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
- 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 #71Very 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.brunumb wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:14 pmI 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.Inquirer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:34 amBut 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?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?
- 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 #72That's not really true, you have no idea whatsoever if anyone has ever "come back from the dead" the NT even recites details of an example of this happening. To the theist the evidence is convincing to you it is not, that's the only difference.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:36 am [Replying to Inquirer in post #67]
You posted this in response to my acorns vs. coins comment (on your prior comment to that example from Difflugia), but the above has nothing whatsoever to do with that exchange. Myself (and others) have already given examples of support for the position that we've yet to see any convincining evidence for the existence of gods. Why ignore these and just repeat the same thing you've already gotten answers for?I'm not here defending a claim I have made, I'm discussing how the atheists can claim "I've never seen evidence for God" - this is a definitive concrete proposition that seems unsupported, if you agree we can press on and explore this further but if you disagree, if you think that claim can be supported I'm all ears.
For a god being that is completely defined in terms of what it is, what it can and can't do (back to the acorns vs. coins thing), then yes. But for some nebulous, undefined god "thing" without any concrete definition then no ... no one can because the problem is too ill defined.Yes but you're going around in circles, when you say "some observable action or event that only a god being could do" yet you do not have any means of evaluating observations to determine this do you?
This is dirt simple so I'm surprised you'd ask such an obvious question. Humans coming back from the dead has never been confirmed to have ever happened in the history of humans, and we have every reason to believe that it is not possible physiologically because of our understanding of what death is and what it entails.Why do you form the view that "my mother had sat up in her casket at her funeral and started speaking" would be evidence for God but literally everything else you've ever observed is not?
What's a "reasonable explanation"? The universe and its laws exist, what is the "reasonable" explanation for this? and what makes it reasonable?
You need to understand what you mean by "reasonable" because if its subjective then I too can regard God as a reasonable explanation can't I?
Why is a God hypothesis not justified? You have zero criteria for evaluating an observation and deciding if God is a viable explanation so if you have no criteria then God and not God are surely equally viable possibilities?
Why is a mechanistic explanation important at all? explaining reducible things mechanistically does not explain why things appear to be mechanistic. Can you show that everything has a mechanistic explanation? if you cannot show that, then it just an assumption is it not?
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14169
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #73[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]
For example, humans may create AI to the extent that the AI becomes self conscious - living and knowing that it lives - but even so, eventually the "artificial" part of the description would have to be dropped...and the 'source' extended beyond human invention and creativity...
It could be said of that, that "humans were able to replicate the act of creating life - something which could not have been achieved if life didn't exist to begin with."
Because we do not know if this experience is a creation or not, we cannot say [as a matter of fact] that life created itself nor could we even say that human beings didn't start off as a type of artificial intelligence - because we do not even know to what extent intelligence permeates the environment we call "reality" nor do we know if it is only limited to biological forms
Intelligence as a planetary scale process
10,000 individual minds may have altogether brough the JWT into existence as a functional device, but we cannot say for sure that those minds were not influence by an overall local mind...much research is needed before any fact-sounding statements can be accepted as actual truth. Such must be regarded as opinion until we have enough evidence to accept one way or the other...
The problem I see with this reasoning is that it fails to acknowledge a source.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.
For example, humans may create AI to the extent that the AI becomes self conscious - living and knowing that it lives - but even so, eventually the "artificial" part of the description would have to be dropped...and the 'source' extended beyond human invention and creativity...
It could be said of that, that "humans were able to replicate the act of creating life - something which could not have been achieved if life didn't exist to begin with."
Because we do not know if this experience is a creation or not, we cannot say [as a matter of fact] that life created itself nor could we even say that human beings didn't start off as a type of artificial intelligence - because we do not even know to what extent intelligence permeates the environment we call "reality" nor do we know if it is only limited to biological forms
Intelligence as a planetary scale process
10,000 individual minds may have altogether brough the JWT into existence as a functional device, but we cannot say for sure that those minds were not influence by an overall local mind...much research is needed before any fact-sounding statements can be accepted as actual truth. Such must be regarded as opinion until we have enough evidence to accept one way or the other...
- 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 #74I just explained. Everyone has their own threshold of gullibility. If you present me with the evidence that convinced you that God exists and I do not find it convincing, then why should I believe?Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:29 amVery well so for atheists its undefined, arbitrary, whim, not a methodological process for deciding, this is what I wanted to demonstrate, so thank you. So if a theist observes something and says "This is convincing evidence for God" that argument is no less legitimate is it? Would you accept the claim God exists because I find X is convincing evidence for God? If not, then why?
The way they evaluate the alleged evidence doe not necessarily have to be rational. If it works for them, that seems to be enough. None of that validates the existence of gods anyway.
If you are indoctrinated with a belief, there is no convincing involved. Young children are not equipped to evaluate the information being fed to them by trusted elders. Once the belief is hard-wired in their brains of course they are convinced. That doesn't make any of it true.
But there is no guarantee that they are true either. look at every different set of religious beliefs inculcated into the minds of young children. Do you accept that not all of them can be true? In fact, all of them may be false.
If I am unaware of it then it matters not. Everything that has been presented to me as evidence for the existence of God has not breached my threshold of gullibility. What always amazes me is how many theists can be convinced by what appears to me as the flimsiest of reasons. Surely evidence that is truly compelling would be accepted by everyone.
