Artificial life: can it be created?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Artificial life: can it be created?

Post #1

Post by Diagoras »

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.

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: Artificial life: can it be created?

Post #31

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #29]
So 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.
Perhaps there was too much text in the last post for you to catch the important part, so I'll repeat it here:

"... it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states."

You called this "just a truism an empty answer." Explain how the above statement is a truism, given that it is not a statement about anything being true or false but a description of what constitutes empirical evidence in a scientific sense. What public, uncontroversial evidence such as physical objects or events exist to demonstrate that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did exist, that does not include private mental states (personal opinions, revelation, etc.)?
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: Artificial life: can it be created?

Post #32

Post by brunumb »

Inquirer wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:33 pm 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.
Since your posts indicate that you clearly have recognised a demonstration of God, why don't you share that with us and explain why we would not recognise it as such.
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
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 #33

Post by Diagoras »

Inquirer wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:56 pm
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:43 pm 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.
What do you mean here by "natural phenomena"? How do you determine if some thing is or is not natural phenomena?
Meaning any observed phenomena that is demonstrably not caused by humans.

So, a tornado tearing a house apart, not a truck smashing into it.
Inquirer wrote:
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:43 pm - what would be your response to the (currently hypothetical) news that artificial life had been created in the lab?
I'd have to see the details, are you of the opinion that what was created is not natural?
There’s a distinction between using ‘natural’ to mean ‘not man-made’ and ‘natural’ meaning ‘not supernatural’. In this case, the artificial life is man-made and composed of real matter.

As it’s a thought-exercise (at the moment), you actually don’t “need to see the details” - simply state whether this would change your view or not.

Not a trap - similar to asking me whether I’d believe in God if he suddenly appeared in front of me and a group of friends, and then performed a miracle.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #34

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Inquirer wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:56 pm What do you mean here by "natural phenomena"? How do you determine if some thing is or is not natural phenomena?
Not the original guy, but I say all that which occurs in nature is, but definition, natural.

To propose something outside of nature has acted on nature can't be shown to be true.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #35

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 6:33 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #29]
So 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.
Perhaps there was too much text in the last post for you to catch the important part, so I'll repeat it here:

"... it is important that evidence is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states."

You called this "just a truism an empty answer." Explain how the above statement is a truism, given that it is not a statement about anything being true or false but a description of what constitutes empirical evidence in a scientific sense. What public, uncontroversial evidence such as physical objects or events exist to demonstrate that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did exist, that does not include private mental states (personal opinions, revelation, etc.)?
Its a truism because it reduces to the argument "empirical evidence for God is empirical evidence for God" - IMHO anyway.

As for the attribute "uncontroversial", evidence cannot be controversial or uncontroversial, I'm growing tired of having to point out elementary logic like this. It is the interpretation of evidence that may or may not be "controversial" not observations themselves.

If I look at an apparently fixed white point light source in the sky is that controversial? No, the explanation might be but the clearly inarguable visibility of the light is as uncontroversial as we can get unless one has dropped an LSD tab perhaps.

So your position is now even less logical than before because you're saying all evidence that you interpret as not being evidence for God is not evidence for God.

Well if you insist on this laborious line of reasoning so be it, tell me - what criteria would an observation need to have in order for you to interpret it as evidence for God?

Can you, can ANY atheist actually answer this simple question, because if you cannot then you are by definition unable to say "I've never been shown evidence for God" are you !

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #36

Post by Inquirer »

brunumb wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:22 pm
Inquirer wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:33 pm 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.
Since your posts indicate that you clearly have recognised a demonstration of God, why don't you share that with us and explain why we would not recognise it as such.
All in good time, currently I'm asking atheists to justify the claim "I've never been shown evidence for God" this is what they say so why can't they justify it? If they can't justify why do they keep saying it? faith? belief? prejudice?

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #37

Post by Inquirer »

Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:55 pm
Inquirer wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:56 pm
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:43 pm 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.
What do you mean here by "natural phenomena"? How do you determine if some thing is or is not natural phenomena?
Meaning any observed phenomena that is demonstrably not caused by humans.

So, a tornado tearing a house apart, not a truck smashing into it.
Inquirer wrote:
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:43 pm - what would be your response to the (currently hypothetical) news that artificial life had been created in the lab?
I'd have to see the details, are you of the opinion that what was created is not natural?
There’s a distinction between using ‘natural’ to mean ‘not man-made’ and ‘natural’ meaning ‘not supernatural’. In this case, the artificial life is man-made and composed of real matter.

As it’s a thought-exercise (at the moment), you actually don’t “need to see the details” - simply state whether this would change your view or not.

Not a trap - similar to asking me whether I’d believe in God if he suddenly appeared in front of me and a group of friends, and then performed a miracle.
Very well, so with that in mind, let me ask you again about what you said above "people exist that mischaracterize natural phenomena as being a ‘demonstration of a god’" - tell me please how do you determine if it is a mischaracterization?

I'll be frank with you, I don't expect you or any atheist here to provide a logical answer, they never do, the approach taken is to procrastinate and evade because they do not know the answer, they never have in all the years I've been asking.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Artificial life: can it be created?

Post #38

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:29 pm
Inquirer wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 5:56 pm What do you mean here by "natural phenomena"? How do you determine if some thing is or is not natural phenomena?
Not the original guy, but I say all that which occurs in nature is, but definition, natural.

To propose something outside of nature has acted on nature can't be shown to be true.
I think that this is a reasonable position to hold.

If something happens, even if it appears to go against laws of physics, we needed assume this to being cause by something super-to-natural.

I would even extend this idea to the Simulation Theory.

Even if we are experiencing something which was created in a laboratory - does not mean that the laboratory is somehow supernatural.

If anything, we might be able to [at least initially] argue that the experience itself is the "unnatural" part but the idea of 'the supernatural' simply appears to attempt to separate one type of conscious experience from all other types of conscious experiences...while also forgetting that the consciousness itself is the only thing which is able acknowledge having any experience and in that, all experience is real enough not to be considered erroneously as 'super'-to-'natural'...

Experience is the natural outcome of being conscious.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Artificial life: can it be created?

Post #39

Post by Tcg »

William wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:55 pm
If something happens, even if it appears to go against laws of physics, we needed assume this to being cause by something super-to-natural.
Why? The super-to-natural is not the default. The logical approach would be that we don't know why that something happened. Perhaps we don't accurately understand all the laws of physics. This lack of understanding doesn't equate to evidence that there is something beyond the physical. It simply means that we don't understand everything. No surprise there. We likely never will.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Artificial life: can it be created?

Post #40

Post by Tcg »

Inquirer wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:39 am
All in good time, currently I'm asking atheists to justify the claim "I've never been shown evidence for God" this is what they say so why can't they justify it? If they can't justify why do they keep saying it? faith? belief? prejudice?
Well, you could be the first to resolve this dilemma. What evidence can you present that justifies a belief in God, or any of the gods for that matter. Your failure to do so will justify why some atheists don't accept the concept of god/gods. Of course, some atheists lack belief in god/gods because they've never been introduced to the concept of god/gods.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Post Reply