Where is the line with "playing God"?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 29, 2015

juvenissun said:
... If you, as a scientist, really like to see an evidence of God, then design an experiment to find it out. I would certainly be on your side. I like to see that too.

For a scientist to design an experiment to find it out, a testable claim about God is required. If those who claim or believe in God can suggest ways to test that, then scientists can design experiments to do so.

There is typically much special pleading that claims relating to God are, by their nature, untestable; but the general situation is that where testable claims have been made, when tested they have failed to bear out the claims (e.g. the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer). The problem here is that such tests can't falsify the claim - in the prayer example, lack of significant effect shows only that it didn't work in that particular experiment. Ideally what's needed is strongly testable claims along the lines of, 'if claim x is true, result y is impossible' as well as the weaker, 'if claim x is true, result y is expected'. I'm not holding my breath for either...

Paul of Eugene OR · Jul 29, 2015

AphroditeGoneAwry said:
Soul in the original Hebrew language is literally translated 'living and breathing'.

So, clones are life and are living souls.

I believe this is a case of man reaching out and taking from the Tree of Life which God knew would eventually happen. God closed the Garden of Eden to man because of this nature to take of that which he should not take of.

God is very zealous over life and death. He guards these powers more than anything else.

When man starts trying to play God, God gets angry. God will eventually punish man by causing an end og our earth as the hidden prophecy in Jeremiah states. God will not allow man nor angel to usurp his power.

Man or angel cannot usurp His power.

Loudmouth · Jul 29, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
For a scientist to design an experiment to find it out, a testable claim about God is required. If those who claim or believe in God can suggest ways to test that, then scientists can design experiments to do so.

There is typically much special pleading that claims relating to God are, by their nature, untestable; but the general situation is that where testable claims have been made, when tested they have failed to bear out the claims (e.g. the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer). The problem here is that such tests can't falsify the claim - in the prayer example, lack of significant effect shows only that it didn't work in that particular experiment. Ideally what's needed is strongly testable claims along the lines of, 'if claim x is true, result y is impossible' as well as the weaker, 'if claim x is true, result y is expected'. I'm not holding my breath for either...

In other words, you can't change someone's mind with evidence when they reached their beliefs through blind faith.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jul 29, 2015

The Cadet said:
Oof. You got me there. IMHO the ethical problem there involves the limiting of the cerebral development - if we were to do that to someone that wasn't a clone, we'd find it monstrous, wouldn't we? Of course, there's always the question, why would we find it monstrous, and in my current state, I cannot for the life of me figure out why we find that monstrous. After all, it never knew consciousness and it will never know consciousness...

...Seriously, someone help me out here, this ethical conundrum has got me stumped and I very much dislike the feeling.
-Durnken cadet

.
THe problem is your ingrained habitual way of thinking about morality is conflicting with your logic. Not the first time this happened in human history. Ultimately, logic has to win, but logic needs to pay much attention to the feelings along the way.

The way people talk about souls coming along when sperm meets egg is wrong. Souls come along when the brain is sufficiently developed to handle a soul, or to BE a soul.

Loudmouth · Jul 29, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
.
THe problem is your ingrained habitual way of thinking about morality is conflicting with your logic. Not the first time this happened in human history. Ultimately, logic has to win, but logic needs to pay much attention to the feelings along the way.

The way people talk about souls coming along when sperm meets egg is wrong. Souls come along when the brain is sufficiently developed to handle a soul, or to BE a soul.

Not only that, some people have more soul than others.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 29, 2015

Loudmouth said:
In other words, you can't change someone's mind with evidence when they reached their beliefs through blind faith.

That's not really what I said, and I don't think it's necessarily true; rarely, some evidence may be seen as incontrovertible and change someone's beliefs, but it's a red-letter day when it happens

The problem is more to do with a lack of evidence in the absence of testable claims.

joshua 1 9 · Jul 29, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Clones are found all over nature. Identical twins are clones. The potatoes you eat are clones.

Lots of things reproduce through cloning themselves. There is not always a recombination. Pond scum can do both. Identical twins may start off as clones but they become different from each other along the way and by the time they are born they can be quite a bit different from each other. Also with identical twins often there is a issue where one gets better nutrition then the other.

There are many embryos sitting in liquid nitrogen right now that are left over from human in vitro fertilizations that will never be implanted. Do we keep them on liquid nitrogen for eternity?

Some people believe that life begins at conception. That if the embryo were to die that they go to heaven and are "born" there. This is a issue so that people try to find donors for their unborn embryos.

Loudmouth · Jul 29, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Lots of things reproduce through cloning themselves. There is not always a recombination. Pond scum can do both. Identical twins may start off as clones but they become different from each other along the way and by the time they are born they can be quite a bit different from each other.

Their genomes are still the same which is how we define clones.

Also with identical twins often there is a issue where one gets better nutrition then the other.

That doesn't stop them from being clones.

Some people believe that life begins at conception. That if the embryo were to die that they go to heaven and are "born" there. This is a issue so that people try to find donors for their unborn embryos.

This isn't true for all embryos produced through in vitro fertilization. These embryos were never created to be used as stem cells, but they are also never going to be implanted. Assuming that we aren't going to keep the in liquid nitrogen until the end of human civilization, it would make more sense, at least to me, that their destruction has a chance of saving lives compared to just dying.

juvenissun · Jul 29, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
OK, that's good. I was always taught that God is beyond man's understanding (the standard evasion, together with 'God works in mysterious ways' [GWIMW], for awkward questions and apparent contradictions), but the monks of St. Benedict may not have all the answers...

Of course God is beyond anyone's understanding. Otherwise, God is not God.

