Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

[Etritonakin]

Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

Science has shown a number of beliefs about God and creation to be false -but, in doing so, has science unwittingly revealed the nature of -and necessity for -God?

For the sake of clarity at this point, let's throw out any ideas about God except that of an overall creative mind ultimately responsible for the universe and all therein.

The great and wise philosopher Mr. Rogers once said something to the effect of..... "Nothing gets made without people". He was correct on a certain level, but in order for people to make things, people -as well as the material from which they make things -must first exist. Nothing gets made without people, except, of course, people and everything else they did not make.

On our human level, some things are obviously "made" by creative people -and some things, including people, some consider to have been "formed" somehow without creativity. Some others believe people and nature were formed by being "made" by a creative process.

We can determine with certainty that something was "made" by employing creativity if it is different than that which was otherwise possible -different than "nature" (without the conscious decision of a self-aware, creative intelligence) could produce on its own.

We KNOW that we did not create what we call nature -and that we did not create ourselves. Each individual human becomes personally aware at a specific point, within a body and environment which are already extremely complex.

Even so, certain arrangements and levels of complexity are only possible after we become aware and use our pre-existing mental and physical abilities. Though "composed" of that which is natural, we are able to change the course nature would otherwise take -by decision.

Some things must precede and allow for "decision" -and decision must precede and allow for some things.

We could not have created the basic materials we use to create -which are the same basic materials which allow for our own existence, and we could not have initiated the process which caused our own selves to become aware.

As that which now exists is the same basic material which has existed (perhaps "always") -in a different arrangement -then those basic facts should apply at every level.

If God is "eternal", then it is impossible for God to have initiated his own awareness -and it is impossible for God to be responsible for that which allows for his own existence. As something can not come from absolute nothing -and that which exists now is the same basic material which did exist -but in a different arrangement -God would essentially be composed of that same material -and would create using that material.
However, God would represent the sum of all -whereas we each represent a portion of all. That position would allow for omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

Some believe man is the first example of a life form able to -by conscious decision -change the course nature would otherwise take -and it should be acceptable to all to say that "nature" inevitably produces awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc......

So why would this not be true on an all-inclusive level?

It should be noted that what we call "nature" once did not exist as such. The atoms of the elements -from which our "nature" is formed once did not exist. Their material was not always in this arrangement. However, it still existed and was still the same basic stuff.

Nothing can be created unless things happen and exist "on their own" -and an "eternal" God is not even possible unless things (God in this case) happen and exist "on their own" -but certain things cannot happen "on their own". A creative mind requires certain things, and certain things require a creative mind -and nothing is possible unless the most basic nature of all things is dynamic.

Science has shown that humans are part of -and the result of -an evolutionary process which involved many steps over a great amount of time -which indicates that certain other claims are false, but that does not prove there was no creative input at all -as our own creative input which alters evolution shows it is possible at any point.
Some see the fact that DNA does not require creative input as proof that God did not create earthly life -but earthly life is dependent on the Big Bang, atoms, etc., and God is generally credited with the creation of those things. It is apparent that God did not create everything 6,000 years ago (which is not actually what Genesis or the bible states, anyway), but a more basic and important question is whether or not the universe itself -atoms, etc. -required a creator -acknowledging that creation is arrangement of things already of a dynamic nature themselves -but sometimes in arrangements not otherwise possible (or at times not otherwise inevitable).

As with our creative activity within our present environment, it would also be true that pre-universe stuff could not be arranged into certain configurations except by conscious decision -unless some "one" could change the course nature would otherwise take.

Yet... that "one" (sum of all things) must first exist/develop and be creative before certain things were possible -and it is "natural" that the basic nature of the basic material would lead to such -or was always such in a different -less complex -state -moving toward complexity.

The individual steps which led to our present state did not happen to us individually -they happened in many places at many times -and even to other life forms before us.

However... All things would happen to "One" who represented the sum of all things personally and individually as that one developed the ability to move "nature" beyond nature by decision.
On an all-inclusive level, that "one" would not become aware within a body and environment which was already extremely complex. That "one" would experience every step of the process -every step of becoming aware, self-aware, creative, etc. -experiencing it in a more complex way as that "one" became a more complex self -and increasingly "personally" responsible and able to change course by decision.

