Here's the link to an article which inspired my creation of this debate topic:
https://newatlas.com/science/artificial ... nteresting
"Artificial cells created that imitate basic functions of living cells"
There are disagreements within the scientific community on precisely what constitutes a 'living' thing, and clearly these artificial cells are not alive. However, the experiment shows success in replicating some important attributes of life.
A general theistic position might declare "All life comes from God", but if some 'cellular gene engineer' of the future succeeded in creating a basic cell that ate, grew, replicated and all the other generally agreed things that life does - could it be recognised as life? And wouldn't that falsify that bolded theistic claim?
The Affirmative:
The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.
Artificial life: can it be created?
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #21This topic brings me back to round the 80s and 90s, when there was a big fuss on if them roaches we were programming to flit about the CRT was it life, or was it ain't.
My position then, as now, is yes.
My roaches consumed energy in the form of electricity. They'd flit about. They'd even reproduce. I could even program in some random genetic changes. Random in the program required a seed variable, but after that, random best a PC of the day could.
Sounds like life to me. Real life.
But they went extinct in the great hard drive crash of '93. Poor things. And all cause their god didn't have him a good backup policy in place.
My position then, as now, is yes.
My roaches consumed energy in the form of electricity. They'd flit about. They'd even reproduce. I could even program in some random genetic changes. Random in the program required a seed variable, but after that, random best a PC of the day could.
Sounds like life to me. Real life.
But they went extinct in the great hard drive crash of '93. Poor things. And all cause their god didn't have him a good backup policy in place.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #22I think in a similar way re The Earth. As a living Entity and about as closest we have seen to a living god in the god line-up...which coincidently, organized religions such a Christianity, consider such thinking as to be "Pagan", so never included in the line-up in the first instance.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:22 pm This topic brings me back to round the 80s and 90s, when there was a big fuss on if them roaches we were programming to flit about the CRT was it life, or was it ain't.
My position then, as now, is yes.
My roaches consumed energy in the form of electricity. They'd flit about. They'd even reproduce. I could even program in some random genetic changes. Random in the program required a seed variable, but after that, random best a PC of the day could.
Sounds like life to me. Real life.
But they went extinct in the great hard drive crash of '93. Poor things. And all cause their god didn't have him a good backup policy in place.
I think too, that this thinking has rubbed of on the no-gods-non-religious Humanites, as in they throw that idea to one side as soon as it is tabled....and no so's they can look at it latter on either.
I also think that Mother Earth doesn't get sad about extinction events - maybe just peeved about all the hard work that went into Her Creations, but She is such a clever pretty thing that She just gets about thinking up new variants She can birth into Her reality and moves on with the great dignity one would expect from a god.
RESPECT.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #23[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]
In that, perhaps the Earth dreamt of AI and then went about finding a way in which to create it, and that is why Humanites had their day in the scheme of things [under the sun]. They were the device in which Mother could create AI.
Considering how a god is defined, the Planet Earth has a lot of the defined attributes of a 'god' - and the other planets in the Solar System as well - when related to what is defined as 'life' [by those living as it, no less!]The Affirmative:
The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.
In that, perhaps the Earth dreamt of AI and then went about finding a way in which to create it, and that is why Humanites had their day in the scheme of things [under the sun]. They were the device in which Mother could create AI.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #24As ya know, my knee-jerk reaction to your ideas is to discount em as "out there", but try as I might, I can't find a way to dismiss em that doesn't expose me as, well, a knee-jerker.William wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:49 pm I think in a similar way re The Earth. As a living Entity and about as closest we have seen to a living god in the god line-up...which coincidently, organized religions such a Christianity, consider such thinking as to be "Pagan", so never included in the line-up in the first instance.
A fair argument. As a "staunch" atheist, it's my position that gods are best explained in terms of human imagination, and a nigh evolutionary need for "an answer, any answer". I'd expound if challenged, but honesty compels me to note my amateur status, and the difficulty of proving a negative.I think too, that this thinking has rubbed of on the no-gods-non-religious Humanites, as in they throw that idea to one side as soon as it is tabled....and no so's they can look at it latter on either.
As well, I'd encounter much difficulty doing so in light of the sturdy base of your reasoning.
Poetry.I also think that Mother Earth doesn't get sad about extinction events - maybe just peeved about all the hard work that went into Her Creations, but She is such a clever pretty thing that She just gets about thinking up new variants She can birth into Her reality and moves on with the great dignity one would expect from a god.
RESPECT.
