Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

achtungbarry

"US scientists, led by controversial biologist Craig Venter, have succeeded in generating an "artificial life" form in the laboratory for the first time. "

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0521/science.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

Interesting Q and A article on BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10134341.stm

Obviously this raises all kinds of other ethical questions but is this another nail in the coffin of religion and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

A Primal Nut

I would say Creationists are going to say say it actually provides more proof that God exists, as it proves life requires a 'designer' and can't happen by chance (afterall, it took this guy 17 years). There are two ways of interpreting everything.

I don't think it changes anything for the majority of religious people who believe in evolution.

Dades

Since when did evidence count for anything in matters of religion? :pac:

seamus

A Primal Nut wrote: »

(afterall, it took this guy 17 years)

Considering that it took "God" 700 million years to create the first organisms, I'd say that's pretty good going.

robindch

achtungbarry wrote: »

and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

Not quite true -- the baboons leading the ID movement say that life can only be created by intelligent beings. On the contrary, Venter's advances actually prove ID. At least to IDiots anyway.

achtungbarry wrote: »

is this another nail in the coffin of religion

What Dades said.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Since when did evidence count for anything in matters of religion? :pac:

Quoted for truth.

I would be interested to see if any religious person could actually come up with a potential future biological discovery that would actually kill religion for them if it was discovered

History seems to suggest that any scientific discover is simply absorbed into the dogma and doctrine, God moves a little further away, becomes a little less direct in what he does, and things go on as normal.

I'm pretty sure that if we found a natural explanation for everything and worked it back to some sort of self contained set of rules that explain everything including themselves, plenty of people would still be religions and say "Oh well God did something, I know it!"

MackDeToaster

Cool. So in a few more years I'll be able to make some miniature intelligent creatures, drown most, turn some into salt, do a bit of biological warfare testing, shag a few of their virgins, condemn any who might start worshipping other humans, brainwash and psychologically torture the rest into loving me on pain of endless torture.

If I forget to feed them for a few days and some die the rest will just say it was my will. I might throw in a few hot coals now and then to keep them on their toes and in the churches. Oh yes, I'll be a kind and loving father to them all - I am a good man, and they'd better believe it.

Dr. Loon

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

liamw

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Gremlins... sweet

sink

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Not so. The particular bacteria they synthesised requires extremely rich growth medium and couldn't survive under natural conditions, they did this specifically to prevent an outbreak. They're currently researching ways to build in a kill switch so they can immediately stop an outbreak, e.g. including a gene that will kill the organism if it comes into contact with a specific substance such as silica. So we could release synthetic bacteria into the wild to say clean up an oil spill, and once they've done they're job we can eracdicate them all by introducing silica, which would kill the on contact but otherwise be completely inert to the surrounding environment.

monosharp

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Too much sci-fi mate ?

What makes you think these synthetic guys have the potential to do anything worse then their natural cousins ?

krudler

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I find this a bit scary really. Surely these synthetic organisms would evolve? Once they're released, they are free to do as they please. Which could be anything.

Awesome, hopefully hey'll get their own theme park where they run amok.

20goto10

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0520/breaking66.html

To prove the recipient bacteria contained the synthetic genome, the scientists effectively signed their names in DNA. Four of the DNA sequences included coded “watermarks” - strings of “letters” corresponding to the names of people involved in the project, an email address, and some famous quotations.

now if thats not playing god then I don't know what is. Brilliant!

Dr. Loon

sink wrote: »

Not so. The particular bacteria they synthesised requires extremely rich growth medium and couldn't survive under natural conditions, they did this specifically to prevent an outbreak. They're currently researching ways to build in a kill switch so they can immediately stop an outbreak, e.g. including a gene that will kill the organism if it comes into contact with a specific substance such as silica. So we could release synthetic bacteria into the wild to say clean up an oil spill, and once they've done they're job we can eracdicate them all by introducing silica, which would kill the on contact but otherwise be completely inert to the surrounding environment.

Ah, sorted so. My imagination got the better of me!

ColmDawson

And when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Galvasean

monosharp wrote: »

Too much sci-fi mate ?

First thing that popped into my head when reading that post was Michael Crichton's book Prey.

eblistic

achtungbarry wrote: »

is this another nail in the coffin of religion and the idea that only a supernatural being could have created life.

