Forget about proving God, Is it man-made?
I have been thinking a lot about proving God and proving intentionality with life, and have come to realise that even proving something is manmade is quite hard. Even Aristotle was only a little help. Is there some way we can prove that something is man made? Some method?
In ancient times, BC, an Egyptian peasant boy and his father are going to the shore to inspect a net when they see washed up all over the beach and bobbing in the waves before them, plastic rubix cubes, most jumbled, some not.
They have never seen plastic before, let alone a rubix cube. They take a handful home to determine if they are manmade or not. The boy thinks they are. Dad is not convinced. For the sake of argument we will say the colors are painted on, not on paper stickers.
Material Cause: That out of which a thing comes to be and which persists (What its made out of)
Boy:
The plastic material is different to those materials in my known environment, suggesting it was manufactured.
Father:
I know of fine timbers, perfumes and precious metals we import into Egypt, and they are not laying around here either- doesn't mean they're manufactured.
Formal Cause: The pattern structure or form that the matter realises in becoming a determinate thing. (The blue print, template)
Boy:
The object has symmetry. I know that manmade things have symmetry - houses, swords, chariots and clothes have symmetry.
Father:
Humans and animals have symmetry. There is a symmetry to day and night.
Boy:
It turns (twists), and natural things don’t turn. Wheels turn and doors swing open.
Father:
Papyrus reeds can be twisted, or water rung out from moss. That doesn’t imply a purpose.
Boy:
But even after twisting, the object remains as if in original condition.
Father:
Twisting Clay in one’s hands does not change the nature of the clay.
Boy:
Things can be manufactured in his world and they are identical, just like these cubes.
Father:
Even with the highest standard of manufacturing no two coins, swords or chariots are exactly alike.
Boy:
The item is unique and constrained suggesting craftsmanship.
Father:
A fish is unique in its way, and constrained.
Boy:
The identical nature between cubes in both form and function goes against what I know of nature and quantum mechanics.
Father:
Two bream can look identical. The function is not known, only the degree of freedom the object has.
Efficient Cause: Topic of Enquiry The agent or entity responsible for the matter taking its specific pattern, structure or form (How was it manufactured)
Final Cause: That for the sake of which a thing is done. (Purpose)
Boy:
There is a color matching game encoded in the cube.
Father:
That is not a game. It’s a pattern.
Boy:
The patterns on Pharoh’s wall are painted by man.
Father:
The patterns in the sky are painted by the Gods.
Boy:
But there is sense in the pattern that I can understand and manipulate.
Father:
There is sense in the pattern of the seasons that you can understand and manipulate for fine crops.
Boy:
I can easily find a use for the object, easily convert it into a game, especially if there are more than one cube. You could race other people for example.
Father:
Like you do when you float sticks down the river?
Boy:
It looks made for people and therefore must be made by people.
Father:
Like the conch shell we blow when an enemy is approaching?
Boy:
I cannot classify it against anything I have ever seen.
Father:
Wait until I take you to a volcano next month.
Boy:
It says, Made in Egypt right here.
Father:
Go to bed.
In ancient times, BC, an Egyptian peasant boy and his father are going to the shore to inspect a net when they see washed up all over the beach and bobbing in the waves before them, plastic rubix cubes, most jumbled, some not.
They have never seen plastic before, let alone a rubix cube. They take a handful home to determine if they are manmade or not. The boy thinks they are. Dad is not convinced. For the sake of argument we will say the colors are painted on, not on paper stickers.
Material Cause: That out of which a thing comes to be and which persists (What its made out of)
Boy:
The plastic material is different to those materials in my known environment, suggesting it was manufactured.
Father:
I know of fine timbers, perfumes and precious metals we import into Egypt, and they are not laying around here either- doesn't mean they're manufactured.
Formal Cause: The pattern structure or form that the matter realises in becoming a determinate thing. (The blue print, template)
Boy:
The object has symmetry. I know that manmade things have symmetry - houses, swords, chariots and clothes have symmetry.
Father:
Humans and animals have symmetry. There is a symmetry to day and night.
Boy:
It turns (twists), and natural things don’t turn. Wheels turn and doors swing open.
Father:
Papyrus reeds can be twisted, or water rung out from moss. That doesn’t imply a purpose.
Boy:
But even after twisting, the object remains as if in original condition.
Father:
Twisting Clay in one’s hands does not change the nature of the clay.
Boy:
Things can be manufactured in his world and they are identical, just like these cubes.
Father:
Even with the highest standard of manufacturing no two coins, swords or chariots are exactly alike.
Boy:
The item is unique and constrained suggesting craftsmanship.
Father:
A fish is unique in its way, and constrained.
Boy:
The identical nature between cubes in both form and function goes against what I know of nature and quantum mechanics.
Father:
Two bream can look identical. The function is not known, only the degree of freedom the object has.