(Cataloging each individual step -wherever it took place -toward our own present state of self-awareness and creativity would be quite revealing)

We do not presently understand the specifics about the most basic nature of nature -the most simple things possible -from a scientific perspective -but we do know that we are working with the same material which was once in a different state.

Just as we know some things are not possible without our creativity, so we could prove what was not possible without God's creativity -if we understood the most basic nature of nature.

We may already have enough evidence to prove that "God" was necessary for the universe to exist -even if we do not know every specific -but we may not know how to read the available evidence.

So... Could pre-universe nature have become the universe without conscious decision -and how would we make that determination? We know what certainly indicates man's intelligence, self-awareness and creativity -but what indicates those things in and of themselves? How can we use pre-universe nature as a reference for what was possible and not possible?

Can we say that nothing gets made without God -except God and that from which God creates?

"If God created everything, then who created God?" and "God could not have created himself" are things often considered -but those same things would apply to everything and anything on a most basic level. At some point, something "just was" and was never not -and it became everything else.
Every present state was preceded by a state which both generally and specifically allowed for it and produced it.

Technically, it is more correct to say that God could not have initiated himself -but could have created himself as able -first without understanding and forethought and traveling step-by-step toward understanding and forethought. That might seem like cheating or semantics, but if we consider ourselves, because we have identity and are seen as individuals, we are said to be responsible for doing things even if we do not understand them or did not plan to do them. "I" often bump into things even though "I" really didn't. Similarly, if God is the sum of all things, "God" could have done things before God "knowingly" did things.

(Surprising as it may seem -none of that is actually against biblical scripture. God does not claim responsibility for himself or his own basic nature or existence. He says that he is that is -that he is the beginning and end -that which was, is and will be -the most high, etc.)

 

[George-ananda]

Science has shown a number of beliefs about God and creation to be false -but, in doing so, has science unwittingly revealed the nature of -and necessity for -God?

I think that as science has gotten more sophisticated, theology can keep pace.

For the sake of clarity at this point, let's throw out any ideas about God except that of an overall creative mind ultimately responsible for the universe and all therein.

Very good early paragraph to the discussion.

 

[WalterTrull]

Man, had to skim that, but I get the gist.

Can we say that nothing gets made without God

Yeah. 'Course what I mean by that is God is the image maker. Also, I put the imaging in the present, as there is only now.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

One of the common themes in these types of threads is the burden of proof. Quite simply, if you claim that something is true then it is up to you to demonstrate that it is true. It isn't the job of the skeptic to disprove a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

As Russell put it:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

It isn't enough to say that we can't disprove a creator deity since it is easy enough to invent a creator deity that is protected from disproof. What you need is positive evidence that there is a creator deity, not simply a lack of disproof.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

At some point, something "just was" and was never not -and it became everything else.

And why can't it be that - just as gravity is a force in effect at all times, ready to do its "job" as mass coalesces with mass - "life" is simply awaiting the right conditions, its antecedents always among the stable configurations of matter that is being strived for, and the "spark" ultimately introduced that separates "life" from "non-life" something that very rarely happens, but will eventually given time and optimal conditions? That the fundamentals we see before us in activity and rest are the things that "just [are]?"

Why MUST a "consciousness" of any form (self-aware or not) be invoked at any time? It is completely unnecessary, and an idea that lends itself much better to fiction given the reality before us - in which we can see life and non-life managing on its own at all times, all around us... but have NEVER ONCE seen that same life requiring support/urging/coercion/manipulation by God.

 

[WalterTrull]

What you need is positive evidence that there is a creator deity,

We are. That's pretty positive evidence to me.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We are. That's pretty positive evidence to me.

How are we evidence?

 

[David T]

Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

Science has shown a number of beliefs about God and creation to be false -but, in doing so, has science unwittingly revealed the nature of -and necessity for -God?

For the sake of clarity at this point, let's throw out any ideas about God except that of an overall creative mind ultimately responsible for the universe and all therein.

The great and wise philosopher Mr. Rogers once said something to the effect of..... "Nothing gets made without people". He was correct on a certain level, but in order for people to make things, people -as well as the material from which they make things -must first exist. Nothing gets made without people, except, of course, people and everything else they did not make.

On our human level, some things are obviously "made" by creative people -and some things, including people, some consider to have been "formed" somehow without creativity. Some others believe people and nature were formed by being "made" by a creative process.

