My favorite argument for the existence of God

[HitchSlap]

"ID is a bit like shooting an arrow, then drawing a target around it."

 

[Obliquinaut]

 

[Strathos]

Actually this is an argument for the existence of God, but not an argument against the validity of evolution.

 

[chilehed]

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

No no no no.... real robots can't roll their r's.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

No need, I'm happy to accept that a robot made from organic components (or any components) is still a robot. A robot is a robot.

But that doesn't make your OP 'argument' valid. From a 'physical perspective' (your words), a biological creature can be likened to a robot mainly because human-made robots have mostly been constructed in imitation of the physical movement of biological creatures.

As I already pointed out, suggesting that biological creatures are (loosely) like robots in one respect, doesn't mean they're like robots in any other respect - unless you're also happy to accept that all biological creatures - including humans - don't have free will, are designed and manufactured by humans, don't reproduce, and don't evolve independently.

Your OP argument is obviously invalid. I repeat, it's either dishonest or stupid, and I think you know which it is.

 

[xianghua]

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?

i dont think it matter to the design argument. we can detect design traits in a watch. even if its made from organic components or have a self replicating system.

 

[xianghua]

Yet another straw man of my position

you said that: "Concluding a robot is designed requires more than just "it looks designed."

so by looking at something that looks like a watch isnt enough to conclude design either.

 

[xianghua]

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.

not realy. a pond can evolve naturally. therefore a pond by itself isnt evidence for design. but a watch or a robot cant evolve naturally.

 

[xianghua]

No need, I'm happy to accept that a robot made from organic components (or any components) is still a robot. A robot is a robot.

thanks. so from a physical perspective only (for the sake of the argument) a living thing can be consider as a robot. do you agree?

 

[Skreeper]

not realy. a pond can evolve naturally. therefore a pond by itself isnt evidence for design. but a watch or a robot cant evolve naturally.

But a flagellum which you label a motor does evolve naturally. I fail to see your point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not realy. a pond can evolve naturally. therefore a pond by itself isnt evidence for design. but a watch or a robot cant evolve naturally.

But life does evolve. You just refuted your own argument.

 

[TBDude65]

you said that: "Concluding a robot is designed requires more than just "it looks designed."

so by looking at something that looks like a watch isnt enough to conclude design either.

And all you continue to offer is "looks designed therefore designed." What you offer is a post hoc attempt to rationalize the apparent complexity of life on Earth, except ID proponents can't and don't offer any way of validating that their proposed "design" is actually design. Asserting that it is so (and using bad analogies), doesn't make it so

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

thanks. so from a physical perspective only (for the sake of the argument) a living thing can be consider as a robot. do you agree?

Me personally? No, not really - I don't think it's really a correct or useful application of the word, and rather dilutes its meaning. If you could manufacture a robot out of living organic components, as you suggested earlier, it could apply, but if you grew it from cells so it was like other living things, and could, for example, reproduce, that wouldn't be a robot, that would be a new form of life.

But I accept that it may find use in some specific context, such as saying someone 'moves like a robot'.

There are also some intermediate cases where it could be used - such as when some living creature is controlled via direct connections to its neural circuitry.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. we can detect design traits in a watch.

Using what criteria?

 

[pitabread]

i dont think it matter to the design argument. we can detect design traits in a watch. even if its made from organic components or have a self replicating system.

It matters because you continue to conflate superficial characteristics shared by two objects and then assume they share everything in common.

For example, a tree is a living thing made out of wood. A wooden chair is also made out of wood, but it is not a living thing.

Likewise, a wooden chair may have been designed and built by humans. But a wooden tree was not designed and built by humans.

The fact they both contain wood is merely a shared characteristic, but it doesn't mean chairs and trees share all of the same characteristics.

 

[xianghua]

If you could manufacture a robot out of living organic components, as you suggested earlier, it could apply,

so again: why nto a living creature? if they look identical we can consider them both as robot.

 

[xianghua]

It matters because you continue to conflate superficial characteristics shared by two objects and then assume they share everything in common.

For example, a tree is a living thing made out of wood. A wooden chair is also made out of wood, but it is not a living thing.

so how you detect design in a watch for instance? you cant conclude design just by looking at a watch structure or a robot that are able to reproduce?

 

[Speedwell]

so how you detect design in a watch for instance? you cant conclude design just by looking at a watch structure or a robot that are able to reproduce?

Once again: You infer design from signs of human manufacture--not functionality or complexity. If you find no signs of human manufacture then you cannot tell whether it is designed or not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so again: why nto a living creature? if they look identical we can consider them both as robot.

I already explained that, in my view, "if ... it was like other living things, and could, for example, reproduce, that wouldn't be a robot, that would be a new form of life."

It's simply a matter of the semantics of 'robot'. The general usage and meaning is a machine that has been manufactured to automatically perform useful tasks. Living things don't fit that description, although they have certain aspects in common. Consider cars and horses - we call cars vehicles but don't generally consider horses to be vehicles, although they are a mode of transport - and if you do consider horses to be a kind of vehicle (some jurisdictions define horses as vehicles for legal reasons) it doesn't imply they have anything in common with other vehicles other than being a mode of transport.

 

[xianghua]

Once again: You infer design from signs of human manufacture--not functionality or complexity. If you find no signs of human manufacture then you cannot tell whether it is designed or not.

so if we will see a ufo we cant conclude that aliens exist?