Scientists create artificial life

Originally Posted by siavoshkc

Bible is word of God? I thought humen wrote it.

Either you are completely ignorant about religion or you are being sarcastic. Either way you just flare up more useless answers, in an already out of topic discussion, that is getting more and more general. I mean, what possible productive response did you expect?

As for what is faith and belief you can get a lot of meanings.
But there is a scientific belief. The one that comes with a deep rational process involving emotions, logic, wants among other things. You don't merely choose such believes. Thus, if you want to believe, but you find no reason to, you cannot truly believe. Not in a scientific way of belief, since you are not true on principals that come with it which require you to use to logically convince yourself. As you cannot truly believe because you are afraid.
On the other hand, you don't need any "special" faith given by God nor to believe without doubt in order to be a "faithful believer". Nor do you just have to hope or trust that your beliefs are true.
My understanding is that people believe in a lot of ways, for different reasons and perceive their beliefs differently. You cannot oversimplify and say that Christians are believing in this certain way and not any other.

That been said, there is nothing wrong of blind faith or believe without a reason. Or to believe just because you want to. In the contrary, they are must stronger beliefs. They are just too personal to be interesting to the rest. But there is also the kind of belief that you can reason with it, find the reasons and feelings behind it on one degree and see if they are reasonable to you.

If I explain my belief in a reasonable way, explain the reasons I believe in it, my feelings behind it, my thoughts and you still think that I don't truly believe, then you are just not being subjective. You are not accepting certain principles to judge a belief.

So going back to answering "if Christians believe in God", you have to use some principles to judge their beliefs. Which principles? Well, use more scientific ones. Which would be judging the irrelevant/temporarily reasons (i.e. believing because you are afraid) from the relevant reasons (i.e. believing because it is meaningful for you) behind a belief. Or use other principles that you generally use to judge any scientific belief.
Because I can agree that a (certain) little child that is afraid to say no to his parents doesn't truly believe, but not a (certain) professor in theology. Their belief is most likely not the same.

My point is that you cannot choose to be selective how you judge a belief. The same principles you use to judge a belief in physics you should use to judge a belief in a religion or an idea. That is being subjective.

Actually it can be...
Sound deductive reasoning:

Question 1: How did I get here?
Answer: I was conceived in my mother, and was formed in her belly, and then born into the world.
Question 2: How did my mother get here?
Answer: She got here the same way I did (i.e. was born from her mother).
Question 3: Ok, so how did all the people before her get here?
Answer: They most likely came into the world the same way I did, from their mothers, though I can't *prove* this with scientific evidence because I wasn't around when they walked on the earth the same as I do now, and thus did not witness their being born into the world. However, it is generally an accepted fact that each person all the way up the line of humans came from their mothers.
Question 4: Ok, so logic tells us that there had to be a *first* human (obviously, two, because we haven't met any humans who was conceived asexually) on the planet, who all the other humans descended from. So how did the first human(s) get here?
Answer: Well, here is your answer: God created him (and her).

There is your "proof" of existence in God. If you don't believe this, then most likely you believe a different theory: evolution. If you believe in evolution, then how do you explain how everything before humans got here? Logic tells us there has to be a first of everything, or else there wouldn't be a second, a third, and so on. So, as you can see, that is justifiable logical deduction to believe in the existence of a God.

Who/what created God? If he is an exception to your rule of things having to have a first, then why couldn't life on earth be an exception to it?

Also, those 4 'questions' leading you to quite possibly the most unlikely answer isn't sound deductive reasoning (well, at least not in my book, someone correct me if I'm wrong). I find it much more likely that over millions of years of Earth existing some molecules managed to arrange in such a way as to create a very simple form of life (single cellular organisms) than a man up in the sky creating everything.

That said, I'm not really good at chemistry.

Oh no, not another creationism vs evolutionism thread. Religious debates are useless and can only end with a disaster (or if we are lucky, the topic is locked before it happens). Anyway, please STOP. To all religious people - this is not the place to share your religious beliefs. And to all others - religion means people believe in it and don't accept evidence that doesn't support their beliefs, no matter how solid it is. So... what was the original topic again?

