Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 02:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

Don't get your knickers in a bunch, you know exactly what he means by Atheist position. Technically it's correct, because while Atheism makes no positive statements, Theism does, one of which is that God created life and the universe; ergo, if someone is saying that life arose as a natural process, then it is a non-Theist position; ergo, an Atheist position Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I do not share your point of view. A deist, for instance, can also believe that life on Earth came into existence as a result of natural processes.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Vosur.

But Deists are no longer considered separate to Atheists. They were two hundred years ago, ie, there were Theists, Atheists and Deists AND Agnostics, but today, because Atheists INSIST that the definition of Atheism is NOT-THEIST, Deists, like Agnostics, have been swallowed whole into the infinite black vortex of Atheism despite our strong protestations. So you can't have it both ways. Either you let us be us, or you accept the consequences Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
23-03-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 02:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Wood.

Did you not just contradict yourself? If you don't accept Venter, then synthetic life HASN'T been proven, so you're back to square one.

I agree that intellect is a viable candidate for the formation of life. But it has been pointed out that if panspermia is correct, life still had to originate somewhere. Also, if life was created by some naturally occurring intellect, then that intellect is not God, it's just a naturally occurring phenomenon like the rest of us. It's also been pointed out that if God did the work, then he used magical powers to do so, so it's less intellect as is comparable to our own, and more about having supernatural powers; in which case, our achievements are meaningless. Any way you slice it, if humans have/will produce synthetic life, it in no way comments on whether God created life and merely opens the door for aliens. In terms of its commentary on abiogenesis, if the intellect was natural, then it had to come from somewhere; suggesting abiogenesis. If the intellect was Godlike, then our abilities are irrelevant.

The great difficulty for the intellect argument is evolution. Evolution doesn't require a bus driver. It is an automated system. So if an intellect created the first life, it's unlikely that it created anything else... actually, that's not fair... it could very well make adjustments or introduce entirely new organisms as it saw fit, but it wouldn't have had to. If I set a ball rolling down a hill, I can interfere however I like. I can block it, slow it, divert it, blow it up, add more balls, whatever. But if I did nothing, the ball would still roll down the hill. Once I set it in motion, it no longer needs me.

Now I know that you haven't used either God or creationism, so I understand that your argument is broader than that (too bad not everyone can see that). So while I feel that our creating life would have no commentary on any divine influence, it would prove that it was possible that a naturally occurring alien intellect could plausibly have created us. But there's so much information missing, that it's pure conjecture.

For me, abiogenesis is the simplest answer. We know that molecules form, we know that life is a molecular process, so it's likely just a mundane molecular process that occurs wherever it can occur. I feel that Miller-Uray's discovery of how amino acids may have formed and Fox's discovery of how microspheres form lends a lot to the idea, but yes, it's not proven.

At the end of the day, the only two possibilities are God or natural process. Because alien engineers (real ones, not those stupid ones from that sack of shit Prometheus) would have to either be created by God or natural process.

As an Agnostic, I hold that the existence of God or the question of God's actions are indemonstrable. So even if it's true, we'll never know. Abiogenesis is demonstrable, but is undemonstrated, so I can't accept that either. What I can and do accept is that it just took one single-celled organism to put the development of all life on Earth into motion.

ON EDIT

Hey, Asp.

What you wrote doesn't really speak to the argument as presented. It's not a matter of "have to" or not. If the evidence tells us that a creating intellect is a possibility, then we have to accept that. Wood basically echoed what others have said. If a naturally occurring intellect created life, there's still the question of where that technology wielding intellect came from.

Hey, Vosur.

Don't get your knickers in a bunch, you know exactly what he means by Atheist position. Technically it's correct, because while Atheism makes no positive statements, Theism does, one of which is that God created life and the universe; ergo, if someone is saying that life arose as a natural process, then it is a non-Theist position; ergo, an Atheist position Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Just commenting on your last comments. Atheism isnt a position, its an answer to a question thats either yes or no. That question is there a god? yes or no....I am Atheist or a no answer to it. I answer this with no 100% certainty, just whats more plausible...to the yes or the no answer. A position suggests a steadfast state, which I am not. I follow the evidence so I am not positioned anywhere, just treading water as long as water exists.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 02:54 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

But Deists are no longer considered separate to Atheists. They were two hundred years ago, ie, there were Theists, Atheists and Deists AND Agnostics, but today, because Atheists INSIST that the definition of Atheism is NOT-THEIST, Deists, like Agnostics, have been swallowed whole into the infinite black vortex of Atheism despite our strong protestations. So you can't have it both ways. Either you let us be us, or you accept the consequences Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Come on Matt, you should know better than that. You're not talking to "atheists", you're talking to me. I have never never ever never ever defined atheism that way and I do consider these positions to be separate from each other.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 12:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(23-03-2013 02:38 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The intelligent creation proposal destroys itself because there's nothing to create the intelligent creator.

