My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

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

but its still mean that nature had a beginning.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Organic components and "life" aren't the same thing. A watch made out of wood may be made by organic components, but it doesn't mean the watch itself is alive.

Books are made from paper which comes from trees and therefore is organic in origin. Do you think books are alive?

 

[xianghua]

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 if you will see for your first time in life a robot you will not conclude design?

 

[TBDude65]

so if you will see for your first time in life a robot you will not conclude design?

Literally nothing I said should have caused you to make that assumption. If you think that is a logical assumption from what I wrote, you need to reread what I wrote

 

[xianghua]

Organic components and "life" aren't the same thing. A watch made out of wood may be made by organic components, but it doesn't mean the watch itself is alive.

Books are made from paper which comes from trees and therefore is organic in origin. Do you think books are alive?

so why we cant consider a walking robot that made from organic components a robot?

 

[xianghua]

Literally nothing I said should have caused you to make that assumption. If you think that is a logical assumption from what I wrote, you need to reread what I wrote

you said that:

"Simply looking at a robot and concluding it's designed wouldn't be rational or logical without evidence connecting designer to design."

so if for your first time in life you will see a robot (without knowing that robot made by a designer) then you cant conclude design.

or...if we will find a robot on a far planet- the same.

 

[pitabread]

so why we cant consider a walking robot that made from organic components a robot?

It depends on what we're talking about. If you built a robot out of wood, then it would be considered a robot. But it would not be considered alive and it would not be analogous to living things.

 

[TBDude65]

you said that:

"Simply looking at a robot and concluding it's designed wouldn't be rational or logical without evidence connecting designer to design."

so if for your first time in life you will see a robot (without knowing that robot made by a designer) then you cant conclude design.

or...if we will find a robot on a far planet- the same.

You do realize I know what I wrote, right?

You can't logically conclude design using "looks." That's not evidence of design for anything, including things that are legitimately designed. Concluding a robot is designed requires more than just "it looks designed." It's literally the same error ID proponents make when looking at life as "evidence" of design. In order to conclude design is a logical assumption, you need to demonstrate the designer is logically possible first and then you'd need to show the mechanism linking your designer to your proposed design.

You're putting the cart before the horse and concluding design without evidence of a designer and then concluding that your assumption of design is evidence of a designer. It's circular and without evidence

 

[KWCrazy]

The beautiful thing is that the designer lives. You can go to His house this Sunday and He will be there. All you have to do is open your heart to experience Him. You can feel His presence and hear of His love in the testimony of others there. You can invite Him into your life and have a permanent relationship with Him. Through the Holy Spirit, you can talk with Him any time you want. The best evidence of God is the change He can make in your life. Studying rocks and dead animals won't bring you closer to God. Listening to educators who do not believe themselves and don't want you to believe will bring you no closer to the truth. This world is a temporary existence. It will only exist for a while, then its usefulness will be no more. We will go on, either in the presence of our Lord or in His absence. So much the greater to be in His presence.

 

[ananda]

but its still mean that nature had a beginning.

No, it doesn't. It could be endless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope, you just screwed up. That's all. A watch "made from wood", would still be a made object. It is not a grown object. Just positing some make believe organism is not a refutation.

Try again.

 

[xianghua]

It depends on what we're talking about. If you built a robot out of wood, then it would be considered a robot. .

so why not a living thing?

 

[xianghua]

Nope, you just screwed up. That's all. A watch "made from wood", would still be a made object. It is not a grown object. Just positing some make believe organism is not a refutation.

Try again.

so if you will find such a watch on a far planet you can conclude design or not?

 

[xianghua]

You do realize I know what I wrote, right?

You can't logically conclude design using "looks." That's not evidence of design for anything, including things that are legitimately designed. Concluding a robot is designed requires more than just "it looks designed." It's literally the same error ID proponents make when looking at life as "evidence" of design. In order to conclude design is a logical assumption, you need to demonstrate the designer is logically possible first and then you'd need to show the mechanism linking your designer to your proposed design.

You're putting the cart before the horse and concluding design without evidence of a designer and then concluding that your assumption of design is evidence of a designer. It's circular and without evidence

so just by looking at this object we cant conclude design?

wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if you will find such a watch on a far planet you can conclude design or not?

It is a pointless question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so just by looking at this object we cant conclude design?

wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Nope, all made. None are self reproducing.

You really need to find some new arguments. No matter how you tweak this it will still be worthless.

 

[pitabread]

so why not a living thing?

Again, just because something is made out of organic components doesn't make it alive.

Would consider a house or a chair made from wood to be alive?

 

[TBDude65]

so just by looking at this object we cant conclude design?

wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Yet another straw man of my position

 

[Skreeper]

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

And according to your logic every pond is designed. We know that ponds can be artificially created therefore all ponds must be created with intend and they cannot occur naturally.

Do you see the problem with that?

 

[Skreeper]

so if you will find such a watch on a far planet you can conclude design or not?

If the only argument your side has is some far fetched hypothetical then you have already lost.