We can determine with certainty that something was "made" by employing creativity if it is different than that which was otherwise possible -different than "nature" could produce on its own.

We KNOW that we did not create what we call nature -and that we did not create ourselves. Each individual human becomes personally aware at a specific point, within a body and environment which are already extremely complex.

Even so, certain arrangements and levels of complexity are only possible after we become aware and use our pre-existing mental and physical abilities. Though "composed" of that which is natural, we are able to change the course nature would otherwise take -by decision.

Some things must precede and allow for "decision" -and decision must precede and allow for some things.

We could not have created the basic materials we use to create -which are the same basic materials which allow for our own existence, and we could not have initiated the process which caused our own selves to become aware.

As that which now exists is the same basic material which has existed (perhaps "always") -in a different arrangement -then those basic facts should apply at every level.

If God is "eternal", then it is impossible for God to have initiated his own awareness -and it is impossible for God to be responsible for that which allows for his own existence. As something can not come from absolute nothing -and that which exists now is the same basic material which did exist -but in a different arrangement -God would essentially be composed of that same material -and would create using that material.
However, God would represent the sum of all -whereas we each represent a portion of all. That position would allow for omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

Some believe man is the first example of a life form able to -by conscious decision -change the course nature would otherwise take -and it should be acceptable to all to say that "nature" inevitably produces awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc......

So why would this not be true on an all-inclusive level?

It should be noted that what we call "nature" once did not exist as such. The atoms of the elements -from which our "nature" is formed once did not exist. Their material was not always in this arrangement. However, it still existed and was still the same basic stuff.

Nothing can be created unless things happen and exist "on their own" -and an "eternal" God is not even possible unless things (God in this case) happen and exist "on their own" -but certain things cannot happen "on their own". A creative mind requires certain things, and certain things require a creative mind -and nothing is possible unless the most basic nature of all things is dynamic.

Science has shown that humans are part of -and the result of -an evolutionary process which involved many steps over a great amount of time -which indicates that certain other claims are false, but that does not prove there was no creative input at all -as our own creative input which alters evolution shows it is possible at any point.
Some see the fact that DNA does not require creative input as proof that God did not create earthly life -but earthly life is dependent on the Big Bang, atoms, etc., and God is generally credited with the creation of those things. It is apparent that God did not create everything 6,000 years ago (which is not actually what Genesis or the bible states, anyway), but a more basic and important question is whether or not the universe itself -atoms, etc. -required a creator -acknowledging that creation is arrangement of things already of a dynamic nature themselves -but sometimes in arrangements not otherwise possible (or at times not otherwise inevitable).

As with our creative activity within our present environment, it would also be true that pre-universe stuff could not be arranged into certain configurations except by conscious decision -unless some "one" could change the course nature would otherwise take.

Yet... that "one" (sum of all things) must first exist/develop and be creative before certain things were possible -and it is "natural" that the basic nature of the basic material would lead to such -or was always such in a different -less complex -state -moving toward complexity.

The individual steps which led to our present state did not happen to us individually -they happened in many places at many times -and even to other life forms before us.

However... All things would happen to "One" who represented the sum of all things personally and individually as that one developed the ability to move "nature" beyond nature by decision.
On an all-inclusive level, that "one" would not become aware within a body and environment which was already extremely complex. That "one" would experience every step of the process -every step of becoming aware, self-aware, creative, etc. -experiencing it in a more complex way as that "one" became a more complex self -and increasingly "personally" responsible and able to change course by decision.

(Cataloging each individual step -wherever it took place -toward our own present state of self-awareness and creativity would be quite revealing)

We do not presently understand the specifics about the most basic nature of nature -the most simple things possible -from a scientific perspective -but we do know that we are working with the same material which was once in a different state.

Just as we know some things are not possible without our creativity, so we could prove what was not possible without God's creativity -if we understood the most basic nature of nature.

We may already have enough evidence to prove that "God" was necessary for the universe to exist -even if we do not know every specific -but we may not know how to read the available evidence.

So... Could pre-universe nature have become the universe without conscious decision -and how would we make that determination? We know what certainly indicates man's intelligence, self-awareness and creativity -but what indicates those things in and of themselves? How can we use pre-universe nature as a reference for what was possible and not possible?