However, God wants us to understand Him as much as we could. This is unique in Christianity and it is one of the reason I love Christianity the most. The more we understand God, the better off we will be.

joshua 1 9 · Jul 29, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Their genomes are still the same which is how we define clones.

Each twin grows as a separate person -- even in utero. Identical twins never even have the same fingerprints, thanks to slight variations in womb pressures and amniotic fluid.

After birth, twins keep marching down their own developmental paths, thanks to their environment. Everything from diet to lifestyle choices can trigger changes in how their genes are expressed (welcome to the world of epigenetics!). For example, Mary-Kate and Ashley might have identical genes for a particular health problem, but only Mary-Kates' environment will flip the gene to the "on" position.

juvenissun · Jul 29, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
For a scientist to design an experiment to find it out, a testable claim about God is required. If those who claim or believe in God can suggest ways to test that, then scientists can design experiments to do so.

There is typically much special pleading that claims relating to God are, by their nature, untestable; but the general situation is that where testable claims have been made, when tested they have failed to bear out the claims (e.g. the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer). The problem here is that such tests can't falsify the claim - in the prayer example, lack of significant effect shows only that it didn't work in that particular experiment. Ideally what's needed is strongly testable claims along the lines of, 'if claim x is true, result y is impossible' as well as the weaker, 'if claim x is true, result y is expected'. I'm not holding my breath for either...

In fact, there are indeed many ways to design the test. But scientists do not do that because nobody will fund such kind of experiment. Back 3000 years ago as recorded in the Bible, one such test has already been done. Of course, we can do a similar test again.

joshua 1 9 · Jul 29, 2015

Loudmouth said:
it would make more sense, at least to me, that their destruction has a chance of saving lives compared to just dying.

I do not really have an answer for that. I am not against stem cell research per se. I still question some of the Nazi experiments. For example the research they ran on hypothermia. Or Josef Mengele who experiments on nearly 1,500 sets of imprisoned twins at Auschwitz. About 200 people survived those studies.

God is able to cause good to come out of anything. But that don't justify what people do.

Chriliman · Jul 29, 2015

The idea that we can even "play God" is a human idea. God already knows everything at all times. So anything we do that we're concerned is "playing God" has already been known by God. However, the moral concern we have about these things is placed on our hearts by God and if we deliberately ignore our moral conscience, there will be judgment.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jul 30, 2015

juvenissun said:
In fact, there are indeed many ways to design the test. But scientists do not do that because nobody will fund such kind of experiment. Back 3000 years ago as recorded in the Bible, one such test has already been done. Of course, we can do a similar test again.

I'm intrigued - what is the test you're thinking of?

juvenissun · Jul 30, 2015

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I'm intrigued - what is the test you're thinking of?

This is only a rough idea of an example following your suggestion of praying. It could be polished to become a good one:

Have 500 Christians to pray for the situation of a patient go one direction.
Have 500 Buddhists (or in what ever religion) to pray for the situation of the same patient go another way.

Repeat the test a few times and see the results.

The Cadet · Jul 30, 2015

juvenissun said:
This is only a rough idea of an example following your suggestion of praying. It could be polished to become a good one:

Have 500 Christians to pray for the situation of a patient go one direction.
Have 500 Buddhists (or in what ever religion) to pray for the situation of the same patient go another way.

Repeat the test a few times and see the results.

We didn't do this exact test, but there have been numerous studies on the results of intercessory prayer. Here's one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Hmm. Maybe that's just one study? How about a meta-review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16827626

RESULTS:
Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed, the effect size reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results.

CONCLUSIONS:
There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.

Yeahhh...

juvenissun · Jul 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
We didn't do this exact test, but there have been numerous studies on the results of intercessory prayer. Here's one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

Hmm. Maybe that's just one study? How about a meta-review:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16827626

This kind of test is difficult. For one thing, very few people would believe the results. I would be the first one to doubt them. The variables involved are just too many.

If possible, I would like to design a different, a more objective test with as fewer factors involved as possible. For example, the one as I proposed would be better.

Ultimately, this kind of test would be difficult. Because today is different from the OT time. There will be no miracle to show us publicly from God. Some other way needs to be designed.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
Each twin grows as a separate person -- even in utero. Identical twins never even have the same fingerprints, thanks to slight variations in womb pressures and amniotic fluid.

After birth, twins keep marching down their own developmental paths, thanks to their environment. Everything from diet to lifestyle choices can trigger changes in how their genes are expressed (welcome to the world of epigenetics!). For example, Mary-Kate and Ashley might have identical genes for a particular health problem, but only Mary-Kates' environment will flip the gene to the "on" position.

They are still clones. At one time, they were a single fertilized egg. Two developing embryos were created from one through asexual processes. No matter what different experiences or different environments they have, they still have the same genome and they were still produced through an asexual process.

bhsmte · Jul 30, 2015

juvenissun said:
This is only a rough idea of an example following your suggestion of praying. It could be polished to become a good one:

Have 500 Christians to pray for the situation of a patient go one direction.
Have 500 Buddhists (or in what ever religion) to pray for the situation of the same patient go another way.

Repeat the test a few times and see the results.

I would imagine, the families of the 9 million children that die each year before the age of five do a whole lot of praying and their children still die.

AV1611VET · Jul 30, 2015

bhsmte said:
I would imagine, the families of the 9 million children that die each year before the age of five do a whole lot of praying and their children still die.

Like Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, yet still went to the Cross?

Where is the line with "playing God"?

Well-Known Member

Finally Old Enough

Contributor

Finally Old Enough

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

SO COOL

... and God saw that it was good.

Contributor

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency