Artificial Life Created

ISAW · 25-05-2010 08:21PM

Nick Dolan wrote: »

This is just "God did it" over and over again. And science has shown over and over that God doesnt have to do it. We dont have to do rain dances, sacrifices, prayers or believe in supernatural creation.

Not the point! The point is that if you believe in something supernatural then why not call it God?

Nick Dolan · 25-05-2010 09:32PM

Earlier you said i was mixing up biblical fundmentialism with christian mainstream and you completely missed the point. I was showing how organised religions acceptence of relevatory (unsupported by evidence) material holds back scientific progress on a fundemental level. creationism is an example, another is the opposition to stem cecll research (the moral arguements are for another thread, its opposed, simple as).

ISAW wrote: »

Not the point! The point is that if you believe in something supernatural then why not call it God?

No it is the very point of this thread.

Sam Vimes · 25-05-2010 09:34PM

The problem with attaching the label "god" to something on the basis that either it is considered to have been the cause of life or is supernatural is summarised by this comic:

If you're not going to attach any of these additional characteristics to this "cause of life" then you can call it god if you want but it seems to me that a desire to attach these additional characteristics is the purpose of attempting to attach the label "god" in the first place. Otherwise we could attach any other label that does not carry all of these extra connotations. We could even make up a new word to describe it. I propose smismar, a nice undefined word that doesn't carry with it thousands of years of baggage and assumptions

Zombrex · 25-05-2010 09:46PM

ISAW wrote: »

So in a zero point field there is no energy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2]

That is after the effect, after the something from nothing.

It is not absolutely empty precisely because of zero point energy, because something will always appear.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2010 10:42PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the background energy comes from nothing.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/28th_annual/28th_annual_moddel_vacuum_energy_extraction.html

The "little bursts of energy" don't come from anything, they come from nothing. As the professor says these little blips of energy have no source, they literally come from nothing.

You didn't listen to this at all did you. Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is energy that fills all space. Energy is not nothing.
He also says that while the energy exists it has not yet been extracted and the purpose of the talk is to examine why.

in the extract he says "The vacuum is filled with a high density of zero-point energy, in the form of modes (vibrational patterns) of electromagnetic field. Over the last eight decades it has become clear that this zero-point field (ZPF) vacuum energy is not simply a mathematical formalism, but produces demonstrable effects on physical systems. Along with that realization has come the desire to extract energy from the ZPF"

ZPE is also ground state energy which again is not nothing. To get to nothing you have to get to absolute zero and that has not been done. Energy always remains.

It is clear you don't understand what you are talking about.
In case I have made a mistake and missed it in reviewing this video maybe you could provide a chapter and timepoint otherwise I have to assume as the professor says "you are deluding yourself".

The professor says in the video the energy never goes to zero.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2010 10:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That is after the effect, after the something from nothing.

It is not absolutely empty precisely because of zero point energy, because something will always appear.

Complete and utter twaddle. You contradict yourself in two lines. Go and learn what you are trying to talk about.

Zombrex · 25-05-2010 11:14PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Complete and utter twaddle. Go and learn what you are trying to talk about.

Oh for crying out loud, if there was already stuff there it wouldn't be a vacuum. :rolleyes:

Stuff where in there, we looked at it, it was still there would hardly be a phenomena worth making a fuss about would it?

The whole point of zero point energy, the whole reason there are lectures about it and scientists say it is weird is precisely because there is nothing in the vacuum to begin with. These particles just appear, the energy points just appear. It is due to quantum uncertainty.

Your idea that they just aren't looking hard enough at what is already there is frankly ridiculous.

Zombrex · 25-05-2010 11:27PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

You didn't listen to this at all did you. Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is energy that fills all space. Energy is not nothing.

Correct, the energy is the something that comes from the nothing. There is nothing in these systems, they are a vacuum, but energy and particles are produced.

You seem to be missing the point here. Zero point energy is not the nothing, it is the something that is produced from nothing.

I thought I explained it well but perhaps this explains it better.

