My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

The reason we look at a cellphone or computer and conclude design is because we are instinctively comparing these manufactured devices to non-manufactured objects found in nature. It's essentially a form of pattern recognition.

and this is why the flagellum is evidence for design, since its very similar to motors made by humans:

(image fromhttp://www.biologyexams4u.com/2012/10/difference-between-prokaryotic-flagella.html)

 

[Speedwell]

and this is why the flagellum is evidence for design, since its very similar to motors made by humans:

(image fromhttp://www.biologyexams4u.com/2012/10/difference-between-prokaryotic-flagella.html)

How is it similar? I don't see any iron, nor copper wire, nor carbon brushes, nor plastic insulation, nor a stamped metal housing...

The only similarity I see is that it spins.

 

[pitabread]

and this is why the flagellum is evidence for design, since its very similar to motors made by humans:

It has already been explained to you why it isn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It has already been explained to you why it isn't.

Explaining things to him doesn't seem to be very effective.

 

[pitabread]

Explaining things to him doesn't seem to be very effective.

I keep wondering if he's just a bot, programmed to keep spitting out the same repetitive posts. It might explain why every attempt at conversation with him just goes in circles.

 

[Kylie]

in this thread.

Of over a thousand posts! Would you care to be a little more specific? For example, a post number?

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.

Expect you were talking about ROBOTS and WATCHES, not bicycles.

Show me where you explained how "an object that its identical to a robot isnt a robot". Or "a watch that also has a self replicating system and dna cant be consider as a watch too."

Post numbers please!

 

[Kylie]

so if a watch will has all those traits it will not be a watch but a living thing?

Oops! Are you trying to settle on a definition of "living thing"?

I thought you said definitions were bad (altrhough I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why!)

 

[Kylie]

Kinda like "flying squirrel" and other mistakes made by scientists?

Once again demonstrating you don't know how to science.

 

[Kylie]

Well I certainly don't want to list out a whole line of mistakes made by scientists in the past.

Someone might think I look down on scientists.

As opposed to all the mistakes made by religious folk, who have since fixed it by aligning with the scientific explanations...

 

[Kylie]

One of my favorite "arguments" is:

If we can look at a cell phone, or computer, and accept that someone intelligent made it, why can't we look at the earth and the universe & humans and accept that someome intelligent made us? Look at how we are designed to operate within the confines of the creation we were put in

Not here to argue, just sharing

So if you see a phone sitting on a rock, how do you know that the phone isn't natural?

 

[Kylie]

and this is why the flagellum is evidence for design, since its very similar to motors made by humans:

(image fromhttp://www.biologyexams4u.com/2012/10/difference-between-prokaryotic-flagella.html)

So what? Lots of times humans have copied the forms that nature has come to through evolution.

 

[xianghua]

How is it similar? I don't see any iron, nor copper wire, nor carbon brushes, nor plastic insulation, nor a stamped metal housing...

The only similarity I see is that it spins.

so if you will see a car without a copper wire, nor carbon brushes, nor plastic insulation, nor a stamped metal housing...you will not conclude design? fine.

 

[xianghua]

Expect you were talking about ROBOTS and WATCHES, not bicycles.

how it makes any difference?

Show me where you explained how "an object that its identical to a robot isnt a robot". Or "a watch that also has a self replicating system and dna cant be consider as a watch too."

again: by definition a robot or a watch need a designer. so if a robot or a watch will form by a natural process it will not be a watch by definition since its evolved. so definition is not a perfect indicator.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

how it makes any difference?



again: by definition a robot or a watch need a designer. so if a robot or a watch will form by a natural process it will not be a watch by definition since its evolved. so definition is not a perfect indicator.

But if the definition says an object is not formed by a natural process it IS a perfect indicator.

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will see a car without a copper wire, nor carbon brushes, nor plastic insulation, nor a stamped metal housing...you will not conclude design? fine.

Who was talking about a car? You were talking about a motor. Maybe on whatever planet you are from a motor is the same as a car. Here, a car is a man-made engine-powered vehicle.

But yes, if I didn't see a stamped metal housing, plastic-coated copper wire, etc. I would have a hard time concluding design.

 

[Michael]

That doesn't distinguish plants as living things - and many (most?) robots have both capabilities.

I'm sure there are more sophisticated ways to define life, but awareness is one of the key attributes of living organisms. I'd say that a robot 'intelligently simulates' some like awareness, but it has no sense of personal identity or a 'desire' for self preservation. Admittedly the lines get a little blurry when it includes intelligent programming.

 

[Michael]

As opposed to all the mistakes made by religious folk, who have since fixed it by aligning with the scientific explanations...

Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? Why condemn religion for learning and growing over time the way that science learns and grows?

Scientists sometimes simply sweep their own failures right under the rug too.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sure there are more sophisticated ways to define life, but awareness is one of the key attributes of living organisms. I'd say that a robot 'intelligently simulates' some like awareness, but it has no sense of personal identity or a 'desire' for self preservation. Admittedly the lines get a little blurry when it includes intelligent programming.

As I've mentioned before, 'awareness' is ambiguous. If awareness is used to mean simply responding to the environment(i.e. stimuli), then most robots and all living things are aware. If awareness is used to mean some form of consciousness, then only living things with nervous systems are aware, and not robots.

Personal identity or a 'desire' for self preservation are characteristic of only a very small percentage of living things, and sufficiently vague that they could, arguably, be design features of some robots.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If the angel of the Lord ever appears in the locality of a robot or robots, it may well be to destroy them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If the angel of the Lord ever appears in the locality of a robot or robots, it may well be to destroy them.

Good point.