Artificial Life Created

philomenadeise

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The supernatural is by definition impossible and I'll take improbable* over impossible any day


*Assuming it is improbable, we can't really say for sure without knowing what the conditions were for the last 14 billion years

That's Sherlock Holmes isn't it? A bit flawed though, it should be "whatever remains, however improbable, must be possible"

PDN

philomenadeise wrote: »

That's Sherlock Holmes isn't it? A bit flawed though, it should be "whatever remains, however improbable, must be possible"

If you arbitrarily define for yourself what is possible or impossible then your 'truth' is whatever you want it to be.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Absolute piffle.

As far as I can see Jakkass made no claim that anything in this thread supported (I liked the way you quickly rolled back from 'proved' to 'supported' as soon as you were challenged) the truth of one religion against another. If I missed where he did that then could someone please point it out to me?

I'm not the one talking piffle here mate you need to read my post. I never said Jakkass made any claim that supported one religion over another, that was my whole point. That even if it could be conclusively proven that there was some form of intelligence involved in the creation of life, the universe and everything it would have as much theological impact on every world religion and would not support his own position any more than anyone else's.

Jakkass is arguing for a generic creator with no defining characteristics (a desitic type god) when what he believes in is anything but. I've seen this called the tin man argument, the opposite of a straw man, where someone attempts to defend a position other than the one they actually hold because it's easier to defend:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=straw%20man%20argument

Tin-man fallacy
A reverse strawman fallacy. To defend a position or argument, that one does not hold.
Tin-man fallacy: A Christian defending the deist take on the concept of a god.

StealthRolex

If a scientist has managed to create life, albeit "artificially" does that not make him a creationist scientist?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

If you arbitrarily define for yourself what is possible or impossible then your 'truth' is whatever you want it to be.

How true.

Science keeps filling in the gaps and Christians keep pushing him further away. How much further is too far PDN ?

Every Scientific discovery forces you to redefine your belief, I'd say at this stage that even if Science somehow developed a time machine and we could see back 2000 years ago and look at Jesus' life and death and subsequent non-resurrection, you still wouldn't believe it.

Is there any scientific discovery that would force you to question your belief in god ?

Sam Vimes

philomenadeise wrote: »

That's Sherlock Holmes isn't it? A bit flawed though, it should be "whatever remains, however improbable, must be possible"

T'was Arthur Conan Doyle apparently:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurcona134512.html

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "

philomenadeise

PDN wrote: »

If you arbitrarily define for yourself what is possible or impossible then your 'truth' is whatever you want it to be.

That's a different point to what I was getting at, I'm purely pointing out how that Holmes quote is not accurate. Eliminating impossible leaves possible, not necessarily 'the truth.' Matter of semantics.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Every Scientific discovery forces you to redefine your belief...

Dogmatic athist statement designed to set up a straw-man.

The reality is every scientific discovery reinforces our belief.

monosharp wrote: »

Is there any scientific discovery that would force you to question your belief in god ?

None whatsoever.

philomenadeise

Sam Vimes wrote: »

T'was Arthur Conan Doyle apparently:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurcona134512.html

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "

Well, Arthur spoke it through the mouth of his famous fictional detective.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

None whatsoever.

Even if a scientific discovery showed that god did not create the universe?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not the one talking piffle here mate you need to read my post. I never said Jakkass made any claim that supported one religion over another, that was my whole point. That even if it could be conclusively proven that there was some form of intelligence involved in the creation of life, the universe and everything it would have as much theological impact on every world religion and would not support his own position any more than anyone else's.

Jakkass is arguing for a generic creator with no defining characteristics (a desitic type god) when what he believes in is anything but. I've seen this called the tin man argument, the opposite of a straw man, where someone attempts to defend a position other than the one they actually hold because it's easier to defend:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=straw%20man%20argument

Please stop twisting and dancing.

You represented Jakkass as follows:
While we're talking about absurdities, from my point of view what you have just said is "Something that seems really unlikely happened, therefore the stories about a Jewish guy raising from the dead 2000 years ago are true".

Jakkass has made no such claim. What you attributed to him was false and untrue.

I don't know which is more unpleasant, your false attribution of a position to another poster, or your refusal to admit that you did it.

I think there's a debate in this thread that is well worth having, but your strawman antics don't help.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

The reality is every scientific discovery reinforces our belief.

Christians used to all believe the earth was 6,000 years old, science corrected them. They changed their belief.
Christians used to all believe god created all life as it is now, science corrected them. They changed their belief.

It doesn't re-inforce it, it challenges what it is at the time, forcing you to change it.

None whatsoever.

