God sins a lot but is there no end to God’s greed?

[lightgigantic]

Again that is not what was done, DNA was CREATED, and entire genome in facts was printed out from a DNA synthesizing machine and inserted and booted up in a dead cell striped of its own DNA, there was no "fiddling with" existing DNA.

You haven't got your facts straight

Far from being a dead cell, the essential problem was keeping the cell in a sustainable state.

Hence other commentaries on the situation

Some other scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Dr. Venter has not broken new ground. “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” said David Baltimore, a geneticist at Caltech. He described the result as “a technical tour de force,” a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough.

“He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.

Dr. Venter’s approach “is not necessarily on the path” to produce useful microorganisms, said George Church, a genome researcher at Harvard Medical School. Leroy Hood, of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, described Dr. Venter’s report as “glitzy” but said lower-level genes and networks had to be understood first before it would be worth trying to design whole organisms from scratch.

Once again, big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes

Ha! two points, in poor countries they can't afford psychiatrics and I would take the need for psychiatric help any day over starving to death as a child because my parents died of AIDS. You can't argue that the amount of suffering is the same, your being dishonest in doing so.

And even then, there are different ways to grade it - for instance suicide (which is predominantly higher in materially abundant countries) certainly leaves a bigger psychological burden to bear than death through the standard avenues of disease ... But regardless, death is but one form of suffering and suffering as a phenomena is certainly not softened any by material abundance.

To go back to your original statement ...

Suffering can be avoided easily, say as long as I have a good income and live in a stable economy I will never go hungry for example

.... I don't think you have really thought about the problem if you think having a stable means to line your belly is the easy solution to avoid suffering (in fact a staggering proportion of persons in western countries suffer because of obesity)
:shrug:

No I don't see the point, elaborate, are you saying that consciousness exist after death, if so then yes that concept is just like god: unprovable, immaterial.

errr no - the point was - if you mess with it to the point of death you can't do any more messing - hence the essence of life (much like your assumptions about god) are also unprovable, immaterial etc

And I'm saying that is irrelevant, reducing god or consciousness or what ever to "essential components" is irrelevant, it has no baring on being able to determine the existence of the subject!

If you can't say what it is, how can you say it exists?

Once placed in a cell it becomes alive, that what was proven.

I don't know what experiment you are talking about but it is certainly not the one performed by the venter group

The argument was not that DNA was alive, it was that life could be made from the dead, that if we assemble the components we can make life. A cell filled with only proteins, sugars and lipids is not alive, it does not reproduce, it quickly decays into nothing, but pop in a genome, even one manufacture artificially and it becomes alive, this is what was done.

I don't think you understand the experiment.

The big hoo haa is that a cell was generated from a parent cell with a synthesized genome. The argument was certainly not that you can re-invest life by "popping" in a genome , mainly because that's not what happened in the experiment
:shrug:

Depends on how we interact, you could be a brain in a jar or a computer simulation for all I know now. As a person others know you by whom they interact with, an ensemble of physical and mental characteristic which make up you or more accurately make up your interact with them, certainly if we remove something like an eyebrow they will notice, but I don't think that would be a significant reduction in physical presents you provide, if anything it might make your physical presents more impressive through comic relief.

hence my original question, what is it that you are saying hello to? If you say it is a combination of things, what is the essential requirement for that combination?

I imagine I'm eating dinosaur meat on a planet in another galaxy... how can I do that?

according to your world view (that negates the existence of god) , that's certainly a question you cannot answer

This is a cute sentence but I fail to understand its meaning, what do you mean by "invest life"? People blow thousands of dollars and years of their life in rebuilding antique cars for example so I really don't see how people can't "invest life" in something that has no life.

You were on right track when you were talking previously about "popping" in genomes - unfortunately the evidence you cited doesn't back up your claim however ...

no, a mind without material form is metaphysical.

errr ... thats the problem, there's no material form to the mind you are referring to - if you disagree please explain what is the essential material difference between a mind imagining it is on a different planet eating dinosaur meat and a mind that is imagining it is on the same planet eating dinosaur meat?

why is that a problem?

because you said earlier we can determine something without knowledge -

"you don't need knowledge to determine if its real of not"

This is a strange thing to say since determining whether something is real or not is certainly on the high end of ontological analysis

Right you don't need knowledge of the thing to determine if it exists, you keep talking about defining the mind or life in some kind of claimed unknowable detail, the detail is irrelevant, you merely need to be able to detect or interact with something to know it exists, how ,what or why it exists in irrelevant, its details can remain mysterious.

