My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

Making something by hand and making something in a factory are not mutually exclusive. There are many factories which produce goods made by hand.

so if ferarri company will create a ferarri in a factory and the same ferarri by hand work they will be identical cars or not?

 

[Speedwell]

so if ferarri company will create a ferarri in a factory and the same ferarri by hand work they will be identical cars or not?

Not necessarily.
Ferarri makes a variety of models.
Automotive experts can tell a hand-built car from a factory built car.

 

[xianghua]

Not necessarily.
Ferarri makes a variety of models.
Automotive experts can tell a hand-built car from a factory built car.

but they both still will be ferarri cars. right?

 

[Speedwell]

but they both still will be ferarri cars. right?

Right--if they are both made by the Ferarri company.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so if ferarri company will create a ferarri in a factory and the same ferarri by hand work they will be identical cars or not?

If they are identical they will be identical, yes.

Or as Speedwell suggests, if there are minor differences, they will not be identical.

This discussion is getting us somewhere?

 

[xianghua]

If they are identical they will be identical, yes.

so the process that those objects were made by is irrelevant for their definition.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so the process that those objects were made by is irrelevant for their definition.

Back to arguing semantics, huh?

We can call things whatever we want to call them. If we want to call a thing made in a Ford factory a whizbang, and the identical component made it a Chevy factory a Bangwhiz, we can do that. Words are simply the invention of people to allow us to communicate.

The problem is that you try to argue that two things could be described by the same word, and so therefore they must have the same trait. That is not true.

For instance, I can call a stick of wood used to hit a ball a "bat". I can call a rodent with wings a "bat". The fact that I use the same word for both does not prove that all bats are identical.

 

[xianghua]

Back to arguing semantics, huh?

We can call things whatever we want to call them. If we want to call a thing made in a Ford factory a whizbang, and the identical component made it a Chevy factory a Bangwhiz, we can do that. Words are simply the invention of people to allow us to communicate.

The problem is that you try to argue that two things could be described by the same word, and so therefore they must have the same trait. That is not true.

For instance, I can call a stick of wood used to hit a ball a "bat". I can call a rodent with wings a "bat". The fact that I use the same word for both does not prove that all bats are identical.

that was kylie claim, so i answered to her objection.

 

[doubtingmerle]

that was kylie claim, so i answered to his objection.

That's odd, because you quoted me. If you were responding to Kylie, why did you quote me?

Whatever, I saw the claim, I responded.

 

[Kylie]

so if ferarri company will create a ferarri in a factory and the same ferarri by hand work they will be identical cars or not?

They will not be identical cars. They will both be ferarris.

 

[Kylie]

that was kylie claim, so i answered to his objection.

*Ahem.* HER.

And I agree with Doubting Merle.

 

[xianghua]

They will not be identical cars. They will both be ferarris.

so they both still will be cars. right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so they both still will be cars. right?

If Ferrari manufacture two cars, they will have manufactured two cars

 

[doubtingmerle]

If Ferrari manufacture two cars, they will have manufactured two cars

...assuming that logic is still valid in that fantasy world of robot penguins and reproducing watches.

 

[Arius]

because we have several evidence from several scientific fields. we have evidence for the big bang for instance, the radiometric dating that give us only a limit age for the universe and the earth, the fact that we found no fossils till some geological layers and so on.

Hello @xianghua interesting post, especially regarding God being Eternal. I would say God is Infinite who is Eternal, and of course as we can learn through scientific observation that Infinite is conscious, as in "I Am".

What did you mean by: "we have evidence for the big bang for instance, the radiometric dating that give us only a limit age for the universe and the earth"?

What 'radiometric dating' has been done on the universe, or on the Big-Bang, and when? Do you have any info on this; 'radiometric dating' that has been done on the universe?

Big Bang
The initial singularity was a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

This sounds just like the explanation for Evolution, where the animal that sets up the New species (from one type of species into a completely different species) is called the "Common Ancestor", in the Big Bang story, the particle that sets up the universe from nothing is called a "Singularity".

What they can't answer in either theory is, .. like in Evolution for instance is the question: "what type of animal is this creature they call Common Ancestor"?

And in the BB-theory, what is this "Singularity"?
Is it a thing, or nothing? in other words, is it a "no-thing", which we find is a very, actually extremely important part of Gods Creation!
"nothing" is between "every other thing", it separates all "things" without adding or taking away from them.
A true and perfect "thing" with absolute no value is: "nothing". Not a zero, nor a void, especially not "space", but an absolute-nothing.

 

[Arius]

They will not be identical cars. They will both be ferarris.

“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” — Euripides

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence." — Bertrand Russel

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views." — The Doctor

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one. - Psalm 14

 

[Arius]

Show me a robot that evolves naturally.

lol.

And, what about the second question?

 

[HitchSlap]

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one. - Psalm 14

Well, did try talking sense to you...

 

[Kylie]

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one. - Psalm 14

Yeah, so? I don't need you quoting Bible verses at me. You think I haven't read the Bible?

 

[xianghua]

Hello @xianghua interesting post, especially regarding God being Eternal. I would say God is Infinite who is Eternal, and of course as we can learn through scientific observation that Infinite is conscious, as in "I Am".

What did you mean by: "we have evidence for the big bang for instance, the radiometric dating that give us only a limit age for the universe and the earth"?

What 'radiometric dating' has been done on the universe, or on the Big-Bang, and when? Do you have any info on this; 'radiometric dating' that has been done on the universe?

Big Bang
The initial singularity was a singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

This sounds just like the explanation for Evolution, where the animal that sets up the New species (from one type of species into a completely different species) is called the "Common Ancestor", in the Big Bang story, the particle that sets up the universe from nothing is called a "Singularity".

What they can't answer in either theory is, .. like in Evolution for instance is the question: "what type of animal is this creature they call Common Ancestor"?

And in the BB-theory, what is this "Singularity"?
Is it a thing, or nothing? in other words, is it a "no-thing", which we find is a very, actually extremely important part of Gods Creation!
"nothing" is between "every other thing", it separates all "things" without adding or taking away from them.
A true and perfect "thing" with absolute no value is: "nothing". Not a zero, nor a void, especially not "space", but an absolute-nothing.

hi. i actually refer to the radiometric method in general or other methods taht suppose to show a limit for the age of the universe. so we cant claim that the universe is eternal and therefore it had a beginning. by the way (just as a general note) english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words in general.