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
- 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 #41[Replying to Inquirer in post #36]
... evidence that is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states.
Do you not understand what this means?
You may not get so tired if you didn't misunderstand something so patently obvious. From the context of the sentence it is clear that it refers to the interpretation of the evidence and not the observation itself. If that wasn't obvious to you (as it evidently wasn't) it may explain why you are getting confused about all of this.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.
It isn't evidence for god TO ME ... that is the entire point! If you're asking someone what would be evidence for a god to them, then obviously it would have to be convincing to that person in order to believe it. Elementary logic isn't it?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.
For the 4th time now: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?
... evidence that is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states.
Do you not understand what this means?
See the bolded text above (again).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 !
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
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14186
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #42The context of my previous post here tends to show that we may be on the same page here.Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 2:13 pmWhy? 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
I forgot to proof read and the part of my post which you quoted has a couple of typos init...
- 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 #43You’re asking for a ‘logical’ answer to this question. The closest and most concise I can give you is: “by applying Occam’s Razor”.
Opinion noted. Not in any way relevant to the OP, so no obligation to respond, IMHO.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.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #44Yeah, right. Jesus said he would be back in good time and we're still waiting for that too. So, not holding my breath.
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.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- 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 #45If some Christians were as good at supporting their claims as they are at diversionary tactics, there'd be little need for these debates.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- 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 #46[Replying to Inquirer in post #37]
How about the simple and unambiguous answer that the evidence they've been shown is not convincing. That's all the justification that is needed.... 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?
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
- 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 #47It's a bit amusing when someone who has no evidence to present fusses about folks not seeing that evidence they haven't presented.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:39 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #37]
How about the simple and unambiguous answer that the evidence they've been shown is not convincing. That's all the justification that is needed.... 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?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #48I don't know exactly how to explain this, but for me, having been on both sides of the faith issue, I could never go back to the faith position based on the evidence we currently have. It is empty. There is nothing to it. It is a mirage.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:19 pmIt's a bit amusing when someone who has no evidence to present fusses about folks not seeing that evidence they haven't presented.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:39 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #37]
How about the simple and unambiguous answer that the evidence they've been shown is not convincing. That's all the justification that is needed.... 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?
When the Great Wizard of Oz advised to not pay attention to the man behind the curtain, it seems that some were able to do that. I and many others can't unsee what has been seen. I've seen the function belief in God plays and I know that there is no need for there to be a God for it to perform that function. Those who rely on the function of belief don't need evidence of God. Their faith is based on the perceived benefits faith provides.
Now, if someone were to present new and actual evidence of God, I'd certainly reconsider. And if someone were to claim I wouldn't belief because of what it would cost me to do so, I'd remind them of what I've lost by no longer believing. I used to look forward to a heaven where I could be reunited with my grandparents, having a father who was no longer abusive, having a body that no longer causes near constant pain. I didn't stop believing because I didn't want these things. I stopped believing because there is no verifiable evidence of God or that any of these things will ever happen.
I've seen the man behind the curtain, and I can't unsee him.
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
- 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
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3046
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3276 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #49If I say that I have no coins in my pockets, the only way I can justify that is by turning out my pockets. Is there an intellectual equivalent?
Perhaps there are just no coins in my pockets, no matter how many acorns you've shoved in them. "YOU CLAIM YOU HAVE NO COINS BUT LOOK AT THOSE ACORNS! SO MANY ACORNS!"
I see the acorns, but none of them are coins.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 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 #50So how can you reach that conclusion? what characteristic must it have in order to be "convincing" evidence for God?. Yes the logic now seems fine it is the meaning of "convincing" that evades us, it seems you don't know.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:21 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #36]
You may not get so tired if you didn't misunderstand something so patently obvious. From the context of the sentence it is clear that it refers to the interpretation of the evidence and not the observation itself. If that wasn't obvious to you (as it evidently wasn't) it may explain why you are getting confused about all of this.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.
It isn't evidence for god TO ME ... that is the entire point! If you're asking someone what would be evidence for a god to them, then obviously it would have to be convincing to that person in order to believe it. Elementary logic isn't it?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.
Is your position that no observation can be evidence for God? I just want to understand the reasoning, it seems so far that it is whim.
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 3:21 pmFor the 4th time now: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?
... evidence that is public and uncontroversial, like observable physical objects or events and unlike private mental states.
Do you not understand what this means?
See the bolded text above (again).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 !