Theistic Evolution is what C_ntua describes. It's one of those funny bits of religion. When faced with the harshest of evidence, comes around to produce yet another explanation, subtracting previous teachings. If anything, I take my hat to Creationists. At least they don't flinch even at the face of the most demonstrable theories.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Logic tells us there has to be a first of everything, or else there wouldn't be a second, a third, and so on. So, as you can see, that is justifiable logical deduction to believe in the existence of a God.

It's another case for the Occam's Razor that MK27 so insists on... and unfortunately it seems you keep ignoring.

I do feel inclined to pose you the question, C_Ntua, if you are a man of science. By "man of science" I mean someone who seeks to demonstrate through testable practices and laws, or that accepts testable practices and laws as a means of demonstration.

Next question would be what if you are wrong? Do you question the possibility of being wrong? I mean, do you contrast your explanation with the fact that you aren't in fact producing evidence of the existence of a God? That all you are doing is justifying his existence through dialectics?

Third and final question is, if you assume the existence of God only through a careful and elaborate use of logical reasoning, what if I come to you and tell you that, according to my own reasoning, there's not in fact one God, but there's many? There's a god for crops, another for love, another for the animals, etc. How do you propose to tell me I'm wrong? What tools or manner of speech can you use to ever question my own reasoning? Certainly not your Bible or your own teachings. Do you agree? I mean, these are the product of your own logic. I could denounce them as one big lie you use to propagate your creed.

That, C_ntua, is the difference between religion and science. There's no similarity like you are so desperately trying to convey. And it's a shame you didn't take my earlier advice. That you don't need to bring in that similarity. Your creed is defined by your Faith. And your Faith alone. Faith is what leads you to the truth. You don't play on the same sandbox as science. And you don't want to.

By trying to make a comparison between both, something that even your fellow ministers at the roman catholic church avoid when explaining the source of their creed, you are in fact renouncing your beliefs. And really you are making a lot of scientific folk give you the candid smile reserved to those who don't have a clue of what science is about and how a set of laws and theories come about.

^^^
That wasn't my post! Wrong quote.
Scrolling down you can see it is Programmer_P's

Apart from that, I agree with your reasoning. The statement is simply wrong because logic doesn't tell us there is a beginning of everything. That would be against the idea of infinity. And contradictory, also, because then God would have to be created by somebody else.

As I said, I am not making a comparison between religion and science, but between the belief that you use for both. You don't have to separate belief from faith. The process is one, the emotions and thoughts behind it that is. Even though they refer to two completely different things. I don't see why someone has to use a careful scientific process to solve a math problem, but not use an even more careful scientific process when it comes to his own religious beliefs which are far more important. But the process of truly believing somethings is not reserved only for science or religion. It is just a human process that can be used for anything.
My point being again that "humans can believe, truly believe". That can be a god, a theorem or anything else.
And if your Faith leeds you to the truth then Faith cannot be Truth. And what leads you to your Faith in the first place? A belief that your Faith is correct?
Am I am not catholic either.

I am not speaking in general either. My whole point is to show that being religious in the end is not a great mystery and never was. It is just something people believe in. Their believe can be as "scientific" as the beliefs of a scientist in physics. Just use science because people give credit to it. Belief in your spouse is the same thing for me as well.
Because I usually hear people saying that this "X belief is stupid". Or something negative. As a "better" way to judge a belief would be a scientific approach. Applying certain criterias that most of us would agree upon. Otherwise, it is just how you feel about it, just an un-thought opinion, something completely personal. But I would be that the same person that says that, if he was a scientist judging a theorem in physics (based on a belief) he would try to use a different process of judging a belief.
I am not demanding everytime you hear a belief to sit there and analyze it, but if you really want to get to the truth, you would have to.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

^^^
That wasn't my post! Wrong quote.
Scrolling down you can see it is Programmer_P's

Apart from that, I agree with your reasoning. The statement is simply wrong because logic doesn't tell us there is a beginning of everything. That would be against the idea of infinity. And contradictory, also, because then God would have to be created by somebody else.

I meant there has to be a first thing of everything that is in our world of reality. That doesn't mean that there can't also be other worlds too, other realities, of which the laws of physics and logic, as we know it, don't apply to. Infinity is one of those things that exist outside the concepts of time. God exists in a timeless realm, in which there is no past, no present, and no future. They're all the same. And hence, God does not have to have a creator, because He is the one that created everything, including time. And He is even the originator of the concept of creation. Without Him, nothing but Him would exist.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

^^^
That wasn't my post! Wrong quote.
Scrolling down you can see it is Programmer_P's

Ugh! You are right. Sorry for that. Both of you.

