Scientists create artificial life

Originally Posted by Bubba

Scientists create artificial life. Or did they?

Nah. Not in my humble book at least.

There's nothing artificial in those cells. Everything is natural. The genetic material was "chemically printed, synthesized and assembled [sic]" and then inserted into the cells. Here "artificial" is being used as man-made. WHich is quite alright, mind you. But to me, just an extension to the concept of cloning.

I happen to look at artificial life as a life-form that doesn't depend on chemical reactions to live, reproduce and sustain itself. That is, "Artificial" as being outside the scope of nature.

I don't think making artificial cell is that strange.

Its a chemical solution. Just a complex one.

Anything we make has a root in nature.

Originally Posted by MK27

I vaguely agree with this, however, I believe the only axiom fundamental to science is the logical validity of deductive reasoning. Logical axioms, like a phenomenon cannot be it's own cause (the chicken and egg principle, or there's a reason for everything) are of the exact same nature as 1+1=2. Do you have to believe in "1" or do you merely have to understand what "1" means in order to reason logically? Once you understand what one means, you will also understand that 1+1=2.

Lets use a more complicated example. An example where you have more than one option.

Don't you have to agree on quantum physics in order to reason logically with them? Is there any proof that they exist. No. It is just a theorem. It is a way to describe things. In other words, an answer to the a lot of questions regarding physics. There are other theorems as well.
If you accept quantum physics you accept some basic self-evident truths. Think of Shroedinger's cat example. You accept the duality of things. The idea of possibilities. A lot of people disagree. Ordinary people as well as scientists, because they don't find it satisfying enough.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Don't you have to agree on quantum physics in order to reason logically with them? Is there any proof that they exist. No. It is just a theorem. It is a way to describe things. In other words, an answer to the a lot of questions regarding physics.

You cannot really expect comparing religion to science will not be met with a certain degree of jaw dropping and scorn. And, let me tell you, also by the ministers of these religious.

There's only the mystery of Faith. And that's the only thing that is relevant to religion. I can't believe I'm the one giving you a hand here, but I need to remind you that contrary to what is implied even by me on previous arguments, Faith is not belief. It transcends the notion of belief.

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.

I'm not interested at this point in discussing what I think of this. I think it should be clear to you by now I give it no credit. But I find it insulting to Religion that you choose to represent their defense in such a weak argumentation.

If you accept quantum physics you accept some basic self-evident truths.

Wrong. Totally wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I'm saying wrong one more time.

You don't accept anything in science, except for the fact that everything, even the most demonstrated piece of evidence, can become questionable at a certain point in the scientific process. You open yourself to all options and you explore all possible ways to destroy your own theories. Or at least this is the basic principle by which science should be governed.

Ultimately I could say science is not concerned with truth. But with knowledge.

Originally Posted by MK27

Because you're an unreflective bumpkin . There is obviously a rational and empirical element -- social animals (like homo sapiens) which cannot do any good for anyone else tend to end up ostracised and/or dead. This does not mean they have to do good for everyone, of course.

I was very reflective... in the past. I spent six months doing nothing but "reflecting" right after school. Some of the more productive reflection involved various substances, some of it didn't. I've looked as deeply as I can at reality, and I just don't see anything there but particles.

I maintain my good behavior because it feels right, but I do understand that the reason it DOES "feel right" is because of conditioning.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

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.

That is true only if you rely merely on your Faith. Otherwise, if there is evidence (a scientific for example) that the Truth is not really true, then you have two contradictory ideas. You have to abandon one. Otherwise your ideas are not really logical, which is fine, but not something really interesting talking about.

Further than that, I am not comparing religion and science. I am just pointing out that science and religion both accept self-evident truths. The have starting points. There is not really sense in proving the starting points, as you defined them as self-evident, or something that cannot be proven. At least as long as you don't have completely new information.

For me faith is belief. In my mother language they are the same word. In the english language, faith and belief can have the same meaning. If you are using Faith in a more theological way, that is fine, but I was talking about belief, in the everyday meaning. Trusting something.

There is trust/belief, as well as imagination in both science and religion. Maybe my phrasing is bad. I would be more accurate if I said that theology, science and philosophy all use some basic principles. Those are having some starting points (axiom) that cannot be proven and using them to expand logically the general idea.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Wrong. Totally wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I'm saying wrong one more time.

You don't accept anything in science, except for the fact that everything, even the most demonstrated piece of evidence, can become questionable at a certain point in the scientific process. You open yourself to all options and you explore all possible ways to destroy your own theories. Or at least this is the basic principle by which science should be governed.

Ultimately I could say science is not concerned with truth. But with knowledge.