Can we say that nothing gets made without God -except God and that from which God creates?

"If God created everything, then who created God?" and "God could not have created himself" are things often considered -but those same things would apply to everything and anything on a most basic level. At some point, something "just was" and was never not -and it became everything else.
Every present state was preceded by a state which both generally and specifically allowed for it and produced it.

Technically, it is more correct to say that God could not have initiated himself -but could have created himself as able -first without understanding and forethought and traveling step-by-step toward understanding and forethought. That might seem like cheating or semantics, but if we consider ourselves, because we have identity and are seen as individuals, we are said to be responsible for doing things even if we do not understand them or did not plan to do them. "I" often bump into things even though "I" really didn't. Similarly, if God is the sum of all things, "God" could have done things before God "knowingly" did things.

(Surprising as it may seem -none of that is actually against biblical scripture. God does not claim responsibility for himself or his own basic nature or existence. He says that he is that is -that he is the beginning and end -that which was, is and will be -the most high, etc.)

different than "nature" could produce on its own.

That literally makes zero sense so I stopped reading. I don't create an artificial semantic between the sound God and the sound nature. On my guitar both are G cords. That's a quality of synaesthesia as well and being left handed.

As an artist (weirdo) is I understand what you are struggling to Imply but artists express artistically everyone else expresses descriptively explanatory . Artists in a sense struggle as well with expressing but that's art. St francis said "Labour's work with their hands. Craftsmen work with their hands and mind. Artists work with their hands mind and heart". St Francis revealed who he was. An artist with great depth. RARE!!!

 

[WalterTrull]

How are we evidence?

We exist. There are many of us. We communicate. We seem to breed. We ALL die. Each an absurdity, unless of course, there is God.

 

[Etritonakin]

different than "nature" could produce on its own.

That literally makes zero sense so I stopped reading. I don't create an artificial semantic between the sound God and the sound nature. On my guitar both are G cords. That's a quality of synaesthesia as well and being left handed.

As an artist (weirdo) is I understand what you are struggling to Imply but artists express artistically everyone else expresses descriptively explanatory . Artists in a sense struggle as well with expressing but that's art. St francis said "Labour's work with their hands. Craftsmen work with their hands and mind. Artists work with their hands mind and heart". St Francis revealed who he was. An artist with great depth. RARE!!!

Edited that part to specify nature without conscious decision by a self-aware, creative intelligence

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

We exist. There are many of us. We communicate. We seem to breed. We ALL die. Each an absurdity, unless of course, there is God.

Why would those be absurdities if there was no God?

 

[David T]

Edited that part to specify nature without conscious decision by a self-aware, creative intelligence

That's better.
I think the two are actually linked not separate that's called sin originally actually To separate from. That requires a particular aspect of the human brain. It's not as smart as it convinces itself it is. It's also a continuous fallacy is science as well.

 

[Etritonakin]

And why can't it be that - just as gravity is a force in effect at all times, ready to do its "job" as mass coalesces with mass - "life" is simply awaiting the right conditions, its antecedents always among the stable configurations of matter that is being strived for, and the "spark" ultimately introduced that separates "life" from "non-life" something that very rarely happens, but will eventually given time and optimal conditions? That the fundamentals we see before us in activity and rest are the things that "just [are]?"

Why MUST a "consciousness" of any form (self-aware or not) be invoked at any time? It is completely unnecessary, and an idea that lends itself much better to fiction given the reality before us - in which we can see life and non-life managing on its own at all times, all around us... but have NEVER ONCE seen that same life requiring support/urging/coercion/manipulation by God.

We may have not seen any involvement by God -but we may not know what we are looking for. Man is beginning to manipulate life forms by decision on a DNA level -and has historically manipulated life forms by selective breeding, etc., but few have considered what sort of evidence might be left in the life form itself -if any -for those examining life forms in the future.
How can we look at any DNA and know it was manipulated without much more evidence?
With man, there might be records or evidence of activity, but a God acting by "fiat" (let there be.....) -an internal or more direct interface rather than a body? How would one know it was taking place -or did take place?

A consciousness, etc., IS necessary for some things -and at OUR level, we can consider what would be and would have been in our absence -and could not have happened without our presence. Our activities are indicative of us and our nature -the fact that we have a consciousness, self-awareness, creativity, etc.

