Closer to man made new life forms:

Originally posted by Eladar
No, it doesn't negate the possibility. It is possible that one side is right or it is possible that both sides could be wrong.

We just happend to know that our side is right because we know that we are right!

Or we could know that what we believe is what we believe and that other people believe something different and in the end the truth will reveal itself.

I choose to accept the second of the two options.

We just happend to know that our side is right because we know that we are right!

Actually, it has been generally agreed by epidemiologist (and me) that you cannot 'know' something that is false (such as I 'know' I am right even when I am not) and that is true by the definition of the word 'know'. If what you believe is false, then you merely think you know the truth but don't.

Originally posted by humy

We just happend to know that our side is right because we know that we are right!

Actually, it has been generally agreed by epidemiologist (and me) that you cannot 'know' something that is false (such as I 'know' I am right even when I am not) and that is true by the definition of the word 'know'.

I guess anyone who claims to know anything about the nature of our existance doesn't know anything about the appropriate use of the word know.

Originally posted by Eladar
I guess anyone who claims to know anything about the nature of our existance doesn't know anything about the appropriate use of the word know.

So it is an inappropriate use of the word 'know' for me to say "I know I am made of molecules"?

Originally posted by humy
So I don't 'know' that I am made of molecules?

How can you know that you exist at all? This reality could simply be a person's dream.

Originally posted by Eladar
How can you know that you exist at all? This reality could simply be a person's dream.

I have already covered that on page one with:

"...flawless reasoning should involve the use of the principle of Occam's razor combined with it is not rational to believe something unless it is falsifiable except those first principles that are essential to make to make none trivial models of reality (such as the principle of induction and the assumption that the world you see is real and not all just a dream etc)
-this has been independently worked out by many good philosophers (including Bertrand Russell) and many other intelligent people...."

In other words, we should rationally assume that life is not just a dream but real else we could not make a none trivial model of reality and then the definition of 'know' would always be believing something when that something is true and it is still correct to say you may 'know' it even if it was partly based on one of these first principle assumptions such as life is not just a dream etc.

Originally posted by humy
I have already covered that on page one with:

"...flawless reasoning should involve the use of the principle of Occam's razor combined with it is not rational to believe something unless it is falsifiable except those first principles that are essential to make to make none trivial models of reality (such as the principle of induction and the assumption that ...[text shortened]... by many good philosophers (including Bertrand Russell) and many other intelligent people...."

As I said earlier, circular reasoning. Flawless reasoning starts with the assumptions that I believe!

Are you really that dense that you can't understand the flaw in your own flawless reasoning?

Originally posted by Eladar
As I said earlier, circular reasoning. Flawless reasoning starts with the assumptions that I believe!

Are you really that dense that you can't understand the flaw in your own flawless reasoning?

As I said earlier, circular reasoning. Flawless reasoning starts with the assumptions that I believe!

NO, it is NOT circular. It is based on necessary first principles that are essential for cognitive reasons. I would not claim to 'know' those first principles themselves to be correct thus it is not circular. I WOULD claim that, IF those first principles are correct then I can know something X where X is deducible from the combinations of those first principles being correct and the observations made. There is nothing circular reasoning there. It is just what defines truly rational thought. You ought to study epistemology and scientific philosophy like I have so that you know what I am talking about here. This is not just something I made up that I only think is correct but rather it has been independently worked out both by me and by people a lot more intelligent than either me or you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-mimicking-cells-ribosomes.html

The creationists will have a fit when mankind makes life from scratch.

Not really. It would prove to them that life needed a designer and fit nicely into their system of belief.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Not really. It would prove to them that life needed a designer and fit nicely into their system of belief.

I think it's only a matter of time before they show how life can happen with no input from a god or designer.

Originally posted by humy

We just happend to know that our side is right because we know that we are right!

Actually, it has been generally agreed by epidemiologist (and me) that you cannot 'know' something that is false (such as I 'know' I am right even when I am not) and that is true by the definition of the word 'know'. If what you believe is false, then you merely think you know the truth but don't.

That is defintely true of the evilutionists and the atheists.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think it's only a matter of time before they show how life can happen with no input from a god or designer.

So you are saying that if the universe operates based on designed laws, that as long as those laws are followed, the designer isn't needed.

Nice, but does that negate the possiblity that you are looking at a universe that was designed by God?

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that if the universe operates based on designed laws, that as long as those laws are followed, the designer isn't needed.

Nice, but does that negate the possiblity that you are looking at a universe that was designed by God?

So you are saying that if the universe operates based on designed laws, that as long as those laws are followed, the designer isn't needed.

-and if the universe operates based on laws that were NOT intelligently designed, that as long as those laws are followed, a designer isn't needed.

Nice, but does that negate the possiblity that you are looking at a universe that was designed by God?

no, but Occam's razor does cover that just nicely.

Originally posted by humy

So you are saying that if the universe operates based on designed laws, that as long as those laws are followed, the designer isn't needed.

-and if the universe operates based on laws that were NOT intelligently designed, that as long as those laws are followed, a designer isn't needed.

Nice, but does that negate the possibli ...[text shortened]... rse that was designed by God?

no, but Occam's razor does cover that just nicely.

You forget that Occam's razor is only a guide and not foolproof. It can mislead you into believing a lie.

http://www.yesiknowthat.com/uncanny-world-of-occams-razor/

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think it's only a matter of time before they show how life can happen with no input from a god or designer.

Do you have an idea of how they might someday be able to show this? The only viable theory IMO is chemical evolution, aka abiogenesis.

Life spontaneously arising is next to impossible to prove through laboratory experimentation. Experiments devised by people are contaminated by intelligent input and an intelligently guided process. To avoid contaminating an experiment with intelligence would mean simply throwing stuff in a bowl and waiting for a very very long time. On the other hand, intentionally designing a living thing through an intelligently designed process would prove that life can be intelligently designed, but that's all it would prove. Making life from scratch wouldn't prove anything about evolution.

I have to wonder what all the gloating is about when I see evolutionists talk about designing a living thing. What do they think it will prove?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You forget that Occam's razor is only a guide and not foolproof. It can mislead you into believing a lie.

http://www.yesiknowthat.com/uncanny-world-of-occams-razor/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP3MEeyL73E

The Instructor

You forget that Occam's razor is only a guide and not foolproof.

No I don't. And I personally wouldn't describe it as it being merely “only a guide” but rather often the only sane intellectual tool we have to rationally (and sanely) assess the probabilities of two or more competing hypotheses that are proposed to explain the same set of observations.