Sadly history would suggest not. They'll just move the goalposts, reinterpret their sacred revealed texts a little, and somehow claim that this is actually evidence of an intelligent creator (e.g. "there's still an intelligent life-form involved in the synthesis procedure." or some such nonsense).

iUseVi

eblistic wrote: »

Sadly history would suggest not. They'll just move the goalposts, reinterpret their sacred revealed texts a little, and somehow claim that this is actually evidence of an intelligent creator (e.g. "there's still an intelligent life-form involved in the synthesis procedure." or some such nonsense).

True.

"Ah ha! Yes, they created novel DNA, but what about amino acids, eh? EH?!"

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

First thing that popped into my head when reading that post was Michael Crichton's book Prey.

Jeez don't remind me. The worst of his books - of which I am huge fan of generally. It's no Congo!

Ciaran500

Why hasn't this been banned yet? Its completely new so surely there's enough of a minority terrified by it to have this research crippled.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Jeez don't remind me. The worst of his books - of which I am huge fan of generally. It's no Congo!

I thought Congo was awful.

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

I thought Congo was awful.

There you go ragging on monkeys again. :pac:

krudler

all I want to know is, when can I grow my own Raptor? I'd settle for a Triceratops

Burgo

krudler wrote: »

all I want to know is, when can I grow my own Raptor? I'd settle for a Triceratops

Did someone say dino riders

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

There you go ragging on monkeys again. :pac:

APES!!!!! :mad:

PS: WTF is that statue all about???? :pac:

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

WTF is that statue all about???? :pac:

Trippy Norwegian art, I suspect.

strobe

sink wrote: »

Not so. The particular bacteria they synthesised requires extremely rich growth medium and couldn't survive under natural conditions, they did this specifically to prevent an outbreak. They're currently researching ways to build in a kill switch so they can immediately stop an outbreak, e.g. including a gene that will kill the organism if it comes into contact with a specific substance such as silica. So we could release synthetic bacteria into the wild to say clean up an oil spill, and once they've done they're job we can eracdicate them all by introducing silica, which would kill the on contact but otherwise be completely inert to the surrounding environment.

Fukk.....That sounds horrific. Create life for a purpose and then extinguish it when it has served it's purpose. I know I kill millions of bacteria everytime I wipe my work top down with Detol (99.9% I am told{tm}), but it still sets me uneasy when I see something like that written down. Psychedelically induced psuedo morality probably. But still, if you think about it in sci-fi tinted slippery slope terms it does pose troublesome questions.

strobe

Burgo wrote: »

Did someone say dino riders

Damn! I am still infinately baffled as to why Spielberg and Mann and Tarintino haven't co-written the script for a DinoRiders movie, directed by Jackson and soundtrack by Muse, Mumford and Sons, Moby and the original Guns n Roses line up, yet. Wonders will never cease......

sink

strobe wrote: »

Fukk.....That sounds horrific. Create life for a purpose and then extinguish it when it has served it's purpose. I know I kill millions of bacteria everytime I wipe my work top down with Detol (99.9% I am told{tm}), but it still sets me uneasy when I see something like that written down. Psychedelically induced psuedo morality probably. But still, if you think about it in sci-fi tinted slippery slope terms it does pose troublesome questions.

We've effectively done the same thing with much higher order life through different methods, I don't see of this is any different. Domesticated livestock are engineered through selective breeding processes to serve a specific purpose and are killed once their purpose is served. Indeed their entire purpose is often to be killed for our consumption. It's really no different.

amacachi

Is this actually synthetic life or just messing with the DNA of an existing cell/organism? I thought they'd perfected the creation of DNA strands from scratch a few years ago?

strobe

sink wrote: »

We've effectively done the same thing with much higher order life through different methods, I don't see of this is any different. Domesticated livestock are engineered through selective breeding processes to serve a specific purpose and are killed once their purpose is served. Indeed their entire purpose is often to be killed for our consumption. It's really no different.

I totally agree that it is no different. Sometimes when I see a clinical wording of how we domesticated cows I feel the exact same way... Something just doesn't sit quite right with me about either example. If pigs and chickens weren't so delicious I would be a vegitarian. The belatted name of the plane that dropped the second atom bomb on Japan I guess.....

seamus

amacachi wrote: »

Is this actually synthetic life or just messing with the DNA of an existing cell/organism? I thought they'd perfected the creation of DNA strands from scratch a few years ago?

