My favorite argument for the existence of God

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Let's say you find a pot of gold at the base of a rainbow.
Would you assume it's the property of a leprachaun?

I suggest you stick to reality.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

So if you will just see a universe-creating god you can't conclude that this god was designed?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

If I found such a watch I would stop drinking whatever it was that I was drinking.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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

Sir, animals are not made in factories.

I hate to break it to you, but baby penguins come from mommy and daddy penguins.

 

[xianghua]

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

C'mon...

then why you cant answer the question if it's so simple? where is the limit between a robot and an animal?

 

[xianghua]

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

but we have evidences from several scientific fields that nature had a beginning. so it cant be true.

 

[xianghua]

You're just listing parts.

The question is : how do they indicate design?

because we know that those parts cant evolve naturally.

 

[xianghua]

Exactly.

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

but its not the same. so they arent identical.

 

[xianghua]

If I found such a watch I would stop drinking whatever it was that I was drinking.

and you will conclude design or not?

 

[pitabread]

then why you cant answer the question if it's so simple?

It's not about not being able to answer the question. It's about why you even think you need to ask that question in the first place.

Are you genuinely confused about the difference between living things and robots?

 

[doubtingmerle]

and you will conclude design or not?

if you find a whatsit would you conclude design or not?

 

[Kylie]

but we have evidences from several scientific fields that nature had a beginning. so it cant be true.

No, we have indications that nature started to exist the way it does now. It obviously existed in some different form before that point. So nature never BEGAN, it simply changed to what it is now.

Prove me wrong!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we have indications that nature started to exist the way it does now. It obviously existed in some different form before that point. So nature never BEGAN, it simply changed to what it is now.

Prove me wrong!

Oh my!!!

dad's contagious.

 

[dmmesdale]

So if you will just see a universe-creating god you can't conclude that this god was designed?

That is called question dodge, merle

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

because we know that those parts cant evolve naturally.

How do you know that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but its not the same. so they arent identical.

Yes, you succesfully repeated it again.

Indeed, just because something looks the same, doesn't necessarily mean it is identical

 

[quatona]

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

Would that be a self-replicating UFO?

 

[Ana the Ist]

i actually falsified this claim above:

"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."

so you are wrong actually.

A watch isn't a robot.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

How is it that you detect design?

I understand that you've possibly seen robots created, spoken with their designers, viewed their inner workings...so you "know" robots are designed.

Imagine that you came across something you've never seen before. You don't know if it's alive, you don't know what it's made of, you certainly don't know how it works...

How would you figure out if something designed it or not?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Would that be a self-replicating UFO?

...or perhaps a self-replicating penguin-shaped UFO watch unicorn?