I'll tell it, after reading so much of your stuff, I respect your ability to present ideas that're "out there", and then explain em in such a way as to be easily understood.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14140
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #25Yes. It is the best way in which to proceed. I look at it this way.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 5:53 pmAs ya know, my knee-jerk reaction to your ideas is to discount em as "out there", but try as I might, I can't find a way to dismiss em that doesn't expose me as, well, a knee-jerker.William wrote: ↑Sat Oct 02, 2021 1:49 pm I think in a similar way re The Earth. As a living Entity and about as closest we have seen to a living god in the god line-up...which coincidently, organized religions such a Christianity, consider such thinking as to be "Pagan", so never included in the line-up in the first instance.
We are already in the position of being "out there" so any 'out there' presumptions which cannot be altogether debunked, have to remain on the table with the rest.
Being 'out there' as a position, Similar in reality to this;
I think too, that this thinking has rubbed of on the no-gods-non-religious Humanites, as in they throw that idea to one side as soon as it is tabled....and no so's they can look at it latter on either.
Some folk would jump on the claim that being an atheist["staunch" or not], you have to 'explain the belief in gods' as a product of "human imagination". That is not atheism. If the same was written by a theist, the theist would likely be told off by the atheist for being false about atheism.A fair argument. As a "staunch" atheist, it's my position that gods are best explained in terms of human imagination, and a nigh evolutionary need for "an answer, any answer".
They would say that the position of atheism is simply nothing more than the lack or absence of belief in gods. Not the lack of human imagination.
But it is not just about imagination. It is about looking at the evidence we have under the assumption that gods exist/we exist within a creation, which is something one cannot easily do without losing the lack of belief.
However, one could feasibly examine the evidence and reach such conclusions [we live in a creation] without actually forming any particular beliefs about the nature of The Creator, and so still essentially lack belief in gods.
In the same way that an atheist could actually believe in continuation of individual experience after the human body dies, without declaring any belief in gods.
Then shall we ask 'the universe' to provide us with professionals who can rebut my reasonable observations? Such presently seem thin on the ground, hereabouts.I'd expound if challenged, but honesty compels me to note my amateur status, and the difficulty of proving a negative.
This is where the focus is best placed. In the fact of my sturdy base of reasoning.As well, I'd encounter much difficulty doing so in light of the sturdy base of your reasoning.
I also think that Mother Earth doesn't get sad about extinction events - maybe just peeved about all the hard work that went into Her Creations, but She is such a clever pretty thing that She just gets about thinking up new variants She can birth into Her reality and moves on with the great dignity one would expect from a god.
RESPECT.
That is the key. If us average specimens can tell it and understand the telling of it, there is no reason why superiors minds cannot do likewise...we remains open to new information...Poetry.
I'll tell it, after reading so much of your stuff, I respect your ability to present ideas that're "out there", and then explain em in such a way as to be easily understood.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #26This old canard again, don't our atheist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:18 pm [Replying to Diagoras in post #1]
I'd say this has to be on the table by default, simply because no gods have ever been demonstrated to exist.The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.
You likely have no way of recognizing a demonstration of God and so of course you'll never recognize one if it were shown to you.
If you do have criteria that a demonstration of God must meet, can you tell me what these are?
If you had no idea what a perfect number was I could show you all the integers from 1 to 1000 and you'd say I've "never demonstrated that a perfect number exists", would you be making a true statement though?
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #27[Replying to Inquirer in post #27]
"In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus."
Comments that someone can't recognize a "demonstration of God" is a convenient dodge ... virtually anything could be claimed to exist with that argument, so it is useless and does nothing to demonstrate the existence of gods. I use this definition (Oxford Languages) of the word demonstrate ... clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. Whatever definition you are using it is clealry not that one.
How this relates to a demonstration that gods exist I have no idea, because you can apply that reasoning to anything so it is just another useless analogy. If I didn't know what a baseball was you could show me all the round objects used in various sports and I could say you never demonstrated that a baseball exists. Or pick any other of countless similar examples. Of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia, and that people were/are convinced of their existence because they revealed themselves in some way, or for whatever reason, has any of them been demonstrated to exist? The answer is no. One things all gods have in common is that they are indistinguishable from the nonexistent in every way.
You really do love the word vacuous don't you?This old canard again, don't our atheist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim?
This old canard again, don't our theist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim? Let me guess ... gods only reveal themselves to those who are open to such revealing. The is a very common claim by believers, and a convenient way to claim that gods do actually exist without actually demonstrating anything, or stating anything useful.You likely have no way of recognizing a demonstration of God and so of course you'll never recognize one if it were shown to you.
I stated (to you no less) in a recent thread what would convince me that gods exist, and pointed to this (underline mine) from the Wikipedia article on Empirical Evidence:If you do have criteria that a demonstration of God must meet, can you tell me what these are?
"In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus."
Comments that someone can't recognize a "demonstration of God" is a convenient dodge ... virtually anything could be claimed to exist with that argument, so it is useless and does nothing to demonstrate the existence of gods. I use this definition (Oxford Languages) of the word demonstrate ... clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. Whatever definition you are using it is clealry not that one.