The DNA of the organism is synthetic/created, but the cell itself wasn't. It's the cellular equivalent of fashioning your own human brain and slotting it into a dead body. Artificial life, for all intents and purposes.

amacachi

seamus wrote: »

The DNA of the organism is synthetic/created, but the cell itself wasn't. It's the cellular equivalent of fashioning your own human brain and slotting it into a dead body. Artificial life, for all intents and purposes.

Still more like modification than creation as far as I'm concerned, they've been doing similar for a while. Though fully synthetic stuff can't be too far away.

achtungbarry

Dades wrote: »

Since when did evidence count for anything in matters of religion? :pac:

eblistic wrote: »

Sadly history would suggest not. They'll just move the goalposts, reinterpret their sacred revealed texts a little, and somehow claim that this is actually evidence of an intelligent creator (e.g. "there's still an intelligent life-form involved in the synthesis procedure." or some such nonsense).

I think the hysterical mental gymnastics being performed over on t'other forum seem to confirm your points.

Soul Winner

achtungbarry wrote: »

I think the hysterical mental gymnastics being performed over on t'other forum seem to confirm your points.

Like how? The main point being made yonder has to do with what was used to do this research., i.e. already existing stuff and a hell of lot of research and trial and error experimentation. How can this possibly do anything to usurp God from His throne in the minds of rationally thinking theists? Me thinks some peeps on the this side of the fence are a little bit tipsy and giddy from their initial swigs from this new liquor, you need to go outside and take a few deep breaths and clear your heads. :pac:

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like how? The main point being made yonder has to do with what was used to do this research., i.e. already existing stuff and a hell of lot of research and trial and error experimentation.

The DNA was completely synthetic. They inserted in into a (dead) cell wall. They also plan to do the same thing later without the need for 'borrowing' the cell wall.

This 'existing stuff' is a complete red herring. Its completely irrelevant.

How can this possibly do anything to usurp God from His throne in the minds of rationally thinking theists? Me thinks some peeps on the this side of the fence are a little bit tipsy and giddy from their initial swigs from this new liquor, you need to go outside and take a few deep breaths and clear your heads. :pac:

Because your supposed god created life. Now humans have done it or are extremely close to doing it fully depending on how you view it.

You don't see any theological consequences from human beings creating life and inert materials ?

What if this goes on to prove abiogenesis ? (life forming from inert materials without external forces at work) Will this have any theological consequences ? Or will you move the goalposts a little further back ?

Tell me soul winner, I've asked the same question on the other thread. Is there any scientific evidence, any scientific discovery that could ever occur that would make you question your faith ?

kiffer

strobe wrote: »

Fukk.....That sounds horrific. Create life for a purpose and then extinguish it when it has served it's purpose. I know I kill millions of bacteria everytime I wipe my work top down with Detol (99.9% I am told{tm}), but it still sets me uneasy when I see something like that written down. Psychedelically induced psuedo morality probably. But still, if you think about it in sci-fi tinted slippery slope terms it does pose troublesome questions.

I don't think there's a slippery slope... Lets say we make a totally man made animal, a-mouse, a mouse like creature built from scratch... but lets say with six legs and a simple custom built bio-chemistry, eyes like an octopus with the blood supply on the sensible side, designed to fit down small pipes to run cables...
Morally and ethically is it any different to a normal mouse?

Sometimes theists tell us that God can do whatever he wants to us because he created us... so following this logic we can do what ever we want with life that we build from scratch... Except of course that it could be claimed that we are only reproducing something that God created and so it doesn't count... or we didn't make the atoms from which the life is made... Though at that point we can't ever be said to have created anything...

Where does that leave poor a-mouse? Do you need to treat it as well as you treat a regular mouse?
I say yes.
Animal rights aren't built around the fact we share DNA with animals or that God made us both (if your so inclined)... If we make a complex creature which is capable of sufferung then we should do our best to make sure it does not suffer... Just as if we were to go to some Jovian moon and find animals there, unrelated to us, we would still have to deal with them ethically.



As for creating life for a purpose (Microbes to clean up an oil spill) and then killing it when its job is done... How is that any different from using regular microbes which then end up dieing off after they've consummed all the oil?

Intent: use life forms to eat oil.
Result: huge bloom of life, followed by massive die off. Oil spill does not kill as much wildlife / do as much damage to the ecosystem in general.

iUseVi

kiffer wrote: »

I don't think there's a slippery slope... Lets say we make a totally man made animal, a-mouse, a mouse like creature built from scratch... but lets say with six legs and a simple custom built bio-chemistry, eyes like an octopus with the blood supply on the sensible side, designed to fit down small pipes to run cables...
Morally and ethically is it any different to a normal mouse?