Ah the good old "regardless of any evidence I'm not wrong" argument.

So in a few hundred years lets say we meet a few hundred different alien species from out there in the universe and they A) have no religion/never heard of the idea of a deity or they all have different religions with little to nothing in common with Christianity.

And you'd still believe in Jesus as the son of 'god' ?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Please stop twisting and dancing.

You represented Jakkass as follows:
While we're talking about absurdities, from my point of view what you have just said is "Something that seems really unlikely happened, therefore the stories about a Jewish guy raising from the dead 2000 years ago are true".

Jakkass has made no such claim. What you attributed to him was false and untrue.

I don't know which is more unpleasant, your false attribution of a position to another poster, or your refusal to admit that you did it.

I think there's a debate in this thread that is well worth having, but your strawman antics don't help.

Oh look out come the accusations of dishonesty like clockwork. What Jakkass said:

Every time one considers how unlikely it is that the universe was created without God....

Unless Jakkass wants to correct me, he was talking about the specific god described in the bible, which also contains a story about a Jewish guy raising from the dead and my point was that it is immeasurably more absurd to jump from the idea that it is unlikely that there wasn't some form of guidance to believing that the guidance came from one specific being described in one specific holy book.

weeder

looks like they modified an already living cell to me

monosharp

weeder wrote: »

looks like they modified an already living cell to me

Then you didn't watch it closely.

They created DNA completely from non-living material, then inserted that dna into a cell wall.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh look out come the accusations of dishonesty like clockwork.

That does tend to happen when people start being dishonest.

Unless Jakkass wants to correct me, he was talking about the specific god described in the bible, which also contains a story about a Jewish guy raising from the dead and my point was that it is immeasurably more absurd to jump from the idea that it is unlikely that there wasn't some form of guidance to believing that the guidance came from one specific being described in one specific holy book.

But that isn't what you said.

You didn't say, "Jakkass is referring to God, a being whom he also believes to have raised Jesus from the dead 2000 years ago." That would have been true, even if irrelevant. A red herring

You said, "While we're talking about absurdities, from my point of view what you have just said is "Something that seems really unlikely happened, therefore the stories about a Jewish guy raising from the dead 2000 years ago are true". That was false. A straw man.

Now, if you made a mistake, then just hold up your hands and say so. We all make mistakes at times and most of us are man enough to admit it. But if you make false statements about another poster, and then refuse to admit your fault when it is pointed out to you, then you have little excuse for grumbling about accusations of dishonesty.

sink

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe to your mind, but I would think that God has a definition on the Christianity forum.

Individual Christian denominations and indeed individual Christians define God differently as they see fit. Christians also change their definition of God, to suit the argument. There is no firm definition of God i.e it's attributes and it's interactions. One person says one thing another will say something else, even within the same denomination and church. And what's more they only base their definition on their personal interpretation without any recourse to settling which is correct.

Something which can hold many definitions to many different people which cannot be objectively decided upon as to which is correct, is undefined in the objective sense at least. God has no objective definiton.

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Christians used to all believe the earth was 6,000 years old, science corrected them.
They changed their belief.

Science added to the body of knowledge. Christians have always believed the earth was very old, they just didn't know how old. The concept of being 6000 years old is Jewish, not Christian,

monosharp wrote: »

Christians used to all believe god created all life as it is now, science corrected them. They changed their belief.

There is no difference between life now and life then. Life is carbon based and life is coded in the DNA. Are you suggesting there was something other than carbon or DNA then?

monosharp wrote: »

It doesn't re-inforce it, it challenges what it is at the time, forcing you to change it.

Challenges yes - forces a change. No

monosharp wrote: »

Ah the good old "regardless of any evidence I'm not wrong" argument.

No - that is your straw man again. However there is no evidence for what you are asking so it is a moot point.

monosharp wrote: »

So in a few hundred years lets say we meet a few hundred different alien species from out there in the universe and they A) have no religion/never heard of the idea of a deity or they all have different religions with little to nothing in common with Christianity.

A) There is a God and they will know Him as their God. They will also probably have atheists - as the Bible says, the poor we will always have with us and I believe that includes the poor in Spirit.

The nature of life is such that there will be those who accept God, those who reject Him and those who make up their own stuff.
The only exception would be if their planets did not suffer the Fall as we did.

monosharp wrote: »

And you'd still believe in Jesus as the son of 'god' ?

Of course. Why would I not. if A) and no fall they would not have met Jesus.
If they would have met Jesus in their likeness.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

That does tend to happen when people start being dishonest.

