My favorite argument for the existence of God

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... so there is no problem for evolution to evolve a car.

Perhaps you could describe just how you think that would happen - would this be a biological car that could reproduce? if not, how? what would be the selection pressures? what predecessor would it evolve from? how would macro-scale wheels evolve (IIRC no macro-scale biological wheels have done so so far)? How would a car evolve without a driver? how would it evolve with a driver?

Give us your speculative ideas on this - it may help us get an idea of your understanding of evolutionary processes.

 

[Chriliman]

Perhaps you could describe just how you think that would happen - would this be a biological car that could reproduce? if not, how? what would be the selection pressures? what predecessor would it evolve from? how would macro-scale wheels evolve (IIRC no macro-scale biological wheels have done so so far)? How would a car evolve without a driver? how would it evolve with a driver?

Give us your speculative ideas on this - it may help us get an idea of your understanding of evolutionary processes.

Apparently, all evolution has to do is make humans who will then make cars. Done.

If you're an evolutionist who believes there's no intentional purpose behind it, what's wrong with concluding everything humans do is actually a result of purposeless evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Apparently, all evolution has to do is make humans who will then make cars. Done.

That's not the same as a car evolving.

If you're an evolutionist who believes there's no intentional purpose behind it, what's wrong with concluding everything humans do is actually a result of purposeless evolution?

Nothing at all; purpose is the name we give to the drive to satisfy our reward system. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, but it produces creatures that have drives to satisfy goals, and call that purpose.

 

[Chriliman]

That's not the same as a car evolving.

Maybe not a biological car, but if I take your view, that there's no purpose for evolution, then I should have no problem saying a car, as we know them, is ultimately a result of pureposeless evolution.

Nothing at all; purpose is the name we give to the drive to satisfy our reward system. Evolution doesn't have a purpose, but it produces creatures that have drives to satisfy goals, and call that purpose.

Right, so from your perspective, 'purpose' is actually an illusion generated by the purposeless evolutionary functions of our being. This conclusion stems from your base assumption that evolution actually has no purpose, even though reality clearly suggests that there is purpose, we are here giving purpose and meaning, but that's just an illusion according to you.

Have you ever thought maybe it's not an illusion? Maybe there is an actual intentional reason that we humans are on this earth? Are you even willing to consider that without thinking of it as religious dogma meant to deceive people?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe not a biological car, but if I take your view, that there's no purpose for evolution, then I should have no problem saying a car, as we know them, is ultimately a result of pureposeless evolution.



Right, so from your perspective, 'purpose' is actually an illusion generated by the purposeless evolutionary functions of our being. This conclusion stems from your base assumption that evolution actually has no purpose, even though reality clearly suggests that there is purpose, we are here giving purpose and meaning, but that's just an illusion according to you.

Have you ever thought maybe it's not an illusion? Maybe there is an actual intentional reason that we humans are on this earth? Are you even willing to consider that without thinking of it as religious dogma meant to deceive people?

When you can demonstrate a reason with evidence, let us know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maybe not a biological car, but if I take your view, that there's no purpose for evolution, then I should have no problem saying a car, as we know them, is ultimately a result of pureposeless evolution.

Yes, indirectly - you could consider it an epiphenomenon of evolution; although, in human terms, a car does have a purpose.

Right, so from your perspective, 'purpose' is actually an illusion generated by the purposeless evolutionary functions of our being. This conclusion stems from your base assumption that evolution actually has no purpose, even though reality clearly suggests that there is purpose, we are here giving purpose and meaning, but that's just an illusion according to you.

No, not at all. If you want to know my perspective, don't guess it or make it up, ask me.

Have you ever thought maybe it's not an illusion?

I don't think it is an illusion. I already told you what I think it is.

Maybe there is an actual intentional reason that we humans are on this earth? Are you even willing to consider that without thinking of it as religious dogma meant to deceive people?

No, I don't know of any evidence to support the idea that there is an 'actual'(?) intentional reason that we humans are on this Earth, and yes, I have considered various intentional hypotheses for us being here, including, but not limited to, religious ones. I've seen no evidence to support any of them. All raise more unanswerable questions than they answer, so are not explanatory, but purely speculative.

Anything else?

 

[Chriliman]

No, not at all. If you want to know my perspective, don't guess it or make it up, ask me.

So you think purpose is independent of our evolved brains? Which would mean things can actually have purpose as opposed to an illusion of purpose generated by the evolutionary functions of the brain.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you think purpose is independent of our evolved brains?

I already told you what it is.

 

[quatona]

Maybe not a biological car, but if I take your view, that there's no purpose for evolution, then I should have no problem saying a car, as we know them, is ultimately a result of pureposeless evolution.

Yes, but that doesn´t mean a "cars evolved".

Right, so from your perspective, 'purpose' is actually an illusion generated by the purposeless evolutionary functions of our being. This conclusion stems from your base assumption that evolution actually has no purpose, even though reality clearly suggests that there is purpose, we are here giving purpose and meaning, but that's just an illusion according to you.

