Scientists create living eating and growing machines...

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree. But do you concede dawkins is saying something came from nothing?

No. I know enough about him, that he'd never say such a silly thing-- especially not how you (or other creationists) think of the word "nothing".

Dawkins simply isn't that ignorant.

Something from nothing is a BIBLE myth, after all.... that whole "In The Beginning, there was Nothing, then God Poofed the Universe with Magic"

 

[Jollybear]

I read it on my phone earlier because i was taking a dump, like i said. It's not in my interest to go look for something that doesn't exist. You're still making definite claims of another forum member. Without having the evidence to show it to be true. That's still a bit dishonest.

I dont know how to go back and pull it up to show you. It does exist.

It means things require "cause" as far as causality has existed. I.E Even a concept like "yourself" is a "construct" of prior phenomena and experiences. Buddhism argues specifically that the self exists only as a construct of this kind. Metaphysically speaking, this statement is incredibly difficult to dismantle. Whenever you try to "quantify" a self, you always compare a sum of its parts instead.

Very materialistically speaking, it can also infer that indeed there might not be anything beyond the material existence. Actual knowledge regarding this is suspect though. Not many people have experienced afterlife, and specifically, came back and told us about it.

What about NDEs?

Entirely uncertain.

Uncertain, ok, but what would you LIKE to be true here?

Only categorically and through definitions. I never think of gods / deities, their existence or their non-existence. Beyond when i discuss it specifically, and even then it's only a concept for me since i have no experience.

I'm one of those people who really have not chosen either way.

Ok....

 

[Jollybear]

No. I know enough about him, that he'd never say such a silly thing-- especially not how you (or other creationists) think of the word "nothing".

Dawkins simply isn't that ignorant.

Something from nothing is a BIBLE myth, after all.... that whole "In The Beginning, there was Nothing, then God Poofed the Universe with Magic"

In the un edditted video dawkins DOES SAY verbatum, "something can come from nothing".

He also breaks down something about matter/antimatter coming in contact and causing both to go none existent. Then says a guy named kruez, a physicist, believes the opposite can happen, nothing can cause matter/anti matter to cone into existence. Then admits this has not been proven.

Also no, the bible dont say God made from nothing.

 

[Jollybear]

In the full video, he does not actually say it. So you should probably stop trying to perpetuate this claim. Watch the video.

Dawkins believes the universe came about through something mysterious and probably simplistic. Those are his actual words.

The "Something from nothing" thing is taken ENTIRELY out of context, edited and made to look like that's what he thinks. It's not. Watch the full video.

He also breaks down something about matter/antimatter coming in contact and causing both to go none existent. Then says a guy named kruez, a physicist, believes the opposite can happen, nothing can cause matter/anti matter to cone into existence. Then admits this has not been proven.

 

[Darkstorn]

What about NDEs?

I've had one while i was... "Conscious." I participated in a official government sanctioned DMT experiment once. It was impossible to perceive difference between the experience and physical reality. Even though nothing about it had anything to do with THIS world.

This was years ago, and i don't actually do drugs. I still remember it as clearly as yesterday.

I am STILL not convinced whether it was illusion, or if this reality is. Or neither or both.

So i believe all those things. It was real, it was illusion. This is real, this is illusion. Both are illusion, both are real.

I'm still saying it's impossible to know. This is what i think of NDA's: Impossible to know whether or not that is real or this is. No human can make the distinction. But i'm fully aware that my personal experience might be suspect in its entirety.

Uncertain, ok, but what would you LIKE to be true here?

All emotions lead to suffering...

If i wanted something, i'd surely be disappointed. So i choose to not want anything.

 

[Darkstorn]

He also breaks down something about matter/antimatter coming in contact and causing both to go none existent. Then says a guy named kruez, a physicist, believes the opposite can happen, nothing can cause matter/anti matter to cone into existence. Then admits this has not been proven.