So... Part of my point was that some things are impossible without man. We know this by understanding our level of existence to a certain degree.

AT THIS POINT, life GENERALLY develops without input (though we have already begun to input), but only after the extremely complex elements, universal forces, etc., came into existence quite suddenly. A creator with our lives in mind AT OR BEFORE THAT POINT could have created the elements to lend themselves to DNA self-replication, etc. -and ALSO made certain changes at any point.

(A consciousness must understand something -be able to model it in imagination -before SOME changes can be made to something -or before changes can be made out of normal sequence)

I was going to include a paragraph or so about why the universe and Earth life would require a creator -things that at least point to/suggest such -but the OP was quite long as it was, and I did not want to bring in too many points

 

[Etritonakin]

One of the common themes in these types of threads is the burden of proof. Quite simply, if you claim that something is true then it is up to you to demonstrate that it is true. It isn't the job of the skeptic to disprove a claim that hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

As Russell put it:

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

It isn't enough to say that we can't disprove a creator deity since it is easy enough to invent a creator deity that is protected from disproof. What you need is positive evidence that there is a creator deity, not simply a lack of disproof.

In short...

If proof of the necessity of a creator for the universe is possible scientifically (without having access to said creator), it would be by understanding pre-universe nature -in similar fashion as we can prove something was made by man or similar by comparing it to universe nature.

(Also, knowing enough about universe nature would also reveal whether life was necessarily initiated by a creator after the universe became arranged -but it would require knowing what was inevitable after the universe became arranged.
Life as we know it is essentially a program (whether you believe there was a programmer or not) -which was either programmed into the Big Bang and was then inevitable -or was programmed afterward.)

As we are essentially working with the same stuff which was once NOT the universe, we may have that evidence available.

As it is assumed that a creator was not necessary due to certain assumptions about creation being shown to be false -among other things, few are trying to consider the evidence as it may relate to the necessity or existence of a creator.

Some have said that the order and complexity of even a single cell indicates creativity, purpose, etc., but evidence which was acceptable to all would have to be comprehensive and overwhelming.

It would have to be SHOWN that it was otherwise impossible -it cannot simply be KNOWN to be.
If it can be accepted that some things require a creator, there is a basis for determining whether or not the universe required a creator.

The burden of proof is on everyone who wants to understand what truly happened.

 

[Etritonakin]

And why can't it be that - just as gravity is a force in effect at all times, ready to do its "job" as mass coalesces with mass - "life" is simply awaiting the right conditions, its antecedents always among the stable configurations of matter that is being strived for, and the "spark" ultimately introduced that separates "life" from "non-life" something that very rarely happens, but will eventually given time and optimal conditions? That the fundamentals we see before us in activity and rest are the things that "just [are]?"

Why MUST a "consciousness" of any form (self-aware or not) be invoked at any time? It is completely unnecessary, and an idea that lends itself much better to fiction given the reality before us - in which we can see life and non-life managing on its own at all times, all around us... but have NEVER ONCE seen that same life requiring support/urging/coercion/manipulation by God.

I am in agreement that -at the most basic level -things simply did what they would do....

However, they could only do so much until they generally allowed for and then specifically caused every level of whatever -including awareness, self-awareness, intelligence and creativity -at which point (or increasingly) that which could only happen by conscious, creative decision was possible.

Humans are believed by some to be the first example of the ability to decide upon that which would not otherwise have happened to such an extreme degree (other life forms have more limited decision-making ability) -to plan the future rather than simply be subject to it -but that principle need not only apply to life after the Big Bang. It may apply to the creator of the universe itself (whose basic existence and development may be dependent upon things which could not have been consciously initiated) -and knowing the nature of the pre-universe stuff (or the most basic nature of that which surrounds us now -being essentially the same stuff) -which we may be able to do by reverse-engineering, science, math and logic -would reveal whether or not that was the case.

At the very least....all should be able to accept that some things cannot happen without "creators" (such as humans) -and some things must precede "creators".

The difference would be whether or not "the universe" could have happened without a similar -but greater -creative mind than that of humans.

Because we cannot show that such a mind exists by examining it, we would need to determine what things -in and of themselves -certainly indicate such. We have both man and his environment to consider -but we have an overall environment which is enormous and complex, to say the least, and a God (even if one believes God exists) who is not extremely apparent or talkative.

