My favorite argument for the existence of God

[TagliatelliMonster]

so why not a living thing?

Those orange things are robots.
Would you call them "alive"?

Why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Can you give me your top 3 of "design traits" that we find in a watch?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I once held a piece of paper that looked identical to 100$ bill. But for some reason, the bank didn't agree we could consider it a 100% bill.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Do you know what the "U" stands for in "UFO"?

 

[Kylie]

my favorite argument for the existence of god (or a designer) is going like this:

a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.

b) from a physical perspective a walking creature (a penguin for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).

or in other words: if a robot that is identical to a penguin need a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also penguin need, because they are identical in this case.

the main objection to this argument is that if the object is made from oroganic components then we cant call it a robot. but this is wrong because if for instance we will see a watch that made from a wood and have a self replicating system we can still consider it as a watch. even if it made from a wood. so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot.

the second objection is that the designer need a designer too. but actually this isnt true because its possible that the designer is eternal. and if he eternal he didnt need a designer. we know that nature have a beginning so we cant
claim that nature is eternal too. also remember that such a robot cant evolve because there is no stepwise way from a self replicating matter to a robot.

a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.

b) from a physical perspective a deity (God for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).

or in other words: if a robot that is identical to a God needs a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also God needs one, because they are identical in this case.

 

[doubtingmerle]

a) we know that a theoretical self replicating robot that made from organic components is evidence for design. because we know that any robot is evidence for design.

b) from a physical perspective a deity (God for instance) can be consider as a self replicating robot that made from organic components (without talking now about the free will question, i just talking now about the physical perspective).

or in other words: if a robot that is identical to a God needs a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also God needs one, because they are identical in this case.

Aha! That's the answer.

All along Xianghua has been comparing things to a watch or robot, and saying that since he compares it to a robot, therefore X needs a designer. Well, as you say, one could equally compare God to a robot. If the argument is:

a) I choose to call X a robot
b) Robots need a designer
c) Therefore X needs a designer
​

Then that argument would apply to gods, waterfalls, tornadoes, crystals, anything. But Xianghua uses the argument only when he wants to.

 

[xianghua]

"if so why you conclude design when you see a robot?"

Because I can find demonstrable evidence of the design and the designer. Its appearance has nothing to do with concluding it is designed.

so if you will just see a robot you cant conclude design?

 

[xianghua]

Penguins aren't robots. If you don't know the difference between a robot and an animal, that may explain a few things about this entire thread.

where is the limit between a robot and a penguin?

 

[xianghua]

Industrial robot.
Engineered.
Built in a factory.


Penguin.
Not engineered.
Not built in a factory.

Any questions?

you are begging the question when you said that penguin where not engineered.

 

[xianghua]

There are no such watches.

lets say that we found such a watch. you will call it a watch or an organism?

 

[xianghua]

or in other words: if a robot that is identical to a God needs a designer (including the ability to reproduce), then also God needs one, because they are identical in this case.

not realy. first: you dont know how god is looks like

secondly: if he eternal he dont need a designer. so the question isnt apply to him.

 

[xianghua]

Can you give me your top 3 of "design traits" that we find in a watch?

numbers? 2 springs? a motion system that spinning them?

 

[xianghua]

I once held a piece of paper that looked identical to 100$ bill. But for some reason, the bank didn't agree we could consider it a 100% bill.

its not identical but similar if it was fake.

 

[Speedwell]

numbers? 2 springs? a motion system that spinning them?

None of the above.

Functionality is not evidence of design.

Complexity is not evidence of design.

Superficial resemblances in form or function to designed objects are not evidence of design.

Something else is required to conclude design. That is, traces of workmanship, evidence of human manufacture. That is what people look for when they try to determine whether an object is designed or not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so if you will just see a robot you cant conclude design?

Cart before horse error. When you identify something as a robot, you do so because you have good reason to think it was manufactured and so would have been designed.

 

[TBDude65]

so if you will just see a robot you cant conclude design?

Living things aren't robots. The fact that you look at life and think it emulates robots instead of literally the exact opposite, is a personal problem I can't help you figure out. Life doesn't emulate man-made inventions, man-made inventions emulate parts of the natural system. For instance, robots and computers emulate functions that living organisms perform. Living organisms are not robots or computers.

 

[pitabread]

where is the limit between a robot and a penguin?

Are you really asking for an explanation of the difference between a living animal and a robot?

C'mon...

 

[Kylie]

not realy. first: you dont know how god is looks like

Yes I do. The Bible makes it very clear that Humans are created in God's image. So God looks like us.

secondly: if he eternal he dont need a designer. so the question isnt apply to him.

Okay then. Life is eternal. Now life doesn't need a designer either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

numbers? 2 springs? a motion system that spinning them?

You're just listing parts.

The question is : how do they indicate design?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

its not identical but similar if it was fake.

Exactly.

Just because something looks the same, it doesn't mean that it is.