Yes it does but that's not a requirement when talking to PDN. I (and I'm not the only one) am mighty sick of arguments from you that are nothing more than:

Sam: <point>
PDN: <counter point in snide tone usually with insults thrown in>
Sam: <counter counter point>
PDN: "You're a liar! admit it! ADMIT IT!"

So I'm done talking to you

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Even if a scientific discovery showed that god did not create the universe?

and what scientific discovery would that be?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

and what scientific discovery would that be?

I didn't say that discovery had been made, the question was about possible future scientific discoveries.

PDN

sink wrote: »

Individual Christian denominations and indeed individual Christians define God differently as they see fit. Christians also change their definition of God, to suit the argument. There is no firm definition of God i.e it's attributes and it's interactions. One person says one thing another will say something else, even within the same denomination and church. And what's more they only base their definition on their personal interpretation without any recourse to settling which is correct.

Something which can hold many definitions to many different people which cannot be objectively decided upon as to which is correct, is undefined in the objective sense at least. God has no objective definiton.

Let's block this particular rabbit trail.

From the Charter:
For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. Individual posters with other beliefs, however, are welcome.

Therefore, for the purposes of this forum, God is understood as being the personal infinite Being who created the heavens and the earth, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, and who sent the Holy Spirit.

You are totally free to believe anything different as you wish about God, but the above definition is accepted in this forum and so we can avoid quarreling over a definition for 'God'.

If that does not suit you then I suggest you try the Spirituality forum.

sink

weeder wrote: »

looks like they modified an already living cell to me

They have taken four bottles of chemicals and an empty cell wall, which is by any definition dead i.e not living. They painstakingly arranged them in a very specific manner and hey presto it came to life. Living from non-living anyway you look at it.

monosharp

StealthRolex wrote: »

Science added to the body of knowledge. Christians have always believed the earth was very old, they just didn't know how old. The concept of being 6000 years old is Jewish, not Christian,

Fair enough, it mightn't have been a mainstream Christian belief.

There is no difference between life now and life then. Life is carbon based and life is coded in the DNA. Are you suggesting there was something other than carbon or DNA then?

Nonsense. Christians used to believe that god created all life as it is now, the form it is now. Fish, animals, birds etc. That used to be the mainstream Christian belief and for some it still is.

Science, Evolution specifically changed that.

No - that is your straw man again. However there is no evidence for what you are asking so it is a moot point.

I asked for any possible scientific discovery. You said 'none'.

A) There is a God and they will know Him as their God. They will also probably have atheists - as the Bible says, the poor we will always have with us and I believe that includes the poor in Spirit.

So if they didn't know god would that question your faith ?

gbee

monosharp wrote: »

Your god is supposed to have created life, what if we start to create life ? How long before science reaches a stage where we can do most everything your god supposedly did ?

It doesn't disprove him but it certainly negates his necessity.

From a Christian upbringing, I was told we were made in his image and likeness ... so creating new life should not be beyond us.

I also toyed with the idea that we we in fact God.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes it does but that's not a requirement when talking to PDN. I (and I'm not the only one) am mighty sick of arguments of you that are nothing more than:

Sam: <point>
PDN: <counter point in snide tone usually with insults thrown in>
Sam: <counter counter point>
PDN: "You're a liar, admit it! ADMIT IT!"

So I'm done talking to you

It's a free country, so no-one forces you to talk to me.

However, I quoted your own words and showed you what you said about Jakkass. You failed to retract it or to justify it. Getting stroppy doesn't change that.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Dogmatic athist statement designed to set up a straw-man.

The reality is every scientific discovery reinforces our belief.



None whatsoever.

So every scientific discovery, no matter what is being discovered, re-enforces your belief in the existence of God?

Have you thought that one through?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So I'm done talking to you

+1

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

It's a free country, so no-one forces you to talk to me.

However, I quoted your own words and showed you what you said about Jakkass. You failed to retract it or to justify it. Getting stroppy doesn't change that.

Yes that's what happened. Good man

sink

PDN wrote: »

Let's block this particular rabbit trail.

From the Charter:
For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. Individual posters with other beliefs, however, are welcome.

Therefore, for the purposes of this forum, God is understood as being the personal infinite Being who created the heavens and the earth, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, and who sent the Holy Spirit.

You are totally free to believe anything different as you wish about God, but the above definition is accepted in this forum and so we can avoid quarreling over a definition for 'God'.

If that does not suit you then I suggest you try the Spirituality forum.

Ok, that definition has no bearing on anything related to the field of genetic engineering or even biology for that matter. Therefore it is completely meaningless in the context of the debate on whether artificially created life in a lab disproves gods existence. Which was my original point.

If you're going to argue about God's role in the creation of life you first have to give God a specific role to play.