My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Ancient of Days]

Your favorite evidence for the existence of god, is you believe in god?

Not sure how you got that from what I wrote but the initial quote was more of a sounding board for my statement.

 

[doubtingmerle]

but will you call it bicycle or not?

Is this the biological bicycle you keep talking about?

 

[HitchSlap]

Not sure how you got that from what I wrote but the initial quote was more of a sounding board for my statement.

Feel free to clarify.

 

[xianghua]

By definition, a bicycle does not undergo any process that can allow it to reproduce or to be made without the actions of a person. So no, it won't be a bicycle.

thanks. so you are actually saying that an object that its identical to a bicycle isnt a bicycle.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

thanks. so you are actually saying that an object that its identical to a bicycle isnt a bicycle.

I think she's telling you that you can't have something made by natural processes that is identical to a bicycle.

This discussion is increasingly reminding me of an episode of Father Ted, with us playing Ted and you playing Dougal...

 

[xianghua]

I think she's telling you that you can't have something made by natural processes that is identical to a bicycle.

why not? a sand dune cant be identical to a dune made by human? and your link doesnt work by the way (at least in my pc)...

 

[Speedwell]

why not? a sand dune cant be identical to a dune made by human?

Of course it can--but you wouldn't be able to tell if it was designed or not.

If there is evidence of intentional manufacture, then you can tell it was designed.

If there is no evidence of intelligent manufacture then you can't tell if it was designed or not. It might be designed but you can't tell.

That's how it works; it works for any object, whatever name you want to give it. It doesn't matter whether you call it a sand dune, a self-replicating bicycle or a robot penguin made of wood.

 

[xianghua]

Of course it can--but you wouldn't be able to tell if it was designed or not.

right. so the claim that a bicycle that was made by a natural process will not be a bicycle is incorrect.

 

[Speedwell]

right. so the claim that a bicycle that was made by a natural process will not be a bicycle is incorrect.

Non sequiter

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

why not? a sand dune cant be identical to a dune made by human? and your link doesnt work by the way (at least in my pc)...

A sand dune is a natural structure that a man can reconstruct. A bicycle isn't.

Sorry you can't open the link - it works for me from UK, USA, Singapore, and Netherlands... you could always Google it.

 

[xianghua]

A sand dune is a natural structure that a man can reconstruct. A bicycle isn't.

Sorry you can't open the link - it works for me from UK, USA, Singapore, and Netherlands... you could always Google it.

i think it just wnat me to install something to run the video. anyway: so you basically agree that a bicycle that was made by a natural process is still a bicycle. right?

 

[Speedwell]

i think it just wnat me to install something to run the video. anyway: so you basically agree that a bicycle that was made by a natural process is still a bicycle. right?

This is getting tiresome. So, for purposes of argument it is a bicycle. So what?

 

[xianghua]

This is getting tiresome. So, for purposes of argument it is a bicycle. So what?

so definitions are problematic and we dont need a definition to conclude what a robot is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i think it just wnat me to install something to run the video. anyway: so you basically agree that a bicycle that was made by a natural process is still a bicycle. right?

A bicycle is a bicycle. Bicycles are not made by natural processes.

Why not try something else?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so definitions are problematic and we dont need a definition to conclude what a robot is.

Nope, that doesn't follow.

If you'd never seen or heard of a robot you wouldn't have any definition (i.e. criteria, or meaning) for one, so you wouldn't be able to say what is or isn't a robot.

If someone told you a penguin was a robot, you'd identify penguins as robots and no-one would understand you. Having consensus definitions for things (e.g. penguins and robots) allows us to communicate.

 

[Speedwell]

so definitions are problematic and we dont need a definition to conclude what a robot is.

But whatever it is, we need evidence of intentional manufacture to conclude design.

 

[Kylie]

thanks. so you are actually saying that an object that its identical to a bicycle isnt a bicycle.

If the object is capable of reproducing and yet bicycles can't reproduce, then obviously it is NOT identical to a bicycle!

No wonder you are having trouble with definitions. The only thing is, the problem isn't with the definitions, it's because you don't know how they work!

 

[Kylie]

so definitions are problematic and we dont need a definition to conclude what a robot is.

Then by your logic, we don't need a definition for a fashnoozle.

Why don't you post a picture of a fashnoozle for us all to see? Shouldn't be too hard, there are lots of pictures of them on the net, easy to find.

 

[bhsmte]

so definitions are problematic and we dont need a definition to conclude what a robot is.

Have you defined a robot yet?

 

[littotes60]

Have you defined a robot yet?

I am not an engineer but I believe the definition of a "robot" is:

"An organic item capable of self-reproduction with significant help from an intelligent designer. Robots are also usually limited to only two wheels and, while technically capable of self-reproduction, require the assistance of the "intelligence" to pedal them over to get near other robots wherein the reproductive act can take place. This act is so horrifically vile and dirty that no one can bear to look at it and all attempts at photographing or documenting it have been rendered impossible."