My favorite argument for the existence of God

[TBDude65]

This quartz crystal has 3 fold rotational symmetry (it is a hexagon with a hexagonal pyramid on top) and it "looks designed." So, is it designed too?

 

[xianghua]

This quartz crystal has 3 fold rotational symmetry (it is a hexagon with a hexagonal pyramid on top) and it "looks designed." So, is it designed too?

not necessarily. i lots of interesting strucures can evolve naturally, so they dont need a design. but a self replicating watch or a robot cant evolve naturally, so they need a designer.

 

[TBDude65]

not necessarily. i lots of interesting strucures can evolve naturally, so they dont need a design. but a self replicating watch or a robot cant evolve naturally, so they need a designer.

Do what? So on the one hand, you see what looks like design and conclude it isn't, but then see other things that look designed and conclude they are?

Please give me an example of a "self-replicating watch or robot?"

 

[Speedwell]

Do what? So on the one hand, you see what looks like design and conclude it isn't, but then see other things that look designed and conclude they are?

That is the shortest and most accurate summary of Intelligent Design theory I have ever seen.

 

[TBDude65]

That is the shortest and most accurate summary of Intelligent Design theory I have ever seen.

Now if only I get someone to explain to me how in the world that subjective assessment says anything objectively true about the universe, then I will be in business

 

[xianghua]

Do what? So on the one hand, you see what looks like design and conclude it isn't, but then see other things that look designed and conclude they are?

if so why you conclude design when you see a robot?

Please give me an example of a "self-replicating watch or robot?"

a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective).

 

[TBDude65]

if so why you conclude design when you see a robot?



a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective).

"if so why you conclude design when you see a robot?"

Because I can find demonstrable evidence of the design and the designer. Its appearance has nothing to do with concluding it is designed.

"a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective)."

So you're redefining what words mean to make a living organism a "robot?" That doesn't seem like an extremely dishonest way of engaging in a discussion?

I can prove gods exist because I am a god because you can consider any sentient being with sufficient intelligence to be a god. There, now I am God. Does that seem like an honest and intelligent argument that convinces you I am God?

 

[Speedwell]

if so why you conclude design when you see a robot?

Because it shows evidence of human manufacture

a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective).

Which shows no evidence of human manufacture. Consequently we can't tell if it is designed or not.

 

[HitchSlap]

a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective).

 

[pitabread]

a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective).

Penguins aren't robots. If you don't know the difference between a robot and an animal, that may explain a few things about this entire thread.

 

[Speedwell]

Functionality is not evidence of design.
Complexity is not evidence of design.
Superficial resemblances in form or function to designed objects are not evidence of design.

Something else is required to conclude design. That is, traces of workmanship, evidence of human manufacture. That is what people look for when they try to determine whether an object is designed or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Penguins aren't robots. If you don't know the difference between a robot and an animal, that may explain a few things about this entire thread.

Hah!! Checkmate Atheists!

 

[Speedwell]

Quick! Look for the little label that says Intel Inside.

 

[Skreeper]

a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot (from a physical perspective).

 

[pitabread]

so a self replicating watch that made from organic components isnt a watch too. do you see the problem with that logic?

There is definitely a lack of logic here, but it's not from my end.

 

[pitabread]

Hah!! Checkmate Atheists!

Doh! I guess robot penguins prove a designer after all.

 

[doubtingmerle]

a penguin can be consider as a self replicating robot.

"Can be considered as" is not the same thing as "is".

 

[doubtingmerle]

Industrial robot.
Engineered.
Built in a factory.

Penguin.
Not engineered.
Not built in a factory.

Any questions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:

a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.

By definition of the word "robot".
Kind of like how we can say that "murder is wrong" - since murder literally means an unlawful killing.

In case you wish to parallell this with self-replicating living systems like we know and love on this planet, you're going to have to show how they are robots.

b) from a physical perspective a walking creature (a penguin for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components

And you can call a random rock a chair and even use it as such. But it won't change to nature of the random rock.

or in other words: if a robot that is identical to a penguin need a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also penguin need, because they are identical in this case.

That's hilarious.

When looking through a window that a shower hose attached above it, it looks identical to when it is raining. Therefor, rain comes from a giant shower hose in the sky.

Or...

When water is put in a freezer it turns into ice, identical to what happens when you put water on the north pole. Therefor the poles are giant freezers.

the main objection to this argument is that if the object is made from oroganic components then we cant call it a robot.

No, it's not.
The main objection, well - mine at least, is that you are just throwing around assertions that make very little sense and have zero evidence in support of it.
You're just slapping a label on something and it's a label wich implies the very thing you are setting out to "prove".

It's actually a combination of several fallacies.

but this is wrong because if for instance we will see a watch that made from a wood and have a self replicating system we can still consider it as a watch. even if it made from a wood.

There are no such watches.

so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot.

You are most welcome to demonstrate how pinguins are actually robots, instead of just calling them that for no apparant reason. Well, besides the fallacious reason of assuming your conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

because we have several evidence from several scientific fields. we have evidence for the big bang for instance, the radiometric dating that give us only a limit age for the universe and the earth, the fact that we found no fossils till some geological layers and so on.

That show that the universe (as we know it) had a beginning.
It says nothing about "nature".

ps: in this context, "nature" is not just fauna and flora.