Originally Posted by Programmer_P

I meant there has to be a first thing of everything that is in our world of reality. That doesn't mean that there can't also be other worlds too, other realities, of which the laws of physics and logic, as we know it, don't apply to. Infinity is one of those things that exist outside the concepts of time. God exists in a timeless realm, in which there is no past, no present, and no future. They're all the same. And hence, God does not have to have a creator, because He is the one that created everything, including time. And He is even the originator of the concept of creation. Without Him, nothing but Him would exist.

You don't really justify why there has to be a first time for everything in reality. Nature shows as also that there are a lot of things that go in cycle, which gives us the impression that they were there from infinity. So there are things that have a start, others seem not to. Like the seasons will have a cycle. They don't really have an end or a beginning, neither a certain progression. They change in an infinite loop.

In any case, my question is "why can't the world have existed from eternity"

I can also go on saying that maybe God "built" the world, rather than created it. The world used in Greek version of Genesis (pe-o) means "do", "make" ,"create". So it can mean "create" in the sense created in from nothing, but also just "made" in the sense built the world from pro-existing materials. Which could be timeless as God. Genesis starts with "In the beginning" but that doesn't necessarily mean in the beginning of time.
Think also then "who created time". Since if you use the beginning of time the time God created the world, then there was no time before the beginning. Genesis doesn't say that God created time (whatever that would mean). Neither space. You get my point.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

You don't really justify why there has to be a first time for everything in reality. Nature shows as also that there are a lot of things that go in cycle, which gives us the impression that they were there from infinity. So there are things that have a start, others seem not to. Like the seasons will have a cycle. They don't really have an end or a beginning, neither a certain progression. They change in an infinite loop.

In any case, my question is "why can't the world have existed from eternity"

I can also go on saying that maybe God "built" the world, rather than created it. The world used in Greek version of Genesis (pe-o) means "do", "make" ,"create". So it can mean "create" in the sense created in from nothing, but also just "made" in the sense built the world from pro-existing materials. Which could be timeless as God. Genesis starts with "In the beginning" but that doesn't necessarily mean in the beginning of time.

Well, either its the beginning of time or the beginning of our world, i.e. when it was created.

Think also then "who created time". Since if you use the beginning of time the time God created the world, then there was no time before the beginning. Genesis doesn't say that God created time (whatever that would mean). Neither space. You get my point.

And yet we count time in years, months, days, hours, etc...
And there is a first of each one of those measurements.
Time is a way of determining when something happened, is happening, or is going to happen. And that is all based on human ideas, human expressions, or on what humans can understand.
Either God created the concept of time, or else man did. Either way, the fact remains that everything in our world that can be *seen* with our eyes has a beginning somewhere (as well as an end), including us. So it follows, if God doesn't exist, how did the *first* of each of those things get here? Explain that one with your "science"...

Faith defines Truth, regardless of any evidence contrary to it. And this is why Science cannot substitute Faith. Ultimately, Faith is a gift given to you by God and not something that you can reach on your own without his eventual consent. And hence why it is ultimately the one truth. Faith comes from God.

A very interesting and surprising take on faith that I've not heard. Interesting indeed. But actually faith does not as much come from God but faith does exist because of God. Faith is about implicit trust. Essentially that is what God wants and why religion to some seems like a cruel joke. The crux of the matter is this: Anyone can believe and trust in something they can prove, test, reproduce, etc. That is a cakewalk. However it takes a different kind of trust or fatih, if you will, to believe in something that has little or no proof, cannot be tested scientifically, and cannot be proven scientifically. Hence this is why I never attempt to prove God b/c it just is not possible. There are one thousand or even one million perfectly sane and valid rebuttals to whatever proofs one would offer up. God cannot be proven to exist. It's just not possible. But that's how it is supposed to be. For someone to trust in God when they have no earthly physical reason to trust in God is exactly what God wants. That is faith. Faith is about trusting in God when you have no reason to...except that you trust he is God and he is in control - and that is what He wants. Plain and simple that is the entire fundamental reasoning behind Christianity. The angels worshipped b/c they had no choice and were made for that purpose. Mankind however has this little thing known as free-will and he can choose to have faith in God or choose not to. To have someone trust in you that has the free-will and right not to....is something special. It is crazy sounding but the movie 'Bruce Almighty' is theology in a nutshell. Hollywood actually did a very good job portraying the issue of free-will in funny story.

