My favorite argument for the existence of God

[pitabread]

He's simply arguing that an artificial human could be considered a robot, which is obviously true.

Why?

 

[Chriliman]

Why?

The term 'artificial' means a false reproduction of something, rather than a true reproduction, which in this case would just be naturally reproducing a true human being rather than an artificial robot human.

 

[Speedwell]

I wouldn't say never. Function more often than not, implies a purpose for what the function is performing. You can't have purpose without a purpose giver.

But it is not direct evidence of Intelligent Design. It may "imply" design but does not compel that conclusion.

 

[Chriliman]

But it is not direct evidence of Intelligent Design. It may "imply" design but does not compel that conclusion.

If you don't consider an obvious purpose for a function as direct evidence of design, then what direct evidence would you consider as designed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't consider an obvious purpose for a function as direct evidence of design, then what direct evidence would you consider as designed?

The problem is that there is no such example in all of life, at least not as far as I know.

 

[pitabread]

...

Nevermind. These discussions just go nowhere...

 

[Speedwell]

If you don't consider an obvious purpose for a function as direct evidence of design, then what direct evidence would you consider as designed?

The only direct evidence is traces of intelligent manufacture--machine worked surfaces, refined materials, things like that, the real reasons for concluding that Paley's watch is 'designed.' Without that kind of evidence intelligent design can't be ruled out, but it can't be necessarily concluded, either.

 

[quatona]

Why can't we call an artificial human a robot?

As can be observed in this thread, people can call anything anything.
I didn´t say he couldn´t call an "artificial human" "a robot".
I said his logic was flawed - in this particular case he employed a false reverse conclusion.

But, of course, the main problem with his definition of "artificial human" (i.e. "designed human") is that it renders every human an "artificial human" and "a robot", given his idea that nature is "designed". So it´s a distinction without a difference, and it doesn´t help his actual argument one bit. Rather, he´s shooting himself in the knee without even noticing.

He´s just tangling himself up in his own word games.

In any case, I think it´s implicit in the concept of "robot" that it´s a device modeled (tyically by humans) after a human or other animal, not the other way round.

 

[quatona]

The term 'artificial' means a false reproduction of something, rather than a true reproduction, which in this case would just be naturally reproducing a true human being rather than an artificial robot human.

Well, when asked:
"What, exactly, do you mean by an 'artificial human' ?"
he answered:
"a human that was made by a designer."
Nothing about a re-production (true or false) in it.

 

[quatona]

If you don't consider an obvious purpose for a function as direct evidence of design, then what direct evidence would you consider as designed?

The first problem is how to conclude an (externally given) purpose from there being a function.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He's simply arguing that an artificial human could be considered a robot, which is obviously true.

He hasn't said what he means by 'artificial human'. Humanoid robots used to be called artificial humans, but were only human in shape. Is he talking about a biological human? If so, in what sense is it artificial? Was Frankenstein's monster an 'artificial human'? was it a robot?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The term 'artificial' means a false reproduction of something, rather than a true reproduction, which in this case would just be naturally reproducing a true human being rather than an artificial robot human.

No, 'artificial' means 'made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally'. Something artificial is an artifact, the result of artifice.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't say never. Function more often than not, implies a purpose for what the function is performing. You can't have purpose without a purpose giver.

It is humans that attribute function or purpose and interpret what things do as functional or purposeful. We have a strong tendency to attribute human-like agency even to inanimate objects, when we know it's inappropriate (e.g. the car doesn't like cold weather and doesn't want to start).

It causes confusion when an undirected, purposeless, process like evolution produces traits with selective advantage. When viewing the outcomes, it's tempting to attribute function and purpose because that fits a familiar narrative; e.g. we interpret the function of spines on cacti as protective, the purpose being to deter grazers. But while it's true that the spines do protect by deterring grazers, there's no purpose involved. The grazers selectively avoid the more spiny plants in each generation, so over time the average spininess of the plant population increases.

But if there's no purpose behind the spines, is it reasonable to say they have a function, as we so often do? Is the word 'function' ambiguous, or is our usage of it ambiguous? is there a difference?

Just ponderin'.

 

[lesliedellow]

But if there's no purpose behind the spines, is it reasonable to say they have a function, as we so often do? Is the word 'function' ambiguous, or is our usage of it ambiguous? is there a difference?

Just ponderin'.

Natural languages are not computer programming languages. They have all sorts of ambiguities which couldn't be tolerated in an ultra precise language. That's just the way things are.

 

[Chriliman]

No, 'artificial' means 'made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally'. Something artificial is an artifact, the result of artifice.

Right. The 'artifact' just happens to imitate a human being. I still don't see why we can't call it a robot.

 

[lesliedellow]

Right. The 'artifact' just happens to imitate a human being. I still don't see why we can't call it a robot.

Because "robot" normally means an electro mechanical device, and you can't change the meaning of words on a whim - at least not if you want to communicate effectively.

 

[xianghua]

This is just the exact same argument with the exact same faulty logic and equivocation of artificial and biological systems. You're not saying anything new here.

Try coming up with a new line of argumentation. Repeating the same failed nonsense over and over is pointless.

are you kidding? a whale sonar isnt a sonar? :

Marine mammals and sonar - Wikipedia

"Research has recently shown that beaked and blue whales are sensitive to mid-frequency active sonar and move rapidly away from the source of the sonar, a response that disrupts their feeding and can cause mass strandings.["

 

[xianghua]

Humans also designed and manufactured a variety of general-purpose programmable manipulating machines using metals, plastics, and electronics. They are not living creatures. We call them robots.

so the difference between a robot and a creature is the matter that it made from? if not, where is the limit between a robot and a creature? if you cant point out that then you cant claim that an artificial penguin isnt a robot.

 

[Speedwell]

It is humans that attribute function or purpose and interpret what things do as functional or purposeful. We have a strong tendency to attribute human-like agency even to inanimate objects, when we know it's inappropriate (e.g. the car doesn't like cold weather and doesn't want to start).

It causes confusion when an undirected, purposeless, process like evolution produces traits with selective advantage. When viewing the outcomes, it's tempting to attribute function and purpose because that fits a familiar narrative; e.g. we interpret the function of spines on cacti as protective, the purpose being to deter grazers. But while it's true that the spines do protect by deterring grazers, there's no purpose involved. The grazers selectively avoid the more spiny plants in each generation, so over time the average spininess of the plant population increases.

But if there's no purpose behind the spines, is it reasonable to say they have a function, as we so often do? Is the word 'function' ambiguous, or is our usage of it ambiguous? is there a difference?

Just ponderin'.

Function is not the same as purpose, but there is some ambiguity in popular usage which ID attempts to exploit.

 

[xianghua]

Again, I do not think it would be possible to make wheels and gears of living organic materials. To do that you would need blood flow to the components. I don't know if that is even possible with spinning components. And somehow you would need to attach muscles to the wheels to make them move. Again, I don't know if that is even possible.
.

the flagellum is spinning very well. so im sure that if a car were exist in nature evolution had no problem to explain how it evolved. also dont forget that even scientists dont know how many biological systems evolved and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so even according to evolution i dont see any problem to evolve a car.