The tricky part -which is evidenced by DNA-based "evolution" -is that creation and evolution are as much a part of each other as the radius and diameter of a circle (There is certainly a better analogy, but you get the idea). Evolution creates, creativity evolves, evolution is created -and one generally becomes more complex with the other. The "elegance" which describes evolution is no more or less true of creativity. They are both parts of the same whole. They are not at odds, but dependent upon each other.

 

[Milton Platt]

Did Science (and Mr. Rogers) Prove God?

Science has shown a number of beliefs about God and creation to be false -but, in doing so, has science unwittingly revealed the nature of -and necessity for -God?

For the sake of clarity at this point, let's throw out any ideas about God except that of an overall creative mind ultimately responsible for the universe and all therein.

The great and wise philosopher Mr. Rogers once said something to the effect of..... "Nothing gets made without people". He was correct on a certain level, but in order for people to make things, people -as well as the material from which they make things -must first exist. Nothing gets made without people, except, of course, people and everything else they did not make.

On our human level, some things are obviously "made" by creative people -and some things, including people, some consider to have been "formed" somehow without creativity. Some others believe people and nature were formed by being "made" by a creative process.

We can determine with certainty that something was "made" by employing creativity if it is different than that which was otherwise possible -different than "nature" (without the conscious decision of a self-aware, creative intelligence) could produce on its own.

We KNOW that we did not create what we call nature -and that we did not create ourselves. Each individual human becomes personally aware at a specific point, within a body and environment which are already extremely complex.

Even so, certain arrangements and levels of complexity are only possible after we become aware and use our pre-existing mental and physical abilities. Though "composed" of that which is natural, we are able to change the course nature would otherwise take -by decision.

Some things must precede and allow for "decision" -and decision must precede and allow for some things.

We could not have created the basic materials we use to create -which are the same basic materials which allow for our own existence, and we could not have initiated the process which caused our own selves to become aware.

As that which now exists is the same basic material which has existed (perhaps "always") -in a different arrangement -then those basic facts should apply at every level.

If God is "eternal", then it is impossible for God to have initiated his own awareness -and it is impossible for God to be responsible for that which allows for his own existence. As something can not come from absolute nothing -and that which exists now is the same basic material which did exist -but in a different arrangement -God would essentially be composed of that same material -and would create using that material.
However, God would represent the sum of all -whereas we each represent a portion of all. That position would allow for omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

Some believe man is the first example of a life form able to -by conscious decision -change the course nature would otherwise take -and it should be acceptable to all to say that "nature" inevitably produces awareness, self-awareness, creativity, etc......

So why would this not be true on an all-inclusive level?

It should be noted that what we call "nature" once did not exist as such. The atoms of the elements -from which our "nature" is formed once did not exist. Their material was not always in this arrangement. However, it still existed and was still the same basic stuff.

Nothing can be created unless things happen and exist "on their own" -and an "eternal" God is not even possible unless things (God in this case) happen and exist "on their own" -but certain things cannot happen "on their own". A creative mind requires certain things, and certain things require a creative mind -and nothing is possible unless the most basic nature of all things is dynamic.

Science has shown that humans are part of -and the result of -an evolutionary process which involved many steps over a great amount of time -which indicates that certain other claims are false, but that does not prove there was no creative input at all -as our own creative input which alters evolution shows it is possible at any point.
Some see the fact that DNA does not require creative input as proof that God did not create earthly life -but earthly life is dependent on the Big Bang, atoms, etc., and God is generally credited with the creation of those things. It is apparent that God did not create everything 6,000 years ago (which is not actually what Genesis or the bible states, anyway), but a more basic and important question is whether or not the universe itself -atoms, etc. -required a creator -acknowledging that creation is arrangement of things already of a dynamic nature themselves -but sometimes in arrangements not otherwise possible (or at times not otherwise inevitable).

As with our creative activity within our present environment, it would also be true that pre-universe stuff could not be arranged into certain configurations except by conscious decision -unless some "one" could change the course nature would otherwise take.

Yet... that "one" (sum of all things) must first exist/develop and be creative before certain things were possible -and it is "natural" that the basic nature of the basic material would lead to such -or was always such in a different -less complex -state -moving toward complexity.

