why according to atheism a natural process + time= a robot

[pitabread]

are you saying that when man move his hand its not a natural process but a directed process?

Depends on the context. That's the thing about the English language. Words take on different meanings depending on context.

This is why arguments based solely in semantics usually don't go anywhere.

 

[xianghua]

Are you saying that when a waterfall falls down (as opposed to left or right or up) it's not a natural process but a directed process?

Waterfalls and people are natural things. They act as they do according to their nature and the laws that govern natural things. Gravity directs a waterfall, and the brain directs the motion of a hand. But there is nothing unnatural about either.

so a natural process can create a car?

 

[xianghua]

That is incorrect. Atheists only lack belief in a deity. It makes zero claims about the origins of the universe.

if they dont believe in higher power then they also dont believe that nature was designed and thus they do have claims about the origins of the universe.

 

[xianghua]

Depends on the context. That's the thing about the English language. Words take on different meanings depending on context.

This is why arguments based solely in semantics usually don't go anywhere.

so what you think? do you agree that when someone move his hand is the result of a natural process or a directed one?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so what you think? do you agree that when someone move his hand is the result of a natural process or a directed one?

I love how you make a big issue of the fact English is "not my native", yet you persist in engaging in arguments predicated on detailed understandings of semantics and linguistics, particularly in respect to English.

Your arguments are weak and childish. But it's always fun to watch you flounder and fail at every turn to win even a single point.

 

[pitabread]

so what you think? do you agree that when someone move his hand is the result of a natural process or a directed one?

I already answered this. It depends on the context.

You always ask the same questions over and over as though you expect different answers each time. Why do you keep doing that?

 

[Speedwell]

if they dont believe in higher power then they also dont believe that nature was designed and thus they do have claims about the origins of the universe.

Yes, their "claim" is basically the same as the claim of science in that respect: "We don't know."

 

[essentialsaltes]

so a natural process can create a car?

Since you're literally stuck at square A of this conversation, and are unwilling to engage with my attempts to explore the issue, I'm afraid you're on your own. People who took the time to read my replies (post 15 in particular) understand my position perfectly.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

so a natural process can create a car?

Yes, for a given value of 'natural'.

if they dont believe in higher power then they also dont believe that nature was designed and thus they do have claims about the origins of the universe.

Atheists also don't believe that nature was not designed.

(It wasn't though, I mean come on, it's a mess.)

so what you think? do you agree that when someone move his hand is the result of a natural process or a directed one?

Both.

 

[Belk]

if they dont believe in higher power then they also dont believe that nature was designed and thus they do have claims about the origins of the universe.

No they do not. Perhaps you should listen to us instead of assigning us our position so you can knock down straw men? If you can't even get the basics right why should we listen to the rest of your argument?

 

[muichimotsu]

Not bad, except the eventual outcome, somewhere along the line was just what the OP stated, and unless I'm missing something, there need be no particular sequence, as long as it happened eventually

thus a natural process can create robots and cars according to atheism. or a natural process+time= a car.

It can and it did.

No, you're putting the cart before the horse, one is demonstrably a process that requires a mind behind it, the other does not show that in the slightest in spite of arguments to the contrary

No one's claiming a house or a robot or a plane comes into existence naturally, but a hermit crab's shell or a bird's wings can and have come about through natural processes that don't entail a mind behind them to make sense

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, you're putting the cart before the horse, one is demonstrably a process that requires a mind behind it, the other does not show that in the slightest in spite of arguments to the contrary

No one's claiming a house or a robot or a plane comes into existence naturally, but a hermit crab's shell or a bird's wings can and have come about through natural processes that don't entail a mind behind them to make sense

Please be more specific on where I was wrong by showing me what part of my post (the post you replied to) was in error?

 

[Astrophile]

If the two exclusive options are natural and supernatural, then certainly there is nothing supernatural about the production of a car. If those are the only options offered, then it is natural.

Ordinarily, we draw a distinction between natural and artificial ('made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally'). So if we're given three options: natural, artificial, supernatural. Then obviously cars are artificial.

This is not rocket science. (Rockets are artificial.)

Is a bird's nest or a beaver's dam natural, artificial or supernatural?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Please be more specific on where I was wrong by showing me what part of my post (the post you replied to) was in error?

Where you went wrong was in agreeing that atheism has a position on origins, or indeed anything other than the existence of a deity.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not bad, except the eventual outcome, somewhere along the line was just what the OP stated, and unless I'm missing something, there need be no particular sequence, as long as it happened eventually

Here, you're utilizing an overly literal and loose interpretation of the expression that leads to the conclusion you want to assign to atheism: just because nature formed humans over millions of years through evolutionary processes that doesn't mean the tools we created also came about through natural processes (especially because we can demonstrate we made them and they don't occur in nature). It's a compositional fallacy, very basic one to observe too

 

[durangodawood]

according to atheism the whole universe (uncluding all the objects inside it)was made by a natural process. thus a natural process can create robots and cars according to atheism. or a natural process+time= a car.

Yes.

Once natural processes have resulted in a creative intelligence, then all kinds of novel objects are possible.

 

[Ken-1122]

according to atheism the whole universe (uncluding all the objects inside it)was made by a natural process. thus a natural process can create robots and cars according to atheism. or a natural process+time= a car.

No there is nothing about atheism that says anything about the Universe being made by a natural process