Would you step into a teleporter?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Peter
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
Location: Cape Canaveral
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #1

Post by Peter »

“Well sure” is the first response but let’s break it down.

You step in and are held in stasis while your entire body is rendered into information down to the last atom and mid synapse firing. The information is transmitted to another location and used to reconstruct your body from raw atoms exactly as it was in the stasis field. You step out and marvel at the technology which teleported you in mid thought. But are you still you?

How is the above different from killing original you at one end and waking up duplicate you at the other? Does it matter? Did your soul survive the process? Do you have a soul?
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #11

Post by The Barbarian »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:35 pm The "am-I-the-same-person-on-the-other-end" debate aside, I would definitely not step into a teleporter for the simple reason that, as much trouble as the onboard computer in my car has given me, I wouldn't trust a mode of transportation as complicated as a teleporter to work properly no matter how it was supposed to work.
Energy is natural; it exists only in a material universe. God gives a soul directly to each of us, and it's not natural. But your point about reliability is apt. According to the Star Trek movies, it does malfunction occasionally.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #12

Post by Clownboat »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:12 am
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:35 pm The "am-I-the-same-person-on-the-other-end" debate aside, I would definitely not step into a teleporter for the simple reason that, as much trouble as the onboard computer in my car has given me, I wouldn't trust a mode of transportation as complicated as a teleporter to work properly no matter how it was supposed to work.
Energy is natural; it exists only in a material universe. God gives a soul directly to each of us, and it's not natural. But your point about reliability is apt. According to the Star Trek movies, it does malfunction occasionally.
Can you show that you speak the truth about the god you claim is supplying souls to humans?

I'm trying to determine if your claim is any more meaningful compared to if it were to come from a Hindu for example. If you are meaning Hindu god concepts give souls, then please supplant with the Christian or Muslim god concept.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #13

Post by The Barbarian »

"Can you show that you speak the truth about the god you claim is supplying souls to humans?"

It's mostly a matter faith, although you certainly can find logical arguments supporting God. Aquinas' Summa Theologiae would be a good introduction. Nevertheless, there are no absolute proofs.
I'm trying to determine if your claim is any more meaningful compared to if it were to come from a Hindu for example.
Probably not in any absolute sense:
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself."

DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
If you are meaning Hindu god concepts give souls, then please supplant with the Christian or Muslim god concept.
See above. God is not limited to any human organization, and His salvation extends to all who seek and love Him, even if they don't agree on all things. The fact that there is a core of understanding of God and His character and ways in almost all religions, is considerable evidence that there is indeed something greater than just humanity involved. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I'm quite aware that Darwin showed (in The Descent of Man) that what are essentially religious principles happen to have a strong survival value for a group of humans. Group selection is a thing, after all. Still, it wouldn't be surprising if a Creator made the rules so as to get whatever results He wanted.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #14

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote: "Can you show that you speak the truth about the god you claim is supplying souls to humans?"
The Barbarian wrote:It's mostly a matter faith,

Then we are done here it would seem.

Faith, is a mechanism that is required to believe in something false.
Want to believe that Bigfoot is real? Apply faith.
Want to believe in Nessy? Apply faith.
Want to believe that Allah is the one true god? Apply faith.
Want to believe that all religions reflect a ray of Truth which enlighten all men? Apply faith.

I must reject a method that is a requirement in order to believe in something false as such a method does not appeal to me.

What is it about faith that you find appealing?
Surely that fact that it allows for the belief in all the available competing (to the point of terrorism and war) god concepts cannot be something appealing? Thus I'm left wondering.

Thanks!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #15

Post by The Barbarian »

It turns out, faith is reasonable and there is evidence for it being so. The existence of a "natural law" understandable to all, regardless of faith or lack of it, as in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity:

"... argument from morality, the basis of which is the "law of human nature", a "rule about right and wrong," which, Lewis maintained, is commonly available and known to all human beings."

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Mencius: Even the worst brigand, seeing an infant crawling toward an open well, feels a push to run and save it."

"Some of the most important and fundamental moral principles seem to be universally held by all people in all cultures and do not change over time. It has been found that starting at about age 10, children in most cultures come to a belief about harm-based morality—that harming others, either physically or by violating their rights, is wrong"
https://open.maricopa.edu/culturepsycho ... -morality/

There will always exist people who for whatever deficit, be unable to see or apply this law. But they are in a very small minority.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #16

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #16]
There will always exist people who for whatever deficit, be unable to see or apply this law. But they are in a very small minority.
Most social animals also seem to understand this concept, despite not having access to things like the Ten Commandments or any similar description of right and wrong inspired by a superior being of some sort. Morality appears to be inherent in all successful social animals (including humans) without any need to have it derived from a religion in some way. As an evolutionary biologist, would you agree with this as far as morality is concerned? Does adoption of any religion make one "more moral" than someone who does not practice any religion (ignoring extremists like ISIS of course ... I think we can all agree that people who happily kill others that don't share their religious beliefs are devoid of the normal social moral behavior most humans adopt)?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #17

Post by brunumb »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:12 pm It turns out, faith is reasonable and there is evidence for it being so.
Faith can lead one to believe something that is patently false as well something that is true. Therefore faith is not a reasonable path to truth and only has value as some kind of security blanket for those that desperately need one.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #18