Indeed, Dawkins says nothing about believing that "the universe came from nothing." Krauss does, BUT: As a metaphysical argument. I'm very familiar with that one in fact. Krauss does believe in quantum mechanics, however, and also in that there had to be something.

You should probably read the full title of Krauss' book:

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

Note the emphasis.

In the un edditted video dawkins DOES SAY verbatum, "something can come from nothing".

Only if you purposefully take him out of context. He does utter those words. But your claim is that he BELIEVES in it.

While he's literally talking about the subject of Krauss' book only.

 

[Jollybear]

I've had one while i was... "Conscious." I participated in a official government sanctioned DMT experiment once. It was impossible to perceive difference between the experience and physical reality. Even though nothing about it had anything to do with THIS world.

Thats interesting. What was the purpose of the experiment?

I understand this too because i also had some astral projection experiences. Or, concious OBEs.

This was years ago, and i don't actually do drugs. I still remember it as clearly as yesterday.

My experience was via meditation.

I am STILL not convinced whether it was illusion, or if this reality is. Or neither or both.

Ok. How about both are real? Lol why does it need to be illusion?

So i believe all those things. It was real, it was illusion. This is real, this is illusion. Both are illusion, both are real.

Illusion and real at the same time?

I'm still saying it's impossible to know. This is what i think of NDA's: Impossible to know whether or not that is real or this is. No human can make the distinction. But i'm fully aware that my personal experience might be suspect in its entirety.

Ok...

All emotions lead to suffering...

If i wanted something, i'd surely be disappointed. So i choose to not want anything.

How do you make yourself not want anything?

 

[Jollybear]

Indeed, Dawkins says nothing about believing that "the universe came from nothing." Krauss does, BUT: As a metaphysical argument. I'm very familiar with that one in fact. Krauss does believe in quantum mechanics, however, and also in that there had to be something.

You should probably read the full title of Krauss' book:

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."

Note the emphasis.



Only if you purposefully take him out of context. He does utter those words. But your claim is that he BELIEVES in it.

While he's literally talking about the subject of Krauss' book only.

Notice his point about matter/antimatter in the video? And notice its the priest that corrects dawkins about what kruez is actually saying? Lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's okay, I'll ignore the insults ...... sorry Bob, but you got your science all screwed up
DNA is indeed code / language / mathmatics
View attachment 28563
Out of all man's intelligence / ingenuity / inventions from ages past to ages present and future ...
has man EVER been able to invent a machine so complex that that machine has the ability to repair and duplicate itself .... YET .
EVERY living cell on our planet has that ability ..... to WHOM do you attribute this intelligence? bacause at this point, atheism is debunked

What DNA is? Is a molecule directive that fabricates proteins.
That's it. DNA enables proteins to be fabricated within the cell < really ?? ... why is this

btw Bob the Unbeliever ...... what did one dirt clod say to the other

The inability the understand the use of a term figuratively rather than literally is a flaw commonly found among creationists. They take part of the Bible that was never meant to be taken literally and put it on a pedestal.

None of those writers were using the word "code" in the same way that you are.

 

[Darkstorn]

Thats interesting. What was the purpose of the experiment?

No idea, it was a "blind" test where they only told me what it was after i signed the form. They did tell me it was entirely physically safe. I'm suspecting it had something to do with the perceived link between NDE's and DMT in human brains.

I understand this too because i also had some astral projection experiences. Or, concious OBEs.

Those things can be subjectively very powerful. But it's always smart to "know" it might be an illusion or hallucination. It might also not be. But it's better to be safe than sorry.

My experience was via meditation.

I do this a lot. Nowadays primarily as a way to simply calm myself. I can make myself lose any idea of myself and my environment pretty easily, but again, whatever i experience in that state is suspect because it's only perceivable by myself.

Ok. How about both are real? Lol why does it need to be illusion?

I'm saying i have not literally made a decision either way. I had the experience, i tried to reflect a bit on it, and now it's a part of me. But i have no particular want or need for *either* reality to be true or illusion. Doesn't matter. If it's an illusion, i'll play along. If not, i'll play along.

