But artificial life has not been created yet. And I have tried to explain to you that we should probably have created artificial life by now if it were possible. We just cannot create life, and we cannot bring the dead back to life.
So take the wager.
There you go. If I had read what Leferdion had written before my last post then I would not have needed to write it. A simple position well put. The fact that I don’t agree with it is totally irrelevant. There’s nothing there that can honestly be disputed. You should all take a leaf out of Lef’s book.
Yes. I take the wager.
Don’t ruin what you’ve said previously. Forget making life. It might be possible. It might not. The question isn’t relevant. Excuse me for a moment while I play the Devil’s Advocate…
The soul is the spiritual element of Man. It is endowed to Man by God as He sees fit. It has no material component. It is not some mysterious ‘vital elan’. What keeps a human alive are physical and chemical processes. Whether other animals have a soul or not is a moot point but as other animals are not presumably spiritual it may be asssumed not.
How does that sound?
If your position is that only God can create life, you are now betting whether God exists or not. I’m not sure that’s a wise move. If there’s a headline in tomorrow’s papers that someone has managed to do it then you’ll be in a very difficult position indeed. Although something tells me that you’ll argue along the lines of: ‘Well, of course we can do it now. We can do anything that God allows! It’s only by His grace that we have managed it. But it will be for Him to decide whether life created by man has a soul’.
This thread has God of the Gaps written all over it.
You are right. I did not read the last part of his wager about God filling the gaps. In good conscience I cannot accept such a wager. Well…the thread has just gone all over the place and I ll step out for now. Have a nice day guys. Japanese kappa I hereby withdraw from the wager because I did not read the full terms of the wager I however do not retract from my opinion that God is all source of life and life cannot be created without God’s participation.
You need to define your terms very carefully.
What exactly is artificial life?
Presumably life created not by natural means. You know, when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much…
@Freddy and the others, thanks for your brilliant contributions. One day we will know all truth, but probably not in this life.
I believe the Church position is that humans have a rational and immortal soul while animals have a mortal soul.
So when we die, our soul continues on; but when an animal dies, that is the end for it.
To be classified as artificial life we need:
A system chemically synthesized from non-living components which:
- Maintains homeostasis (i.e. keeps its insides independent from its outsides)
- Performs metabolism (i.e. consumes+processes matter & energy)
- Responds to stimuli & the environment
- Reproduces & evolves
And I do not.
Given the time frame involved, it seems to me a meaningless act. And given the stubbornness I have seen, there is little doubt there is no intention of fulfilling it.
Like IVF? That is life through artificial means.
No. You’re starting with life already in the case of ivf. Take it back a step.
Ahh… your thought experiment just moved the goalposts! OK… so it’s not just that God decides to defer ensouling the ‘husk’, it’s that He also decides to impose actions on the zombie’s behalf? You’re moving further and further from ‘reasonable question’, and nearer and nearer to ‘Hollywood science fiction’!
To suggest that God ‘puppets’ his creations moves beyond the pale of the thought experiment.
By definition of ‘obscene.’ It is “abhorrent to morality” and “repulsive by virtue of moral / ethical values”.
No. But hey… nice try.
He doesn’t have to do any puppeting if the soul has no causal impacts on the body, but if someone were to assert that there needs to be some “supernatural animation” in order for living beings to move around, there is no reason God can’t supply that animation.
You’ve not supplied any reasons why these things aren’t possible, only derision.
So then you haven’t actually supplied a reason why God wouldn’t make these husks to avoid sending souls to hell.
You realize that this is a non-starter, right? Essentially, you’re saying, “if ya’ll are wrong, then there’s no problem here.”
You’re ignoring the problem, then: you’re asserting that it’s OK for God to simply treat humans as zombies, and use them as puppets. That runs counter to all that Christians believe, in terms of God and His gift of free will.
It’s not that they aren’t within the framework of what God is able to do, it’s that it’s beyond what God does, in terms of His nature. (And yes, the suggestion that He does otherwise is subject to derision. )
Sure, I have. It’s because it runs counter to His nature, as all-Good!
You just cast the pall of ill-will on every parent who has conceived a child.
Your parents for instance…
They knew you would rot in the atheist ground some day, probably suffering along the way to one degree or another, then rotting in the worm-eaten ground for absolutely no discernible purpose, with no meaning, forgotten for all time.
What kind of parent does such cruel things?
Why did your parents pro-create you knowing that such evil will surely befall you?
Not at all, who said these “husks” would actually be “people?”