My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

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.

 

[ananda]

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

But it is not "evidence for design". You only know that your hypothetical robot was designed. It tells us nothing of naturally occurring life at all.

The rest of your post fails since premise a fails.

 

[xianghua]

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

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.

 

[xianghua]

But it is not "evidence for design". You only know that your hypothetical robot was designed. It tells us nothing of naturally occurring life at all.

but if they are both robot, and we know that any robot is evidence for design- then they both need a designer.

 

[Skreeper]

but if they are both robots, and we know that any robot is evidence for design- then they both need a designer.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but if they are both robots, and we know that any robot is evidence for design- then they both need a designer.

Robots, yes. But life and robots are not the same thing. Your "argument" if you can even call it that, fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but if they are both robots, and we know that any robot is evidence for design- then they both need a designer.

One more point. You do not seem to understand the difference between evidence and an ad hoc explanation. Before you even begin to claim you have evidence in a scientific argument, your idea has to be testable. In other words, if you can't think of a reasonable test that would show your idea to be wrong if it was wrong, then you do not have any evidence for that idea by definition.

 

[pitabread]

This argument fails just from a basic logic perspective.

First of all, you're playing loose with the term "robot". Robots by definition are artificial machines and yes, they are designed. However, you can't merely assert that living things are also robots and therefore by definition need designers. You're just misapplying the term "robot" and asserting the very thing you are trying to demonstrate.

Second, even if scientists were to bio-engineer a living thing, like the penguin in your example, it doesn't automatically mean that all living things are bio-engineered.

So no, this argument fails basic logic and therefore does not demonstrate a designer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:
<blah>

Begging the question by equivocation of 'robot'.

I've seen this kind of fallacious argument by equivocation or definition before - All programs and codes are designed (by humans), DNA is a program or code, so DNA must be designed; all (human) languages are designed, DNA is a language, so DNA must be designed.

They all implicitly equivocate or redefine the relevant identifier (robot, language, code) from its use in a human-specific context to a general context, then draw a human-specific conclusion.

All swimming pools are designed, lakes and oceans are a kind of swimming pool, so lakes and oceans are designed. All houses are designed, caves are a kind of house, so all caves are designed.

Biological creatures are sometimes called 'robots', but they're not the kind of robots that we know are designed.

It's either dishonest or stupid.

It's also unusual to see a religious type suggesting that we're robots - because, as we know, all robots lack free will

 

[durangodawood]

...It's also unusual to see a religious type suggesting that we're robots - because, as we know, all robots lack free will

We're functioning automatik
And we are dancing mechanik
We are the robots

Ja tvoi sluga (=I'm your slave)
Ja tvoi Rabotnik robotnik (=I'm your worker)

We are programmed just to do
anything you want us to
we are the robots

 

[ananda]

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.

That can also be evidence for a cyclic universe, one that constantly cycles through stages of creation-destruction-creation-destruction-etc...

 

[Obliquinaut]

What about giant electric penguins? Like in Scott of the Sahara!

 

[Obliquinaut]

We're functioning automatik
And we are dancing mechanik
We are the robots

Ja tvoi sluga (=I'm your slave)
Ja tvoi Rabotnik robotnik (=I'm your worker)

We are programmed just to do
anything you want us to
we are the robots

I went through a phase where everytime I called my wife I started the phone call out by playing that song on the phone. It was funny the first time. The FIRST time...

 

[bhsmte]

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

or in othehr words: if a robot that is identical to a penguin need a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also a penguin need, because they are identical.

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.

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.

Thanks for telling us about your favorite.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so a watch that made from a wood isnt a watch according to this logic.

 

[xianghua]

Robots, yes. But life and robots are not the same thing. Your "argument" if you can even call it that, fails.

i actually falsified this claim above:

"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."

so you are wrong actually.

 

[TBDude65]

How do we know that robot are evidence of design? It isn't the fact that it's a robot, it's because we have direct evidence linking humans to the design and building of said robots. Simply looking at a robot and concluding it's designed wouldn't be rational or logical without evidence connecting designer to design.

So what that means is that in order to use "design" as evidence of a designer, you first need demonstrable evidence the designer is real and evidence of its design to connect designer to design.

Instead, you're assuming design exists and then assuming your designer exists and then (in the absence of evidence of either) arguing that design is evidence of a designer. But your example negates your conclusion because you've not demonstrated evidence of your designer. All you've shown is that you believe in design and that tells us nothing about the validity of that argument, let alone about the possibility of a god being real

 

[Waggles]

my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:

My favourite argument for the existence of God is that I can experience him through the Holy Spirit.
Answered prayers, miracles and healings are pretty good indicators of intelligence and love beyond
the horizon of this world.

 

[xianghua]

Begging the question by equivocation of 'robot'.

I've seen this kind of fallacious argument by equivocation or definition before - All programs and codes are designed (by humans), DNA is a program or code, so DNA must be designed; all (human) languages are designed, DNA is a language, so DNA must be designed.

They all implicitly equivocate or redefine the relevant identifier (robot, language, code) from its use in a human-specific context to a general context, then draw a human-specific conclusion.

All swimming pools are designed, lakes and oceans are a kind of swimming pool, so lakes and oceans are designed. All houses are designed, caves are a kind of house, so all caves are designed.

Biological creatures are sometimes called 'robots', but they're not the kind of robots that we know are designed.

It's either dishonest or stupid.

It's also unusual to see a religious type suggesting that we're robots - because, as we know, all robots lack free will

as i said: a watch that made from a wood is still a watch. so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot. can you falsified this claim?