Sometimes theists tell us that God can do whatever he wants to us because he created us... so following this logic we can do what ever we want with life that we build from scratch... Except of course that it could be claimed that we are only reproducing something that God created and so it doesn't count... or we didn't make the atoms from which the life is made... Though at that point we can't ever be said to have created anything...

Where does that leave poor a-mouse? Do you need to treat it as well as you treat a regular mouse?
I say yes.
Animal rights aren't built around the fact we share DNA with animals or that God made us both (if your so inclined)... If we make a complex creature which is capable of sufferung then we should do our best to make sure it does not suffer... Just as if we were to go to some Jovian moon and find animals there, unrelated to us, we would still have to deal with them ethically.



As for creating life for a purpose (Microbes to clean up an oil spill) and then killing it when its job is done... How is that any different from using regular microbes which then end up dieing off after they've consummed all the oil?

Intent: use life forms to eat oil.
Result: huge bloom of life, followed by massive die off. Oil spill does not kill as much wildlife / do as much damage to the ecosystem in general.

I agree, I would say yes to treating this animal like a normal mouse too. I think the key is the difference between mice and microbes; this is why it is NOT a slippery slope. We already treat microbes different to small mammals, I think this distinction is rational whether the animal exists or is engineered. Microbes, if programmed wrong could be disastrous for an ecosystem, thus a kill switch might be necessary. But microbes don't feel pain, based on current science about nervous systems.

Mice, although small, could be caught and contained, and I think a kill switch in anything much bigger than a microbe would be unethical. I also don't think we should bio-engineer life-forms to do certain activities, such as an a-mouse to lay cables. But then I feel uneasy about "breaking in" and riding horses, so my views are probably considered a bit wacky and fringey anyhoo.

kiffer

Ferrets are already used to run cables... :-D
Just because they are doing a job doesn't mean they are unhappy.

If not for a purpose then why build our a-mouse at all? Just to show we can? Is that reason enough?


Edit: forgot to address the kill switch... Yeah I'd be against a kill switch in animals... but no more than I'd be against poisoning...

iUseVi

kiffer wrote: »

Ferrets are already used to run cables... :-D
Just because they are doing a job doesn't mean they are unhappy.

If not for a purpose then why build our a-mouse at all? Just to show we can? Is that reason enough?


Edit: forgot to address the kill switch... Yeah I'd be against a kill switch in animals... but no more than I'd be against poisoning...

Well if it doesn't suffer I don't see why we can't do it just to if we can. But I can't see it would be easy to tell if a creation suffers before it is created, so a few moral issues there, yeah.

*off topic*

I should clarify I'm not against all productive animal use. Some animals are quite happy to "play games" with us human animals, such as my dog who like to stand on two legs and "dance" sometimes when I play music, I didn't really train it extensively, I just gave her treats when she did it a few times, now she does it without expecting treat rewards but because I assume she likes it. And some horses are quite happy to go a running. I mentioned horses because they have to be "broken" and some are trained in not a nice way, but yeah, that's a tad off topic sorry.

*/off topic*

I think there's great potential in the technique while only considering microbes, so enough to be getting on with for the scientists.

Dr. Loon

Church warns scientists not to play god.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_eu/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell

robindch

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Church warns scientists not to play god.

That's the church's job, innit?

sink

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Church warns scientists not to play god.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_re_eu/eu_catholic_church_synthetic_cell

I actually broadly agree with the overall point minus the god stuff.

"In the wrong hands, today's development can lead tomorrow to a devastating leap in the dark,".

Although religion is not the place I would ever go to seek ethical guidance, there is no reason I can't agree with them when their views happen to coincide with mine.



On a side note I especially liked this comment.

"Nothing like having a organized legion of pedophiles lecturing us on ethics."

Not strictly true but I sniggered none the less.

sonicthebadger*

sink wrote: »

I actually broadly agree with the overall point minus the god stuff.

"In the wrong hands, today's development can lead tomorrow to a devastating leap in the dark,".

The same can be said of quite literally any advance in science though. Einstien was not a fan of war and violence but his breakthrough mass energy doodad was used in the creation of the atom bomb. It is also used to make your satnav work. Radar was used to detect German air attacks (though to keep it secret the British claimed they were feeding their pilots carrots hence the myth that carrots make you see in the dark) now Radar is used in everything from aviation to (in modified form) pregnancy scans. The Nazis were experimenting with sonic weapons to explode enemy troops on the battlefield without damaging equipment and accidentally invented bias for audio tapes allowing for extremely clear recording.