Efficient Cause: Topic of Enquiry The agent or entity responsible for the matter taking its specific pattern, structure or form (How was it manufactured)
Final Cause: That for the sake of which a thing is done. (Purpose)
Boy:
There is a color matching game encoded in the cube.
Father:
That is not a game. It’s a pattern.
Boy:
The patterns on Pharoh’s wall are painted by man.
Father:
The patterns in the sky are painted by the Gods.
Boy:
But there is sense in the pattern that I can understand and manipulate.
Father:
There is sense in the pattern of the seasons that you can understand and manipulate for fine crops.
Boy:
I can easily find a use for the object, easily convert it into a game, especially if there are more than one cube. You could race other people for example.
Father:
Like you do when you float sticks down the river?
Boy:
It looks made for people and therefore must be made by people.
Father:
Like the conch shell we blow when an enemy is approaching?
Boy:
I cannot classify it against anything I have ever seen.
Father:
Wait until I take you to a volcano next month.
Boy:
It says, Made in Egypt right here.
Father:
Go to bed.
Comments (54)
Great question.
Does it help to define nature as: the universe not produced by human verbal modelling (recognising that humans, being part of nature, produce both natural and artificial things)? Artifice being human design.
Hey, Galuchat, what do you mean by human verbal modelling?
If we could figure out a system of classifying what it man made v natural, we could apply it to the God problem.
I see symmetry, identical products, and the other things above. Can you think of any?
Human beings are unique among all other organisms in nature in that they have the faculty of language. This faculty permits verbal conceptualisation (e.g., definitions like the one provided for nature, above) and verbal modelling (i.e., constructing a set of related verbal concepts, such as: natural, artificial, produce, manufacture, create, etc. arranged to represent a composite concept, situation, or system).
Somehow I am not surprised that common sense is a unknown concept to you.
Let's see, do dogs talk about god? Can't say I ever heard dogs talk about god. How about cats? Do cats go door to door selling their worthless god theories? I have seen them go door to door for food, but I have never seen a cat go door to door to shove their religious beliefs down a stranger's throats.
I have never rabbits write a book about gods, I have never seen a bird preaching about its messiah on TV. There is only one animal on this planet who cannot shut up about god, and strangely enough the collective conceptualize of god is a reflection of the narcissistic human mind. Because only humans are egotistical enough to actually believe, that not only do they know how everything was created, but that creator actually gives a shit about them.
A composite concept, situation or system? Still not sure what you mean. Juxtaposition? Can we apply it to figuring out how to distinguish is something is manmade or not?
Sorry, do we know each other?
Quoting Jeremiah
You've never seen those things? You need to get out more.
Quoting Jeremiah
Yes, that's right. When I think of God, I think of the person I see whenever I look in the mirror Jeremiah. I figure he must of got out his tools one day and set to work sculpting me in his image.
I think you could argue that narcissism: the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes - may actually stem from ones belief that we're such hot stuff we don't need to invoke a god to explain the profound mysteries around us.
Quoting Jeremiah
Well, if you've been paying attention to the OPs, the God v Science debate is running pretty hot. Again though, claiming to know how everything was created is a science claim, not a god claim.
As for the creator actually giving a shit, If I were to personify him I would prefer to think of him as a poet who has planted a seed and watches with intense fascination as life blooms in a myriad of fascinating and unexpected directions.
A domain ontology is a verbal model.
And a new building is a verbal model before it becomes blueprints, then bricks and mortar.
So if we could backward construct the object into a blueprint and verbal model, we might have an insight into the creator of it?
Your thoughtless attempt to make absolute standards is a straw-man and a vain attempt to create a no true scotsman fallacy.
A strawman fallacy is when you deliberately create a weaker form of the argument so you can attack it. I am trying to build a framework so I can build on it.
As to your no true Scotsman, you're getting ahead of the game. I admire your enthusiasm, but for now I would like to focus on how we might go about proving something is man-made. Saying it depends doesn't quite cut the mustard, common sense or not.
About the talking rabbits?
Not at all.
I would prefer to use the word "origin" rather than "creator", because creations can be natural or artificial (to create is simply to produce something new). Spiders create webs, painters create art.
Analysis may, or may not, determine the producer (i.e., cause) of an object. So, I don't see how the natural/man-made distinction provides any insights with regard to God.
What about man-made, in the case of the rubix cube? How does the backward logic bare out for you?
Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?
Well, I'm talking to you aint I? :)
And you haven't answered my question, but if it's too hard for you I understand. It's too hard for me too.
Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?
The cube is a straw man and a distraction to your true aim. Why don't you answer the question, MkieL? Is it too hard for you? Are you too stupid to understand it?
Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?
What are you talking about?
Still avoiding my question I see. I knew you had nothing but stupid games.
Any time I can jump in and crap all over a worthless thread, I am happy to help.
Jokes aside, you may have answered it. Regular geometry.