The individual steps which led to our present state did not happen to us individually -they happened in many places at many times -and even to other life forms before us.

However... All things would happen to "One" who represented the sum of all things personally and individually as that one developed the ability to move "nature" beyond nature by decision.
On an all-inclusive level, that "one" would not become aware within a body and environment which was already extremely complex. That "one" would experience every step of the process -every step of becoming aware, self-aware, creative, etc. -experiencing it in a more complex way as that "one" became a more complex self -and increasingly "personally" responsible and able to change course by decision.

(Cataloging each individual step -wherever it took place -toward our own present state of self-awareness and creativity would be quite revealing)

We do not presently understand the specifics about the most basic nature of nature -the most simple things possible -from a scientific perspective -but we do know that we are working with the same material which was once in a different state.

Just as we know some things are not possible without our creativity, so we could prove what was not possible without God's creativity -if we understood the most basic nature of nature.

We may already have enough evidence to prove that "God" was necessary for the universe to exist -even if we do not know every specific -but we may not know how to read the available evidence.

So... Could pre-universe nature have become the universe without conscious decision -and how would we make that determination? We know what certainly indicates man's intelligence, self-awareness and creativity -but what indicates those things in and of themselves? How can we use pre-universe nature as a reference for what was possible and not possible?

Can we say that nothing gets made without God -except God and that from which God creates?

"If God created everything, then who created God?" and "God could not have created himself" are things often considered -but those same things would apply to everything and anything on a most basic level. At some point, something "just was" and was never not -and it became everything else.
Every present state was preceded by a state which both generally and specifically allowed for it and produced it.

Technically, it is more correct to say that God could not have initiated himself -but could have created himself as able -first without understanding and forethought and traveling step-by-step toward understanding and forethought. That might seem like cheating or semantics, but if we consider ourselves, because we have identity and are seen as individuals, we are said to be responsible for doing things even if we do not understand them or did not plan to do them. "I" often bump into things even though "I" really didn't. Similarly, if God is the sum of all things, "God" could have done things before God "knowingly" did things.

(Surprising as it may seem -none of that is actually against biblical scripture. God does not claim responsibility for himself or his own basic nature or existence. He says that he is that is -that he is the beginning and end -that which was, is and will be -the most high, etc.)

Sorry...can't get past you trying to give your version of god an exception to the very rule you have made up to support his existence. If everything needs a cause, then something has to have caused your god, and something has to have caused that cause, etc. No special pleading allowed.

 

[Etritonakin]

Sorry...can't get past you trying to give your version of god an exception to the very rule you have made up to support his existence. If everything needs a cause, then something has to have caused your god, and something has to have caused that cause, etc. No special pleading allowed.

The same applies to everything -God or anything else.

Apparently, we got past it.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think that as science has gotten more sophisticated, theology can keep pace.


Very good early paragraph to the discussion.

Yet -the basis for science and theology would be one and the same. Perhaps as simple as -or more simple than -1 and 0.
Complexity is multiple and compounded (etc.) simplicity.
It seems logical to me that the "all-powerful" would be so because the all-powerful was the most simple state of "everything" possible -and all other states which followed.

 

[Milton Platt]

The same applies to everything -God or anything else.

Apparently, we got past it.

No, it does not. You made up a rule about how you think the universe works and then broke the rule to provide a loophole for your god.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The tricky part -which is evidenced by DNA-based "evolution" -is that creation and evolution are as much a part of each other as the radius and diameter of a circle (There is certainly a better analogy, but you get the idea). Evolution creates, creativity evolves, evolution is created -and one generally becomes more complex with the other. The "elegance" which describes evolution is no more or less true of creativity. They are both parts of the same whole. They are not at odds, but dependent upon each other.

But the fact remains that completely automatic processes take care of ALL of that. This is not true for anything humans can create that otherwise could not have been created without the human element of creativity. A painting can not spontaneously form. A watch cannot build itself via natural processes. There is a stark difference between things that are "organic" in nature, and follow their course according to automated "rules of nature", and those items that are delineated from nature - that is, take on forms that specifically break the mold of things that occur naturally. We have mostly even been able to TRACE BACK any object we see that breaks these molds, and find its origin. Such as a seashell. But there is absolutely no way to trace ANYTHING back to God.