That kind of trust requires humans to let go of most everything they cling to every day of their life. It requires them to reach beyond their own capacities to understand and just simply...trust. So that is why faith is the most important aspect of religion be it Christan or otherwise. In a sense religion will never 100% make sense to the human mind b/c it is not supposed to. Now for me personally I'm a theological nutcase and I love theology b/c it does provide answers and the Bible has a major historical context...that even non-believers cannot deny. It is not a history book nor a science book but the story of the redemption of mankind complete with an introduction, a climax or denoument (sp?), and a closing or solution to the problem introduced. However the final piece of the puzzle is even though we do have a significant amount of evidence of God and we have a lot of historical context for Jesus...it takes a leap of faith to believe he was the son of God instead of just another man and that God is indeed God. That takes pure faith and I'm willing to accept that.

For me arguments about religion and science are absolutely ridiculous. One relies on pure logic and proof and one ultimately requires faith. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Also replies like 'thats what the Bible says' only work for those who have the presupposition that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. If one does not have that presupposition then that sentence means nothing to another individual and you might as well say ...well it must be true b/c that is what Bob said. This is why most religious people just cannot argue their faith or more appropriately be involved in apologetics. Apologetics is the 'science' of defending the faith using reasoning and logic...however that reasoning and logic requires a couple of presuppositions. So apologetics works great between churches b/c they are just arguing the details of one another's faiths whereas theological apologetics does not work with those who do not share those pre-suppositions. Some institutions like the Institute for Creation do a major disservice to the church. They are trying to scientifically prove God or prove this or that in the Bible. And while 'perhaps' there may be some evidence of a flood, or some other event in the Bible...attempting to approach the Bible as a history book or science book, in my opinion, is a complete misinterpretation of the Bible as well as a bit of isogesis - that is reading meaning into a text that was not put there by the original author.

If you look at how Paul argued or defended the faith to the Romans he used their everyday language, history, colloquialisms, and the like to express to them what he was trying to say. The Romans, above all people, would never just settle for....trust me it's this way b/c the Bible says it is. Hence the phrase....when in Rome do as the Romans. Paul was the master at expressing the Christian faith in terms that the audience could grab a hold of and he strayed away from using 'religious talk'. This is why Paul was most effective with the Romans whereas someone like Peter or another disciple or teacher would not be. Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel who was a well known Roman scholar. In those days apprenticeship was essentially like going to college. The Romans wouldn't have even listened to Paul had he not been Gamaliel's apprentice.

For the interested parties I found a document that lists some of the more common Biblical hermenutical errors. Some of you will be able to identify with these quite well based on past religious experiences you have posted about. Many lay people commit these errors without knowing any better which is to be understood since they have not been formally trained in hermeneutics. I, myself, have had enough traning to construct messages and teachings using hermeneutics and I still commit some of these errors. I do not have enough training in the field to write a theology book, commentary, apologetical letters, or be a consultant on doctrinal consistency as it relates to Scripture. This type of skill is usually learned beyond the graduate level and into doctoral territory. One of my professors was one who helped write the new Bible version called The Message. He was responsible for interpreting Paul's letters to the churches into more common English. That is a job I would be wholly unqualified for.

Some common hermeneutical errors:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/st...icalErrors.pdf

So what is the moral of the story? Bantering back and forth will never reach any conclusion except for this: Science can be proven and is easy to believe (for the most part) and religion makes absolutely no human sense and is difficult for the human mind to follow.

Do we really need go through 500 posts to end up back at the same place we started? I think not.

Oh no, not another creationism vs evolutionism thread. Religious debates are useless and can only end with a disaster (or if we are lucky, the topic is locked before it happens). Anyway, please STOP. To all religious people - this is not the place to share your religious beliefs. And to all others - religion means people believe in it and don't accept evidence that doesn't support their beliefs, no matter how solid it is. So... what was the original topic again?

Actually this thread has been pretty tame. If you look at the topic it is about scientists creating life so inevitably this discussion is going to get into discussions about God and the like. I am attempting to temper some of the religious zeal and fervor of some so we can maintain some semblance of order and respect as we talk about this very difficult topic.

