My favorite argument for the existence of God

[pitabread]

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?

Watches and robots cannot reproduce. I'm not sure why we're trying to figure out how to detect design in things that don't even exist.

Regardless, we detect design in objects via:

a) A priori knowledge of their manufacture. We already know that humans build robots and watches, so we don't need to think too much about whether or not they are designed.
b) Pattern recognition and comparison to the surrounding environment. This is how we can detect things like ancient artifacts (e.g. stone age tools or cave paintings).

In the latter case, sometimes our pattern recognition goes overboard and starts picking up things that are not designed. A famous example would be the "face in Mars" that some took to mean there civilization on Mars:

Turns out it was just a trick of the shadows that made it look kind of like a face.

 

[Speedwell]

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

That is correct. The "ufo" might be a natural phenomenon, even a living creature.

 

[xianghua]

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."

so if this watch have a living traits then we cant call it a watch?:

a wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if this watch have a living traits then we cant call it a watch?:

a wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Bringing up old failed arguments is not a winning strategy.

 

[bhsmte]

so if this watch have a living traits then we cant call it a watch?:

a wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

I would quit while you are behind.

 

[pitabread]

so if this watch have a living traits then we cant call it a watch?:

a wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Do you consider a wooden chair or a wooden watch to be a living organism? Because this is essentially what you are arguing at this point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so if this watch have a living traits then we cant call it a watch?:

a wood watch‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Give me an example, and I'll tell you what I'd call it.

Presumable you're aware that living organisms have biological 'clocks'?

 

[lesliedellow]

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

Find a device which hovers above the ground when you switch it on, without obviously producing any kind of thrust. Skeptics suspect that electromagnetic repulsion involved, and that you have a magnet buried in the ground. So they take it to another patch of ground, of their own choosing, switch it on, and the same thing happens. They open it up, and find nothing inside.

Such a thing, which defied every known law of nature, could only be of super natural origin.

 

[xianghua]

Watches and robots cannot reproduce. I'm not sure why we're trying to figure out how to detect design in things that don't even exist.

Regardless, we detect design in objects via:

a) A priori knowledge of their manufacture. We already know that humans build robots and watches, so we don't need to think too much about whether or not they are designed.

we also know that human build motors. flagellum is a kind of a motor so we can detect design?.

 

[xianghua]

Give me an example, and I'll tell you what I'd call it.

Presumable you're aware that living organisms have biological 'clocks'?

i gave you an image of a watch that made from a wood. lets say that it even have a self replicating system. we cant call it a watch in this case?

 

[Speedwell]

we also know that human build motors. flagellum is a kind of a motor so we can detect design?.

Does the flagellum show any signs of human manufacture? Does it have coils of drawn copper wire? Machined components? Sheet metal stampings? No? Then I suppose we can't tell whether it was designed or not.

 

[pitabread]

we also know that human build motors. flagellum is a kind of a motor so we can detect design?.

A flagellum is not a motor in the same way an electric motor or the motor in a car is.

Again, you're conflating superficial characteristics between things and then trying to equate those things on that ground. This line of reasoning fails when you start to look at the specifics of what you are comparing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i gave you an image of a watch that made from a wood. lets say that it even have a self replicating system. we cant call it a watch in this case?

A self-replicating wooden watch? There is no such thing. But you could conceivably use a tree (wood) as a timer (of night & day or summer & winter), so you could call it a wooden timepiece that is self-replicating.

But the only thing it would have in common with a wooden watch would be its material and that it can be used as a timepiece.

You seem to have some difficulty following the simplest ontological distinctions. I suggest you read back over previous posts in this thread that explain this issue until you understand what they're telling you.

 

[pitabread]

A self-replicating wooden watch? There is no such thing.

Y'know, I'm starting to appreciate the irony of arguing for the existence of God via hypothetical constructs that don't exist in reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Y'know, I'm starting to appreciate the irony of arguing for the existence of God via hypothetical constructs that don't exist in reality.

Yep - you nailed it. There's a stunning blindness to logic, analogy, and generalisation - demonstrate that one example is illogical and he tries to make exactly the same 'argument' with a slightly different one - as if making the same error with different words will somehow make it correct.

 

[xianghua]

A flagellum is not a motor in the same way an electric motor or the motor in a car is.

so a self replicating watch that made from organic components isnt a watch too. do you see the problem with that logic?

 

[xianghua]

A self-replicating wooden watch? There is no such thing. But you could conceivably use a tree (wood) as a timer (of night & day or summer & winter), so you could call it a wooden timepiece that is self-replicating.

so you are basically agree that a self replicating watch can evolve naturally?

 

[Speedwell]

we also know that human build motors. flagellum is a kind of a motor so we can detect design?.

Not unless there is evidence that humans built it. That's how you detect design; the fact that it's a motor tells you nothing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so you are basically agree that a self replicating watch can evolve naturally?

Not exactly. Something that can be used as a timer can evolve naturally - we've evolved a whole bunch of them in our own bodies that regulate our physiology.

They're not watches because they don't meet the common criteria for watches, but they're called 'biological clocks' because they do have periodicity.

 

[Skreeper]

so a self replicating watch that made from organic components isnt a watch too. do you see the problem with that logic?

There is no point in you repeating your refuted arguments over and over again. Unless you're willing to learn how humans detect design, there is no point in having this discussion.