The Casimir force arises from one of those unlikely sounding real world manifestations of quantum mechanics. It begins with considerations of what exactly is a vacuum. In the classical everyday sense we think of a vacuum as what is left after we have removed all of the stuff, molecules atoms etc. But that still leaves photons, so if we remove those as well – including all the thermal energy then surely we should now have an absolute vacuum which contains precisely nothing. Therein lies the problem. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, describes the limitation on the knowledge of pairs of parameters in terms of Planck’s constant; most well known being position and momentum. An equally important pairing is energy and time, and quantum mechanics forbids the precise independent knowledge of these two parameters. The absolute energy of a system is thus unknowable as a single parameter, including the unique value of zero. So we cannot have a vacuum of absolute zero energy because it violates the uncertainty principle.

The theoretical physics resolution of this paradox is to assume the existence of virtual particles which pop out of the vacuum and wander around for an undefined time and then pop back – thus giving the vacuum an average zero point energy, but without disturbing the real world too much.

If you produce "nothing" the nothing will produce something. Nothing is therefore unachievable. In quantum mechanics "nothing" is a paradox.

http://www.casimir.rl.ac.uk/zero_point_energy.htm

StealthRolex wrote: »

ZPE is also ground state energy which again is not nothing. To get to nothing you have to get to absolute zero and that has not been done. Energy always remains.

The energy does not "remain", the energy is appearing due to the uncertainty principle. You can't get it to zero precisely because something is appearing from nothing all the time.

StealthRolex · 25-05-2010 11:48PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud, if there was already stuff there it wouldn't be a vacuum. :rolleyes:

Stuff where in there, we looked at it, it was still there would hardly be a phenomena worth making a fuss about would it?

The whole point of zero point energy, the whole reason there are lectures about it and scientists say it is weird is precisely because there is nothing in the vacuum to begin with. These particles just appear, the energy points just appear. It is due to quantum uncertainty.

Your idea that they just aren't looking hard enough at what is already there is frankly ridiculous.

Wrong. You have completely misunderstood zero point energy and the zero point field.

It is the lowest energy state and therefore contains energy. Remove the energy and more than just the field collapses. You start breaking unbreakable laws. It doesn't matter that it doesn't contain particles.

You are taking the terms vacuum and nothing far far too literally and applying them to something you read about quantum mechanics to counter what you cannot. It is impossible for something to come from nothing.
If there is energy in the vacuum it is not empty.
If energy in whatever form, in this case waves, become particles and then wink out again they have not come from nothing.
Light is both a particle and a wave, for example. When is it a particle and when is it a wave? If a photon becomes a wave it would appear that a particle has appeared. If it becomes a wave again it would appear that it has disappeared.
The zero energy field contains electromagnetic wave energy. This becomes virtual particles that appear to appear from nothing. But they did not appear from nothing because that is impossible. They are not observable and are evidenced by energy fluctuations.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that a quantum vacuum is not empty?

A physical vacuum is never truly empty, neither is a quantum vacuum.
The physical vacuum of space is filled with hydrogen atoms, photons and neutrinos and cosmic background radiation. The quantum vacuum is filled with virtual particles and energy.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 12:14AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct, the energy is the something that comes from the nothing. There is nothing in these systems, they are a vacuum, but energy and particles are produced.

You seem to be missing the point here. Zero point energy is not the nothing, it is the something that is produced from nothing.

Wrong. There is always energy there. It is never zero energy. It is ground state. Not zero, ground state.

Wicknight wrote: »

I thought I explained it well but perhaps this explains it better.

You have to understand it first.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you produce "nothing" the nothing will produce something. Nothing is therefore unachievable. In quantum mechanics "nothing" is a paradox.

http://www.casimir.rl.ac.uk/zero_point_energy.htm

The energy does not "remain", the energy is appearing due to the uncertainty principle. You can't get it to zero precisely because something is appearing from nothing all the time.

