Life From Dirt?

[YoursTrue]

I searched and found that religion isn't a positive thing.

For many imo that is true. Their faith is not my faith. But I still have faith in God. If I thought other religions were blessed by God or from God, I would feel free to join them in worship. But I do not. Even in Israel during the time that there were kings before the destruction of the temple there were occasions that it says God disapproved of their way of worship.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and the good theistic scientists do exactly that.

But it does bring in the question of why one would want to add on such an unnecessary assumption to a system that works without it.

except that is not the way the Bible says it happened. So a "scientist" can accept things like going to heaven, but he'd have to do more than just say what he believes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the thing - you accept the deniers of the accounts as if they're telling the truth, including made up stories about how you think things grew (I mean evolved) from a couple of cells, maybe in different directions or breaking off at a certain point..

No, you are now describing your behavior. Just because you did that do not assume that others have done the same. We have evidence. Evidence that can be repeatedly observed. Theories and hypotheses that can be tested and confirmed or refuted. You just have faith. Which is by definition a belief without evidence.

 

[PureX]

How is that different than being poofed into existence by magic? Sounds like the same thing to me.
How does one "speak life into existence," exactly, and how would you demonstrate that such a thing occurred?

It's poetic language meaning that it was a deliberate act of divine will. Similar to the idea of a command, I think, but without the implicaction of a 'comandee'.

 

[PureX]

Then how do you know that humans are conscious? How do you know any other person is conscious?

It has always been self-evident. And we could take that for granted. But now it's becoming possible that we can be fooled. That's the whole point of the warning. And perhaps why we should be taking steps to limit what we will do with this technology BEFORE we employ it.

OK, so it is original because it is produced biologically? Why that artificial restriction?

Because creating artificial consciousness is going to be very confusing and very dangerous for humanity. WE ARE NOT READY for that kind of technology. We will inevitably abuse it and use it to abuse each other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No…


Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it wasgood.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [g]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:24-27

So what's the difference?

 

[Brian2]

And I disagree. It is a dereliction of the duty to think and hold that we don't know in many situations. if we don't know, it is dishonest to say that we do.

What do you disagree about. I don't say I know God exists, I say I believe it.

Well, God isn't necessary for quantum mechanics. Nowhere in any standard quantum mechanics text will a deity even be considered. And yet, quantum mechanics demonstrably works in the real world. The computer you are communicating with proves that. So, while it may not be 'true' in a strict philosophical sense, it is much closer to being true than anything that religion offers. We can use the principles of science to actually build things that work. We can find out new things about the world and use that new knowledge to explore further or make even better things.

So, no, God is not necessary for understanding the universe around us. That has been amply demonstrated by example. And the science works. It allows us to do things we couldn't even imagine when religion was running the world.

Is our scientific knowledge perfect? Of course not, it is a human endeavor and humans make mistakes. But, unlike religious beliefs, science is self-correcting. Because it *tests* things over and over again, eventually the mistakes are revealed and new ideas are brought to bear if necessary.

I did not say that God is necessary for understanding the universe around us, and you don't know that God is not necessary for quantum mechanics.

On the contrary, we shun faith. We hold to ideas supported by objective evidence and reasoning. We maintain skepticism, even of the most cherished ideas, demanding that they be tested in as many varying situations as possible.

I find it ironic when you claim science uses faith when, if religion kept even a fraction of the skepticism of science, nobody would believe in any deities.

I said atheists/skeptics, I did not say science. I hear them say that science has shown that God is not necessary for the universe to have come into existence or for life to have come about. I hear them and "science" say that ToE is as close to a fact as it is possible to be without being a fact, and by this I presume the normal ToE without God being involved, but science has not shown that to be the case imo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but to be rational one has to realize that there is no evidence for that belief.

Yeah, and to be generally rational is to understand that even rational is a limited human behavior and neither absolute nor universal.

 

[Brian2]

So it is an emotional response, not a reasoned one.

Why does "subjective" mean just emotional and not reasoned?
Why did CS Lewis say that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of God. Many people emotionally do not want to believe in God or be a Christian. It is reason that brings them there. But it is not the sort of reason that proves, it is the sort of reason that makes belief a rational choice, more rational than unbelief.

So what *is* the evidence?

I have known theistic scientists. They are honest enough to admit tha their beliefs are personal tastes and not something supported by the actual evidence. They are also honest in admitting that the universe is billions, not thousands of years old, that evolution (change in species over time) is a scientific fact, and that the Bible is a book of myths and stories and not a guide to truth about the universe.

"Personal taste" is an interesting phrase. It is a subjective thing and could be said to be that I suppose. For me the evidence is subjective, I see God's hand in things, and that cannot be tested by science even if it is reasonable and overwhelmingly true for some people. It is not the evidence that makes me believe in God I suppose, but it is there for me and supports my belief.
I also believe the universe is billions of years old and that change in species over time is true. That doesn't mean that the full naturalistic ToE is true.
I see gradual change mechanism changed to evolution in spurts and I say to myself that science fits not evidence into the naturalistic theory when subjectively that is evidence for God changing things rapidly because a whole working system is needed or it would not have evolved. (and it is evidenced in gaps in the fossil record)

 

[PureX]

Yeah, and to be generally rational is to understand that even rational is a limited human behavior and neither absolute nor universal.

It really just refers to a course of thought.

 

[Brian2]

Beauty is an emotional response that we have to certain stimuli. Love is an emotion we have to help us bond with others. Consciousness is a process in our brains.

You seem so sure of your beliefs even when they are not shown to be true by science.

 

[Brian2]

Science does no such thing. If you study biochemistry, you realize that the 'life force' is simply a chemical gradient from oxygen reacting with organic compounds. There is no 'spark' other than the spark of chemistry and the interaction of molecules. We know that through hard work exploring exactly how life actually works.

