Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

seamus

amacachi wrote: »

Is this actually synthetic life or just messing with the DNA of an existing cell/organism? I thought they'd perfected the creation of DNA strands from scratch a few years ago?

The DNA of the organism is synthetic/created, but the cell itself wasn't. It's the cellular equivalent of fashioning your own human brain and slotting it into a dead body. Artificial life, for all intents and purposes.

amacachi

seamus wrote: »

The DNA of the organism is synthetic/created, but the cell itself wasn't. It's the cellular equivalent of fashioning your own human brain and slotting it into a dead body. Artificial life, for all intents and purposes.

Still more like modification than creation as far as I'm concerned, they've been doing similar for a while. Though fully synthetic stuff can't be too far away.

achtungbarry

Dades wrote: »

Since when did evidence count for anything in matters of religion? :pac:

eblistic wrote: »

Sadly history would suggest not. They'll just move the goalposts, reinterpret their sacred revealed texts a little, and somehow claim that this is actually evidence of an intelligent creator (e.g. "there's still an intelligent life-form involved in the synthesis procedure." or some such nonsense).

I think the hysterical mental gymnastics being performed over on t'other forum seem to confirm your points.

Soul Winner

achtungbarry wrote: »

I think the hysterical mental gymnastics being performed over on t'other forum seem to confirm your points.

Like how? The main point being made yonder has to do with what was used to do this research., i.e. already existing stuff and a hell of lot of research and trial and error experimentation. How can this possibly do anything to usurp God from His throne in the minds of rationally thinking theists? Me thinks some peeps on the this side of the fence are a little bit tipsy and giddy from their initial swigs from this new liquor, you need to go outside and take a few deep breaths and clear your heads. :pac:

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like how? The main point being made yonder has to do with what was used to do this research., i.e. already existing stuff and a hell of lot of research and trial and error experimentation.

The DNA was completely synthetic. They inserted in into a (dead) cell wall. They also plan to do the same thing later without the need for 'borrowing' the cell wall.

This 'existing stuff' is a complete red herring. Its completely irrelevant.

How can this possibly do anything to usurp God from His throne in the minds of rationally thinking theists? Me thinks some peeps on the this side of the fence are a little bit tipsy and giddy from their initial swigs from this new liquor, you need to go outside and take a few deep breaths and clear your heads. :pac:

Because your supposed god created life. Now humans have done it or are extremely close to doing it fully depending on how you view it.

You don't see any theological consequences from human beings creating life and inert materials ?

What if this goes on to prove abiogenesis ? (life forming from inert materials without external forces at work) Will this have any theological consequences ? Or will you move the goalposts a little further back ?

Tell me soul winner, I've asked the same question on the other thread. Is there any scientific evidence, any scientific discovery that could ever occur that would make you question your faith ?

kiffer

strobe wrote: »

Fukk.....That sounds horrific. Create life for a purpose and then extinguish it when it has served it's purpose. I know I kill millions of bacteria everytime I wipe my work top down with Detol (99.9% I am told{tm}), but it still sets me uneasy when I see something like that written down. Psychedelically induced psuedo morality probably. But still, if you think about it in sci-fi tinted slippery slope terms it does pose troublesome questions.

I don't think there's a slippery slope... Lets say we make a totally man made animal, a-mouse, a mouse like creature built from scratch... but lets say with six legs and a simple custom built bio-chemistry, eyes like an octopus with the blood supply on the sensible side, designed to fit down small pipes to run cables...
Morally and ethically is it any different to a normal mouse?

Sometimes theists tell us that God can do whatever he wants to us because he created us... so following this logic we can do what ever we want with life that we build from scratch... Except of course that it could be claimed that we are only reproducing something that God created and so it doesn't count... or we didn't make the atoms from which the life is made... Though at that point we can't ever be said to have created anything...