Every discovery can be weaponised. That is not a good argument against gaining more knowledge.

sink

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Every discovery can be weaponised. That is not a good argument against gaining more knowledge.

The article actually states quiet clearly that the Vatican does not object to this new form of science, it just cautions it's use, which would be my view. This technology is potentially more dangerous than anything we have yet created, atom bomb included.

One can't accidentally nuke the planet and nuclear material is difficult to acquire, has a limited number of uses, is easy to keep track of and bombs are very expensive to build.

In contrast the material for genetic engineering is all around, indeed our very bodies are made of it. The required technology is going to increase in capacity and fall in cost exponentially for the foreseeable future. It will be readily available around the world as there are a near infinite number of potential industrial applications for it. To top it off it potentially could accidentally (or intentionally) cause catastrophic irreversible upset of the biosphere.

This technology carries risks unlike anything our species has handled before, it should not be treated lightly.

sonicthebadger*

sink wrote: »

This technology carries risks unlike anything our species has handled before, it should not be treated lightly.

I hear what you're saying but think about how fierce competition is between organisms already, the "grey goo" argument was used against nanotechnology in the past but any new organism introduced to a biosphere needs to compete with creatures already there and viciously fighting for survival, creatures with a massive head start in evolutionary terms. We have frequently introduced organisms to new biospheres with disasterous effects and we're still here to discuss it. Two that spring to mind are rabbits in Austrailia and cats... well cats pretty much anywhere, but particularly New Zealand. And we have also selectively bred (or genetically engineered through an iterative process if you like) organisms to out compete and fight off a host of natural competitors for our rescources. Disease and pest resistant plants are a good example. The modern Monsanto version of genetic engineering is short sighted and foolish compared to some of the excellent organisms we've created over the last 10,000 years or so. This new form of organism creation is just a logical next step up from taking a complete existant organism and tweaking it, giving it an advantage over competitor organisms in its biosphere and benefiting us.

sink

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I hear what you're saying but think about how fierce competition is between organisms already, the "grey goo" argument was used against nanotechnology in the past but any new organism introduced to a biosphere needs to compete with creatures already there and viciously fighting for survival, creatures with a massive head start in evolutionary terms. We have frequently introduced organisms to new biospheres with disasterous effects and we're still here to discuss it. Two that spring to mind are rabbits in Austrailia and cats... well cats pretty much anywhere, but particularly New Zealand. And we have also selectively bred (or genetically engineered through an iterative process if you like) organisms to out compete and fight off a host of natural competitors for our rescources. Disease and pest resistant plants are a good example. The modern Monsanto version of genetic engineering is short sighted and foolish compared to some of the excellent organisms we've created over the last 10,000 years or so. This new form of organism creation is just a logical next step up from taking a complete existant organism and tweaking it, giving it an advantage over competitor organisms in its biosphere and benefiting us.

Once again I'm not saying we shouldn't explore the potential of this technology, but we shouldn't overestimate our understanding or underestimate the potential damage we could cause. I don't buy into the argument about naturally evolved organisms being necessarily fitter than their genetically engineered counterparts. Sure the argument has merit when considering only the mean but there are always going to be extreme outliers, whether by accident or design. It only takes one black swan out of millions to cause great harm.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Tell me soul winner, I've asked the same question on the other thread. Is there any scientific evidence, any scientific discovery that could ever occur that would make you question your faith ?

Like I said over in the other forum, we question our faith all the time. The basis for the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as an historical event in our space-time. If that didn't happen as an actual fact of history and it can be shown as such with logic, historical critique and solid argumentation then I don't need or want Christianity.

I've gone into this area in great detail ever since I became a Christian and I've yet to hear any good arguments that would convince me that it didn't actually happen. When I do I will be done with it all. I don't need any scientific theory/discovery to dissuade me. And arguing that resurrections simply don't happen in nature is not a good argument either. The Christians faith is not based upon a natural event. From the very start the claim was that God raised Jesus from the dead, not that He naturally rose from the dead.