The Casimir force arises from one of those unlikely sounding real world manifestations of quantum mechanics. It begins with considerations of what exactly is a vacuum. In the classical everyday sense we think of a vacuum as what is left after we have removed all of the stuff, molecules atoms etc. But that still leaves photons, so if we remove those as well – including all the thermal energy then surely we should now have an absolute vacuum which contains precisely nothing. Therein lies the problem. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, describes the limitation on the knowledge of pairs of parameters in terms of Planck’s constant; most well known being position and momentum. An equally important pairing is energy and time, and quantum mechanics forbids the precise independent knowledge of these two parameters. The absolute energy of a system is thus unknowable as a single parameter, including the unique value of zero. So we cannot have a vacuum of absolute zero energy because it violates the uncertainty principle.

The theoretical physics resolution of this paradox is to assume the existence of virtual particles which pop out of the vacuum and wander around for an undefined time and then pop back – thus giving the vacuum an average zero point energy, but without disturbing the real world too much.

One of the most remarkable results of Quantum Field Theory is the existence of vacuum fields, particles and zero-point energy. Vacuum is not a tranquil void but a quantum state made up of matter fields and energy fields.

Your own link proves there is not nothing nor is there "nothing", nor is the system empty of energy. Only thermal energy is removed. You should have a vacuum but you don't

Anyway, these are all just mathematical constructs that explain experimental evidence so until we can actually construct a quantum vacuum and examine it and fit a working theory around it we're going nowhere.

philologos · 26-05-2010 12:16AM

Nick Dolan wrote: »

They may have different views but if they relied on evidence gleamed from revelatory sources, they cannot be described as scientific views .Reliance on revealed information, central to organised religions of all kinds does not encourage scientific progress.

Genesis clearly doesn't go into scientific detail about how exactly God created the earth, but rather that God created it and He did have a role in our existence. Rather it is looking for the why of creation, rather than the specific hows.

Genesis 1:24 wrote:

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so

There are still questions to be asked about how God made it so. That's where science is very intriguing, and indeed, its where I can't see much issue in finding a place for science and a place for faith.

Blaming Genesis is an easy excuse, but it isn't one that really holds up on analysis.

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 12:21AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Your idea that they just aren't looking hard enough at what is already there is frankly ridiculous.

Where did I say that?

ISAW · 26-05-2010 12:24AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the background energy comes from nothing.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/28th_annual/28th_annual_moddel_vacuum_energy_extraction.html

The "little bursts of energy" don't come from anything, they come from nothing. As the professor says these little blips of energy have no source, they literally come from nothing.

As your source says:
The vacuum is filled with a high density of zero-point energy, in the form of modes (vibrational patterns) of electromagnetic field.
[/end quote]

Virtual Particles don't come from nothing!

ISAW · 26-05-2010 12:28AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Correct, the energy is the something that comes from the nothing. There is nothing in these systems, they are a vacuum, but energy and particles are produced.

You seem to be missing the point here. Zero point energy is not the nothing, it is the something that is produced from nothing.

Let us assume matter reaches absolute zero. According to thermodynamics maximum entropy is achieved and nothing can happen. energy is at the zero point. But does that mean no energy exists? does it mean electrons are not still going around nuclei?
NO!
there is not nothing there!

ISAW · 26-05-2010 12:31AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're not going to attach any of these additional characteristics to this "cause of life" then you can call it god if you want but it seems to me that a desire to attach these additional characteristics is the purpose of attempting to attach the label "god" in the first place.

It isnt MY idea it is what YOU call your concept is the issue here!

Otherwise we could attach any other label that does not carry all of these extra connotations. We could even make up a new word to describe it. I propose smismar, a nice undefined word that doesn't carry with it thousands of years of baggage and assumptions

Call it what you want. The point is if you use any label you want how is it different from using the name "God"?

ISAW · 26-05-2010 12:35AM

Wicknight wrote: »

That is after the effect, after the something from nothing.

But that is avoiding the point. the point isn't whether something existed before be Big Bang. the point is that even in a quantum vacuum something exists. It does not exist only when virtual particles exist.

It is not absolutely empty precisely because of zero point energy, because something will always appear.

so therefore something is always there energy or matter. So there is never nothing there!

Nick Dolan · 26-05-2010 02:48AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Genesis clearly doesn't go into scientific detail about how exactly God created the earth, but rather that God created it and He did have a role in our existence. Rather it is looking for the why of creation, rather than the specific hows.

There are still questions to be asked about how God made it so. That's where science is very intriguing, and indeed, its where I can't see much issue in finding a place for science and a place for faith.

Blaming Genesis is an easy excuse, but it isn't one that really holds up on analysis.

I can agree very easily that science sticks to measuring stuff etc and when religion sticks to philosophy etc theres no conflict and theres only small areas of overlap where things get tricky. I was approaching this from the angle of the person who said good christian = good scientist and claimed religion benefited science. I completely disagree for reasons outlined above. but I meant all religious thinking and wasnt just saying "Christianty is wrong"

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 08:29AM

ISAW wrote: »

It isnt MY idea it is what YOU call your concept is the issue here!

Call it what you want. The point is if you use any label you want how is it different from using the name "God"?

I've explained it twice but I'll try a third time. I could take something on the basis that it has the characteristic "caused life to exist" and give it the label "cheesecake" but that word has other connotations, for example that it contains cheese. I do not know that this "something that caused life to exist" contains cheese so giving it such a label would be attaching unjustified and unsupported characteristics that we don't know it actually has

It is invalid to attach a label to something that carries with it hundreds of different characteristics and assumptions on the basis that this something has one of the characteristics that is associated with that label. Before that label can be legitimately attached you must show that it has all of the characteristics that are associated with that label. Otherwise you're engaging in logic of the form "this chunk of metal is made of steel. Knives are made of steel, so why not call it a knife!?"

ISAW · 26-05-2010 08:47AM

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I can agree very easily that science sticks to measuring stuff etc and when religion sticks to philosophy etc theres no conflict and theres only small areas of overlap where things get tricky. I was approaching this from the angle of the person who said good christian = good scientist and claimed religion benefited science. I completely disagree for reasons outlined above. but I meant all religious thinking and wasnt just saying "Christianty is wrong"

The problem with your above analysis is what you mean by "good"

In the case of science we can argue if there is any "scientific method" or "objective measurement" but we can assume "good" means something like "taking accurate reliable and valid objective measurements and reporting on them without bias"

Whether such a scientist exists is another matter.

In the case of people who are not practicing scientists "good" can be taken to mean "according to God's will or /the laws of nature/ or /moral values"

There is no doubt that science needs this "values"/good input from outside science and is not sufficient to derive them from science.

ISAW · 26-05-2010 08:52AM

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Earlier you said i was mixing up biblical fundmentialism with christian mainstream and you completely missed the point. I was showing how organised religions acceptence of relevatory (unsupported by evidence) material holds back scientific progress on a fundemental level. creationism is an example, another is the opposition to stem cecll research (the moral arguements are for another thread, its opposed, simple as).

No it is the very point of this thread.

Not the point being made however.
And as regards the the point of the thread you basically just stated that science should be allowed to get on with "progress" and moralisers should butt out! but as i pointed out science on its own is not sufficient to derive the values as to where is should go and what it should or should not do! There lies nuclear weapons eugenics stem cell research cloning etc. It isn't for scientists to say what should be done about these except only as people with human values and not as scientists. Science isnt sufficient to dictate how science should "progress"

ISAW · 26-05-2010 09:16AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've explained it twice but I'll try a third time. I could take something on the basis that it has the characteristic "caused life to exist" and give it the label "cheesecake" but that word has other connotations, for example that it contains cheese. I do not know that this "something that caused life to exist" contains cheese so giving it such a label would be attaching unjustified and unsupported characteristics that we don't know it actually has

i think you are confusing "signification" "signifier" and "sign"

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm
We shall therefore say, with Wallon, that the signal and the index form a group of relata devoid of mental representation, whereas in the opposite group, that of symbol and sign, this representation exists; furthermore, the signal is immediate and existential, whereas the index is not (it is only a trace); finally, that in the symbol the representation is analogical and inadequate (Christianity 'outruns' the cross), whereas in the sign the relation is unmotivated and exact (there is no analogy between the word ox and the image of an ox, which is perfectly covered by its relatum).