I'm not sure I follow

If I am interacting with something, how can I extrapolate to some other "thing" by maintaining an absence of knowledge about the "thing".
I mean at the very least, I would need some sort of qualitative model/framework for the "thing" , yes?

 

[scifes]

"Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" - Richard Dawkins.

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
AWESOME..that angry little man is soo much fun

God, in his greed, wants or more rightly said, demands, that we love, honor, and obey him and repent for sinning against him when in reality, man can only sins against man.
Any that dare not give all that he greedily covets is punished quite severely. This shows the depth of his greed. Scripture is surely on the mark when it says that he is a jealous God and God live up to this label quite well. Scripture also says that we are to try to be as perfect as God and that would mean having all the immoral attributes shown here.

god can't be greedy because he has everything and requires nothing by definition.
not all who demand are "greedy", go check a dictionary;
a teacher can demand respect not because he's greedy, but because he deserves it.
a mother can demand her child brushes his teeth because she loves him.

Most, including the pope and other main line religions hierarchies believe in evolution. Evolution tells us that God, if he exists at all and that is not really a proven fact, would have lived may years before creating mankind. Most think that God is and always has been perfect and never changing.

evolution is rumored to follow the laws of physics.
god is rumored to have created everything, including the laws of physics.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You haven't got your facts straight

Far from being a dead cell, the essential problem was keeping the cell in a sustainable state.

Hence other commentaries on the situation

Some other scientists said that aside from assembling a large piece of DNA, Dr. Venter has not broken new ground. “To my mind Craig has somewhat overplayed the importance of this,” said David Baltimore, a geneticist at Caltech. He described the result as “a technical tour de force,” a matter of scale rather than a scientific breakthrough.

“He has not created life, only mimicked it,” Dr. Baltimore said.

Dr. Venter’s approach “is not necessarily on the path” to produce useful microorganisms, said George Church, a genome researcher at Harvard Medical School. Leroy Hood, of the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, described Dr. Venter’s report as “glitzy” but said lower-level genes and networks had to be understood first before it would be worth trying to design whole organisms from scratch.

Once again, big difference between life and the chemicals life utilizes

That a beautiful appeal to authority, mind actually citing an argument? My argument has been that a genome created synthetically was inserted into a cell striped of its own genome, now where is the argument against this?

And even then, there are different ways to grade it - for instance suicide (which is predominantly higher in materially abundant countries) certainly leaves a bigger psychological burden to bear than death through the standard avenues of disease ... But regardless, death is but one form of suffering and suffering as a phenomena is certainly not softened any by material abundance.

Tell that to a child dieing on a street in Africa of starvation, tell him "Don't worry, I'm rich but I'll die someday" that will really bring him comfort.

To go back to your original statement ...

Suffering can be avoided easily, say as long as I have a good income and live in a stable economy I will never go hungry for example

.... I don't think you have really thought about the problem if you think having a stable means to line your belly is the easy solution to avoid suffering (in fact a staggering proportion of persons in western countries suffer because of obesity)

Certainly not as bad as starving to death, civil war and total strife. Through technology and understanding we have managed to increase the number of people dramatically when before they would be kept in check through plague, famine and war, we have increase the average lifespan, and dispite your nay saying the ratio of pleasure to pain has certianly increased. You fail to see problems like obesity and psychotic disorders as inferior to mass starvation, genocide and democide! That is sick!

errr no - the point was - if you mess with it to the point of death you can't do any more messing - hence the essence of life (much like your assumptions about god) are also unprovable, immaterial etc

And that has what relevance now? The mind is there, we can detect its physical presence, we can even kill it, same for life, yet we can't do any of these things with god!

If you can't say what it is, how can you say it exists?

That a retarded question, lets say a monster of some kind was at my door, I could take a photograph of it, have multiple eyewitness, kill it, display it body before the general public, that does not mean I need to know what the hell the beast is! Look at your computer, do you know how it works? Beyond the most basic understand probably not, therefor it does not exist???

