My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Michael]

Do you really have to make every thread about your personal pet-peeve?

No, just when it serves to illustrate my point. In this case it demonstrates that the choice of comparison is often interpreted differently by different individuals. An obvious equivocation fallacy to one person might seem like 'valid supporting evidence' to another. It's often a rather subjective judgment call on the part of the individual.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you really have to make every thread about your personal pet-peeve?

I think that has been well established.

 

[Michael]

I think that has been well established.

'Big void' identified in Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza
The need to be liked and accepted

I make a few exceptions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well aware, though if he wanted to do that, he could just come up with a robot definition loose enough that he could then claim that living things could fall under it.

Oh no! that would mean ID is right after all!

Not.

 

[Paleophyte]

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

Yes, you do, especially when using the term in such an unconventional manner. The fact that you can't explain what you mean should demonstrate to you why you can't convince anybody else.

I have an idea. Let's try an internet quiz! Those are always reliable.

Are You a Divine Droid?​

(1) How did you come into existence?
- A: My parents mated and about 9 months later I was pushed through my mother's cervix.
- B: According to my label I was assembled in a General Electric factory in Taiwan.
- C: I was willed into existence by God.
- D: I have always existed.

(2) What is the biochemical basis of your metabolism?
- A: Glucose and ATP
- B: Lithium ion
- C: Divine Will alone
- D: I consume raw firmament.

(3) What is the reason for your appearance?
- A: Heredity and my mother dresses me funny
- B: The design committee was blind drunk on tequila.
- C: Divine Will
- D: I decided to take this form to interact with you mortal!

(4) Do you contain any components that serve little purpose other than to become infected , explode and kill you?
- A: Why does my tummy hurt?
- B: That was just one batch of batteries.
- C: No silly! God is smarter than that!
- D: I encompass all of reality and am immortal. Do you like the way my supernovae twinkle?

(5) What is your purpose?
- A: Umm... Whatever I want I guess. Do I look like a philosopher?
- B: Die Fleshbag!
- C: Whatever God Wills.
- D: I Am that I Am.

• If you consistently answered A then you are most likely a human. Enjoy your life.
• If you consistently answered B then you are most likely an ordinary robot. Enjoy your murderous rampage.
• If you consistently answered C then you are most likely a Divine Creation. I'd suggest that you enjoy something but it isn't like you have much of a choice.
• If You consistently answered D then it is most likely that You are barking mad. Please perform a miracle so that we can avoid the embarassment of locking a Deity in a padded cell.
• If you did not consistently pick one answer then it is even more likely that you are barking mad. No miracle required. Enjoy your new jacket.

Wow! You were right! Robots are easy to recognize.

 

[Kylie]

a toaster is a robot? so a robot is a toaster too?

Did you really just make an argument this ridiculous?

A cat is a mammal. Therefore, all mammals are cats.

That's LITERALLY the same reasoning you used.

 

[xianghua]

Did you really just make an argument this ridiculous?

A cat is a mammal. Therefore, all mammals are cats.

That's LITERALLY the same reasoning you used.

so why a penguin isnt a robot by your criteria? and what about an artificial penguin?

 

[Skreeper]

so why a penguin isnt a robot by your criteria? and what about an artificial penguin?

"Why penguins aren't robots" should be the title of a childrens biology book.

 

[Kylie]

so why a penguin isnt a robot by your criteria? and what about an artificial penguin?

Because a penguin is capable of making choices based on what it has experienced and what is happening in its environment. It is not a machine simply going through a pre-programmed series of movements.

Define robot for me.

 

[xianghua]

Because a penguin is capable of making choices based on what it has experienced and what is happening in its environment. It is not a machine simply going through a pre-programmed series of movements.
.

so if someone will create a robot without "pre-programmed series of movements" it will not be a robot by definition?

 

[Kylie]

so if someone will create a robot without "pre-programmed series of movements" it will not be a robot by definition?

How about you tell me YOUR definition of what a robot is and we'll take it from there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where's Wittgenstein when you need him?

Or better still, Humpty Dumpty...

Spoiler

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!

 

[pitabread]

How about you tell me YOUR definition of what a robot is and we'll take it from there.

He's been dodging that question since inception. And not surprisingly, since his entire argument rests on false equivalence, so he'd rapidly paint himself into a corner if he had to start defining things.

 

[Speedwell]

He's been dodging that question since inception. And not surprisingly, since his entire argument rests on false equivalence, so he'd rapidly paint himself into a corner if he had to start defining things.

I posted a definition of "robot" last week including both engineering and popular usage. It didn't suit his political agenda so he blew it off.

 

[pitabread]

I posted a definition of "robot" last week including both engineering and popular usage. It didn't suit his political agenda so he blew it off.

Not surprising. We're dealing with someone who apparently doesn't know the difference between a car and a person after all...

 

[xianghua]

How about you tell me YOUR definition of what a robot is and we'll take it from there.

why? you already gave such a definition.

 

[Kylie]

why? you already gave such a definition.

I want to know YOUR definition of robot, not mine.

 

[Speedwell]

so why a penguin isnt a robot by your criteria? and what about an artificial penguin?

An artificial penguin is not a robot, by the definition of robot which I posted and which you ignored. If you want to demonstrate that an artificial penguin is a robot you must either show it actually does fit my definition or post a definition of your own.

 

[xianghua]

I want to know YOUR definition of robot, not mine.

i dont have one, since definitions are problematic.

 

[xianghua]

An artificial penguin is not a robot, by the definition of robot which I posted and which you ignored. If you want to demonstrate that an artificial penguin is a robot you must either show it actually does fit my definition or post a definition of your own.

what was your definition again?