Put it this way suppose you are going down a road to Dublin the Guinness capital of the world. You are following road signs to Dublin. you go into Guinnessville ask someone directions and they say "Ah Dublin that is where all the Guinness is. just follow the signs at the end of town. anything pointing to Guiniess is pointing to Dublin" At the end of town you see a sign marked "Guinness" given you know this is the same thing anyway you may assume it points to Dublin. this would also apply if the sign said "Cheesecake" and Dublin was the cheesecake capital of the world.

The sign itself and the destination it points to are two different things.

Put it another way "a rose by any other name is still a rose"

It is invalid to attach a label to something that carries with it hundreds of different characteristics and assumptions on the basis that this something has one of the characteristics that is associated with that label.

You are just arguing about what we call God or how we represent God. Of course it is inadequate. so what? The Map is not the territory! Even a chocolate cake with the label "banana" on it is still a chocolate cake. Representation is not the reality "six" "6" and "vi" all represent a number we call six, they are not the number itself.

Before that label can be legitimately attached you must show that it has all of the characteristics that are associated with that label.

Not necessarily. The sea of possibility may exist and you might even have a different concept to me but it may be sufficient for both of us to work with. for example "America" may mean different things to both of us. This is true even of the moist basic things in the real world. We might have entirely different models constructed in our heads of a cheesecake but that does not mean the cheesecake isn't there. Something is really there.

Otherwise you're engaging in logic of the form "this chunk of metal is made of steel. Knives are made of steel, so why not call it a knife!?"

Which would seem quite adequate if the chunk of metal was in fact a knife.

The point being if it is fashioned to do what a knife does then so what? similarly if something that creates life takes the form of Spaghetti it makes no difference - if it has all the supernatural qualities of a god then it is one.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 09:51AM

ISAW wrote: »

i think you are confusing "signification" "signifier" and "sign"

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/barthes.htm
We shall therefore say, with Wallon, that the signal and the index form a group of relata devoid of mental representation, whereas in the opposite group, that of symbol and sign, this representation exists; furthermore, the signal is immediate and existential, whereas the index is not (it is only a trace); finally, that in the symbol the representation is analogical and inadequate (Christianity 'outruns' the cross), whereas in the sign the relation is unmotivated and exact (there is no analogy between the word ox and the image of an ox, which is perfectly covered by its relatum).

Put it this way suppose you are going down a road to Dublin the Guinness capital of the world. You are following road signs to Dublin. you go into Guinnessville ask someone directions and they say "Ah Dublin that is where all the Guinness is. just follow the signs at the end of town. anything pointing to Guiniess is pointing to Dublin" At the end of town you see a sign marked "Guinness" given you know this is the same thing anyway you may assume it points to Dublin. this would also apply if the sign said "Cheesecake" and Dublin was the cheesecake capital of the world.

The sign itself and the destination it points to are two different things.

Put it another way "a rose by any other name is still a rose"

You are just arguing about what we call God or how we represent God. Of course it is inadequate. so what? The Map is not the territory! Even a chocolate cake with the label "banana" on it is still a chocolate cake. Representation is not the reality "six" "6" and "vi" all represent a number we call six, they are not the number itself.

Not necessarily. The sea of possibility may exist and you might even have a different concept to me but it may be sufficient for both of us to work with. for example "America" may mean different things to both of us. This is true even of the moist basic things in the real world. We might have entirely different models constructed in our heads of a cheesecake but that does not mean the cheesecake isn't there. Something is really there.

Which would seem quite adequate if the chunk of metal was in fact a knife.
The point being if it is fashioned to do what a knife does then so what? similarly if something that creates life takes the form of Spaghetti it makes no difference - if it has all the supernatural qualities of a god then it is one.

You say "if it has all the supernatural qualities of a god then it is one". That's exactly what I said. The characteristic "caused life to exist" is just one of the characteristics that is associated with a god, not all of them.

What if this "something that caused life to exist" turns out to be a chemical reaction in a pool of goo or an interaction from an outside universe where different natural laws apply that is "natural" for that universe but not for ours or if it was seeded by aliens? What if it turns out to be a scientist in a larger universe just experimenting in his lab or even an evil supernatural being who has created the universe for the purpose of watching us suffer and any good in the universe is unintentional?

Would you call any of those things god?