The big hoo haa is that a cell was generated from a parent cell with a synthesized genome. The argument was certainly not that you can re-invest life by "popping" in a genome , mainly because that's not what happened in the experiment.

What did happen in this experiment then, enlighten us.

hence my original question, what is it that you are saying hello to? If you say it is a combination of things, what is the essential requirement for that combination?

Not sure, does it matter?

according to your world view (that negates the existence of god) , that's certainly a question you cannot answer

Well then if your world view can answer it, please do so!

errr ... thats the problem, there's no material form to the mind you are referring to - if you disagree please explain what is the essential material difference between a mind imagining it is on a different planet eating dinosaur meat and a mind that is imagining it is on the same planet eating dinosaur meat?

A change in synaptic activation patterns.

This is a strange thing to say since determining whether something is real or not is certainly on the high end of ontological analysis

and that is a problem because?

I'm not sure I follow
If I am interacting with something, how can I extrapolate to some other "thing" by maintaining an absence of knowledge about the "thing".
I mean at the very least, I would need some sort of qualitative model/framework for the "thing" , yes?

You keep talking about life or the mind as us lacking perfect knowledge of how these thing work, in that setting its irreverent, we know enough that these things exist in the real world, can't say the same for god.

Let me ask a different question, does Big Foot exist? All attempts to verify its existence have fail, and its always claimed to be behind a further tree or rock after we completed searching behind a tree or rock, worse Big Foots existence is irrelevant, Big Foot does nothing, no proof it has even knock over a trash can! God is the same thing, the only place God or Big Foot can be proven the exist in as concepts, memes even, thoughts that invade the mind.

 

[Greatest I am]

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
AWESOME..that angry little man is soo much fun


god can't be greedy because he has everything and requires nothing by definition.
not all who demand are "greedy", go check a dictionary;
a teacher can demand respect not because he's greedy, but because he deserves it.
a mother can demand her child brushes his teeth because she loves him.


evolution is rumored to follow the laws of physics.
god is rumored to have created everything, including the laws of physics.

That is the rumor but we have 0 in the way of evidence.

If he is such a hot creator, you would have thought that he would have impressed the scientific community with his I D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNiTsYCkyI8&feature=more_related

"god can't be greedy because he has everything and requires nothing by definition."

If not, then why the sissy fit all over the O T when he does not get his way?

Ask Noah, he might know. God sure seemed to have a need for murder and genocide.

Why would God deserve anything for just being what he is.

Do you expect anything from the world for just being you or do you have to earn whatever you get from It?

If God want's anything, I think he should earn it but then he would have to come around instead of hiding wherever he is right? Not a hard thing to do yet we wait and have to just guess as to whether that hiding goof is ever going to show up.

Regards
DL

 

[scifes]

That is the rumor but we have 0 in the way of evidence.

you don't even get sarcasm do you?

If he is such a hot creator, you would have thought that he would have impressed the scientific community with his I D.

no, i would expect that regardless the mechanism that brought us to life, he's behind it.

"god can't be greedy because he has everything and requires nothing by definition."

If not, then why the sissy fit all over the O T when he does not get his way?

because he deserves it?:shrug:

Ask Noah, he might know. God sure seemed to have a need for murder and genocide.

no, some people can't understand but with murder and genocide.
noah told them if they don't worship god he'll do "murder and genocide" to them, they said "bring it on".
i believe you'd answer the same answer.
why can't you understand and obey without "murder and genocide"?

Why would God deserve anything for just being what he is.

because "what he is" is our creator.
:facepalm:

Do you expect anything from the world for just being you or do you have to earn whatever you get from It?

depends on who you are.
so the answer can be yes.
example; your mother deserves much just by being your mother.

If God want's anything, I think he should earn it but then he would have to come around instead of hiding wherever he is right?

wrong.
he earned everything from us by creating us.
he chooses whether to come around or not and you can do nothing about it.

Not a hard thing to do yet we wait and have to just guess as to whether that hiding goof is ever going to show up.

if he does show up idiots in the future still wouldn't believe.
if he showed up constantly life would be meaningless.
in the end, even if it was easier, he decided not to do it. and he can do whatever he wants, and has no obligation to no one.

 

[Greatest I am]

scifes

You are basing your belief on hear say and Bible say without the least bit of proof.
God is too important to leave up to hear say.