Post by The Barbarian »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:27 am
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:12 pm It turns out, faith is reasonable and there is evidence for it being so.
Faith can lead one to believe something that is patently false as well something that is true. Therefore faith is not a reasonable path to truth and only has value as some kind of security blanket for those that desperately need one.
As Einstein wrote,
"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong, reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has nevertheless learned from science—in the broadest sense—what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/religi ... s-equation

Yes, fallible humans desperately need faith. It is what makes us human. Fortunately, a person completely without a sense of the numinous is very rare; even atheists or agnostics like the Buddha are rarely faithless. If you look to nature for your ethos, you will always be disappointed. You might ask if a confirmed atheist can be moral, and I observe that many of them definitely are. Likewise, there are amoral theists. For the reason I pointed out before. A sense of natural law is built into us, so we are, all of us, "without excuse."

As an evolutionary biologist, I see nothing remarkable in the belief that the Creator made the universe in such a way that it would bring this about. Assuming a Creator, the conclusion follows.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #19

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #19]
A sense of natural law is built into us, so we are, all of us, "without excuse."

As an evolutionary biologist, I see nothing remarkable in the belief that the Creator made the universe in such a way that it would bring this about. Assuming a Creator, the conclusion follows.
But can't the conclusion follow without the assumption of a Creator? Social animals must have basic rules of behavior that can be subsumed under the general category of "morals", regardless of whether they were "created" or they evolved from earlier forms. Humans are special in terms of brain capability, but there's no reason to believe that this capability is not simply the evolutionary advantage we have obtained over time. By following the changes in brain size and functional capabilities from our earlier ancestors (homo erectus and subsequent members of homo) to homo sapien, there is a reasonable progression over time that is consistent with an expansion in size and function as evolution describes.

No need for a Creator once the evolutionary ball started rolling. The open question is still around how life originated on planet Earth initially some 4 billion years ago ... the answer to that should clear up a lot of things if we can ever find it. But the default answer is not necessarily a Creator whose existence has yet to be demonstrated (ie. the existence of a Creator is just as unanswered as the mechanism for how life emerged initially).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Would you step into a teleporter?

Post #20

Post by The Barbarian »

Barbarian observes:
A sense of natural law is built into us, so we are, all of us, "without excuse."
As an evolutionary biologist, I see nothing remarkable in the belief that the Creator made the universe in such a way that it would bring this about. Assuming a Creator, the conclusion follows.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:55 am But can't the conclusion follow without the assumption of a Creator?
Yes. You can avoid the necessity of a Creator by various means, such as a multiverse, where every possible kind of universe has happened and some of them just happen to work as if everything was created. Kind of a "strong naturalistic principle." If there is a Creator, He could have made Himself obviously true to any reasonable person, if He chose to do so. That would do some damage to free will, since no one could reasonably deny Him then.
Social animals must have basic rules of behavior that can be subsumed under the general category of "morals", regardless of whether they were "created" or they evolved from earlier forms.
Or as I think, both. It seems to me that a truly omnipotent Creator would make nature in such a way as to naturally produce all things He intended to be. BTW, it's clear that both dogs and chimpanzees have at least a rudimentary sense of moral equity. In each case, one of them trained to do a simple task for reward, refused to continue, when it became clear that another animal was getting a much better reward for the same task. Except the chimps would tolerate that, if it was a close relative who was getting the better reward. Since dogs and humans are so closely co-evolved, I suspect dogs evolved to be more primate-like in that regard. It would be interesting to see if wolves would act the same way.

Souls are, in most faiths, considered to be given directly by the Creator. But that doesn't preclude one's physical self being involved somehow.
Humans are special in terms of brain capability, but there's no reason to believe that this capability is not simply the evolutionary advantage we have obtained over time.
Given the very large number of transitional hominids, that is almost certainly true. The point at which we gained the knowledge of good and evil, it unclear, but I'd be really surprised if it only happened when anatomically modern humans appeared. But again, it wouldn't be surprising if the Creator used nature to do things like that. He seems to do almost everything in this world that way.
By following the changes in brain size and functional capabilities from our earlier ancestors (homo erectus and subsequent members of homo) to homo sapien, there is a reasonable progression over time that is consistent with an expansion in size and function as evolution describes.
Yep.
No need for a Creator once the evolutionary ball started rolling.
So deists think. Myself, I think He remains involved with every particle of the universe. If He created things so that beings like us would evolve naturally, that's consistent with theism.
The open question is still around how life originated on planet Earth initially some 4 billion years ago ...
It might not have originated here. It seems many people looking at that issue, have concluded that conditions on Mars billions of years ago, were more hospitable to abiogenesis, and that ejecta from meteorite strikes seeded life on Earth. A nice summary of recent work on this can be found in A New History of Life:

I have a bachelor's degree in bacteriology, so I was familiar with Karl Woese and his work on the Archaea and the RNA World hypothesis, but it's interesting to see how his work and ideas have contributed to a new look at the question of life's origins.
But the default answer is not necessarily a Creator whose existence has yet to be demonstrated (ie. the existence of a Creator is just as unanswered as the mechanism for how life emerged initially).
Perhaps there are invisible things that can be clearly discerned in the things that have been made.

Post Reply