And if not, how can you give this "something that caused life to exist" the label god until you have ruled out the possibility that it was one of the infinite number of things that is not deserving of the label?

philologos · 26-05-2010 09:58AM

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I can agree very easily that science sticks to measuring stuff etc and when religion sticks to philosophy etc theres no conflict and theres only small areas of overlap where things get tricky. I was approaching this from the angle of the person who said good christian = good scientist and claimed religion benefited science. I completely disagree for reasons outlined above. but I meant all religious thinking and wasnt just saying "Christianty is wrong"

I disagree with you again. Christianity in a lot of cases fuelled the curiosity about God's creation that was necessary for many scientists to become interested in research. Their interest in science was also because they thought that maybe science would tell them a little bit about God also.

Zombrex · 26-05-2010 09:58AM

ISAW wrote: »

Let us assume matter reaches absolute zero. According to thermodynamics maximum entropy is achieved and nothing can happen. energy is at the zero point. But does that mean no energy exists? does it mean electrons are not still going around nuclei?
NO!
there is not nothing there!

THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! There should be nothing there, but because of the uncertainty principle that can't happen, so something has to be there. But this something has no source. It just appears. The energy spikes just appear, the particles just appear. They are not sourced from some where else, they don't move into the vacuum from some where else.

You guys are arguing that because there is something it is not nothing, but that is the whole point. It should be nothing but it isn't. A true vacuum cannot exist, nothing will always produce something.

More here (how many links..)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596.300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=physics-math

Man alive you guys would argue black is white. I said that something comes from nothing and you guys are arguing because it is something it can't be nothing. Brilliant A+ in nonsense pedantic arguing guys :rolleyes:

This isn't even that relevant, I never argued that vacuum energy caused the Big Bang, just that the logic that nothing can come from nothing is a human restriction.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 10:26AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you again. Christianity in a lot of cases fuelled the curiosity about God's creation that was necessary for many scientists to become interested in research. Their interest in science was also because they thought that maybe science would tell them a little bit about God also.

Had they been a Muslim do you think they would have had any less curiosity?

ISAW · 26-05-2010 10:29AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say "if it has all the supernatural qualities of a god then it is one". That's exactly what I said. The characteristic "caused life to exist" is just one of the characteristics that is associated with a god, not all of them.

Ok my mistake. If it has sufficient supernatural qualities to be a god you can call it a cheesake is you want but it is still a god.

What if this "something that caused life to exist" turns out to be a chemical reaction in a pool of goo

If it was caused by god then nothing changes. If it happened by accident then God was not directly involved but theists would argue that BEFORE that god created the laws of nature so he was involved and AFTER that when manlike creatures came about God intervened and gave them a soul so he was involved.

or an interaction from an outside universe where different natural laws apply that is "natural" for that universe but not for ours

This isn't scientific since you can never measure anything from that other universe or get to know anything about it

or if it was seeded by aliens?

Well this is just a "turtles all the way down" senario which is preempted by Occam's razor.
What about the aliens? what created them and what seeded them etc etc.
Eventuyally you arrive at some level where the is a FIRST original alien race that seeded the following one. so Occam says why not eliminate all the turtles in the middle and just assume that this one is the FIRST one since the same conditions for the "original alien" goo and this Terrestrail goo exist?

What if it turns out to be a scientist in a larger universe just experimenting in his lab

Like a scientist God? You remind me of a Far side cartoon with all these microbes on a slide looking up into the lens of a microscope and shouting "The eye! the eye!" Or the episode of Futureama where bender has a two civilizations develop on his body in space and they both think he is God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas

or even an evil supernatural being who has created the universe for the purpose of watching us suffer and any good in the universe is unintentional?

The callous or evil god. there are arguments which would oppose this but it is off topic and lengthy. suffice it to say it would still be cheesecake - ahem - I mean God.

Would you call any of those things god?

Some yes

And if not, how can you give this "something that caused life to exist" the label god until you have ruled out the possibility that it was one of the infinite number of things that is not deserving of the label?

QED

philologos · 26-05-2010 10:29AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Had they been a Muslim do you think they would have had any less curiosity?