Where does that leave poor a-mouse? Do you need to treat it as well as you treat a regular mouse?
I say yes.
Animal rights aren't built around the fact we share DNA with animals or that God made us both (if your so inclined)... If we make a complex creature which is capable of sufferung then we should do our best to make sure it does not suffer... Just as if we were to go to some Jovian moon and find animals there, unrelated to us, we would still have to deal with them ethically.



As for creating life for a purpose (Microbes to clean up an oil spill) and then killing it when its job is done... How is that any different from using regular microbes which then end up dieing off after they've consummed all the oil?

Intent: use life forms to eat oil.
Result: huge bloom of life, followed by massive die off. Oil spill does not kill as much wildlife / do as much damage to the ecosystem in general.

iUseVi

kiffer wrote: »

I don't think there's a slippery slope... Lets say we make a totally man made animal, a-mouse, a mouse like creature built from scratch... but lets say with six legs and a simple custom built bio-chemistry, eyes like an octopus with the blood supply on the sensible side, designed to fit down small pipes to run cables...
Morally and ethically is it any different to a normal mouse?

Sometimes theists tell us that God can do whatever he wants to us because he created us... so following this logic we can do what ever we want with life that we build from scratch... Except of course that it could be claimed that we are only reproducing something that God created and so it doesn't count... or we didn't make the atoms from which the life is made... Though at that point we can't ever be said to have created anything...

Where does that leave poor a-mouse? Do you need to treat it as well as you treat a regular mouse?
I say yes.
Animal rights aren't built around the fact we share DNA with animals or that God made us both (if your so inclined)... If we make a complex creature which is capable of sufferung then we should do our best to make sure it does not suffer... Just as if we were to go to some Jovian moon and find animals there, unrelated to us, we would still have to deal with them ethically.



As for creating life for a purpose (Microbes to clean up an oil spill) and then killing it when its job is done... How is that any different from using regular microbes which then end up dieing off after they've consummed all the oil?

Intent: use life forms to eat oil.
Result: huge bloom of life, followed by massive die off. Oil spill does not kill as much wildlife / do as much damage to the ecosystem in general.

I agree, I would say yes to treating this animal like a normal mouse too. I think the key is the difference between mice and microbes; this is why it is NOT a slippery slope. We already treat microbes different to small mammals, I think this distinction is rational whether the animal exists or is engineered. Microbes, if programmed wrong could be disastrous for an ecosystem, thus a kill switch might be necessary. But microbes don't feel pain, based on current science about nervous systems.

Mice, although small, could be caught and contained, and I think a kill switch in anything much bigger than a microbe would be unethical. I also don't think we should bio-engineer life-forms to do certain activities, such as an a-mouse to lay cables. But then I feel uneasy about "breaking in" and riding horses, so my views are probably considered a bit wacky and fringey anyhoo.

kiffer

Ferrets are already used to run cables... :-D
Just because they are doing a job doesn't mean they are unhappy.

If not for a purpose then why build our a-mouse at all? Just to show we can? Is that reason enough?


Edit: forgot to address the kill switch... Yeah I'd be against a kill switch in animals... but no more than I'd be against poisoning...

iUseVi

kiffer wrote: »

Ferrets are already used to run cables... :-D
Just because they are doing a job doesn't mean they are unhappy.

If not for a purpose then why build our a-mouse at all? Just to show we can? Is that reason enough?


Edit: forgot to address the kill switch... Yeah I'd be against a kill switch in animals... but no more than I'd be against poisoning...

Well if it doesn't suffer I don't see why we can't do it just to if we can. But I can't see it would be easy to tell if a creation suffers before it is created, so a few moral issues there, yeah.

*off topic*

I should clarify I'm not against all productive animal use. Some animals are quite happy to "play games" with us human animals, such as my dog who like to stand on two legs and "dance" sometimes when I play music, I didn't really train it extensively, I just gave her treats when she did it a few times, now she does it without expecting treat rewards but because I assume she likes it. And some horses are quite happy to go a running. I mentioned horses because they have to be "broken" and some are trained in not a nice way, but yeah, that's a tad off topic sorry.