And, in the past, there were hypotheses of a life force, an elan vitale, but those hypotheses went nowhere. They were vague, and did not help to understand what actually happens in life.

All science can explore is the material side of life. Spirit might not help us understand what actually happens in the body, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
Seeing what happens in the body does not eliminate spirit as a life force. Science says stuff at time (like "no elan vitale") which shows the material basis of science and it's limitations, and how easily it can say that something does not exist when in fact it does not know.

So? That does not mean that it is false. It just means you don't like the conclusions.

True. But do you so easily agree when I point stuff out to you.

Any idea you need to belive *first* before you can get evidence, is one that should be discarded without further comment. That it the route to self-delusion.

The gospels are the *claim*, not the evidence.

That God is true and was going to send His Son to die and take our sins on Himself is the claim, the promise. The gospels are the evidence that it happened.
And it happened even before humans had worked out exactly what the promises meant, so the story was not made up to match the promises.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All science can explore is the material side of life. Spirit might not help us understand what actually happens in the body, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
Seeing what happens in the body does not eliminate spirit as a life force. Science says stuff at time (like "no elan vitale") which shows the material basis of science and it's limitations, and how easily it can say that something does not exist when in fact it does not know.



True. But do you so easily agree when I point stuff out to you.



That God is true and was going to send His Son to die and take our sins on Himself is the claim, the promise. The gospels are the evidence that it happened.
And it happened even before humans had worked out exactly what the promises meant, so the story was not made up to match the promises.

That raises the question, how would you show that a " spiritual side" even exists? It would help if you had a working definition of that term first.

 

[Brian2]

Prove it.

It's easy to see the vast gap between humans and animals in so many ways.
It's not proof, but is something that can be seen by all and believed by faith.

We are different than cats. We have much more complex brains, which allows for language and social memories.

We are different physically, yes.

If it is not testable, there is no good reason to believe in it. The difference between humans and cats is one of magnitude, not of kind.

OK

 

[Brian2]

All have physical underpinnings in a material living brain

They do and that is all there is to them in materialism.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's easy to see the vast gap between humans and animals in so many ways.

Like the fact that probably about a quarter of us have cats or dogs, and both parties usually finding this agreeable? This besides all the evidence that so many other species show much the same as to attributes as humans - if one does enough delving as to evidence as to this. Rather than ignoring such evidence.

 

[Brian2]

You've heard these things from idiots.
If you didn't make it up which I think you did.

I thought that is what people like Richard Dawkins claim.
There are people who say that because science has not established the existence of god therefore god has been shown not to exist.
I don't think I am making these things up. Do you think my memory of what they have said is faulty?
Hawking believed God does not exist.
These are intelligent people and have chosen to not sit on the fence.
But of course when they have the evidence for God that they can accept they will certainly change their minds.
Believing there is no God means denying the need for God in anything.
No scientific when science has not shown it, but that is fine, they are human and have beliefs, as do people on this forum who hold similar views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's easy to see the vast gap between humans and animals in so many ways.
It's not proof, but is something that can be seen by all and believed by faith.

No, that "gap" appears to be mostly prejudicial. When people claim "easy to see" it usually isn't.

We are different physically, yes.



OK

It seems that you already know that your claim has been refuted.

 

[Polymath257]

It has always been self-evident. And we could take that for granted. But now it's becoming possible that we can be fooled. That's the whole point of the warning. And perhaps why we should be taking steps to limit what we will do with this technology BEFORE we employ it.

First, I agree that we need to be careful about the new technology. But, the fact that it has been 'self-evident' only means we haven't really thought deeply about what it means to be conscious and how to tell when something is conscious or not.

In particular, the question of whether an artificial construct can be conscious has been addressed, but seems to be either dismissed outright as a possibility or seen as easily developed.

My position is that if it is good enough to fool the majority of people, then it is functionally conscious. We are certainly not there yet, but we are getting much closer than anyone imagined not long ago.

I am curious on what basis you claim that the artificial cannot be conscious.

Because creating artificial consciousness is going to be very confusing and very dangerous for humanity. WE ARE NOT READY for that kind of technology. We will inevitably abuse it and use it to abuse each other.

Well, that is a separate question from whether it is *possible* to create artificial consciousness. I would point out that many who have been actively pursuing artificial intelligence (as opposed to artificial consciousness) have said we should slow down and be much more careful.

I recall when recombinant DNA technology was new and the *scientists* said we should slow down and make sure we understand the possible results of our investigations. So, we *did* slow down. We learned what was necessary to keep things safe, and we proceeded. I see a similar thing happening now with AI and I think it a good thing.

But once again, the question of whether AI or AC is possible is a very different question than whether we should do it. You seem to take the position (let me know if I am wrong) that it is impossible, but that mimicry might be possible to the point where everyone is fooled. I am not sure what the distinction is between real AI or AC and something that mimics and can fool everyone.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you disagree about. I don't say I know God exists, I say I believe it.

OK. And that is your right, whether it is reasonable or not.

I did not say that God is necessary for understanding the universe around us, and you don't know that God is not necessary for quantum mechanics.

You said that God was necessary in the context of understanding the universe. And yes, we know that God is unnecessary for QM because QM never needs God to predict the result of actual observations.

I said atheists/skeptics, I did not say science. I hear them say that science has shown that God is not necessary for the universe to have come into existence or for life to have come about. I hear them and "science" say that ToE is as close to a fact as it is possible to be without being a fact, and by this I presume the normal ToE without God being involved, but science has not shown that to be the case imo.

And what would be required to show that to be a fact, in your mind? The theory works. It does not use the concept of a God in its explanation. So no God is required to explain these things.

Why do you think that a God is required when the working scientific descriptions don't need it?