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

But I might as well tell you that if I could observe somebody creating matter from nothing then that would convince me that we don't need a God to do it. If the Big Bang theory is correct then common sense will tell you that 'before' matter, space and time existed there was a force powerful enough to bring our universe into existence, and that force is beyond any natural force that came about as a result of this Big Bang. I believe this force to be God you can believe whatever you want about it.

sink

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you can explain the rise of early Christianity, the early Christian's genuine belief that Jesus was the Son of God whom they claimed they seen alive and real after His death and died happily proclaiming that testimony under the most horrific and agonizing of deaths then I'm all ears. And if you can explain that people would easily do this (even knowing that they were wrong) for the ones that they love you then need to explain what turned the apostle Paul around from being this new Faith's most aggressive opponent to become its chief apostle. When I hear GOOD explanations of these facts without needing to invoke anything supernatural then I will not be a Christian.

There are perfectly rational natural explanations for all of those "facts". They involve delusion, hallucination, manipulation, poor recollection, flawed observation and many other everyday occurrences that happen all the time, day in day out. I could spin you a tale or several tales all perfectly plausible all perfectly valid all completely natural. However I could not prove any of them because the evidence simply doesn't exist to conclusively say one way or the other. And because good evidence does not exist and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other you will immediately dismiss them as not being "GOOD explanations", because it suits your predisposition to believe that something supernatural occurred (with a similar lack of conclusive evidence). So I'm not going to waste my time.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I might as well tell you that if I could observe somebody creating matter from nothing then that would convince me that we don't need a God to do it. If the Big Bang theory is correct then common sense will tell you that 'before' matter, space and time existed there was a force powerful enough to bring our universe into existence, and that force is beyond any natural force that came about as a result of this Big Bang. I believe this force to be God you can believe whatever you want about it.

I don't "believe" because I don't know and unlike you I'm not going fart an explanation out of my brain based on nothing but my imagination. I find it much more dignified to admit my ignorance.

Soul Winner

sink wrote: »

There are perfectly rational natural explanations for all of those "facts". They involve delusion, hallucination, manipulation, poor recollection, flawed observation and many other everyday occurrences that happen all the time, day in day out. I could spin you a tale or several tales all perfectly plausible all perfectly valid all completely natural. However I could not prove any of them because the evidence simply doesn't exist to conclusively say one way or the other. And because good evidence does not exist and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other you will immediately dismiss them as not being "GOOD explanations", because it suits your predisposition to believe that something supernatural occurred (with a similar lack of conclusive evidence). So I'm not going to waste my time.

Hallucinations cannot explain the conversion of Saul of Tarsus - the major persecuter of the early Christians - to Paul the Apostle. And even if the believing disciples were hallucinating then how do you explain the rise in early Christianity? If they were hallucinating then surely somebody at some point would have produced the body of Jesus in order to shut them up or at least stop other non eye witnesses to these events from believing in this nonsense. That did not happen. Why?

It's questions like these that keep my foot in the "hey maybe there is more to this than we think" door. The only people who will not accept even the possibility that a supernatural God just might exist are those who have already nailed their colors to the this is impossible and therefore did not happen mast.

sink wrote: »

I don't "believe" because I don't know and unlike you I'm not going fart an explanation out of my brain based on nothing but my imagination. I find it much more dignified to admit my ignorance.

That's fine, but I've researched this and by simple logical deduction of the facts involved - which are not in question btw - I cannot come to any other conclusion other than that He must have risen from the dead as reported. When I hear a better explanation of all the facts of the case then I will stop being a Christian. I'm not trying to make Christians out of ye, you are suppose to argue me out of my conviction. That hasn't happened yet. Please keep trying, I want to know that what I believe in is actually true and I want every other possible explanation put on the table for consideration, so please don't berate me for slicing through any false assumptions and bad logic that you have. If your argument is sound then I will admit defeat. Just show me. If Christianity is false then for the sake of your fellow human being please deliver me from my delusion. I'm in need of your help if I'm truly deluded so please help me.

King Mob

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hallucinations cannot explain the conversion of Saul of Tarsus - the major persecuter of the early Christians - to Paul the Apostle.

Why not?

Soul Winner wrote: »

And even if the believing disciples were hallucinating then how do you explain the rise in early Christianity? If they were hallucinating then surely somebody at some point would have produced the body of Jesus in order to shut them up or at least stop other non eye witnesses to these events from believing in this nonsense. That did not happen. Why?

And since when do cults get shut up by evidence?

How do you explain the rise in early Moronism?
How do you explain the rise in early Falun Gong?