If that is all you will keep harping on, you will note that I believe hear say to be worthless. You do not even have anything anecdotal to put beside my apotheosis and I am not about to share your delusion.

If God is important to you and you think it should be important to others, then you owe it to others to not have them rely on just hear say and if that is all you have based your most important decision on then you are a fool.

Regards
DL

 

[scifes]

a-there is a science to hearsay you know, history can be validated.

b-it's not good to discuss god in general, as the argument will never end.
in the specific premise of this thread, god can't be greedy to have something he gave us. now whether god exists or not is another matter, but assuming he exists he's by definition the creator of all and the most powerful, if, IF he were to be greedy, he would be greedy towards things which aren't his, that would mean there are things which aren't his, contradicting his omnipotence.
the specific point you're discussing in this thread, Greatest Am I, is invalid, god being based on heresay is another matter, and i see it worthy of discussion, but in a new thread. let's keep the topic unified whenever we can,agreed?

 

[Greatest I am]

a-there is a science to hearsay you know, history can be validated.

b-it's not good to discuss god in general, as the argument will never end.
in the specific premise of this thread, god can't be greedy to have something he gave us. now whether god exists or not is another matter, but assuming he exists he's by definition the creator of all and the most powerful, if, IF he were to be greedy, he would be greedy towards things which aren't his, that would mean there are things which aren't his, contradicting his omnipotence.
the specific point you're discussing in this thread, Greatest Am I, is invalid, god being based on heresay is another matter, and i see it worthy of discussion, but in a new thread. let's keep the topic unified whenever we can,agreed?

Sure.

So if God is not greedy, why does he throw a sissy fit and throw into hell, those who will not give him all of their lone, honor and obedience?

There can only be one reason. Greed. Can't put anything above him after all.
That also is greed when we cannot even reject his sissy fit ass.

He is telling us that his greed forces him to want it all.

Definition of GREED
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

---------------------

Or souls or obedience or love etc.

Regards
DL

 

[lightgigantic]

That a beautiful appeal to authority, mind actually citing an argument? My argument has been that a genome created synthetically was inserted into a cell striped of its own genome, now where is the argument against this?

I am just citing the experiment - they didn't boot up a dead cell

Tell that to a child dieing on a street in Africa of starvation, tell him "Don't worry, I'm rich but I'll die someday" that will really bring him comfort.

citing the suffering of others doesn't resolve the problem of suffering of one's self, even in the mind of idiots.

Certainly not as bad as starving to death, civil war and total strife. Through technology and understanding we have managed to increase the number of people dramatically when before they would be kept in check through plague, famine and war, we have increase the average lifespan, and dispite your nay saying the ratio of pleasure to pain has certianly increased. You fail to see problems like obesity and psychotic disorders as inferior to mass starvation, genocide and democide! That is sick!

whatever advances have been made in technology it is certainly not in the areas of suffering, especially since whole categories of suffering have opened up as a consequence of technology (eg pollution, etc)

nd that has what relevance now? The mind is there, we can detect its physical presence, we can even kill it, same for life, yet we can't do any of these things with god!

if you think we can detect the physical presence of the mind, much like your ideas about popping synthesized genomes into dead things to bring them back to life, you are imagining it.

That a retarded question, lets say a monster of some kind was at my door, I could take a photograph of it, have multiple eyewitness, kill it, display it body before the general public, that does not mean I need to know what the hell the beast is! Look at your computer, do you know how it works? Beyond the most basic understand probably not, therefor it does not exist???

then lo and behold, because you have the ability to identify it (with knowledge) in some sort of general way, you can say something about it.
:shrug:

What did happen in this experiment then, enlighten us.

I already did so in the previous post buy you edited it out



I don't think you understand the experiment.

The big hoo haa is that a cell was generated from a parent cell with a synthesized genome. The argument was certainly not that you can re-invest life by "popping" in a genome , mainly because that's not what happened in the experiment

Not sure, does it matter?

if you want to talk about all things being physically reducible in order to be valid, yes.

Well then if your world view can answer it, please do so!

easy - you are just imagining it, just like you imagine reconstructing the genome of a bacteria re-invests it with life

A change in synaptic activation patterns.

so what synaptic changes distinguishes a person who is imagining they are on a different planet eating dinosaur meat and someone imagining it is on the same planet eating dinosaur meat?

