifically to develop first -as things essentially always existed which could perform similar logical functions as our brains/minds. The question is whether atoms and DNA required conscious design -and are indicative thereof.
An extremely complex environment alone -especially one which meets the specific needs of a psychology -developing in the absence of a capable processor/psychology -is not logical.

I will try to specifically address the reason humans or similar (DNA-based) would not be the first decision-makers later.

 

[Etritonakin]

What a convoluted way to express a cliché argument from ignorance.


Btw, we determine "artificial design" by looking for signs of manufacturing.
You can't go around making bare claims of design without evidence.

Not knowing how something can come about naturally, is not enough to declare it to be unnatural.
That's the argument from ignorance right there.

Sincerely asking as I am new to the terminology, but......
Perhaps you are not arguing from ignorance concerning only two types of decision-makers, but certainly arguing from the perspective of incomplete knowledge -from only knowns, while also acknowledging there are things unknown which preceded those knowns.
Isn't that a bit like only accepting the tip of the iceberg?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One way is looking for signs of manufacturing

As far as I see, it is the ONLY way.

-but even that is what nature would not and could not produce.

No. Signs of manufacturing point to specific unnatural and known processes.
What nature can and can't produce is actually irrelevant in that context.

But more importantly, you don't know in advance what nature can and can't do.

So, it is utterly useless as a standard for determining artificial design or not.
Again, to claim otherwise is to engage in an argument from ignorance.

You'ld have to know everything about everything in order to use that as a standard for distinguishing natural design from unnatural design. And clearly we aren't all knowing nor infallible.
We can only go by what we actually know.

So... when trying to find out if a thing is artificially designed, we need to look for actual signs of artificial design.

Manufacturing has different levels. Tools leave different sorts of marks -and some effectively none.

Show me a created tool that has no marks.

The tool marks left on altered/unnatural DNA, for example, are the differences themselves -the fact that the unnatural happened. Knowing what nature would not do -based on understanding of it -is how we know something is not yet marked by tools.

No. Already addressed this. This assumes that you know in advance what nature can and can't do. It assumes you are all knowing. You are not. It's an appeal to ignorance.

As for genetic engineering, in that case, yes - we could contrast it to what we KNOW nature would do, because we understand how evolution and reproduction works. So if we would find a mammal with feathers for example, the best possible explanation for that would be very advanced genetic manipulation. However, I will also add that the only reason why that would be the most likely explanation, is because not only do we understand how evolution works, we ALSO know and understand a thing or two about genetic manipulation.

If we wouldn't know about either one, then genetic manipulation would NOT be the most likely explanation.
So again it comes down to recognizing "manufacturing" (genetic manipulation in this case).

But you aren't talking about processes that we know and understand. You are talking about unknowns. Like the big bang and alike. So this type of reasoning simply does not work there.

You also won't find actual tool marks on a split atom

You'll find plenty of them at the nuclear plant where the atom got split.

-but that definitely leaves characteristic marks on the surroundings which identify that the specific event happened.

And the only reason we recognize it, is because we know and understand the results and effects of splitting atoms at nuclear plants. These are again signs of manufacturing.

This is not "we don't know how nature can do this, therefor it's unnatural".
It rather is "we understand the effects of this artificial process and how it contrast with natural occurances, so we recognize it when we encounter it".

Even if nature alone can split an atom, nature would not have split that particular atom at that particular time and place, etc... so the event referenced against nature's otherwise-inevitable course is the tool mark.

Nope.
If you don't know about nuclear power plants and the processes that happen there and the effects it produces, then you wouldn't recognize it at all.

Understanding what nature could not produce is not an argument from ignorance.

It is, since it requires you to understand everything about nature. Not knowing how nature can produce X, by no means rationally concludes into "therefor nature did not do it".

Every example you have given so far was NOT a case of "knowing nature". Every example was a case of knowing the artificial process and understanding its results and effects and recognizing those upon encountering them.

Understanding what nature could and would produce vs what a psychology could and would produce is not an argument from ignorance.

It is when the phenomena in question is an unknown and / or when the supposed artificial process isn't known.

This is how ancient people back in the day assumed that lightning was the result of Jupiter throwing lightning bolts down or the sparks of Thor smashing his anvil.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Working on this....

First.... decision-making (human and all other) develops from -is actually composed of -is an arrangement of -most simple interaction.
Most-simple interaction can be likened to a most-simple logic gate.
If happens =yes... if not happen =no
The composition of the simple mechanism is important -but not as important as its logical function.
The basis -the mechanism -remains as it is and imparts basic characteristics -but the arrangement of such simple logic gates allows for all else in an inevitable step-by-step process (until the otherwise-inevitable may be changed by true conscious decision).

If everything which is complex must be composed of the less complex -but also the least complex -then we have a logical basis for understanding the basis of reality.
We also know that something drives the simple to become arranged in complex ways.

From simplicity, decision-making essentially always existed -and became more complex -with increasing capabilities and features.
For example... evolution -DNA, etc. is both a designer and an intelligent one by one definition -but, due to its arrangement, it lacks what we would call self-awareness.
However, it actually has the basis of self-awareness.... which is also most basic interaction (reaction as awareness of action).
It is just that.... considering evolution as separate from all else (which it actually can not be), its self-awareness is less developed than other aspects.

Evolution BY NO MEANS is a "decision maker".
Evolution is a blind inevitable logical process. No "decisions" are involved in any way, shape or form.

The question is whether atoms and DNA required conscious design -and are indicative thereof.

The answer is "no".
DNA evolved.
The first atoms formed naturally in the early cooling universe.
The rest of the atoms originated through nuclear fusion inside stars.

An extremely complex environment alone -especially one which meets the specific needs of a psychology -developing in the absence of a capable processor/psychology -is not logical.

I will try to specifically address the reason humans or similar (DNA-based) would not be the first decision-makers later.

Again a very convoluted post, which didn't answer my question AT ALL.

I can only repeat myself: I know of only 2 decision makers. The first are biological entities (note that I'm not saying "humans", but biological entities - cats make decisions too for example....) and the second are devices (computers etc) that were created by one specific biological entity (humans).

If you wish to propose a third, then do so - without all the abstract vagueness that is neither here nor there por favor. And don't forget to include your evidence that demonstrates the existence of this "third" kind of decision maker.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sincerely asking as I am new to the terminology, but......
Perhaps you are not arguing from ignorance concerning only two types of decision-makers, but certainly arguing from the perspective of incomplete knowledge -from only knowns, while also acknowledging there are things unknown which preceded those knowns.
Isn't that a bit like only accepting the tip of the iceberg?

No. That's more like being intellectually honest and maintaining intellectual integrity.

If you don't know something, then the only correct answer is "we don't know".
Not make something up instead.