*/off topic*

I think there's great potential in the technique while only considering microbes, so enough to be getting on with for the scientists.

Dr. Loon

Church warns scientists not to play god.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_eu/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell

robindch

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Church warns scientists not to play god.

That's the church's job, innit?

sink

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Church warns scientists not to play god.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_eu/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell

I actually broadly agree with the overall point minus the god stuff.

"In the wrong hands, today's development can lead tomorrow to a devastating leap in the dark,".

Although religion is not the place I would ever go to seek ethical guidance, there is no reason I can't agree with them when their views happen to coincide with mine.



On a side note I especially liked this comment.

"Nothing like having a organized legion of pedophiles lecturing us on ethics."

Not strictly true but I sniggered none the less.

sonicthebadger*

sink wrote: »

I actually broadly agree with the overall point minus the god stuff.

"In the wrong hands, today's development can lead tomorrow to a devastating leap in the dark,".

The same can be said of quite literally any advance in science though. Einstien was not a fan of war and violence but his breakthrough mass energy doodad was used in the creation of the atom bomb. It is also used to make your satnav work. Radar was used to detect German air attacks (though to keep it secret the British claimed they were feeding their pilots carrots hence the myth that carrots make you see in the dark) now Radar is used in everything from aviation to (in modified form) pregnancy scans. The Nazis were experimenting with sonic weapons to explode enemy troops on the battlefield without damaging equipment and accidentally invented bias for audio tapes allowing for extremely clear recording.

Every discovery can be weaponised. That is not a good argument against gaining more knowledge.

sink

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Every discovery can be weaponised. That is not a good argument against gaining more knowledge.

The article actually states quiet clearly that the Vatican does not object to this new form of science, it just cautions it's use, which would be my view. This technology is potentially more dangerous than anything we have yet created, atom bomb included.

One can't accidentally nuke the planet and nuclear material is difficult to acquire, has a limited number of uses, is easy to keep track of and bombs are very expensive to build.

In contrast the material for genetic engineering is all around, indeed our very bodies are made of it. The required technology is going to increase in capacity and fall in cost exponentially for the foreseeable future. It will be readily available around the world as there are a near infinite number of potential industrial applications for it. To top it off it potentially could accidentally (or intentionally) cause catastrophic irreversible upset of the biosphere.

This technology carries risks unlike anything our species has handled before, it should not be treated lightly.

sonicthebadger*

sink wrote: »

This technology carries risks unlike anything our species has handled before, it should not be treated lightly.

I hear what you're saying but think about how fierce competition is between organisms already, the "grey goo" argument was used against nanotechnology in the past but any new organism introduced to a biosphere needs to compete with creatures already there and viciously fighting for survival, creatures with a massive head start in evolutionary terms. We have frequently introduced organisms to new biospheres with disasterous effects and we're still here to discuss it. Two that spring to mind are rabbits in Austrailia and cats... well cats pretty much anywhere, but particularly New Zealand. And we have also selectively bred (or genetically engineered through an iterative process if you like) organisms to out compete and fight off a host of natural competitors for our rescources. Disease and pest resistant plants are a good example. The modern Monsanto version of genetic engineering is short sighted and foolish compared to some of the excellent organisms we've created over the last 10,000 years or so. This new form of organism creation is just a logical next step up from taking a complete existant organism and tweaking it, giving it an advantage over competitor organisms in its biosphere and benefiting us.

sink

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I hear what you're saying but think about how fierce competition is between organisms already, the "grey goo" argument was used against nanotechnology in the past but any new organism introduced to a biosphere needs to compete with creatures already there and viciously fighting for survival, creatures with a massive head start in evolutionary terms. We have frequently introduced organisms to new biospheres with disasterous effects and we're still here to discuss it. Two that spring to mind are rabbits in Austrailia and cats... well cats pretty much anywhere, but particularly New Zealand. And we have also selectively bred (or genetically engineered through an iterative process if you like) organisms to out compete and fight off a host of natural competitors for our rescources. Disease and pest resistant plants are a good example. The modern Monsanto version of genetic engineering is short sighted and foolish compared to some of the excellent organisms we've created over the last 10,000 years or so. This new form of organism creation is just a logical next step up from taking a complete existant organism and tweaking it, giving it an advantage over competitor organisms in its biosphere and benefiting us.

