That is the exact point over which I want you to ponder i.e you passed in a forest whereby you found a house which you believed it must be BUILT by a certain being whom you don't know, here rises another simple question; what made you to believe that the house Must have been built (by a certain aliens etc whom you don't know) ??--
Well, this is actually common sense. And You only need logic and probability..
Build /bɪld/ to construct (something) by putting parts or material together.
So by that definition, all built things are man made.
Using the knowledge My brain has acquired since childhood about my environment,I have learnt to distinguish between Natural and Man made objects in the environment. I know a tree is natural occuring and a house (even if it is a forest) is a manmade object..because I know that doors,windows,roofs,balconies are manmade concepts..Same way If I see a car, a pair of shoes, an iphone, A cigarette, a Yanga’s Jersey, etc. in the forest, I would know it is manmade and not natural.
If it was that of a mystery, (because theres nothing special about the location of the house in the forest and another house in the city, or the location of the pyramids in Egypt or the time it exists) then a house wouldn’t need to be in a forest for one to ask that stupid question of whether its built or natural or any other option you can think of (eg. It is Made by aliens, Angels, demons, made by God, it is a simulation, it is a dream etc.)
So I think a house in A forest is built due to the same reasons I think a house in the city,in the village, or in the saharas, is manmade and is different from natural things like lions and rivers and trees
Thats why you didnt think whether a tree in a forest was built or not., the question would make sense if the object we are seeing is neither natural nor manmade, say you found an object in your yard that defies physics and is not natural nor manmade., then that question of whether it wa built or not would make sense
So, we are not arguing about whether
man made objects(guitars, houses, watches, etc.) are built or not.,,that is very misleading.
We are arguing whether
All objects (natural & manmade) are built or not.
Now, I know manmade objects are built by man because I have a large database of other objects that man has made to infer and refer to.
And the
built in this case does not refer to
creating from nothing, but rather just adjusting, altering and transforming already existing natural objects into other forms like glass to mirror, trees to wood to houses, etc.
But as of all objects in the universe, we dont have other databases from other universes to infer whether this one we live in is built or natural existing.
to save time let me answer the question, the answer is; "Nothing disciplined can made or create itself"-- a disciplined body, matter, thing, entity etc is such a thing which functions or it is arranged in such a way that its arrangements make it functions a disciplinary work or saves a fruitful work.
This is not provable. Simple systems can interact purely by luck and evolve to create complex systems that may seem disciplined and serve a function. Individual water droplets from the rain may seem negligible but when they fall on land and flow to a lower surface due to gravity, they may unite to form a river which may serve a function of a home to a lot of animals.🐸🐺🐢🐙🦑🐠🐡🐋🐳🐊
The universe may seem disciplined but really it is an illusion because once you look really deep into it from its fundamental blocks (i.e atoms) at the quantum level you will see that it is all probabilistic, but all that random motion of subatomic particles obeying certain physical laws has a tendency of interacting to forms molecules compounds, solids,liquids,gases which also interact in unique ways to create rocks,rivers,mountains,planets,forests,trees,monkeys,bananas etc.
So discipline might actually not be the fundamental nature of the universe, but rather an emergent feature of complexity from very simple but very crucial systems.
Therefore, the question about the house in the forest should not brainstorm you because of the discipline at which a functioning house exists…
But rather it should brainstorm you why it exists there in the first place (regardless its disciplined or not)
Like Why atoms,molecules,compounds that are obeying laws of motion,gravity,energy conservation,etc. Exist???
Coming to the question in hand, as I said earlier, the issue here is not whether you know or don't know a builder of the house only what matters is; "the house was built", knowing the builder is none of our business or let make it be another issue to be discussed later.
Creation and building are two different things, building involves taking what already exists/ in your terms what’s already ‘created’ and assembling it into other forms.
So when we talk of built things, we talk of a who because we have enough data and evidence from other built things, existence of builders, and we can even learn how to build it our damn selves.
that verifies who builds.
(Building is just assembling natural objects)
But when we talk of creation, we really dont have any data or evidence of other created universes, existence of creator(s), and even the method in which a creator creates.
Here comes clue for the crux that even the world or to be precise the universe in which we live exhibits and executes disciplines,
TRUE
any thing which functions disciplines MUST have been created
False, generalization fallacy…you havent seen everything that exists and havent seen every disciplined thing in existence to conclude this.,(because theres nothing special about the location of the house in the forest or another house in the city, or the location of the pyramids in Egypt) and so there is nothing special about the location of the universe we observe.
It might be that, in other parts of the unobservable universe or in other universes the laws of physics are different and maybe laws of causation are not fundamental.
and plus I have shown disciplined things like rivers may exist due to pure luck of falling rain water droplets.
therefore a creator Must be some where despite not knowing "Him" or its whereabout however it exists the same as the builder of the forest house exists or existed.
We dont know if a creator exists because we dont know if everything was created or not…You are confusing building and creating…to know if something was built you must first know if such a thing is built (like we know a house is built because we know houses are built), secondly you must know who builds (i.e humans), third but leastly important you must also know how its built.(methods) like how you know a house is built because you have a gist concept of how houses are made.
If an object doesn’t fit those criteria, then we cant really know if it was built (by man) or not.
But on creation of all things, we dont really know if firstly such a thing is created (like we know a house is built because we know houses are built), secondly we dont know who creates (i.e we havent seen God creating in live action), third but leastly important we dont also know how its created.(methods in which God or whoever uses to create)
