Artificial life: can it be created?

[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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #36]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

For the 4th time now:

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

Do you not understand what this means?

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 !

See the bolded text above (again).

[William]

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

The context of my previous post here tends to show that we may be on the same page here.

I forgot to proof read and the part of my post which you quoted has a couple of typos init...

[Diagoras]

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?

You’re asking for a ‘logical’ answer to this question. The closest and most concise I can give you is: “by applying Occam’s Razor”.

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.

Opinion noted. Not in any way relevant to the OP, so no obligation to respond, IMHO.

[brunumb]

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?

Yeah, right. Jesus said he would be back in good time and we're still waiting for that too. So, not holding my breath.

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

Yeah, right. Jesus said he would be back in good time and we're still waiting for that too. So, not holding my breath.

If some Christians were as good at supporting their claims as they are at diversionary tactics, there'd be little need for these debates.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #37]

... 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?

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #37]

... 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?

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.

It's a bit amusing when someone who has no evidence to present fusses about folks not seeing that evidence they haven't presented.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #37]

... 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?

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.

It's a bit amusing when someone who has no evidence to present fusses about folks not seeing that evidence they haven't presented.

I 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.

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

[Difflugia]

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 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?

If they can't justify why do they keep saying it? faith? belief? prejudice?

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.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #36]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

For the 4th time now:

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

Do you not understand what this means?

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 !

See the bolded text above (again).