You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Forget about proving God, Is it man-made?

MikeL September 26, 2017 at 11:28 14325 views 54 comments
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.

Comments (54)

Galuchat September 26, 2017 at 12:47 #108488
MikeL:Is there some way we can prove that something is man made? Some method?


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.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 12:53 #108490
Quoting Galuchat
human verbal modelling


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?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 13:08 #108494
The god concept is clearly human made, the system I am using I like to call common sense.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 13:16 #108497
Reply to Jeremiah How does that work?
Galuchat September 26, 2017 at 13:34 #108502
MikeL:Hey, Galuchat, what do you mean by human verbal modelling?


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).
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 13:35 #108503
Reply to MikeL

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.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 13:38 #108505
Quoting Galuchat
constructing a set of related verbal concepts, such as: natural, artificial, produce, manufacture, create, etc. arranged to represent a composite concept, situation, or system


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?
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 13:48 #108508
Quoting Jeremiah
Somehow I am not surprised common sense is a unknown concept to you.


Sorry, do we know each other?

Quoting Jeremiah
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 strangers throats.

I have never rabbit write a book about gods, I have never seen a bird preaching about its messiah on TV.


You've never seen those things? You need to get out more.

Quoting Jeremiah
There is only one animal on this planet who cannot shut up about god, and strangely enough the collective conceptualize of god is a reflect of the narcissistic human mind.


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

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.


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.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 13:51 #108509
Reply to Jeremiah Well, not a science claim, but it would fall on that side. They're working toward it.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 13:52 #108511
This is nothing but an attempt to create a no true scotsman fallacy.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 13:54 #108513
Reply to Jeremiah What is? Are you able to answer a simple question like proving that something was man-made Jeremiah? Come on, turn on that Common Sense for me. Let's see what you've got.
Galuchat September 26, 2017 at 13:56 #108515
MikeL:A composite concept, situation or system? Still not sure what you mean.


A domain ontology is a verbal model.
And a new building is a verbal model before it becomes blueprints, then bricks and mortar.

Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 13:57 #108516
Reply to MikeL Some of us live with the fact that we can't explain everything.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 13:58 #108517
Reply to Galuchat OK, I'm with you now.
So if we could backward construct the object into a blueprint and verbal model, we might have an insight into the creator of it?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:02 #108518
Reply to MikeL It would be a case by case assessment based on what we know about humans and the thing in question, obviously conceptual items differ from the tangible, so they would need a different assessment.

Your thoughtless attempt to make absolute standards is a straw-man and a vain attempt to create a no true scotsman fallacy.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:06 #108519
Reply to Jeremiah Quoting Jeremiah
Your thoughtless attempt to make absolute standards is straw-man


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.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:10 #108520
Reply to MikeL My use a straw man is a bit flexible, but I am not getting ahead of the game, that is where the creation of such silly standards lead. Also I clearly addressed your topic, you know the part you left out.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:12 #108521
Quoting Jeremiah
you know the part you left out


About the talking rabbits?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:13 #108522
Reply to MikeL case by case. . .
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:14 #108523
Reply to Jeremiah Oh I see, well in this particular case of the rubix cube, what would you suggest?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:14 #108524
And it was writing rabbits.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:15 #108525
Reply to Jeremiah You're a funny guy Jeremiah. Any suggestions on the cubes?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:15 #108526
Reply to MikeL Already addressed that in that same post.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:16 #108527
Does plastic grow on trees? Or is it a known human made material?
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:17 #108528
Reply to Jeremiah Back in Egyptian days it was neither, which is why I chose that era. But now we're getting somewhere with our analysis. What else?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:18 #108529
Reply to MikeL Reread my post case by case based on what we know about humans.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:19 #108530
And you are very much building a straw man.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:19 #108531
Reply to Jeremiah Yeah, I'm not following you there. I never was the best student. You talking about narcisism? I can't find anything else.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:19 #108532
Quoting Jeremiah
And you are very much building a straw man.


Not at all.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:20 #108533
Reply to MikeL Right. . .
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:21 #108534
Reply to MikeL It is your main goal here.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:22 #108535
Reply to Jeremiah I am very curious if it's possible to prove something is man-made, if you've never seen it before. It sounds easy, but it's actually pretty hard.
Galuchat September 26, 2017 at 14:23 #108536
MikeL:So if we could backward construct the object into a blueprint and verbal model, we might have an insight into the creator of it?


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.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:25 #108537
Reply to Galuchat
What about man-made, in the case of the rubix cube? How does the backward logic bare out for you?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:25 #108538
Reply to MikeL That is a straw man. You can actually witness humans creating thing, it is not hard to prove, instead you want it to be hard to prove.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:26 #108539
Reply to Jeremiah Well, prove it to me.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:26 #108540
Reply to Jeremiah Don't forget the cubes washed up on the shore.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:28 #108542
Reply to MikeL That is a trap. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:30 #108543
Reply to ????????????? Are you sure about that? I saw a cube shaped rock once. Sharp edges and all Fault-lines and erosion. And just for the record, its not me that's confused (thanks for the link anyway), it's the Egyptian boy and his dad (and they don't have the internet).
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:30 #108544
Reply to Jeremiah No trap Jeremiah, you just can't answer it. There's a difference.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:34 #108546
Reply to MikeL I actually did already address your question, you just ignored it, and the "prove it to me" is always a trap, since we are talking about your personal subjective standards which you can shift at any time.

Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?

MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:34 #108547
Reply to ????????????? You wouldn't think so, but there was this weird storm that blew up out of nowhere and a cargo ship carrying Rubix cubes headed straight into it. The father was good friends with Aristotle though and they often talked of QM but called it the dance of the etherial spirits.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:36 #108548
Reply to Jeremiah Quoting Jeremiah
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.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:36 #108549
Reply to MikeL
Do you have intersubjectively verifiable hard evidence of god or not?
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:38 #108551
Reply to Jeremiah Why are you asking me about God when I'm asking you about rubix cubes Jeremiah. It sounds to me like maybe you want to be a believer and just need a bit of evidence to go your way. Am I right?
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:38 #108552
Reply to ????????????? Get out of here! So I guess they solved the problem afterall. You should ask them to get Aristotle on Philosophy Forum.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:39 #108553
Reply to MikeL
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?
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:42 #108556
Reply to Jeremiah Again with the big words Jeremiah. You should learn to articulate a little better. My OP is about Rubix cubes. I want to know how we can go about verifying something is man made. If we can do it, then we might have a method for proving the existence of your God. :)

Reply to ????????????? What are you talking about?
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:43 #108557
Reply to MikeL

Still avoiding my question I see. I knew you had nothing but stupid games.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 14:44 #108558
Reply to Jeremiah Thanks for coming Jeremiah. Always a pleasure.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:44 #108559
This is not philosophy.
Jeremiah September 26, 2017 at 14:45 #108561
Reply to MikeL

Any time I can jump in and crap all over a worthless thread, I am happy to help.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 15:44 #108571
Quoting ?????????????
We know the cubes are man-made.


Jokes aside, you may have answered it. Regular geometry.
MikeL September 26, 2017 at 15:45 #108572
Simple regular repeated geometry