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.

[Diagoras]

I don't need to apply any test. If I am not convinced then the alleged evidence was clearly not convincing to me. That much is self-evident.

Very well, so by the very same reasoning a theist can argue they don't need to apply a test, if they are convinced then the evidence was convincing to them.

Let’s get back on track. How about we apply this to my question on Page 4 (post 33) where I asked for your response to artificial life being created? You only said “I would have to see the details”, which didn’t advance the debate much further.

What kind of evidence would you find convincing to accept the existence of artificial life, and how would you reconcile its existence with the idea that only God can create life?

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #81]

What kind of evidence would you find convincing to accept the existence of artificial life, and how would you reconcile its existence with the idea that only God can create life?

Would it be acceptable to you if GOD could achieve this through the creation itself?

For example.

If we assume that Intelligence which is NOT artificial [created] is GOD [an aspect of GODs consciousness] then anything imbued with intelligence which is subsequently created, could be referred to 'artificial intelligence'.
Thus, if we assume that Humans were created by the GOD and imbued with intelligence and the intelligence of Humans is therefore artificial and that same Human intelligence at some point then creates artificial intelligence, could it be said that GOD created the life in a less direct manner, but none the less was still responsible for the life being created?

Also:

At what point would the intelligence be considered no longer artificial?

[Diagoras]

Not acceptable, no.

I would really like to separate any discussion of ‘artificial intelligence’ from the OP’s question.

I’m talking about ‘Abiogenesis II’, where some future scientist starts with a flask full of complex but inert chemicals, and ends up with something that meets all generally accepted criteria for life (growth, reproduction, etc.)

There’s an extant theistic position that this is impossible for anyone but God. I’m interested in the philosophical ramifications for that position if and when some basic new ‘life’ is shown to have been created by man.

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #83]

I guess that gets down to what makes life alive.

Your scientist would have to have the recipe and be able to make it so, but I don't think it would convince me that this means life started spontaneously with 'no creator necessary' because - with the addition of the scientist, we have a clear indication that in this case - at the very least - a human scientist [creator] was a necessary aspect of that recipe.

[Diagoras]

I guess that gets down to what makes life alive.

Since this is more of a mind-experiment, we could accept “I’ll know it when I see it.”

There’ll always be ‘wiggle room’ for some to claim that whatever results from Abiogenesis II isn’t life, akin to the ‘No True Scotsman’ reasoning.

Your scientist would have to have the recipe and be able to make it so, but I don't think it would convince me that this means life started spontaneously with 'no creator necessary' because -

Let me stop you there, because you’re jumping ahead a bit. Our ‘scientist with a flask’ hasn’t proved anything regarding Abiogenesis I - only that the claim “Only God can create life” has been falsified.

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #85]

Your scientist would have to have the recipe and be able to make it so, but I don't think it would convince me that this means life started spontaneously with 'no creator necessary' because - with the addition of the scientist, we have a clear indication that in this case - at the very least - a human scientist [creator] was a necessary aspect of that recipe.

[Diagoras]

My point is: the scientist is clearly not God. Therefore, the claim that “Only God can create life” would be falsified if ever a scientist succeeded in creating life.

My hypothetical example is not making any claims for the lifeform(s) arising spontaneously, nor that it ‘proves’ anything about how life arose on Earth in the first place.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 87

My point is: the scientist is clearly not God. Therefore, the claim that “Only God can create life” would be falsified if ever a scientist succeeded in creating life.

The same condition applies to all them moms out there, though the theist'll consider the human making the baby was put in place by the god doing it the human making.

It's an unavoidable consequence of believing a god made the humans.

My hypothetical example is not making any claims for the lifeform(s) arising spontaneously, nor that it ‘proves’ anything about how life arose on Earth in the first place.

I hear ya. Should we ever create the condition where life forms "in a beaker", I'd consider that as evidence regarding how life may come to be. I'd not consider it a god's doings.

We're still kinda stuck though, cause if there's a god that created us, the theist has a sound claim to point to that god as the ultimate source of our "created" life in that beaker.

Did my son make them grandgirls without my involvement? All y'all that went straight to "ew", well... yes, but that ain't what I'm getting at.

My grandgirls couldn't possibly exist without my first having contributed to my son's being created. While his momma gets the trophy for greatest contribution, I still get me my participation trophy.

So, the theist, at least within the confines of their belief, ain't wrong on this'n. They're just wrong on their belief

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #87]

My point is: the scientist is clearly not God.

[Diagoras]

We're still kinda stuck though, cause if there's a god that created us, the theist has a sound claim to point to that god as the ultimate source of our "created" life in that beaker.

Well, I'm not so sure about sound, but I take your point. Let's just say that on the day we unequivocally create 'beaker life', there'll be some major shifting of goalposts from theists regarding who can and can't do what.

God has always had the power to delegate life-creation to whomever he chooses...

So tell me then, since you appear to know. What is God? A non-scientist?

Not under discussion in this thread. I suggest you start a new thread for that.