Once again I'm not saying we shouldn't explore the potential of this technology, but we shouldn't overestimate our understanding or underestimate the potential damage we could cause. I don't buy into the argument about naturally evolved organisms being necessarily fitter than their genetically engineered counterparts. Sure the argument has merit when considering only the mean but there are always going to be extreme outliers, whether by accident or design. It only takes one black swan out of millions to cause great harm.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Tell me soul winner, I've asked the same question on the other thread. Is there any scientific evidence, any scientific discovery that could ever occur that would make you question your faith ?

Like I said over in the other forum, we question our faith all the time. The basis for the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as an historical event in our space-time. If that didn't happen as an actual fact of history and it can be shown as such with logic, historical critique and solid argumentation then I don't need or want Christianity.

I've gone into this area in great detail ever since I became a Christian and I've yet to hear any good arguments that would convince me that it didn't actually happen. When I do I will be done with it all. I don't need any scientific theory/discovery to dissuade me. And arguing that resurrections simply don't happen in nature is not a good argument either. The Christians faith is not based upon a natural event. From the very start the claim was that God raised Jesus from the dead, not that He naturally rose from the dead.

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

But I might as well tell you that if I could observe somebody creating matter from nothing then that would convince me that we don't need a God to do it. If the Big Bang theory is correct then common sense will tell you that 'before' matter, space and time existed there was a force powerful enough to bring our universe into existence, and that force is beyond any natural force that came about as a result of this Big Bang. I believe this force to be God you can believe whatever you want about it.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

There are perfectly rational natural explanations for all of those "facts". They involve delusion, hallucination, manipulation, poor recollection, flawed observation and many other everyday occurrences that happen all the time, day in day out. I could spin you a tale or several tales all perfectly plausible all perfectly valid all completely natural. However I could not prove any of them because the evidence simply doesn't exist to conclusively say one way or the other. And because good evidence does not exist and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other you will immediately dismiss them as not being "GOOD explanations", because it suits your predisposition to believe that something supernatural occurred (with a similar lack of conclusive evidence). So I'm not going to waste my time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I might as well tell you that if I could observe somebody creating matter from nothing then that would convince me that we don't need a God to do it. If the Big Bang theory is correct then common sense will tell you that 'before' matter, space and time existed there was a force powerful enough to bring our universe into existence, and that force is beyond any natural force that came about as a result of this Big Bang. I believe this force to be God you can believe whatever you want about it.

I don't "believe" because I don't know and unlike you I'm not going fart an explanation out of my brain based on nothing but my imagination. I find it much more dignified to admit my ignorance.

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

There are perfectly rational natural explanations for all of those "facts". They involve delusion, hallucination, manipulation, poor recollection, flawed observation and many other everyday occurrences that happen all the time, day in day out. I could spin you a tale or several tales all perfectly plausible all perfectly valid all completely natural. However I could not prove any of them because the evidence simply doesn't exist to conclusively say one way or the other. And because good evidence does not exist and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other you will immediately dismiss them as not being "GOOD explanations", because it suits your predisposition to believe that something supernatural occurred (with a similar lack of conclusive evidence). So I'm not going to waste my time.

Hallucinations cannot explain the conversion of Saul of Tarsus - the major persecuter of the early Christians - to Paul the Apostle. And even if the believing disciples were hallucinating then how do you explain the rise in early Christianity? If they were hallucinating then surely somebody at some point would have produced the body of Jesus in order to shut them up or at least stop other non eye witnesses to these events from believing in this nonsense. That did not happen. Why?