No, purposes and meaning given to things by us is as real as it gets, from my perspective. I would never consider or call humanly given purposes and meanings "illusions".

Maybe there is an actual intentional reason that we humans are on this earth?

Yes, maybe there is. What could it be?

Are you even willing to consider that without thinking of it as religious dogma meant to deceive people?

Sure. I am waiting for a good reason to believe there is, though. Semantics wizardry of the Xianghua or Chriliman sort is falling a bit short, in that department.

 

[quatona]

So you think purpose is independent of our evolved brains? Which would mean things can actually have purpose as opposed to an illusion of purpose generated by the evolutionary functions of the brain.

I take issue with you calling my purposes "illusions". You are superimposing your perspective on mine, and make it look like the result is representing my perspective.

 

[doubtingmerle]

like this one?;

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg



as you can see- there i no problem to evolution if objects like gears exist. so there is no problem for evolution to evolve a car.

like this one?;

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg



as you can see- there i no problem to evolution if objects like gears exist. so there is no problem for evolution to evolve a car.

I did not say gears were a problem. I said a continuously spinning part was a problem. Why do you ignore what people write?

 

[xianghua]

On consideration, no. I think the word should be reserved for non-biological machines. YMMV.

thanks. so the different between a robot and non robot is the matter they are made from. but according to this criteria we cant consider a watch that made from wood a watch becuase it's made from organic components.

 

[xianghua]

I did not say gears were a problem. I said a continuously spinning part was a problem. Why do you ignore what people write?

this is not what you said here:

"That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears."

"The bacterium uses molecular level forces to move the flagellum. A multi-celled creature would need some method of attaching muscles to the spinning component, which probably is not even possible."

so basically you are argue that gears cant evolve in a larger scale then a single cell. so i showed it's actually possible according to evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

thanks. so the different between a robot and non robot is the matter they are made from. but according to this criteria we cant consider a watch that made from wood a watch becuase it's made from organic components.

No, I think it's a question of a difference between the living and the non-living. There can still be grey areas, such as a living being that is controlled remotely (it's been done with cockroaches); but as long as the terms and usages are defined, explained, or otherwise agreed in the relevant context, it common understanding is acheivable.

But as I said it really depends how you wish to define your terms. I have asked you for your definition of robot, but you don't seem to have one. You can equivocate all you wish, but if you want people to understand what you're talking about when you use a word, you need to use a single unambiguous definition - either the vernacular, or a custom definition with sufficient explanation to be understood.

Maybe some day you'll get to the point, if you have one.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

this is not what you said here:

"That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears."

"The bacterium uses molecular level forces to move the flagellum. A multi-celled creature would need some method of attaching muscles to the spinning component, which probably is not even possible."

so basically you are argue that gears cant evolve in a larger scale then a single cell. so i showed it's actually possible according to evolution.

Even I can see that he did mention a spinning component (I've bolded it above, in case you didn't read what you were quoting). The example you gave was of the use of partial gears, no spinning involved.

But if you'd like to call that creature a robot, go right ahead - just don't expect people to understand what you're talking about.

 

[xianghua]

Even I can see that he did mention a spinning component (I've bolded it above, in case you didn't read what you were quoting). The example you gave was of the use of partial gears, no spinning involved.

But if you'd like to call that creature a robot, go right ahead - just don't expect people to understand what you're talking about.

if even a partial spin is possible according to evolution i dont see any problem to get a complete spinning. actually you can even spin your own hand like a motor wihtout any problem.

 

[xianghua]

But as I said it really depends how you wish to define your terms. I have asked you for your definition of robot, but you don't seem to have one. You can equivocate all you wish, but if you want people to understand what you're talking about when you use a word, you need to use a single unambiguous definition - either the vernacular, or a custom definition with sufficient explanation to be understood.
.

but you said that if a robot is made from organic components then you will no longer consider it as a robot. so your line between a living and non living thing is the matter it made from. simple.

 

[lesliedellow]

but you said that if a robot is made from organic components then you will no longer consider it as a robot. so your line between a living and non living thing is the matter it made from. simple.

Not simple. He is saying that his understanding of the word robot is that it refers to an electromechanical device. That is the normal, everyday, meaning of the word.

If you want to use the word robot in a way which differs from popular parlance, then it is up to you to give a definition which accords with your unusual use of the word.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

if even a partial spin is possible according to evolution i dont see any problem to get a complete spinning. actually you can even spin your own hand like a motor wihtout any problem.

Er, no, I can't (what planet are you on?); and the fact that you don't see a problem with it doesn't mean there aren't problems. If it was that easy, we might expect some examples to have evolved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but you said that if a robot is made from organic components then you will no longer consider it as a robot. so your line between a living and non living thing is the matter it made from. simple.

I said no such thing.

If you were to die, you'd become a non-living thing made of exactly the same matter. Simple.

I think you're trolling.