Please do not let this thread degrade into creation vs. evolution and let's keep our emotions at bay. The thread is quite interesting so far.

Guys, I just saw a really awesome film called Man From Earth.
It's about a guy who has lived for 14,000 years. It's available
on Netflix streaming. It's brilliant. He talks about jesus.

Originally Posted by Bubba

For me arguments about religion and science are absolutely ridiculous. One relies on pure logic and proof and one ultimately requires faith. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Science can be proven and is easy to believe (for the most part) and religion makes absolutely no human sense and is difficult for the human mind to follow.

Science doesn't only require pure logic. It requires more logic than religion, yes, far more in some cases. But not only logic.

When you say science is easy to believe but religion is not, you don't consider the majority of people. The everyday ones. Do you think "believing" quantum physics is easier than believing in a God? Not for the everyday person. For a scientist it maybe. But that is because he is a scientist.
Go back a few years. They burnt "scientists", but everybody respected the gods.

The difference is that you have a choice in religion, not to believe in it. Where in science you usually don't. In science you don't have to strongly believe something, where in religion you do. In science the belief isn't vital, where in religion it is. Those are the kind of the differences.

But in any case, I am just using science as an example to express my thought that you the process of believing something can be similar no matter the thing you believe. Apparently it is a bad example

Originally Posted by ethic

Guys, I just saw a really awesome film called Man From Earth.
It's about a guy who has lived for 14,000 years. It's available
on Netflix streaming. It's brilliant. He talks about jesus.

Yup, loved the movie

Originally Posted by Bubba

A very interesting and surprising take on faith that I've not heard. Interesting indeed. But actually faith does not as much come from God but faith does exist because of God. Faith is about implicit trust. Essentially that is what God wants and why religion to some seems like a cruel joke. The crux of the matter is this: Anyone can believe and trust in something they can prove, test, reproduce, etc. That is a cakewalk. However it takes a different kind of trust or fatih, if you will, to believe in something that has little or no proof, cannot be tested scientifically, and cannot be proven scientifically. Hence this is why I never attempt to prove God b/c it just is not possible. There are one thousand or even one million perfectly sane and valid rebuttals to whatever proofs one would offer up. God cannot be proven to exist. It's just not possible. But that's how it is supposed to be. For someone to trust in God when they have no earthly physical reason to trust in God is exactly what God wants. That is faith. Faith is about trusting in God when you have no reason to...except that you trust he is God and he is in control - and that is what He wants.

Exactly. That is the point I was eventually trying to get to, but you put in much better words than I did. Faith/trust/belief in God is not something that comes from logical reasoning. That's why there are not many that have faith. If the existence of God could be scientically proven, then a lot more people would believe in God. But it cannot, and God intended it that way, because man needs to understand that not everything in life can be figured out. There are some things that will always remain a mystery to the human mind.
However, the real reason I brought up the "deductive reasoning" in an earlier post to sort of prove that God exists was simply to make it less of a jump to get to the ultimate truth in the matter: i.e. that God does exist, and even (let's just suppose for a minute...) He didn't, what harm is it to believe in God anyway? None. AFAIK, there is no atheist theory that something dark and bad will happen to you if you do believe and trust in a God. And so, even if it can't be logically proven that God exists, why can't everyone just take it on faith?

But, no...people would rather believe in aliens and evolution and the "Big Bang Theory".

Originally Posted by Programmer_P

Either way, the fact remains that everything in our world that can be *seen* with our eyes has a beginning somewhere (as well as an end), including us. So it follows, if God doesn't exist, how did the *first* of each of those things get here? Explain that one with your "science"...

There are so many answers. What is wrong with evolution and the big bang theory (provided its initial state existed from ever). They are not my favorite theories, but why can't they be true??

And does space has a beginning or an end? For us it seems endless, infinite. So not everything has a beginning and an end.

The meaning of infinite is less appealing than having a beginning or an ending, I don't disagree on that. But it is not beyond the human imagination.

Your argument that there has to be a creator for everything is rational. They point is why is it not logical for you the argument of something existing from ever. I find both arguments reasonable.

In case you think evolution is not reasonable, still God could have partially created the world, not necessarily everything.

EDIT: In earlier posts I said that the world can be evidence for some that God exists. But not necessarily. You can explain the world existing without God as well, that is only what I am arguing about.