Illusion and real at the same time?

I think it's mentally healthy to consider it a non-issue. What if this REALLY is an elaborate Matrix like scenario? Then everyone would either be paranoid or oblivious to it. So might as well think it could be so, and they're doing a hell of a job at convincing me that i have free will and illusion of choice.

How do you make yourself not want anything?

Hard to answer. I never wanted many things to begin with. I was always happy with what i have, overall. At some point i just stopped wanting new things.

I'm expecting it took years of just doing what i do. Hard to determine how exactly i've convinced myself that i don't want new things. It's not strictly because of my Buddhist beliefs.

Notice his point about matter/antimatter in the video? And notice its the priest that corrects dawkins about what kruez is actually saying? Lol

I did notice the point about matter / antimatter. And the priest "correcting" him. That's the problem. The priest's retort was GOOD but it wasn't actually "correcting." You're making that leap yourself because you agree with it so much. But it has nothing to do with the claim that Dawkins believes that the universe came from nothing.

 

[joe lewis]

Another step to creating life or something like it... hopefully it will not develop a taste for humans...

Scientists Create Living, Eating, Growing Machines

The whole term "living machine" is an oxymoron... kinda like "real artificial intelligence". Computer programs can mimic human intelligence (that's why it's called artificial) and what these scientists have created mimics life. Then there's the whole philosophical discussion about what we define life to be. If we define it as something that machines can't have, then we can't create living machines.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, no evidence huh? If theres no evidence, then theres equally no evidence for what you believe.

Wrong. For the BB, tere are specific, repeatable observations that agree with the theoretical model to 6 or 7 decimal places. For God, there are vague reports by people want to believe, no testable model, and a lot of 'just so' stories. Not to mention the parts that have been shown false.

 

[Polymath257]

DNA is biological information sequence
your post above Bob ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation - are they of category A or category B
A = random / mindless / no structured sequence (just where they happened to land) .. or
B = design / code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven / intelligence

Not the only two options.

C. not designed. formed through natural processes, non-random, structured.

 

[Polymath257]

God created the laws.

Maybe. So what? That doesn't falsify them. The BB and evolution still occurred.

 

[Polymath257]

Thats better then saying "nothing did it" or "naturalism did it"

Really? How so?

At some point there is either an uncaused cause or an infinite regress of causes. We know the physical laws apply. So why ask for a cause for them if, logically, there cannot be one?

 

[Polymath257]

I let my inner child come out.

That does explain a lot.

 

[Polymath257]

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" < oh, that's funny

an atheist holding up a standard he doesn't even believe in

Most atheists are strong advocates for honesty and fairness. Believers frequently lie when they think it can promote their agenda. They feel justified doing this when they think it is "God's work".

 

[Polymath257]

no, not at all .... if there is no God .... then all we have are opinions

act like a rude person < well, if you believe being rude is wrong, then by all means, do not be a rude person

Exactly the opposite, actually. Since nobody knows anything about Gods, religion is all opinions. Since science relies on repeatable, testable ideas, it is what can find truths.

 

[Polymath257]

Like i said. Lets cut to the chase.

You believe something simple created the universe that was not intelligent. Some kind of eternal energy source, that evolved to make the current universe, correct?

I do not. I believe that four dimensional space time simply exists without a cause (since causality only makes sense within space and time).

 

[Polymath257]

He also breaks down something about matter/antimatter coming in contact and causing both to go none existent. Then says a guy named kruez, a physicist, believes the opposite can happen, nothing can cause matter/anti matter to cone into existence. Then admits this has not been proven.

Even in Krantz's view, though, there were laws of physics that applied to a 'false vacuum' with no matter or energy.

Does that count as 'nothing'? If there is no matter or energy, it does by some definitions. But if there are laws of physics and a false vacuum, then some would say there is 'something'.

Which would you say?