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.

[Inquirer]

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.

So you view it as a dilemma? you must yourself be able to resolve it in order to assert "I've never been shown evidence for God" so how did/do you resolve it exactly?

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.

If I was defending the assertion that X is evidence for God, I'd be happy too, but I'm not at this point doing that, the atheist however must defend their assertion "I've never been shown evidence for God" otherwise it is simply a belief surely?

Of course, some atheists lack belief in god/gods because they've never been introduced to the concept of god/gods.

Yes that's true in which case they can only logically assert "I don't know if I ever been shown evidence for God because I don't know what God is.", is that then your actual position?

[Inquirer]

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”.

How do apply that principle then? how exactly do you evaluate the complexity of the two hypotheses:

1. This is evidence for God
2. This is not evidence for God

Can you show me? take - say - the presence of the universe, how did you use Occam's razor to decide that 2. was the simpler of the two hypotheses?

[Inquirer]

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.

Sorry but I do not see how that answers my question about how you evaluate evidence.

[Inquirer]

[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.

But that's not logical, unless you can explain the test you apply to decide if something is "convincing" its all well and good to say "Bah, that's not convincing" but unless you have a rational process for doing that evaluation it can be no more that whim, belief surely?

[Inquirer]

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?

That's all well and good but here we have a criteria, we know what a coin is and we can evaluate pocket contents by seeing if any objects match the characteristics of a coin. In the case of "I've never been shown evidence for God" what is the criteria you'd use?

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.

Yes, it is easy when we have defined criteria, I agree.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #55]

But that's not logical, unless you can explain the test you apply to decide if something is "convincing" its all well and good to say "Bah, that's not convincing" but unless you have a rational process for doing that evaluation it can be no more that whim, belief surely?

From your response to Difflugia in post 56, it appears you are saying that (unlike coins vs. acorns), a god can't be defined well enough to be very obviously distinguished from something else. If the god can't be defined sufficiently, how could someone possibly evaluate any evidence presented for the existence of that god? That isn't logical.

In post 34 Diagoras said:

"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."

My criterium would be along those lines (consistent with the Wikipedia statement I've posted many times now concerning empirical evidence). There would have to be some observable action or event that only a god being could do (consistent with that god's definition ... we have invented thousands of them after all with many different characteristics). If my mother had sat up in her casket at her funeral and started speaking I'd be convinced that a god being was involved even if it wasn't physically present, because I know this would be impossible otherwise. That would be convincing evidence. The bar is very high for (me) being convinced that any god being actually exists, because other explanations are far more reasonable and likely (IMO).

[Clownboat]

That's all well and good but here we have a criteria, we know what a coin is and we can evaluate pocket contents by seeing if any objects match the characteristics of a coin. In the case of "I've never been shown evidence for God" what is the criteria you'd use?

To the bold. Do you believe in all the available god concepts?
You don't, so please use the same criteria you used to evaluate all the other god concepts.

I find your objections very wanting.

What would help would be to have good reasons for believing in a god, but alas, we get what we get. So again, what criteria did you use to justify being an atheist towards all the other available god concepts? Do you find stories of flying on winged horses as off puting for example, or do you have no problem with such claims?

What evidence for Allah was shown to you, that you chose to reject? Or do you say you have never been shown evidence for Allah?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
What evidence for Allah was shown to you, that you chose to reject? Or do you say you have never been shown evidence for Allah?

This kinda gets at it for me.

Without specific 'evidence', I can't properly reject such.

In that way then, the theist is able to allude to "dismissive atheists" without ever once presenting their evidence for analysis.

[Diagoras]

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”.

How do apply that principle then? how exactly do you evaluate the complexity of the two hypotheses:

1. This is evidence for God
2. This is not evidence for God

Can you show me? take - say - the presence of the universe, how did you use Occam's razor to decide that 2. was the simpler of the two hypotheses?

A valid question, but tangential to my OP. I’d like to please hear your response to the hypothetical case where artificial life was demonstrated to be true.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #56]

My criterium would be along those lines (consistent with the Wikipedia statement I've posted many times now concerning empirical evidence). There would have to be some observable action or event that only a god being could do (consistent with that god's definition ... we have invented thousands of them after all with many different characteristics). If my mother had sat up in her casket at her funeral and started speaking I'd be convinced that a god being was involved even if it wasn't physically present, because I know this would be impossible otherwise. That would be convincing evidence. The bar is very high for (me) being convinced that any god being actually exists, because other explanations are far more reasonable and likely (IMO).

I am unconvinced the the bar is set high enough re your example DNG.

Lets say mother did rise from the dead.
After the celebrations and your conversion to theism...what then?