It's questions like these that keep my foot in the "hey maybe there is more to this than we think" door. The only people who will not accept even the possibility that a supernatural God just might exist are those who have already nailed their colors to the this is impossible and therefore did not happen mast.

sink wrote: »

I don't "believe" because I don't know and unlike you I'm not going fart an explanation out of my brain based on nothing but my imagination. I find it much more dignified to admit my ignorance.

That's fine, but I've researched this and by simple logical deduction of the facts involved - which are not in question btw - I cannot come to any other conclusion other than that He must have risen from the dead as reported. When I hear a better explanation of all the facts of the case then I will stop being a Christian. I'm not trying to make Christians out of ye, you are suppose to argue me out of my conviction. That hasn't happened yet. Please keep trying, I want to know that what I believe in is actually true and I want every other possible explanation put on the table for consideration, so please don't berate me for slicing through any false assumptions and bad logic that you have. If your argument is sound then I will admit defeat. Just show me. If Christianity is false then for the sake of your fellow human being please deliver me from my delusion. I'm in need of your help if I'm truly deluded so please help me.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hallucinations cannot explain the conversion of Saul of Tarsus - the major persecuter of the early Christians - to Paul the Apostle.

Why not?

Soul Winner wrote: »

And even if the believing disciples were hallucinating then how do you explain the rise in early Christianity? If they were hallucinating then surely somebody at some point would have produced the body of Jesus in order to shut them up or at least stop other non eye witnesses to these events from believing in this nonsense. That did not happen. Why?

And since when do cults get shut up by evidence?

How do you explain the rise in early Moronism?
How do you explain the rise in early Falun Gong?

iUseVi

King Mob wrote: »

Why not?

And since when do cults get shut up by evidence?

QFW.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hallucinations cannot explain the conversion of Saul of Tarsus - the major persecuter of the early Christians - to Paul the Apostle. And even if the believing disciples were hallucinating then how do you explain the rise in early Christianity? If they were hallucinating then surely somebody at some point would have produced the body of Jesus in order to shut them up or at least stop other non eye witnesses to these events from believing in this nonsense. That did not happen. Why?

You sound like a 9/11 conspiracy theory pro-claimant. They should have done this, they didn't, therefore what I believe is probably true. It is this sort of nonsense which makes the claim that you question your faith ring rather hollow.

The logical fallacies of those who hold to the resurrection story have a lot in common with conspiracy theories.

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

All you are doing is constructing fallacies to support and confirm for you what you wish to be true. That is not questioning your faith. Quite the opposite in fact

blinding

How long until I can build my ideal girlfriend:cool:

achtungbarry

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

These are all very valid points you have raised.

I would be happy to answer your question as to....

• explaining the early rise of the religion.
  
• the early believers' genuine beliefs
  
• how people easily believed this (even knowing they were wrong)
  
• providing good explanations for the "facts" without having to invoke anything supernatural.

I would be happy to address those 4 points you raised above if you would be so kind as to do the same with regards to any of the religions below:

