My favorite argument for the existence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
yep. it's the same logic basically. as robot is to complex to evolve by a natural process.

I put a single bacterium in some broth and place it in an incubator. The next day, I come back and find trillions of bacteria in that broth where there used to be only one bacterium.

According to you, an intelligence had to come by some time during the night and place trillions of bacteria in that broth because natural mechanisms could not produce those trillions of bacteria.

Do you see the problem?

good point. its called "Irreducible complexity". you can read here for more information:

It is all based on the assumption that the parts of an IC system did not have function in the past outside of that IC system. That assumption has never been supported by evidence.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Try once more in English. This was not an answer to my question.

Until you learn what the word "assumption" means you really should quit using it.
Yes, he shouldn't use assumption unless he knows what it means.

Or "robot", or "penguin", or "motor".

Maybe we could all chip in and buy this guy a dictionary.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
but both of them cant evolve naturally. so they both complex objects. complexity means something that cant evolve naturally.
Complexity as it relates to evolution: "Evolution has produced some remarkably complex organisms - although the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all being used to assess an organism's complexity."

Complexity as a general term:
the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.
or
a factor involved in a complicated process or situation.

None of this suggests that complexity is a limiting factor on evolution at all.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
According to you, an intelligence had to come by some time during the night and place trillions of bacteria in that broth because natural mechanisms could not produce those trillions of bacteria.

why not? we know that bacteria can reproduce very fast. so we dont need an intelligent to explain such event.


It is all based on the assumption that the parts of an IC system did not have function in the past outside of that IC system. That assumption has never been supported by evidence.

no. a car with a gps can function even if you will remove it's gps. but it doest mean that this gps can evolve stepwise even by an intelligent.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
why not? we know that bacteria can reproduce very fast. so we dont need an intelligent to explain such event.

We also know that common ancestry, mutation, and selection happens so we don't need an intelligence to explain changes in organisms.

no. a car with a gps can function even if you will remove it's gps. but it doest mean that this gps can evolve stepwise even by an intelligent.

According to your argument, the car and gps had to both be invented at the same time. Obviously, this isn't the case.

You are arguing that all parts of a sonar system in biological species had to come about at the same time. So far, you haven't shown that this is the case.
 
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟11,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
Don't beg the question. Do we, in fact, know that?
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 (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).
Not exactly - the important parts of the robot that indicates design would probably be "it's made of metal and has sharp, angular edges, and it seems more likely that a human made it than that there's a whole other ecosystem of metallic beings with a different sort of biochemistry somewhere." You're just shifting definitions around - that doesn't prove a thing.
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.
Trivially true, but you haven't shown that any physical, complex, evolving (in the sense of changing over time), self-replicating object is necessarily designed. All you've done is restated what you have left to prove.
the main objection to this argument is that if the object is made from oroganic components then we cant call it a robot. 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. so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot.
As I've said, the word "robot" invokes certain ideas that would suggest design, but if "robot" means "complex and self-replicating," then those ideas and connections do not apply.
the second objection is that the designer need a designer too. but actually this isnt true because its possible that the designer is eternal. and if he eternal he didnt need a designer.
How do you know that?
we know that nature have a beginning so we cant
claim that nature is eternal too.
How do we know that?
also remember that such a robot cant evolve because there is no stepwise way from a self replicating matter to a robot.
Says who?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Don't beg the question. Do we, in fact, know that?

we dont know that a robot need a designer?

Not exactly - the important parts of the robot that indicates design would probably be "it's made of metal and has sharp, angular edges, and it seems more likely that a human made it than that there's a whole other ecosystem of metallic beings with a different sort of biochemistry somewhere."

a robot cant be made from organic components?


How do we know that?

because we have many evidence from several scientific fields.

Says who?

we know that some systems in a robot need at least several parts to their function. therefore it will be logical to conclude that they cant evolve stepwise.
 
Upvote 0

Wakalix

Active Member
Sep 21, 2017
226
146
Wisconsin
✟11,306.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
we dont know that a robot need a designer?
That's right. You need to define "robot," then demonstrate that all members of the set "robots" are necessarily the result of design.
a robot cant be made from organic components?
It can, but that's not what most people think when they hear "robot". And if your point is that we could create a copy/clone of humans, and therefore all humans must be created - can you not understand that naturally-occurring things can be unnaturally copied?
because we have many evidence from several scientific fields.
Then list it!
we know that some systems in a robot need at least several parts to their function. therefore it will be logical to conclude that they cant evolve stepwise.
Ah, the "irreducible complexity" argument. That's like saying that a tower cannot be built piece by piece, since tearing apart the foundation makes the whole tower topple.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
It can, but that's not what most people think when they hear "robot".

pk. so according to you such a robot can evolve naturally?