Again, it all comes down to these things being personal. If something appeared to break the laws of the universe as I understand them then it would give me serious cause to reconsider my position on the existence of gods. Everything discussed so far speaks to individuals being convinced of the existence of gods. What is missing is compelling evidence that would confirm for all that gods do in fact exist. Not quite the same thing.Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:29 amHow can you tell if a law of nature has been broken? surely the obvious reaction to that would be that the assumption it was law in the first place was wrong?brunumb wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:10 pm All I can say is that nothing so far has managed to achieve it. Perhaps a personal miracle in which the laws of the universe are broken, or something that I personally consider to be an impossible event occurs that I actually witness. Hearsay, second-hand stories and anecdotes simply don't cut it. But then, I don't really know where my threshold of 'gullibility' lies.
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.
- 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 #75[Replying to Inquirer in post #73]
If you are convinced by stories in a ~2000 year old holy book that's fine, but that "evidence" is part of the same source that claims a 6 day creation, a global flood since humans appeared on Earth, people living to 900+ years, and the like. Believe it if you like, but I would consider it pure storytelling given the vanishingly small probability that any of it is actually true.That's not really true, you have no idea whatsoever if anyone has ever "come back from the dead" the NT even recites details of an example of this happening. To the theist the evidence is convincing to you it is not, that's the only difference.
I wasn't present to observe the universe being created so that is not in the category of "everything else" that I have observed. But I can observe parts of the universe today and see no reason to assume that god beings were involved in any part of it existing or behaving as it does. I think it is unreasonable to attribute anything to a god being that itself cannot be shown to exist. It is that simple ... show that gods exist first, then it would be reasonable to attribute things to them. BTW ... how many gods do you believe exist? You've avoided answering that question that Clownboat has also asked.What's a "reasonable explanation"? The universe and its laws exist, what is the "reasonable" explanation for this? and what makes it reasonable?
You need to understand what you mean by "reasonable" because if its subjective then I too can regard God as a reasonable explanation can't I?
Because gods have not been demonstrated to exist, so attributing anything to them is unjustified.Why is a God hypothesis not justified? You have zero criteria for evaluating an observation and deciding if God is a viable explanation so if you have no criteria then God and not God are surely equally viable possibilities?
I never said a mechanistic explanation was important. But by mechanism I mean the exact processes behind origin of the universe, origin of life, etc. (not "mechanical" which you seem to be using). The mechanism could be god did it, or it could be nature did it without any god inputs, etc. There is some mechanism for the process, whether we know the details of it or not. My point was that when we don't yet know the mechanism, the default explanation is not god did it.Why is a mechanistic explanation important at all? explaining reducible things mechanistically does not explain why things appear to be mechanistic. Can you show that everything has a mechanistic explanation? if you cannot show that, then it just an assumption is it not?
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
-
OnlineWilliam
- Savant
- Posts: 14169
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #76Any "God hypothesis" is not justified if it assumes we exist within a creation before showing that this is the actual case.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1260 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #77Sure, but we have to acknowledge that religions persist due to parents indoctrinating/convincing their children. Not because the children grew up and found convincing evidence (though that happens to some of course). There is a reason that religions are geographic.
For me, I believed because that is how I was brought up (same with my 4 siblings). Ironically, I eventually read the book from cover to cover and formed my own opinions. Now I need more than mommy and daddy telling me its true and I would like to see some convincing evidence for any of the gods. Unfortunately, what we have seems to be a shortage of evidence and a plethora of claims instead. Not very convincing if you ask me.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- 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 #78Yes, and not that I disagree with you, but what we seem to have is an absence of evidence. At least an absence of sufficient evidence.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:46 amSure, but we have to acknowledge that religions persist due to parents indoctrinating/convincing their children. Not because the children grew up and found convincing evidence (though that happens to some of course). There is a reason that religions are geographic.
For me, I believed because that is how I was brought up (same with my 4 siblings). Ironically, I eventually read the book from cover to cover and formed my own opinions. Now I need more than mommy and daddy telling me its true and I would like to see some convincing evidence for any of the gods. Unfortunately, what we have seems to be a shortage of evidence and a plethora of claims instead. Not very convincing if you ask me.
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
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1260 times
Re: Artificial life: can it be created?
Post #79I stand corrected as the evidence is absent (not in short supply). Claims are abundant though.Tcg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:59 amYes, and not that I disagree with you, but what we seem to have is an absence of evidence. At least an absence of sufficient evidence.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:46 amSure, but we have to acknowledge that religions persist due to parents indoctrinating/convincing their children. Not because the children grew up and found convincing evidence (though that happens to some of course). There is a reason that religions are geographic.
For me, I believed because that is how I was brought up (same with my 4 siblings). Ironically, I eventually read the book from cover to cover and formed my own opinions. Now I need more than mommy and daddy telling me its true and I would like to see some convincing evidence for any of the gods. Unfortunately, what we have seems to be a shortage of evidence and a plethora of claims instead. Not very convincing if you ask me.
Tcg
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- 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 #80Yes, and oddly enough (and I'm not suggesting this about you) some seem to think that those abundant claims are evidence.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:06 amI stand corrected as the evidence is absent (not in short supply). Claims are abundant though.Tcg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:59 amYes, and not that I disagree with you, but what we seem to have is an absence of evidence. At least an absence of sufficient evidence.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:46 amSure, but we have to acknowledge that religions persist due to parents indoctrinating/convincing their children. Not because the children grew up and found convincing evidence (though that happens to some of course). There is a reason that religions are geographic.
For me, I believed because that is how I was brought up (same with my 4 siblings). Ironically, I eventually read the book from cover to cover and formed my own opinions. Now I need more than mommy and daddy telling me its true and I would like to see some convincing evidence for any of the gods. Unfortunately, what we have seems to be a shortage of evidence and a plethora of claims instead. Not very convincing if you ask me.
Tcg
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