Mormonism
Druzism
Islam
Sunni
Shafi'i
Hanafi
Maliki
Hanbali
Shiite
Alawites
Ismailis
Wahhabi
Sufism (a form of Islamic mysticism)
Nation of Islam
Ibadhiyya
Ahmadiyya
Judaism
First Century Messianic Renewed Judaism
Pre-Rabbinic sects
Essenes
Hebrew religion
Pharisaism
Sadducees
Rabbinic Judaism
Conservative Judaism
Orthodox Judaism
Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
Modern Orthodox Judaism
Hasidic Judaism
Reconstructionist Judaism
Reform Judaism
Falasha Judaism
Karaite Judaism
Rastafari
Samaritanism
20th Century Messianic Renewed Judaism II
Ayyavazhi
Buddhism
Theravada
Mahayana
Vajrayana
Hinduism
Vedanta
Vaishnavism
Swaminarayan sect
Gaudiya Vaishnavism
ISKCON (Hare Krishna)
Saivism
Saktism
Smartism
Yoga
Jainism
Sikhism
Manichaeism
Zoroastrianism
Mytraism
Zurvanism
Confucianism
Iglesia ni Cristo
Juche
Mohism
Shinto
Oomoto
Taoism
Tenrikyo
ching hung
ting hung
Candomblé
Haitian Voudun
Macumba
Santería
Umbanda
Winti
African religions
Akamba mythology
Akan mythology
Ashanti mythology
Bushongo mythology
Dahomey mythology
Dinka mythology
Efik mythology
Egyptian mythology
Isoko mythology
Khoikhoi mythology
Lotuko mythology
Lugbara mythology
Pygmy mythology
Tumbuka mythology
Voudun (Voodoo)
Yoruba mythology
Zulu mythology
European religions
Anglo-Saxon mythology
Basque mythology
Chukchi mythology
Druidry
Finnish mythology
Greek religion
Hellênismos
Roman religion
Norse mythology
Asatru
Slavic mythology
Middle Eastern religions
Yezidis
Native American religions
Abenaki mythology
Aztec mythology
Blackfoot mythology
Chippewa mythology
Creek mythology
Crow mythology
Guarani mythology
Haida mythology
Huron mythology
Ibo mythology
Iroquois mythology
Kwakiutl mythology
Lakota mythology
Lenape mythology
Navaho mythology
Nootka mythology
Pawnee mythology
Salish mythology
Seneca mythology
Tsimshian mythology
Ute mythology
Winnebago mythology
Zuni mythology
Northern indigenous religions
Aleut mythology
Evenk mythology
Inuit mythology
Yukaghir mythology
Oceanic religions
Australian Aboriginal mythology
Cargo cults (Jon Frum, etc.)
Dievturiba
Hawaiian religion
Micronesian mythology
Maori mythology
Modekngei (Republic of Palau)
Nauruan indigenous religion
Polynesian mythology
Tuvaluan mythology
See also: Animism, Goddess Worship, Paganism, Shamanism
Eclectic unification religions
Cao Dai
Arès Pilgrim Movement
Law of One
Unitarian Universalism
Universal Life Church
THC Ministry
Theosophy
Falun Dafa (Falun Gong)
Left Hand Path religions
Neopaganism (some forms)
Satanism
Temple of Set
Thelema
Neopaganism
Finnish neopaganism
Neo-druidism
Judeo-Paganism
Wicca
Alexandrian Wicca
Dianic Wicca
Gardnerian Wicca
Seax-Wica
Faery Wicca
Feri Tradition
Process Church of the Final Judgement
Raelism
Scientology
Spiritualism
Spiritism
Science Grounded Religion
Dev Samaj
Summum
Esotericism
Alchemy
Freemasonry
Gnosticism
Kabbalah
Occultism
Rosicrucian
Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis
Confraternity of the Rose Cross
Christian mysticism
Gnosticism
Hindu mysticism
Tantra
Tantric yoga
Martinism
Meditation
Kabbalah
Spirituality
Sufism
Theosophy
Witchcraft


All of the above religions had/have followers that believed that their religion was/is also the "correct one".

They believe(d) this with just as much fervour and certainty as you hold your beliefs.

All of these religions have "back stories" which explain the "facts" associated with that religion just like Christianity and all of the points you raised are just as relevant to all of the above religions.

I presume you think (as I do) that the above religions are "wrong".

So what is different about the "facts" associated with those religions and the "facts" associated with yours?

Many of these religions also have devinely inspired "holy books" full of "facts".

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like I said over in the other forum, we question our faith all the time.

Which is not the question.

The basis for the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as an historical event in our space-time. If that didn't happen as an actual fact of history and it can be shown as such with logic, historical critique and solid argumentation then I don't need or want Christianity.

The question was what possible scientific discovery would force you to question your faith.

Short of a time-travel device, we can't know about the resurrection of Jesus. So is there anything else ?

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears.