Ah, the "irreducible complexity" argument. That's like saying that a tower cannot be built piece by piece, since tearing apart the foundation makes the whole tower topple.

since a tower isnt an ic system this claim is incorrect.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dmmesdale
Upvote 0

HiEv

Active Member
Oct 1, 2017
32
53
52
Northeast
✟16,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
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.

That depends on your definition of "robot".

Robots are generally defined as man-made machines. Machines can be made out of organic components, such as a wood casing, but when discussing robots they aren't organic themselves. In fact, if they are sufficiently organic with machine minds it's no longer a robot, it's an android.

But regardless of the specific word you use, we're talking about things that are man-made by definition.

At best it's merely evidence that this particular creation was designed, it's not evidence that all self-replicating things are designed.

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 (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).

Nope. Organisms aren't robots. By definition. Even if humans made an organism from scratch, nobody would call it a robot.

You're attempting to make a claim by playing with definitions. The fact that you're using the phrases "theoretical" and "can be considered as" demonstrates that you're just stretching an analogy. Here's the essence of your argument:

1) Robots are man-made.
2) Penguins are robots.
3) Therefore penguins are made by God.

Or, even simpler:

1) Penguins are man-made.
2) Therefore God created penguins.

It's complete nonsense. Penguins aren't robots, and the conclusion either doesn't follow from the premises or it's merely a tautology. Either way, this is a terrible argument.

Your whole argument is founded upon an assumption of intelligent design, when that's what you're attempting to prove. Begging the question isn't evidence, it's merely a logical fallacy.

But, even worse, you're assuming that if something could be the product of a mind, then it has to be the product of a mind. This is obviously false. Just because I could make a rock, doesn't mean that all rocks are made by intelligent processes.

Even if penguins could be made by a mind, that isn't proof that they were a product of a mind. You have to look at the actual evidence of where things came from to determine where they came from, you can't merely assume via. inappropriate analogy.

The the fact is, the evidence isn't that penguins are hand-crafted by elves, but instead that they, and all other life on the planet, are the product of billions of years of evolution. You can't merely ignore all of that evidence, you have to explain it better than evolution does.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
That depends on your definition of "robot".
Robots are generally defined as man-made machines.
Penguins are far more complicated than the most complex human-made robot. Ignored that part. Cherry picking and missing the obvious. Why? Not actually following the evidence but manipulating to jusitfy your preconceived notions.
Machines can be made out of organic components, such as a wood casing, but when discussing robots they aren't organic themselves. In fact, if they are sufficiently organic with machine minds it's no longer a robot, it's an android.
Having a false tooth or a replaced knee does not make one an android.
But regardless of the specific word you use, we're talking about things that are man-made by definition.
There are spiders web, bee hives, beaver dams. So there are non-human intelligently designed things made for a purpose. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
At best it's merely evidence that this particular creation was designed, it's not evidence that all self-replicating things are designed.
Self-replicating bacteria is designed given its alternative of exclusive non-intelligent causes. Like chemical reactions. If it is one or the other, then the best explanation given all the facts is an intelligent source. If you wish to argue the other, then go ahead. Make your evidence-based case.
Nope. Organisms aren't robots.
They are not dissimilar. You are cherry picking. Robots have functions; organisms have functions. They both have operational systems dependent on other operating systems working in conjunction. And on and on. Self-replication means complication beyond human capacity. Human reproduces sexually, and bacteria is non-sexual reproduction. That means bacteria is 100% duplication. In sexual reproduction, each partner forfeits 50%.
By definition. Even if humans made an organism from scratch, nobody would call it a robot.
Even if it fits the definition? If they made a bio- molecule it would rot unless refrigerated.
You're attempting to make a claim by playing with definitions.
And you're not?
The fact that you're using the phrases "theoretical" and "can be considered as" demonstrates that you're just stretching an analogy.
Theoretical is a term and not a phrase seeing as how you are so big on definitions.
Your whole argument is founded upon an assumption of intelligent design,
Inferred as the best explanation given your blind faith-based alternative with zero precedent or evidence.
But, even worse, you're assuming that if something could be the product of a mind, then it has to be the product of a mind.
Something complicated and for a purpose is intelligently designed given the alternative. If they find the Starship Enterprise on the Moon, then its source is obviously intelligence as opposed to natural processes on the moon. If we have self-replicating organism like bacteria, then its source is obviously intelligent which presupposes living as opposed to your alternative. You can twist it up any way you want.
This is obviously false. Just because I could make a rock, doesn't mean that all rocks are made by intelligent processes.
We aren't talking about rocks here.
Even if penguins could be made by a mind, that isn't proof that they were a product of a mind.
Penguins are made sexually by other Penguins with brains which presuppose minds unless you are asserting Penguins do not have brains.
You have to look at the actual evidence of where things came from to determine where they came from, you can't merely assume via. inappropriate analogy.
The analogy worked. You only butchered it up in a vain attempt you justify your blind faith.
The the fact is, the evidence isn't that penguins are hand-crafted by elves,
Not the argument.
but instead that they, and all other life on the planet, are the product of billions of years of evolution.
Blind faith absent precedent since all we know about life is that it requires living sources.
You can't merely ignore all of that evidence,
What evidence? Did a rock give birth to you?
you have to explain it better than evolution does.
No, you have to explain (evidenced and precedent based) how the first cause of life here is exclusive nonliving nonintelligent and good luck with that. Because based on all we know if it is living then its source is living.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: xianghua
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Nope. Organisms aren't robots. By definition. Even if humans made an organism from scratch, nobody would call it a robot.

