My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Archie Dupont]

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

If the watch is selfreplicating on a cellular level (and not just pieces of meat stapled together), yes it would be a living creature. We would call it 'watchdog' and walk it in the park. Shame it does not exist So if taken literally, irrelevant to your point. If it is used as an analogy even worse.

 

[Speedwell]

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

A robot--however you want to define it--is only evidence for design if it bears evidence of MANUFACTURE. How many times are we going to have to explain this to you?

Your attempt to twist what I wrote into the statement "a robot is evidence for design" is offensive and disgusting.

 

[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.

Is your fictitious robot penguin an animal or a machine?
Is your fictitious robot penguin an animal or a machine?
Is your fictitious robot penguin an animal or a machine?

You made up the fictional character and ask us to comment on it. We cannot comment on it until we know what you are talking about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

this is just a belief.

...about a fictional robot penguin. How can I possibly make proven statements about a fictional robot penguin that makes no sense to me?

 

[pitabread]

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?

Show us an example of a "regular watch" that is made from organic components and capable of self-replication.

 

[xianghua]

if a watch could reproduce itself, it wouldn't be a regular watch.

thanks. so you will still call it a watch. if so: why not considering a walking animal also as robot?

 

[xianghua]

If the watch is selfreplicating on a cellular level (and not just pieces of meat stapled together), yes it would be a living creature. We would call it 'watchdog' and walk it in the park. Shame it does not exist So if taken literally, irrelevant to your point. If it is used as an analogy even worse.

so this isnt a watch if it self replicating and made from organic components?:

(image from Bear Wood Watch)

 

[xianghua]

A robot--however you want to define it--is only evidence for design if it bears evidence of MANUFACTURE. How many times are we going to have to explain this to you?

Your attempt to twist what I wrote into the statement "a robot is evidence for design" is offensive and disgusting.

sorry but this is what i understand from your answer to my question: "i need to prove that a robot need a designer? realy?"

and your answer was "yes". means that we cant be sure that a robot need a designer. or in other words: that a robot may evolve by a natural process.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

thanks. so you will still call it a watch. if so: why not considering a walking animal also as robot?

It's really not difficult:

If a watch could reproduce, it would be a watch that could reproduce, by definition.
If a pig could fly, it would be a pig that could fly, by definition.
If a xianghu could understand simple logic, it would be a xianghu that could understand simple logic, by definition.

But none of the above are real objects, they're just imaginary hypotheticals.

And that doesn't mean that a robot is an animal, or that an animal is a robot, walking or otherwise. Robots are not alive - is that so hard to understand?

 

[xianghua]

And that doesn't mean that a robot is an animal, or that an animal is a robot, walking or otherwise. Robots are not alive - is that so hard to understand?

ok. but why? why we cant call a walking animal a kind of a robot? because its made from organic components? this is the big difference?

 

[Speedwell]

ok. but why? why we cant call a walking animal a kind of a robot? because its made from organic components? this is the big difference?

No. As we become more adept at genetic engineering, it will no doubt become possible to build machines by growing them rather than making them out of metal and plastic in machine shops and foundries. So, organic robots are feasible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

ok. but why? why we cant call a walking animal a kind of a robot? because its made from organic components? this is the big difference?

Most obviously, robots are not living creatures, and animals are living creatures.

The words are different because there are fundamental differences in the two types or classes of things that need to be distinguished for effective communication.

 

[pitabread]

ok. but why?

Because it's the basic definition of a robot, which refers to a type of non-living machine.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so this isnt a watch if it self replicating and made from organic components?:

(image from Bear Wood Watch)

Are you claiming it's self-replicating and made 100% from organic materials? If it is it's a new species that needs to be properly investigated. Chances are it will get a different name.

If it's not, it's still just a watch. Manufactured by man.

 

[doubtingmerle]

ok. but why? why we cant call a walking animal a kind of a robot? because its made from organic components? this is the big difference?

You can metaphorically call an animal a robot.

Metaphors are fine.

The problem is that you use a metaphor and say that since you used that metaphor every thing that is true about a robot is true about that animal.

That is not fine.

 

[pitabread]

The problem is that you use a metaphor and say that since you used that metaphor every thing that is true about a robot is true about that animal.

Which is of course the fallacy of False Equivalence. Which has been explained to xianghua repeatedly, but he appears to not give a crap.

 

[Archie Dupont]

so this isnt a watch if it self replicating and made from organic components?:

(image from Bear Wood Watch)

This is not organic material that can self replicate. It is dead wood. Like I said: "not pieces of meat stapled together"

 

[Archie Dupont]

@xianghua maybe now is the time, instead of asking us all the questions, you giving us your definitions of the following things:

Robot:

Organic material/components:

Self replication:

Design:

Until you provide insight into your definitions on these subjects we cannot continue to talk about this.
You are just asking things in the hope that our answers will be inconsistent or wrong, so you can pin it on us and claim intellectual high ground. Meanwhile you avoid going into the details yourself

 

[xianghua]

Most obviously, robots are not living creatures, and animals are living creatures.

The words are different because there are fundamental differences in the two types or classes of things that need to be distinguished for effective communication.

but i asked what is the difference that make one of them to be a creature and one of them to be a robot.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but i asked what is the difference that make one of them to be a creature and one of them to be a robot.

Being alive is a significant difference.