TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
lets say that we found such a watch. you will call it a watch or an organism?
So if you will just see a universe-creating god you can't conclude that this god was designed?so if you will just see a robot you cant conclude design?
If I found such a watch I would stop drinking whatever it was that I was drinking.lets say that we found such a watch. you will call it a watch or an organism?
Sir, animals are not made in factories.you are begging the question when you said that penguin where not engineered.
then why you cant answer the question if it's so simple? where is the limit between a robot and an animal?Are you really asking for an explanation of the difference between a living animal and a robot?
C'mon...
Okay then. Life is eternal. Now life doesn't need a designer either.
You're just listing parts.
The question is : how do they indicate design?
but its not the same. so they arent identical.Exactly.
Just because something looks the same, it doesn't mean that it is.
and you will conclude design or not?If I found such a watch I would stop drinking whatever it was that I was drinking.
then why you cant answer the question if it's so simple?
if you find a whatsit would you conclude design or not?and you will conclude design or not?
but we have evidences from several scientific fields that nature had a beginning. so it cant be true.
Oh my!!!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!
That is called question dodge, merleSo if you will just see a universe-creating god you can't conclude that this god was designed?
How do you know that?because we know that those parts cant evolve naturally.
but its not the same. so they arent identical.
Would that be a self-replicating UFO?so if we will see a ufo we cant conclude that aliens exist?
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.
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.
...or perhaps a self-replicating penguin-shaped UFO watch unicorn?Would that be a self-replicating UFO?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?