My favorite argument for the existence of God

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sounds like you believe in evolution.

Shock, horror!

 

[Kylie]

so you agree that a robot can evolve naturally if you dont believe in a designer.

Sure. Let's imagine a universe in which robots can (somehow) evolve naturally.

Now what?

And WHEN are you going to show me what the problem with definitions is? I'm still waiting!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Of course a real penguin is designed, just like the robotic one.

The robotic one is designed and built (probably) by humans in one go. As much as the penguin robot may look like a penguin, it is still made of unchanging unevolving static parts that are joined together to form a whole.

The real penguin is designed by it's previous version. The reproduction process adds the blueprints in the form of dna (yes this is a very simplistic explanation but it works) and after that the cell reproduces and reproduces, reprinting itself and copying the dna on to the next cell. Up to the point a fully functioning penguin has formed.

So even if we assume that God created the original penguin and imprinted every cell of that penguin with dna, God was only the creator of the original penguin. All the other versions are self made by that particular first penguin cell.

Now we know that a cell can evolve into a fully functioning penguin, how deep does the rabbit hole go? If cells can construct themselves into such intricate designed designs with blueprints that were written by the intricate design that wrote it and so on.. Where is God needed in this process?

I keep asking xianghula if he is talking about an animal or a machine. He will not answer. If the robot penguin is an animal, then it can change by changing the DNA, most likely by evolution. If it is a machine, then it can change by a person changing the drawings. So if xianghula would only tell us what these things are, we could tell him if the design change required evolution or a person changing drawings. But xianghula refuses to answer the question.

 

[xianghua]

Here's one reason: penguins are living biological creatures and robots aren't.

so a self replicating watch that made from organic components isnt a watch too but a living creature.

 

[xianghua]

Sure. What's your point?

the point is that this is impossible.

 

[Speedwell]

the point is that this is impossible.

No, that's what you are trying to prove; you can't just assert it.

 

[xianghua]

Sure. Let's imagine a universe in which robots can (somehow) evolve naturally.

Now what?

And WHEN are you going to show me what the problem with definitions is? I'm still waiting!

i already showed that according to fefinitions an object that its identical to a robot isnt a robot. this is an absurd logic. actually even if we will go by your way- a watch that also has a self replicating system and dna cant be consider as a watch too.

 

[xianghua]

No, that's what you are trying to prove; you can't just assert it.

i need to prove that a robot need a designer? realy?

 

[xianghua]

I keep asking xianghula if he is talking about an animal or a machine. He will not answer. If the robot penguin is an animal, then it can change by changing the DNA, most likely by evolution. If it is a machine, then it can change by a person changing the drawings. So if xianghula would only tell us what these things are, we could tell him if the design change required evolution or a person changing drawings. But xianghula refuses to answer the question.

so a robot that has a self replicaiting system can evolve naturally accoroding to your criteria. but again: its impossible as far as we know.

 

[Speedwell]

i need to prove that a robot need a designer? realy?

Yes. Where are the refined metal alloys? Plastics? Synthetic oils? Where are the tool marks, weld beads and mold lines? Where are the other evidences of manufacture, the "indications of contrivance" as Paley calls them? Just because a naturally ocurring object resembles a man-made robot doesn't prove it was designed. Just because it is complex like a man-made robot doesn't prove it was designed. Just because it functions like a man-made robot doesn't prove it was designed. Where is your evidence?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so a self replicating watch that made from organic components isnt a watch too but a living creature.

We've been through this already (five months ago! #73, #79).

Timing devices that are in biological organisms are usually called biological clocks and are just part of the organism. Watches are small mechanical or electronic timepieces typically worn on wrist or pocket chain; they cannot self-replicate and are not alive.

You could strap a penguin to your wrist and use the rate of its feathers falling out to tell the time, but it wouldn't be a watch, it would be a dying penguin.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

i already showed that according to fefinitions an object that its identical to a robot isnt a robot.

You haven't presented any definitions, so you haven't shown anything.

 

[Kylie]

i already showed that according to fefinitions an object that its identical to a robot isnt a robot. this is an absurd logic. actually even if we will go by your way- a watch that also has a self replicating system and dna cant be consider as a watch too.

Where?

 

[bhsmte]

i need to prove that a robot need a designer? realy?

Have you defined a robot yet?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so a robot that has a self replicaiting system can evolve naturally accoroding to your criteria. but again: its impossible as far as we know.

A "robot penguin" that is an animal can evolve. Is this fictitious robot penguin of yours an animal or not?

 

[xianghua]

Yes. Where are the refined metal alloys? Plastics? Synthetic oils? Where are the tool marks, weld beads and mold lines? Where are the other evidences of manufacture, the "indications of contrivance" as Paley calls them? Just because a naturally ocurring object resembles a man-made robot doesn't prove it was designed. Just because it is complex like a man-made robot doesn't prove it was designed. Just because it functions like a man-made robot doesn't prove it was designed. Where is your evidence?

ok. so a robot isnt evidence for design according to your criteria. thanks.

 

[xianghua]

We've been through this already (five months ago! #73, #79).

Timing devices that are in biological organisms are usually called biological clocks and are just part of the organism. Watches are small mechanical or electronic timepieces typically worn on wrist or pocket chain; they cannot self-replicate and are not alive.

You could strap a penguin to your wrist and use the rate of its feathers falling out to tell the time, but it wouldn't be a watch, it would be a dying penguin.

no. i talking about a regular watch that has a self replicating system and made from organic components. will you call it a watch or not?

 

[xianghua]

A "robot penguin" that is an animal can evolve.

this is just a belief.

 

[xianghua]

Where?

in this thread. i asked you what if we will see a bicycle that was made by a natural process. and you agree that in this case it will not be a bicycle since it doesnt created by a designer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

no. i talking about a regular watch that has a self replicating system and made from organic components. will you call it a watch or not?

Regular watches don't self-replicate. This is one of many characteristics that regular watches don't have - you could consider it implicit in their definition; if a watch could reproduce itself, it wouldn't be a regular watch.