two questions in this case:

1) if someone will create organic watch it will not be a watch because it's made from organic components?

2) if a robot could evolve by a natural process it will not be a robot by definion because it was not made by an intelligent?


Just because I could make a rock, doesn't mean that all rocks are made by intelligent processes.

true, since there is a natural process that can make a rock. but do you know about a natural procoess that can produce a living thing, or is just a belief?


You can't merely ignore all of that evidence, you have to explain it better than evolution does.

it's very simple actually. but first we need to check if my argument is valid or not.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,303.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
true, since there is a natural process that can make a rock. but do you know about a natural procoess that can produce a living thing, or is just a belief?
Well, I believe I had a hand in producing my two children. Well, not exactly a hand, but you know what I mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paleophyte
Upvote 0

Paleophyte

Active Member
Sep 20, 2017
50
31
51
Eastern
✟13,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.

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 (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).

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.

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

the second objection is that the designer need a designer too. but actually this isnt true because its possible that the designer is eternal. and if he eternal he didnt need a designer. we know that nature have a beginning so we cant
claim that nature is eternal too. also remember that such a robot cant evolve because there is no stepwise way from a self replicating matter to a robot.

You claim that this is scientific. Very well, let's do science.

What attributes would you use to distinguish an intelligently designed organism from one that evolved naturally?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: quatona
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
What attributes would you use to distinguish an intelligently designed organism from one that evolved naturally?

Superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22

No creature, which descended from Water, has the ability to judge between good and evil, nor posts. It's what separates us from animals. We were made with an intelligence which is above EVERY other living creature. Amen?
 
Upvote 0

Paleophyte

Active Member
Sep 20, 2017
50
31
51
Eastern
✟13,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22

No creature, which descended from Water, has the ability to judge between good and evil, nor posts. It's what separates us from animals. We were made with an intelligence which is above EVERY other living creature. Amen?

If we're going to do this scientifically then we probably shouldn't be using the Bible. Besides, if I'm remembering my scripture properly, we were definitely not created with the knowledge of good and evil. That particular trait came courtesy of the forbidden fruit and caused no end of trouble.

And why can't intelligence be evolved? Not that it would help much with our poor penguin. Not the sharpest bulb.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
According to you, an intelligence had to come by some time during the night and place trillions of bacteria in that broth because natural mechanisms could not produce those trillions of bacteria.
You have to start with one bacteria. What created that one bacteria and what created the natural laws that caused that bacteria to reproduce? We have to go with the best explanation that we can find. In this case DNA is the language of life. God spoke and the result was life that replicate itself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
We have to go with the best explanation that we can find. In this case DNA is the language of life. God spoke and the result was life that replicate itself.

That's not an explanation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: quatona
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.