Artificial Life Created

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, it's such a distortion from the truth though. The reality that people from all faiths and none are involved in science.

So you accept this scientific discovery and all its implications ?

krudler

antiskeptic wrote: »

No connotations intended

It's man's trumpeting of the idea that he has surmounted his surroundings that makes me hang my headand cry. This perpetual hopefulness in a bright, new horizon when we can't but already know that this kind of technology will certainly be used for all sorts of abominations .. as well as good.

As long as its used to bring back the dinosaurs I'll be happy

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

So you don't think there are any theological implications here ?
Do you understand what these scientists have done ?

I'll answer the first question first. Um no probably not biology was always my weak point, but I do think I've grasped what they did. The problem is though that my ignorance of biology is so great that I'm sure my level of appreciation isn't what it should be.

Well this is the Christianity forum, so speaking from a Christian prespective I don't think there are any theological implications, because "life" from the Christian Viewpoint has not yet been created. This is artificial, yes biologically and chemically it is identical to natural life, but philosophy wise it isn't.

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

So you accept this scientific discovery and all its implications ?

Indeed. Life (which ends up in the grave) manufactured artificial life (which will end up in the grave). It didn't create soul (which won't end up in the grave).

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So you accept this scientific discovery and all its implications ?

There are no implications, that is sort of the point.

If you avoid making falsifiable claims your claims can never be falsified.

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

So you accept this scientific discovery and all its implications ?

The implication that we can use God given materials, to follow the same patterns as He followed in creation to form life in the lab?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The implication that we can use God given materials, to follow the same patterns as He followed in creation to form life in the lab?

So god did not use any supernatural abilities to create life, he used entirely natural methods that can be employed by anyone with sufficient knowledge?

philologos

In creating the laws, and implementing them, I'm fairly sure that God would have used a very different, and more efficient procedure than we could ever devise on our own. So yes, there is a supernatural element in it certainly even in the light of this research.

We can only really hope to inadequately follow in God's footsteps biologically, as we attempt to do in our daily lives on an ethical and spiritual level.

Edit: Sufficient knowledge is an interesting term. Do you think man will ever reach omnipotence?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In creating the laws, and implementing them, I'm fairly sure that God would have used a very different, and more efficient procedure than we could ever devise on our own. So yes, there is a supernatural element in it certainly even in the light of this research.

We can only really hope to inadequately follow in God's footsteps biologically, as we attempt to do in our daily lives on an ethical and spiritual level.

So he used his supernatural abilities to do it more efficiently than we can but if he so chose could have created life in a way that was entirely within the laws of nature and could possibly have happened without any intelligent input?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So god did not use any supernatural abilities to create life, he used entirely natural methods that can be employed by anyone with sufficient knowledge?

"Natural" of course meaning "according to the laws of nature" ?

What is the source of these laws?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So god did not use any supernatural abilities to create life, he used entirely natural methods that can be employed by anyone with sufficient knowledge?

He might not have assembled the elements mechanically as the scientist is required to do but that's not your point.

Consider the intelligence and effort it took to make a-little-blob-in-a-petri-dish-life. Now begin to imagine the scale of intelligence it took to create the-world-as-we-know-it-life.

So yes, anyone could make life as we know it - so long as he had god-like levels of knowledge.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So god did not use any supernatural abilities to create life, he used entirely natural methods that can be employed by anyone with sufficient knowledge?

To create living organisms, if indeed he did, could be done by natural methods yes. And "by "natural" you mean?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Sufficient knowledge is an interesting term. Do you think man will ever reach omnipotence?

Omnipotence is means all powerful. One can know all without being able to do all. And sufficient knowledge in this context means the knowledge required to perform the experiments that have been performed. If something is done by an all knowing and all powerful being that does not mean that it could only have been done by such a being

to answer your question: I have no idea

philologos

Apologies. Omniscient would have been the correct term.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

To create living organisms, if indeed he did, could be done by natural methods yes. And "by "natural" you mean?

ISAW wrote: »

"Natural" of course meaning "according to the laws of nature" ?

What is the source of these laws?

Yes by natural I mean according to the laws of nature. I have no idea what the source of these laws is if indeed they have a source. No human being does, despite any claims to the contrary

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

He might not have assembled the elements mechanically as the scientist is required to do but that's not your point.

Consider the intelligence and effort it took to make a-little-blob-in-a-petri-dish-life. Now begin to imagine the scale of intelligence it took to create the-world-as-we-know-it-life.

So yes, anyone could make life as we know it - so long as he had god-like levels of knowledge.

Now we're again getting into the creationist area that complexity requires a designer. It doesn't, as evolution proves. Not just biological evolution, all forms of cumulative selection

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

In creating the laws, and implementing them, I'm fairly sure that God would have used a very different, and more efficient procedure than we could ever devise on our own. So yes, there is a supernatural element in it certainly even in the light of this research.

We can only really hope to inadequately follow in God's footsteps biologically, as we attempt to do in our daily lives on an ethical and spiritual level.

Edit: Sufficient knowledge is an interesting term. Do you think man will ever reach omnipotence?

