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.

[William]

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
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.
...

No, no, no. The surveyor made an error, we're just putting it where it really goes.

[Diagoras]

Is that your way of admitting the argument you put forth is without merit?

No, it's my way of politely asking people to stick to the topic. My experience is that some people find it easier to ask tangential questions rather than formulate an adequate rebuttal. This is rarely satisfactory in debate.

[William]

So God is mentioned in the OP , and my question to you re your own mentioning of God is simply hand waved away as "off topic"...

oh kaaayyy...

[Diagoras]

[Replying to William in post #94]

Yes, God is indeed mentioned in the OP. That doesn't mean that every debate topic mentioning 'God' can be reduced to asking "What is God, then?". My wording of the OP was designed to focus on a very specific theistic claim about creating life. If you wish to debate that topic, then offer a rebuttal instead of widening the scope to such an extent.

I'm attempting to stay within Forum Rules 3 and 4. Is that so hard to do?

[brunumb]

[Replying to William in post #91]

William, are these cartoon sound bites now your default response style? I ask because I find they are becoming tiresome and am considering using the ignore poster function. Thank you.

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #93]

I have given my reason as to why it wouldn't prove 'other than a God'. If that is too outside of the scope of where you want to argue, I have no horse in that race.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]

An interesting development regarding abiogenesis which has wider implications than for just this topic:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7z4g8/ ... nteresting

A new study shows that ingredients for life can form from non-living chemicals on any given beach, and it could help develop new drugs and search for alien life.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]

I absolutely believe we will create artificial life. We will accomplish this first digitally, like AI.

We will create something that is more intelligent than we are and I predict it will happen in 30 years or less. In fact, I think it will happen within the next 15 years.