My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

Then why not just call them life forms instead of robots if there is no difference?

if there is no difference why not call it a robot?

​

Now you are just asking if life forms can evolve, and the answer is yes.

what is you proof that its possible?

 

[Equal Marriage]

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.

 

[Equal Marriage]

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.

Ok, that's your favorite argument. It is a logical argument, so the question you have to ask yourself is whether you are any good at logic. If you knew you were actually a logic novice, then wouldn't it make sense to reject or at least be skeptical about logical arguments that you like? You might want to Google "logical errors" and "faulty syllogism" and "circular argument."

 

[Kylie]

if there is no difference why not call it a robot?

​

Are you a robot?

what is you proof that its possible?

There's a ton of proof that evolution is real. If you aren't familiar with any of it, I would suggest that a discussion about evolving robots is not the place for you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wow, page #34 already - the fallacy of this supposed 'argument' was pointed out on page #1: begging the question by equivocation of 'robot', but the only response has been to repeat it ad-nauseam in different ways, as if enough repetition would make it valid.

It's what they use Venn diagrams for in school:

If you're talking about the intersection of A and B, it's possible to say that A's are like B's and B's are like A's in that respect.

Any fule can see that it doesn't make A and B alike in any other respect, nor does it make A's B's or B's A's.

 

[xianghua]

​

Are you a robot?
.

from a physical perspective according to evolution a human is indeed a robot. so according to evolution a robot can evolve by a natural process. i will not put my money on this belief.

 

[bhsmte]

from a physical perspective according to evolution a human is indeed a robot. so according to evolution a robot can evolve by a natural process. i will not put my money on this belief.

LOL

 

[Kylie]

from a physical perspective according to evolution a human is indeed a robot. so according to evolution a robot can evolve by a natural process. i will not put my money on this belief.

Define "robot" for me.

 

[xianghua]

Define "robot" for me.

i dont need to define robot to conclude what is a robot.

 

[bhsmte]

i dont need to define robot to conclude what is a robot.

Does this mean you cant provide a definition of a robot?

 

[PsychoSarah]

i dont need to define robot to conclude what is a robot.

You kinda have to be able to define what a robot is to demonstrate that you can accurately conclude what is and what isn't a robot. The easiest and fastest way to demonstrate that you are able to define a word is to just define the word, so why not do it?

 

[Michael]

You kinda have to be able to define what a robot is to demonstrate that you can accurately conclude what is and what isn't a robot. The easiest and fastest way to demonstrate that you are able to define a word is to just define the word, so why not do it?

I think even you'd have to concede that there's a pretty significant difference between a Roomba and Sophia.

Times Now

Admittedly they're both robots, but robots span a wide range of sophistication, much like lifeforms on Earth.

 

[Kylie]

i dont need to define robot to conclude what is a robot.

Then how do you know it's a robot and not actually a toaster?

 

[xianghua]

You kinda have to be able to define what a robot is to demonstrate that you can accurately conclude what is and what isn't a robot. The easiest and fastest way to demonstrate that you are able to define a word is to just define the word, so why not do it?

because definitions are very problematic. try to define a robot and i will show you why.

 

[xianghua]

Then how do you know it's a robot and not actually a toaster?

how do you know (when you see a robot) that its not a toaster?

 

[quatona]

how do you know (when you see a robot) that its not a toaster?

Since you aren´t willing to define "robot", there is no way to use that term for means of distinction.

 

[bhsmte]

because definitions are very problematic. try to define a robot and i will show you why.

If you cant define it, you couldnt know how to identify one. Sorry.

 

[PsychoSarah]

because definitions are very problematic.

Only if you make it purposely vague.

try to define a robot and i will show you why.

Ok, this is a robot https://www.bostondynamics.com/site...lic/2017-05/4-big-dog-robot.jpg?itok=iLZOPGvm

 

[Michael]

Only if you make it purposely vague.



Ok, this is a robot https://www.bostondynamics.com/site...lic/2017-05/4-big-dog-robot.jpg?itok=iLZOPGvm

Ok, but is a Roomba technically a robot, or just a vacuum cleaner? Where do we draw the line between a robot and a simple device (toaster/vacuum cleaner)?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, but is a Roomba technically a robot, or just a vacuum cleaner?

It's a robot, because it is automated and programmable.

Where do we draw the line between a robot and a simple device (toaster/vacuum cleaner)?

We draw the line at machines that can't perform their function automatically or be programmed. It's a fairly cut and dry distinction, really.