This has been pointed out to you a hundred times if it has been pointed out once.

There is nothing different from the above then from the stories of a hundred different religions throughout history.

But I might as well tell you that if I could observe somebody creating matter from nothing then that would convince me that we don't need a God to do it.

Creating matter ? I'm going to assume that the following proof of such an act will not pass your criteria so I'm just going to preemptively ask you to expand on your requirements. How much matter would you need to see created ? What kind of matter etc ?

Scientists create matter using light. -> http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/nytimes.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

Scientists create new type of matter -> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/matter.html

So tell me why these scientist experiments don't pass your criteria ?

If the Big Bang theory is correct then common sense will tell you that 'before' matter, space and time existed there was a force powerful enough to bring our universe into existence, and that force is beyond any natural force that came about as a result of this Big Bang. I believe this force to be God you can believe whatever you want about it.

No, common sense would dictate that we don't know. Full stop.

There are several hypotheses about what happened 'before*' the big bang ranging from a universe that continuously expands and contracts to nothing at all.

None of which require a god but also none of which have any evidence supporting them. So simple we don't know and anyone who says they do is simply wrong.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

Haha, really?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can explain [...] the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths

How many people died to protect this belief, and how was this transmitted to the people who wrote down the story.

And how do you assure yourself that nobody was fooled, provided an inaccurate account, or subsequently edited the account to provide what we have now?

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

I think it would be more of a miracle if you would actually listen to people when they tell you perfectly reasonable natural alternatives to the resurrection actually happening and give examples of modern day cults where people die for what they believe in. Tell me this, if Jesus did actual resurrect, why didn't more people turn to christianity at the time?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I might as well tell you that if I could observe somebody creating matter from nothing then that would convince me that we don't need a God to do it. If the Big Bang theory is correct then common sense will tell you that 'before' matter, space and time existed there was a force powerful enough to bring our universe into existence, and that force is beyond any natural force that came about as a result of this Big Bang. I believe this force to be God you can believe whatever you want about it.

Two things:
1) Common sense doesn't necessarily apply before the Big Bang (no space and time remember)
2) If there was no space and time and matter, why would the force need to be powerful?

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Haha, really?

Yes, really.

The guy in the photo was protesting discrimination against his religion. He genuinely believed that his religion was truthful.

Soul Winner has referred to a very different scenario altogether - the idea that people would make up an untrue story and then be prepared to die rather than admit that the whole thing was hogwash anyway.

This distinction has been pointed out ad nauseam to those in this forum. the regulars here are either deliberately ignoring the difference or, to be charitable, are just extraordinarily forgetful.

Christians do not argue that the disciples being willing to die for their beliefs proves the validity of those beliefs. That would be a silly argument that, mercifully, doesn't exist outside of a strawman factory. They argue that being willing to die for something you knew fine well to be a lie would be much less plausible.

That of course, simply indicates that the early disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and that they had not just made the story up. Whether you think that genuine belief was a correct belief is a different kettle of fish, and one where I have little optimism that we will agree.

But, hey, disagreement is fine. It happens all the time and, if we can actually understand what we are disagreeing about and be generous enough to describe each other's views accurately then a lot of nastiness can be avoided.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

That of course, simply indicates that the early disciples genuinely believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and that they had not just made the story up. Whether you think that genuine belief was a correct belief is a different kettle of fish, and one where I have little optimism that we will agree.

No it doesn't.
Some of them could have been fooled by others.
All of them could have been fooled.
All of them could have been doing the fooling but just where caught and punished, all of the martyrdom was added into later.
They could have been fooling people at the start then eventual bought into their own bull****.
Or they could have been talking about a spiritual resurrection and this was reinterpreed...
Or any of the hundreds of other possibilities and combinations of these possibilities.
None of which require a supernatural event to provide the explanation.

Also Joseph Smith faced jail and ultimately was beaten to death because of a supernatural event he professed.
This event is laughably transparent as a fraud.

However your logic indicates it must be true.