by cameo-d 22 Replies latest jw friends
humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made
This is a limited and inadequate definition. How about "god-made" instead of man made.
Fact is...we are copies as in being the "image of". But we were not original natural life forms. The scriptures say we received our "breath" or energy force from the Creative source. So, even though we have the ability to reproduce, the energy or "life force" is something intangible that cannot be isolated biologically.
made as a copy of something natural
"Negative, I am a meat popsicle." Fifth Element? I love that movie.
This is a limited and inadequate definition.
Well, OK. I guess you can morph the term as you like.
Fact is...we are copies as in being the "image of". But we were not original natural life forms.
If I understand you right, this holds true in a purely naturalistc, evolutionary scenario, as we are "copies" of our biological predecessors. Therefore, by your argument up to this point, we are "artificial" if naturalistic evolution holds true.
However,
made as a copy of something natural
Allowing that statement as a defintion of "arificial", if we are copies of something supernatural (God, as a supernatural being) then we are not "artifical", either.
BTS
Err no, Mr Burns,
You are wrong on both counts, from an evolutionary viewpoint we are entirely natural and we are not mere copies of our parents so can never be merely an artificial life form...by definition.
we are not mere copies of our parents
I know what you mean....but in a sense, we are. Our genetic material is the product of their combined genetic material, excepting errors. Also, I am not looking at this from any sort of commonly agreed scientific viewpoint, but from the apparent viewpoint of the original poster.
BTS
It seems to me that humans (and indeed the entire universe) as a creation would have to fall into definition 1 (if one were a theist.)
Facere: to make.
There is a difference between make, and create.
BTS
I enjoy deep discussion as much as the next guy... but this is a bit of a stretch.
Hill
Not to offend anyone, because I really do not want to, but the idea that we should somehow feel that we are qualified to claim that some lifeform is "artificial" and some other life form is not is really the height of potential human arrogance.
And though I dont personally think that this conversation was started with a direct intent to be "arrogant", the simple fact that we as a species as small as we are feel justified in literally discussing it is, in my little stupid mind, a demonstration that we think we are far more then we actually are.
It is like when one of us humans says that they have had an experience and they describe it as "supernatural". Not to debate whether the experience happened or not, but what makes us think we are qualified to draw the line on "natural" as opposed to "supernatural"? Isnt the real issue that merely our definition of nature is inadequate? "Angels", "Demons", "Ghosts" or "Flying Spaghetti Monsters", wouldnt they be "natural" as well if we simply understood things a little bit better?
The same is true in this case...regardless of our belief in the involvement of a direct creative/guiding influence in the cause of our existance, after all Natural Selection is just such a thing (it simply isnt "intelligent"), I dont believe that we are properly qualified to make the case truly either way regarding if one life form is "artificial" as opposed to another in anything that wouldnt be either a biased fasion or we would be taking a stand based on niavete.
Just my thought...comments?
Mr Burns
I know what you mean....but in a sense , we are. Our genetic material is the product of their combined genetic material, excepting errors.
So apart from the errors and the almost random combination of two distinct sets of genes (so distinct that dna fingerprinting is admissible as evidence in court) we are just copies? hmmm..."Well, OK. I guess you can morph the term as you like."
There is a difference between make , and create .
Well according to my dictionary and what it says about the act of human creation in the bible then either apply.
Not to debate whether the experience happened or not, but what makes us think we are qualified to draw the line on "natural" as opposed to "supernatural"? Isnt the real issue that merely our definition of nature is inadequate?
No, our definition is that the supernatural cannot be measured in any way. As soon as a measurement can be made of a supernatural force then it becomes natural by definition. It could be argued that merely our scientific techniques are inadequate but since no-one can come up with an experiment to even prove the existence (never mind measure them) of supernatural forces then it not arrogant to assume they do not exist.
On the point of artificiality, theists claim that we were made (or created ) by an outside agency (god), by definition that would make humans (and every animal) an artificial species; especially when you consider that theists usual argument, against a naturalistic worldview, is that humans could not evolve naturally.
Caedes,
While it seems we agree, I think you misunderstood what I was saying, and perhaps the clarity of my post suffered from what may have been over-eagerness to make a point. You said:
"No, our definition is that the supernatural cannot be measured in any way. As soon as a measurement can be made of a supernatural force then it becomes natural by definition. It could be argued that merely our scientific techniques are inadequate but since no-one can come up with an experiment to even prove the existence (never mind measure them) of supernatural forces then it not arrogant to assume they do not exist."
The point of my statements regarding natural/supernatural was not to debate whether "supernatural" events actually occured, which I did state (though I can see how it could have been read in a way not intended), but really that the definition "supernatural" was in itself inappropriate at all times, because the word is merely a reflection of our lack of understanding regarding the true scope of the natural world. As you correctly pointed out, we may simply lack the techniques to prove or disprove something that someone may be referring to as "supernatural".
My point is that it is arrogant to presume that we are qualified to attach a label of "natural/supernatural" to anything. We should recognize that if it is exists in this universe it is simply "natural" and that our own understanding/"techniques" are what require adjusting and reclassification. Case in point, in analysis your own statement quoted above, we do not have the ability to "measure" many aspects to the universe at the particle level, and we have yet to create many of the "scientific techniquies" to explain many of the things we assume to be there. Looking at your own statement above, if what you say is correct regarding the line between natural/supernatural, these particles would then qualify as "supernatural", correct? Of course we both know that that is not the case. So it goes far beyond that...but either way, the use of the term "supernatural" is inappropriate at all times, because it really is just a flawed attempt to arrogantly explain something we have no explanation for. It's an intellectual cop-out. Instead of labeling something as "supernatural", what we should be doing is acknowledging via our use of language that our lack of understanding is a reflection of our own shortcomings, and this "supernatural" phenomina is just as "natural" as the next thing...
I personally feel that the same is true regarding assigning labels of "artificial" to forms of life, whether we are attaching the label to ourselves as a lifeform or any other. We know so little about what constitutes life in the first place that for us to attempt to attach some narrow or vague label to one form as opposed to another is premature at best, and we would be arrogant to attempt to do so.