Theism basically boils down to intellect being fundamental.
Which is why it's bollocks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
23-03-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
Areligion. ... that's all I am. ... No need to commit no further metaphysically.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 04:23 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 02:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Asp.

What you wrote doesn't really speak to the argument as presented. It's not a matter of "have to" or not. If the evidence tells us that a creating intellect is a possibility, then we have to accept that. Wood basically echoed what others have said. If a naturally occurring intellect created life, there's still the question of where that technology wielding intellect came from.

Hey, Vosur.

Don't get your knickers in a bunch, you know exactly what he means by Atheist position. Technically it's correct, because while Atheism makes no positive statements, Theism does, one of which is that God created life and the universe; ergo, if someone is saying that life arose as a natural process, then it is a non-Theist position; ergo, an Atheist position Cool
(23-03-2013 02:54 PM)Ghost Wrote:  But Deists are no longer considered separate to Atheists. They were two hundred years ago, ie, there were Theists, Atheists and Deists AND Agnostics, but today, because Atheists INSIST that the definition of Atheism is NOT-THEIST, Deists, like Agnostics, have been swallowed whole into the infinite black vortex of Atheism despite our strong protestations. So you can't have it both ways. Either you let us be us, or you accept the consequences Cool

No, it's not correct. Theism and Deism are both positions that a god exists, atheism is not, by definition deists and theists are not atheists. Your proposing a false dichotomy.

You think he is right in assuming the theist position would be supported by such a thing?
Evidence that life can be created by an intellect (specifically humans) means it's more likely a god exists? Shocking

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Vosur.





Cool

Hey, Storm.

Most of the Atheists here would disagree with your definition BUUUUUUUUUUUUT I sooooooooooo don't want to get into a definition war here. I think we should all just play nice, or start thread MXXIV of "what does Atheist mean".

Hey, Asp.

As I mentioned to Storm, I'm soooooooo not getting into a definition war over this. I mean, you're like totally wrong and all and I'm all like totally fucking awesomeatronalicious, but that's besides the point., because if you really want to tell me that your definition is so advanced taaaaank missile:




Quote:You think he is right in assuming the theist position would be supported by such a thing?

I think I've pretty clearly laid out what I think. And for the record, he isn't arguing the Theist position. He's simply talking about an intellect.

Quote:Evidence that life can be created by an intellect (specifically humans) means it's more likely a god exists? [Image: shocking.gif]

Well, neither Wood nor I are saying that, soooooooo.... no?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2013, 11:00 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
One of the major hang-ups to belief that life came from non-life is that creationists still think that life came suddenly. It started with things that weren't quite life but acted in life-like ways (self-replicating chemicals) and moved on to chemicals that changed through evolution (but still weren't exactly "living") until it was finally borderline life (much like viruses, which are living in many ways but still more like machines in other ways).

Your argument is mainly an "argument from incredulity", but just because you personally find it hard to believe doesn't mean that it didn't or couldn't happen. And as it has already been pointed out, we atheists are much more incredulous at the idea that a being as complicated as God could exist by chance, a clear example of design without a designer (if He actually existed).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
23-03-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What happens if synthetic life is created by humans? Well such an event would demonstrate that it is possible life can originate as a construction of intellect. If synthetic life is demonstrated and abiogenesis isn't, doesn't that strengthen the theists position? Couldn't a theist claim in an argument that intelligent creation of life is a demonstrated fact, while abiogenesis remains just an assertion? Where would that put atheists like Bearded Dude who maintain you shouldn't believe in something until it is observed? He would be forced to concede that intelligent creation of life is believable while abiogenesis is only something worthy of research.
Undecided

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: