My favorite argument for the existence of God

[marineimaging]

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.

Just for clarification a human IS a robot. The definition is not wrong, today. But the etymology does not support the modern definition as related to our friends example. In fact, the origin of robot are such that a machine was NOT the first robot. A human was. The word robot traces its roots to “rabota,” the Old Church Slavonic word for HUMAN servitude long before the industrial revolution. But even a machine robot does not need to carry out a complex series of actions, nor must it do so automatically since the reference to the human drudge is simply one who repeats a task OR is involved in simple servitude.

As for not meeting the demands of proof, science has ALWAYS failed to prove the hypothesis because if the person(s) actually did prove it conclusively and absolutely, there would never be a need for a revisit or rewrite of the outcome. But if you look at the history of science then you will see that no hypothetical theory ever stood solved so completely that it was not found to be in error at some point and in need of adjusting over and over again with time as updates in technology become available. Leading one to the hypothesis that we will never be able to correctly and absolutely identify the beginning of something. For example, it was believed that the Higgs Bosun was the elementary particle, until finding is produced another more elementary element.

As a machine designer and an employee working on the Superconducting Super Collidor I frequently demanded proof of God, until one day I realized that the scientific world and the spiritual world will never reside side by side in harmony in the conscious thoughts of mankind. If we were spiritually permanent seeking temporary physical existence it would work. But as a temporary physical being seeking permanent spiritual existence with our creator, those two things simply will not thrive in our minds. You can't have it both ways.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Just for clarification a human IS a robot.

Don't tell me we just stared another round of discussion of robot penguins and pregnant cars.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have given you my definition of kind. If they can mate and produce offspring, they are the same kind, just a different variety.

Ok. Let's try another one.
Let's talk about ring species.

Say we have species A, B, C, D and E.
A and B can mate. So in your opinion, A and B are the same "kind"
B and C can mate. So in your opinion, B and C are the same "kind"
C and D can mate. So in your opinion, C and D are the same "kind"
D and E can mate. So in your opinion, D and E are the same "kind"

So, we and up with A = B = C =D = E, "kind"-wise
Logically that would mean that A and E are also the same kind.

However, A and E …. can't mate.

So, what's that about?
Please explain.



For reference:

Here are some examples:

Ring species - Wikipedia

 

[DogmaHunter]

What ignorance of science you display. If every organism stays within its blood line, it never become anything else.

Homo Sapiens stays in the bloodline of primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryote's…….

Just like Spanish, Italian, Portugese and French stays within the "bloodline" of roman languages with as common point of origin being Latin.

However at no point in history, did a Latin speaking mother raise a Spanish speaking child.
It's called gradualism.

Was the the first life form a mammal or as primate? Which ever you guess, how did it become something other than what its blood line was?

Primates are mammals.
Mammals are tetrapods.
Tetrapods are vertebrates.
Vertabrates are eukaryotes.
Primates… are mammals and tetrapods and vertebrates and eukaryotes.

Do you understand how family trees work?

You express a truth and then you deny it and you say I am embarassing myself. Your are amusing .

Nobody denied anything and the only embarassing thing here, is your deeply rooted ignorance on evolution, while pretending to know all about it.

 

[marineimaging]

Don't tell me we just stared another round of discussion of robot penguins and pregnant cars.

I am beginning to wonder why I bother writing anything. I am a former manufacturing engineer and designed and built robotic devices for manufacturing. The robots we designed were derived from a need to replicate a human's movements, especially those that are dangerous or drudgery and hard to fill by human resources. In researching the history of robot development your will find, as I said, that the word robot traces its roots to “rabota,” the Old Church Slavonic word for HUMAN servitude. A human servant was known as a rabota back then. So, a robot was originally a human.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am beginning to wonder why I bother writing anything. I am a former manufacturing engineer and designed and built robotic devices for manufacturing. The robots we designed were derived from a need to replicate a human's movements, especially those that are dangerous or drudgery and hard to fill by human resources. In researching the history of robot development your will find, as I said, that the word robot traces its roots to “rabota,” the Old Church Slavonic word for HUMAN servitude. A human servant was known as a rabota back then. So, a robot was originally a human.

That's nice.

It doesn't add anything to the topic though.
Today, the word "robot" means quite a different thing.

Nobody understands it to mean "human". Unless, perhaps, when it is used as a figure of speech to convey the message that a certain person is emotionless or something… "the guy is like a robot..."

 

[marineimaging]

.

 

[Kylie]

I am beginning to wonder why I bother writing anything. I am a former manufacturing engineer and designed and built robotic devices for manufacturing. The robots we designed were derived from a need to replicate a human's movements, especially those that are dangerous or drudgery and hard to fill by human resources. In researching the history of robot development your will find, as I said, that the word robot traces its roots to “rabota,” the Old Church Slavonic word for HUMAN servitude. A human servant was known as a rabota back then. So, a robot was originally a human.

And decimate originally meant to reduce by only one tenth. Awful once meant awe-inspiring, naughty once meant to have nothing, or to have naught. And nice once meant silly.

What's your point?

 

[marineimaging]

And decimate originally meant to reduce by only one tenth. Awful once meant awe-inspiring, naughty once meant to have nothing, or to have naught. And nice once meant silly.

What's your point?

And gay meant happy, grass was a lawn, and my point was addressed to another person. And as typical, once you get so far down the forum nobody looks back to read the original post. The person I was addressing said a robot was not a human. I was making the point it was and still is a human. (On that point did you know that an entire language had to be developed for the computer industry because there were new thingamagigs that didn't have names?)

 

[Kylie]

And gay meant happy, grass was a lawn, and my point was addressed to another person. And as typical, once you get so far down the forum nobody looks back to read the original post. The person I was addressing said a robot was not a human. I was making the point it was and still is a human. (On that point did you know that an entire language had to be developed for the computer industry because there were new thingamagigs that didn't have names?)

You miss my point.

If robot still means human, then decimate still means to reduce by one tenth. The word decimate no longer means that, nice no longer means solly, awful no longer means full of awe. And robot no longer means human.

And once again I see someone quibbling over details instead of addressing the point.

 

[marineimaging]

You miss my point.

If robot still means human, then decimate still means to reduce by one tenth. The word decimate no longer means that, nice no longer means solly, awful no longer means full of awe. And robot no longer means human.

And once again I see someone quibbling over details instead of addressing the point.

That logic does not compute. So, let's us move on.

 

[Kylie]

That logic does not compute. So, let's us move on.

The logic is perfectly valid. You seem to not comprehend the fact that the words we use today have had their meaning change over the years. So your claim about robot meaning human is quite irrelevant.

And my point also still stands about you trying to make the discussion about the original meaning of the word instead of actually discussing the issue.

But yes, let's move on and perhaps we can actually discuss the issue.

 

[Deborah D]

@xianghua, so how do you know "that nature has a beginning"?

Good question. The answer is the Bible tells me so. Even though God has always existed, He created the universe, and therefore, it has a definite beginning.

 

[ananda]

Good question. The answer is the Bible tells me so. Even though God has always existed, He created the universe, and therefore, it has a definite beginning.

I would consider that a belief based on faith, not a belief based on knowledge.

 

[Deborah D]

I would consider that a belief based on faith, not a belief based on knowledge.

Truth is truth--whether faith-based or science-based. Any scientist worth is weight in salt understands this.

 

[ananda]

Truth is truth--whether faith-based or science-based. Any scientist worth is weight in salt understands this.

Perhaps, but I was speaking about knowledge of truth (epistemology), not about truth itself (alethiology).

 

[Deborah D]

Perhaps, but I was speaking about knowledge of truth (epistemology), not about truth itself (alethiology).

Sounds very mysterious and complicated. Truth simplifies; it doesn't complicate.

 

[ananda]

Sounds very mysterious and complicated. Truth simplifies; it doesn't complicate.

The "way we know truth" is different from the "truths" themselves. For example, "the ground is solid" (a truth) is quite different from "I feel with my feet that the ground is solid" or "my friend told me that he felt the solid ground with his feet" (two ways as to how I come to know that truth)

I'm not sure how that can be mysterious and complicated.

 

[Deborah D]

The "way we know truth" is different from the "truths" themselves. For example, "the ground is solid" (a truth) is quite different from "I feel with my feet that the ground is solid" or "my friend told me that he felt the solid ground with his feet" (two ways as to how I come to know that truth)

I'm not sure how that can be mysterious and complicated.

I understand, but whether we experience truth or not, it remains the truth. As a Christian I believe that truth is revealed to us by God Himself. Truth is encompassed in everything He is and everything about Him because nothing false exists in Him. So, we can know truth because we can know Him in a personal way. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." So, there is no truth apart from Him who is the Truth; therefore, all knowledge that is based on the truth (of who He is and what He has done or created) is true.

Francis Schaeffer, a Christian philosopher and theologian, explains these things much better than I have in some of his books. I've been reading True Spirituality. You might want to read it!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand, but whether we experience truth or not, it remains the truth. As a Christian I believe that truth is revealed to us by God Himself. Truth is encompassed in everything He is and everything about Him because nothing false exists in Him. So, we can know truth because we can know Him in a personal way. Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." So, there is no truth apart from Him who is the Truth; therefore, all knowledge that is based on the truth (of who He is and what He has done or created) is true.

So where did Jesus say that nature has a beginning, or that the bible is literally true?

Does 'circular argument' ring any bells?