No I don't actually. I'm disputing the notion that many atheists have that one cannot believe in anything and be a good scientist.

I was approaching this from the angle of the person who said good christian = good scientist and claimed religion benefited science.

I believe historically Islam contributed much to science in the West during the Caliphate, and indeed in literary study and in bringing Aristotle back to the West after we had lost his works.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 10:37AM

ISAW wrote: »

Well this is just a "turtles all the way down" senario which is preempted by Occam's razor.
What about the aliens? what created them and what seeded them etc etc.
Eventuyally you arrive at some level where the is a FIRST original alien race that seeded the following one. so Occam says why not eliminate all the turtles in the middle and just assume that this one is the FIRST one since the same conditions for the "original alien" goo and this Terrestrail goo exist?

Yes it is a turtles all the way down scenario that would be eliminated by Occam's razor, just as I consider your god to be. I know you don't but I do, for reasons that I'm not explaining again.

ISAW wrote: »

If it was caused by god then nothing changes. If it happened by accident then God was not directly involved but theists would argue that BEFORE that god created the laws of nature so he was involved and AFTER that when manlike creatures came about God intervened and gave them a soul so he was involved.

I say "what if it was caused by a chemical reaction in a pool a goo" and you respond "if it was caused by god then nothing changes". Wow! Well what if it wasn't caused by god? Does something change then?

ISAW wrote: »

This isn't scientific since you can never measure anything from that other universe or get to know anything about it

Never said it was scientific but that doesn't mean it's not what happened. And if that happened you wouldn't call it god, even though it had the characteristic "caused life to exist"

ISAW wrote: »

Ok my mistake. If it has sufficient supernatural qualities to be a god you can call it a cheesake is you want but it is still a god.

Like a scientist God? You remind me of a Far side cartoon with all these microbes on a slide looking up into the lens of a microscope and shouting "The eye! the eye!" Or the episode of Futureama where bender has a two civilizations develop on his body in space and they both think he is God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas

The callous or evil god. there are arguments which would oppose this but it is off topic and lengthy. suffice it to say it would still be cheesecake - ahem - I mean God.

Some yes

QED

You say "some yes", but not all. You also say that "it has sufficient supernatural qualities to be a god" but if only some of those scenarios could be called god then clearly it doesn't have sufficient supernatual qualities to be called god. Having the characteristic "caused life to exist" is not sufficient to label something god. QED

StealthRolex · 26-05-2010 10:39AM

ISAW wrote: »

But that is avoiding the point. the point isn't whether something existed before be Big Bang. the point is that even in a quantum vacuum something exists. It does not exist only when virtual particles exist.

so therefore something is always there energy or matter. So there is never nothing there!

We can go further Wicknight. Take all the matter in the universe and compress it back into the starting point, the primeval atom as it were. Is this a quantum vacuum? No, how can it be, it contains an entire universe. So immediately the concept of something coming from nothing fails.

Next, examine the quantum vacuum. Do virtual particles become real partials?
No, so again the concept of something coming from nothing fails.

Do you want to persist with your nonsensical misunderstanding of the quantum world? Ok, email Garret Moddel and ask what happened with US Patent 7379286 “Quantum vacuum energy extraction,” . which was behind the talk you so kindly posted. If he is honest he will tell you he made a mistake did not understand the physics of electromagnetic surface waves on Casimir tubes and the project is going nowhere. Or look for his paper "Assessment of proposed electromagnetic quantum vacuum energy extraction methods" where he debunks ZPE extraction methods. (hint , try Los Alamos archives)

Something from nothing is impossible and you cannot create matter out of energy.

Sam Vimes · 26-05-2010 10:41AM

Jakkass wrote: »

No I don't actually. I'm disputing the notion that many atheists have that one cannot believe in anything and be a good scientist.

I've only ever heard christians claim that atheists say that tbh. There are a great many very good scientists who have all manner of beliefs but their beliefs do not help them in their scientific endeavours unless these beliefs are scientific. You can argue that their belief gave them the curiosity to get involved in science but the same argument could be made about any belief, as you acknowledge yourself

Artificial Life Created

Comments