I would disagree on that. I believe science is concerned with the truth. But that is another discussion, that has been done a lot of times among scientists and philosophers.

You accept them when you want to analyze them further. Even temporarily accept. Doesn't matter if you question them or doubt them. They are the starting point, which starting point you simply accept. You accept it for no strict logical reasons I might have to say. They still have to be convincing, reasonable etc etc. But you cannot expect to find any proof, as that has no meaning. The same, for me, is trying to find proof for God. It doesn't really make sense, at least for how some religions define God.

In any case, religious people can still be doubtful and try to destroy their own ideas.

Originally Posted by MK27

Sure, but as a religious person you must dismiss the logic of nature and make it seem like we need the Church to morally guide us, because it is the foundation of rational morality, when in truth religion is a perversion of such whose historical significance is simply about power and politics, and for whom "morality" is a means of social control used to justify ancient hegemonic political structures and endlessly perverse, abhorrent behaviour by it's followers (eg, Manifest Destiny).

No, you don't. You can believe in a God and still believe in nature, and the logic of nature, at the same time, because God is the creator of nature...

You can believe in a God and still believe in nature, and the logic of nature, at the same time, because God is the creator of nature...

Hence the area of theology known as natural theology.

Originally Posted by MK27

Yes, this is a very succinct description of circular logic, which is the cornerstone of theology.



I vaguely agree with this, however, I believe the only axiom fundamental to science is the logical validity of deductive reasoning. Logical axioms, like a phenomenon cannot be it's own cause (the chicken and egg principle, or there's a reason for everything) are of the exact same nature as 1+1=2. Do you have to believe in "1" or do you merely have to understand what "1" means in order to reason logically? Once you understand what one means, you will also understand that 1+1=2.

However, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated with either sound deductive reasoning or through empiricism. Occam's Razor will stop you at every point -- and if you want to ignore that, then anything goes. The universe began from the belch of a giant rabbit. Why not?
Certainly you are free to believe what you want.

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.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You cannot really expect comparing religion to science will not be met with a certain degree of jaw dropping and scorn. And, let me tell you, also by the ministers of these religious.

There's only the mystery of Faith. And that's the only thing that is relevant to religion. I can't believe I'm the one giving you a hand here, but I need to remind you that contrary to what is implied even by me on previous arguments, Faith is not belief. It transcends the notion of belief.

Wrong. True FAITH in something is both believing and trusting in it, hence Faith in God is the belief that He exists, and He is true (i.e. never lies), and will always do what He says. And, yes, one can not *prove* that the object of his faith exists with physical evidence. That's what makes it faith. It is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I don't know where you got your definition of faith from, but its obviously not the Bible, since that is the basis of Christian faith...

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.

No, you're wrong. Faith is not truth. They're two separate things. And, it is not just a "gift given by God". It must be sought for on one's own initiative, and you must exercise the faith often to keep it alive in you, if you want to possess it. Oh, and the Bible says that without faith, it is impossible to please Him. Just so we're clear on that too...

I like watching John Lennox (Mathematics professor at Oxford)
debate Richard Dawkins (former professor at Oxford and current
God of all internet Atheists) debate about the existence of God.
Intelligent, well thought-out debates about such an interesting
topic.

Originally Posted by Programmer_P

Wrong

Says who? The Bible? You know what they say about the devil, don't you? That he knows the bible like the back of his hand.

And you know why they say that?

Next time you question my knowledge of the Bible and my knowledge of christian faith, I'll have no more talking with you. You clearly are too wrung up in your own thinking that are incapable of having a theological discussion without bringing in your cult into it. You represent nothing but your own faith. Keep that in mind when you presume you can speak for all of Christianity. Much less the Roman Catholic Church, which you don't belong to.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Says who?

Says me. But not just me...the Bible/Word of God, also says it.

Quote of edited version:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Says who? The Bible? You know what they say about the devil, don't you? That he knows the bible like the back of his hand.

And you know why they say that?

Next time you question my knowledge of the Bible and my knowledge of christian faith, I'll have no more talking with you. You clearly are too wrung up in your own thinking that are incapable of having a theological discussion without bringing in your cult into it. You represent nothing but your own faith. Keep that in mind when you presume you can speak for all of Christianity. Much less the Roman Catholic Church, which you don't belong to.

That's a pretty big assumption that I was presuming that, now isn't it...
For the record, I wasn't presuming that I was speaking on the behalf of anyone.
However, if you're worried that I'm lying, I suggest you look up the greek word translated as "faith". Yes, "faith" can sometimes be translated as religious truth (i.e. the gospel itself), but it has a much deeper meaning than that, and includes the trust/reliance on God and the belief as well. Moreover, true "faith" is always accompanied by action.

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