Im not entirely in agreement with this. Humans could possibly in fact "improve on god's creation" in a biological sense. If we solved apoptosis for example and could live forever or if we got rid of the biological throwbacks and "imperfections" like the appendix or Rhesus factor. But what we couldn't do is make souls or spirits.

philologos

Again, there was far more involved in the Creation, than what these people are doing in the lab, if one is to understand that God created the physical, chemical, and biological universes together.

This is why I suggested that we are merely playing around with the materials that God has given us. When one is able to create the entire universe in all its current complexity, please come back to me. However, this is merely only an interesting example of how man is able to examine and explore God's universe.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes by natural I mean according to the laws of nature. I have no idea what the source of these laws is if indeed they have a source. No human being does, despite any claims to the contrary

So no human being knows that the laws of nature might indeed have a source in God and that any form or creation of life by humans would still not mean that it proves the source of the laws of nature is not God? Well there you have it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, there was far more involved in the Creation, than what these people are doing in the lab, if one is to understand that God created the physical, chemical, and biological universes together.

This is why I suggested that we are merely playing around with the materials that God has given us. When one is able to create the entire universe in all its current complexity, please come back to me. However, this is merely only an interesting example of how man is able to examine and explore God's universe.

I am reminded of this comic:


Now that artificial life has been created we can add another panel. This panel contains someone pointing to the sky and saying "I don't understand". And, well, you know the rest

edit: actually the second panel is pretty much the same as what you're saying

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

Again, there was far more involved in the Creation, than what these people are doing in the lab, if one is to understand that God created the physical, chemical, and biological universes together.

This is why I suggested that we are merely playing around with the materials that God has given us. When one is able to create the entire universe in all its current complexity, please come back to me. However, this is merely only an interesting example of how man is able to examine and explore God's universe.

I think the point is that it is technically possible to synthesise a lifeform out of inert material.
This has not been done in the experiment but let us accept it can be done. It is a massive achievement but so what? It doesn't disprove God. I does disprove that only god could create life out of inert material. So what?

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

So no human being knows that the laws of nature might indeed have a source in God and that any form or creation of life by humans would still not mean that it proves the source of the laws of nature is not God? Well there you have it.

Yes indeed we cannot prove that god doesn't exist, just that he is not required for certain things to have happened that people previously claimed he was required for. Must I bring up flying spaghetti monsters to illustrate that not being able to disprove something is not a reason to believe in it?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am reminded of this comic:


Now that artificial life has been created we can add another panel. This panel contains someone holding something pointing to the sky and saying "I don't understand". And, well, you know the rest

edit: actually the second panel is pretty much the same as what you're saying

wormholes, Black holes, Causility violation, wave matter duality, alternate universes. even the people who work with these ideas admit they don't understand and admit there is no direct evidence but they don't all call it God. that does not mean they are right.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed we cannot prove that god doesn't exist, just that he is not required for certain things to have happened that people previously claimed he was required for. Must I bring up flying spaghetti monsters to illustrate that not being able to disprove something is not a reason to believe in it?

Must I bring up ancient debate history to show mainstream Christians don't assert the Earth is 6,000 years old and that only God is capable of making a life form out of inert material?

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

wormholes, Black holes, Causility violation, wave matter duality, alternate universes. even the people who work with these ideas admit they don't understand and admit there is no direct evidence but they don't all call it God. that does not mean they are right.

I'm not sure what point you're making.....

philologos

There still had to be some root cause for why we even exist in the first place to be able to perform such experiments. This doesn't really weaken the case for God at all.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

wormholes, Black holes, Causility violation, wave matter duality, alternate universes. even the people who work with these ideas admit they don't understand and admit there is no direct evidence but they don't all call it God. that does not mean they are right.

Life used to be considered direct creation of God

Then we found out that life was the result of an evolutionary process of molecules that was based on the natural laws of chemistry, laws which believers attribute to being a direction creation of God

If we find out the source behind these laws of physics and chemistry no doubt believers will attribute this new source as being the result of God.

What is a falsifiable claim demonstrating the existence of God? IE when do you guys admit you were wrong?

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Must I bring up ancient debate history to show mainstream Christians don't assert the Earth is 6,000 years old and that only God is capable of making a life form out of inert material?

You can if you want but that's not really relevant to what you were saying. Your point was that human beings are not able to prove that the source of the laws of nature was not your god. We can't prove it wasn't a magical cheese sandwich either, what's your point?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

There still had to be some root cause for why we even exist in the first place to be able to perform such experiments. This doesn't really weaken the case for God at all.

What if the root cause isn't God but is eternal, such as an eternal particle or energy field? Would you still then attribute that to God?

Turtwig

ISAW wrote: »

wormholes, Black holes, Causility violation, wave matter duality, alternate universes. even the people who work with these ideas admit they don't understand and admit there is no direct evidence but they don't all call it God. that does not mean they are right.

Most of the aspects of reality understood by science are barely understandable from an intuitive point of the view. The difference with the God concept though and the existence of, say, black holes. Is that the latter hypothesis can be falsified; God cannot.