My favorite argument for the existence of God

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but i ask what if they were able to evolve by a natural process. in this case you will still cal it a bicycle or not?

What if a horse had wheels - would it be a bike?

 

[Paleophyte]

but i speak about inanimate bicycle. so they indeed physically identical.

It's called biological evolution for a reason. If it's inanimate, then by definition, it cannot undergo biological evolution.

 

[Kylie]

but they are physically identical. they just created in a different way (one by design and the second by a natural process). so why call it in a different name?

No they aren't.

Anything that can evolve must have the capacity for reproduction. If something can reproduce, it must have a reproductive system. Bicycles do not have a reproductive system. Therefore, if one thing has a reproductive system and another does not, then you can't say they are physically identical.

Your grasp of logic seems to be severely lacking.

 

[quatona]

I remember when my parents started explaining reproduction to me: "When two bicycles really love each other...".

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, the old birds and the bikes talk.

 

[Paleophyte]

Is it a robot?
Is it a car?
Is it a bicycle?

I'm pretty sure it isn't a penguin.

 

[Paleophyte]

Bicycle mating season

 

[omega2xx]

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.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with what you say. it is not necessary to convince a believer in God of His existence or of His being eternal.

At the same time no analogy, no matter have valid. will convince the non-believer that God exist.

All we can do is tell what we believe and why we believe it and lea

 

[xianghua]

It's called biological evolution for a reason. If it's inanimate, then by definition, it cannot undergo biological evolution.

again: i talked about theoretical situation. if we will see a bicycle evolve in front of my eyes i will still consider it to be a bicycle.

 

[xianghua]

No they aren't.

Anything that can evolve must have the capacity for reproduction.

so a snowflake cant evolve naturally since its lack the ability to reproduce?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

robot
ˈrəʊbɒt/
noun
noun: robot; plural noun: robots

1. 
   a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.

Your first premise fails because you simply can't label everything that lives a robot.

A human isn't a robot.

Isn't dna the hardware 'program' of organic robots? And isn't the behavior of all organic robots predictable, as if programmed? And if humans are differentiated by 'free will' why do most fail at achieving what they 'will' for themselves, as if programmed to fail?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... we know that nature have a beginning so we cant claim that nature is eternal too.

Not so. All we know about it is that there's a time before which we have no workable models to describe. There are various theoretical models for an eternal cosmos, but all depend on as yet unverifiable assumptions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

again: i talked about theoretical situation. if we will see a bicycle evolve in front of my eyes i will still consider it to be a bicycle.

Even if bicycles could reproduce, you could only see a population of bicycles evolve. What are you suggesting bicycles could evolve from or into?

If in your strange fantasy theoretical world of roaming populations of feral bicycles (one wonders what the selection pressures might be - competition with wheeled horses for riders?), one population of bicycles evolved another rear wheel (e.g. for stability at slow speeds) and could then no longer interbreed with two-wheeled bicycles (the pedals would tangle) would you still call them bicycles, or would there be an argument for calling them tricycles and classifying them as a new species ?

 

[Skreeper]

And isn't the behavior of all organic robots predictable, as if programmed?

Not all behavior is predictable. Only certain instincts are fixed patterns.

And if humans are differentiated by 'free will' why do most fail at achieving what they 'will' for themselves, as if programmed to fail?

Can you define "free will" first before we deal with any specifics?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not all behavior is predictable. Only certain instincts are fixed patterns.



Can you define "free will" first before we deal with any specifics?

Free will, in the context of a free society, means you can do just about anything you want, within the law and within your abilities.

 

[Kylie]

so a snowflake cant evolve naturally since its lack the ability to reproduce?

No. Snowflakes do not go through the same process of evolution that animals go through.

The world evolution is sometimes used to describe growing and developing, such as the evolution of stars, but only a fool would think this means that stars evolve the same way life forms do.

Evolution as a change over many generations due to selective pressures is something that only life forms do. Stars, snowflakes, bicycles and all other inanimate things do NOT do it.

 

[Michael]

No they aren't.

Anything that can evolve must have the capacity for reproduction. If something can reproduce, it must have a reproductive system.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/24/saudi-arabian-robot-citizen-wants-a-baby/

That "reproductive system" might simply become the ability to "build a similar system" at some point in time. The distinction between robots and living organisms is apparently getting blurrier by the day.

 

[Kylie]

https://nypost.com/2017/11/24/saudi-arabian-robot-citizen-wants-a-baby/

That "reproductive system" might simply become the ability to "build a similar system" at some point in time. The distinction between robots and living organisms is apparently getting blurrier by the day.

If robots can make copies of themselves, and those copies are varied from the parents, with traits of the parents being passed to the offspring, and if there is some selective pressure which favours some variations and not others, then they would probably have some sort of evolutionary process.

But it wouldn't be biological evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

Not so. All we know about it is that there's a time before which we have no workable models to describe. There are various theoretical models for an eternal cosmos, but all depend on as yet unverifiable assumptions.

That matter, energy and especially life is eternal, takes far more faith than "God did it all."

How can there be various theoretical models for an eternal cosmos? Either it was or it wasn't.

 

[xianghua]

Even if bicycles could reproduce, you could only see a population of bicycles evolve. What are you suggesting bicycles could evolve from or into?

i dont talk about a bicycle with the ability to reproduce. just a regular bicycle that evolve in front of our eyes. you will call it a bicycle or not? by the way: english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words (just as a note).