If you only showed me the set of integers 1 - 1000 then I would indeed be making a true statement, because you never demonstrated that 6, 28 and 496 were each the sum of their positive integer divisors and therefore perfect numbers. You simply showed the integers 1 - 1000 and demonstrated nothing relating to perfect numbers.If you had no idea what a perfect number was I could show you all the integers from 1 to 1000 and you'd say I've "never demonstrated that a perfect number exists", would you be making a true statement though?
How this relates to a demonstration that gods exist I have no idea, because you can apply that reasoning to anything so it is just another useless analogy. If I didn't know what a baseball was you could show me all the round objects used in various sports and I could say you never demonstrated that a baseball exists. Or pick any other of countless similar examples. Of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia, and that people were/are convinced of their existence because they revealed themselves in some way, or for whatever reason, has any of them been demonstrated to exist? The answer is no. One things all gods have in common is that they are indistinguishable from the nonexistent in every way.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #28So what is the criteria for recognizing empirical evidence for God? you dodged the question with the pseudo answer "Empirical Evidence", this is just a truism an empty answer.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:21 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #27]
You really do love the word vacuous don't you?This old canard again, don't our atheist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim?
This old canard again, don't our theist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim? Let me guess ... gods only reveal themselves to those who are open to such revealing. The is a very common claim by believers, and a convenient way to claim that gods do actually exist without actually demonstrating anything, or stating anything useful.You likely have no way of recognizing a demonstration of God and so of course you'll never recognize one if it were shown to you.
I stated (to you no less) in a recent thread what would convince me that gods exist, and pointed to this (underline mine) from the Wikipedia article on Empirical Evidence:If you do have criteria that a demonstration of God must meet, can you tell me what these are?
"In philosophy of science, on the other hand, evidence is understood as that which confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses and arbitrates between competing theories. For this role, it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states, so that evidence may foster scientific consensus."
Comments that someone can't recognize a "demonstration of God" is a convenient dodge ... virtually anything could be claimed to exist with that argument, so it is useless and does nothing to demonstrate the existence of gods. I use this definition (Oxford Languages) of the word demonstrate ... clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. Whatever definition you are using it is clealry not that one.
If you only showed me the set of integers 1 - 1000 then I would indeed be making a true statement, because you never demonstrated that 6, 28 and 496 were each the sum of their positive integer divisors and therefore perfect numbers. You simply showed the integers 1 - 1000 and demonstrated nothing relating to perfect numbers.If you had no idea what a perfect number was I could show you all the integers from 1 to 1000 and you'd say I've "never demonstrated that a perfect number exists", would you be making a true statement though?
How this relates to a demonstration that gods exist I have no idea, because you can apply that reasoning to anything so it is just another useless analogy. If I didn't know what a baseball was you could show me all the round objects used in various sports and I could say you never demonstrated that a baseball exists. Or pick any other of countless similar examples. Of the thousands of gods that humans have invented over the millennia, and that people were/are convinced of their existence because they revealed themselves in some way, or for whatever reason, has any of them been demonstrated to exist? The answer is no. One things all gods have in common is that they are indistinguishable from the nonexistent in every way.
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #29An ‘unfounded rumour or story’? It’s actually the opposite of that.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:33 pmThis old canard again, don't our atheist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:18 pm [Replying to Diagoras in post #1]
I'd say this has to be on the table by default, simply because no gods have ever been demonstrated to exist.The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.
And ‘vacuous’ - again, it’s not a ‘lack of thought’, but its opposite here.
The flipside to that accusation: people exist that mischaracterise natural phenomena as being a ‘demonstration of a god’. I have little trouble recognising such people.You likely have no way of recognizing a demonstration of God and so of course you'll never recognize one if it were shown to you.
Let’s not get too derailed though (perfect numbers, for example) - what would be your response to the (currently hypothetical) news that artificial life had been created in the lab?
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #30What do you mean here by "natural phenomena"? How do you determine if some thing is or is not natural phenomena?Diagoras wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:43 pmAn ‘unfounded rumour or story’? It’s actually the opposite of that.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:33 pmThis old canard again, don't our atheist friends ever tire of this vacuous claim?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:18 pm [Replying to Diagoras in post #1]
I'd say this has to be on the table by default, simply because no gods have ever been demonstrated to exist.The creation of life is possible by means other than a god.
And ‘vacuous’ - again, it’s not a ‘lack of thought’, but its opposite here.
The flipside to that accusation: people exist that mischaracterize natural phenomena as being a ‘demonstration of a god’. I have little trouble recognising such people.You likely have no way of recognizing a demonstration of God and so of course you'll never recognize one if it were shown to you.
I'd have to see the details, are you of the opinion that what was created is not natural?