Or can we place such fanciful imaginings of yours in the same category as your Frankenstein genome thing?

and that is a problem because?

If you had a pyramid diagram of things that hinge on knowledge, reality would be at the pinnacle of it .

You keep talking about life or the mind as us lacking perfect knowledge of how these thing work, in that setting its irreverent, we know enough that these things exist in the real world, can't say the same for god.

Actually if you bothered to read the posts you would see that I am not saying that knowledge is imperfect. I am saying that it uses a different language.

I am painfully reminding you that even if you take god out of the discussion, there are plenty of things we accept as having a sound foundation outside of the language of empiricism

Let me ask a different question, does Big Foot exist? All attempts to verify its existence have fail, and its always claimed to be behind a further tree or rock after we completed searching behind a tree or rock, worse Big Foots existence is irrelevant, Big Foot does nothing, no proof it has even knock over a trash can! God is the same thing, the only place God or Big Foot can be proven the exist in as concepts, memes even, thoughts that invade the mind.

Once again, you are not in a position to say god or anything exists in the mind since you can't even indicate the synaptic difference between a person imagining they are eating dinosaur meat on a different planet and a person imagining they are eating dinosaur meat on the same planet.

try again ....

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

So why is the choice to agree to work as god directs an act of covetousness?

I mean its not alien to live in a society built on a host of institutions that direct us in beneficial ways, is it? (or does your burning individualism demand that you drive on the opposite side of the road to everyone else?)

Yeah it does , When in Rome kickem in the nads. Turn your face the other direction. It is the way of the world and if someone anyone does it they become the catalyst of change. Like Hey guys I think I found a better way , then all the naysayers and dragon slayers jump up for the crucifixion, stick it with there steely knives, Give them a royal screwing and throw the dead body in a hole, but if it was the better way someone else gets the same spark of life and does the same thing. Like the Jesus myth, so no one disputes the sayings of jesus so we all live by sacrifice. Now Me I am sick of sacrifice so I am pretty much ready to bury the Vampire Jesus in the hole

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Sure.

So if God is not greedy, why does he throw a sissy fit and throw into hell, those who will not give him all of their lone, honor and obedience?

There can only be one reason. Greed. Can't put anything above him after all.
That also is greed when we cannot even reject his sissy fit ass.

He is telling us that his greed forces him to want it all.

Definition of GREED
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

---------------------
O.K. you are right , God wants everybody to love Him/Her, I guess you could call that greedy. I am just as greedy my self. I must be like God. Love me please, It is my burning need for you to love Me, why won't you love Me. It won't hurt that much. Just a little hurt . It will be a good hurt. You will like it I promise. Kissy Kissy huggy huggy snuggy snuggy. Hurt so good
Or souls or obedience or love etc.

Regards
DL

I appear to have penetrated your lines. I hope it didn't hurt to much , Greedy little Me got some loving

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah it does , When in Rome kickem in the nads. Turn your face the other direction. It is the way of the world and if someone anyone does it they become the catalyst of change. Like Hey guys I think I found a better way , then all the naysayers and dragon slayers jump up for the crucifixion, stick it with there steely knives, Give them a royal screwing and throw the dead body in a hole, but if it was the better way someone else gets the same spark of life and does the same thing. Like the Jesus myth, so no one disputes the sayings of jesus so we all live by sacrifice. Now Me I am sick of sacrifice so I am pretty much ready to bury the Vampire Jesus in the hole

if you find a better (or even just plain old different) way to do things, then that becomes the new institution, even if its only a one man show who makes the effort of kickin the opposition in the nads
:shrug:

 

[Big Chiller]

scifes

You are basing your belief on hear say and Bible say without the least bit of proof.
God is too important to leave up to hear say.

If that is all you will keep harping on, you will note that I believe hear say to be worthless. You do not even have anything anecdotal to put beside my apotheosis and I am not about to share your delusion.

If God is important to you and you think it should be important to others, then you owe it to others to not have them rely on just hear say and if that is all you have based your most important decision on then you are a fool.

Regards
DL

He wasn't supporting his belief about God with hearsay he was supporting his belief about God wtih a priori logic and there's nothing wrong with supporting his belief about God with a priori logic.