My favorite argument for the existence of God

[durangodawood]

Let me settle this little dispute right here and now:

 

[Kylie]

because i can see them all over the place:

(image from Watch 1,069 robots dance simultaneously to set a Guinness World Record | Digit.in)

And how do you know they are robots? What criteria do they meet that indicates to you that they are robots?

 

[Paleophyte]

But how does he know that what he thinks he knows is a robot actually is a robot?

He doesn't really. He's just another robot.

 

[xianghua]

Uh no. If there's no good definition of a word, then theres no point in using that word.

so you cant say this is a car without defining it first?:

(image from wiki)

 

[xianghua]

And how do you know they are robots? What criteria do they meet that indicates to you that they are robots?

you dont know that those are robots?

 

[durangodawood]

so you cant say this is a car without defining it first?:

(image from wiki)

Thats not a car. Thats a robot!

 

[Kylie]

so you cant say this is a car without defining it first?:

(image from wiki)

That's right. Without a definition of "car", it is impossible to say that the object pictured is a car.

 

[Kylie]

you dont know that those are robots?

How can I know they are robots when I have no definition of what a robot is? Why don't you define robot for me and then I'll be able to tell when something is a robot or not..

 

[quatona]

so you cant say this is a car without defining it first?:

(image from wiki)

Indeed. That´s exactly how language works - like it or not.
I could claim that it´s an "penguin", and you´d soon start discussing this claim by pointing to the definitions of "car" and "penguin".
Your whole "argument" rests on semantics, and semantics rest on proper definitions. Unfortunately your arguments rests upon false equivocations based on changing the definitions midstream, and that´s a logical fallacy.
Now give it a rest.

 

[Paleophyte]

OK, so you can't define your terms. It's an underwhelming argument but if that's the best you've got let's see what we can do with it.

If you can't define a robot at least tell us what criteria you use to distinguish them from non-robots. e.g.: All robots are short, hairy and have bad breath; all non-robots are not.

(oops, that's goblins, not robots)

 

[xianghua]

That's right. Without a definition of "car", it is impossible to say that the object pictured is a car.

so you cant tell if this is a car?:

 

[xianghua]

Indeed. That´s exactly how language works - like it or not.
I could claim that it´s an "penguin", and you´d soon start discussing this claim by pointing to the definitions of "car" and "penguin".
Your whole "argument" rests on semantics, and semantics rest on proper definitions. Unfortunately your arguments rests upon false equivocations based on changing the definitions midstream, and that´s a logical fallacy.
Now give it a rest.

so you cant say if this is a car?:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Wiki_libra.jpg/220px-Wiki_libra.jpg

 

[durangodawood]

so you cant say if this is a car?:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Wiki_libra.jpg/220px-Wiki_libra.jpg

You dont need to recite the definition every single time you use the word.

You just have to have a definition, in your back pocket, so to speak.... in case there's any confusion about what sense of the word you are using.

 

[xianghua]

OK, so you can't define your terms. It's an underwhelming argument but if that's the best you've got let's see what we can do with it.

If you can't define a robot at least tell us what criteria you use to distinguish them from non-robots. e.g.: All robots are short, hairy and have bad breath; all non-robots are not.

(oops, that's goblins, not robots)

let me ask you this: what make you think that a penguin isnt a robot?

 

[Kylie]

so you cant tell if this is a car?:

I can, because I have a definition of car that I use as criteria. Whenever I see something, I compare the thing to the criteria for "car" and if the thing matches the criteria, I conclude that the thing is a car.

But the only way that works is because I have a definition for "car." See how definitions are needed in order to tell if something is a particular kind of thing?

 

[Kylie]

let me ask you this: what make you think that a penguin isnt a robot?

Because the definition of Penguin is different to the definition of Robot.

Sure, there's some overlap there - both are things that exist, for instance - but there's a lot of things in the definition of penguin that aren't in the definition for robot, and vice versa.

Of course, if you think a penguin can be defined as a robot, please feel free to provide a definition of robot that includes penguins.

Except you won't, because you know that the instant you limit yourself to an actual definition, your argument will fall apart.

 

[xianghua]

Because the definition of Penguin is different to the definition of Robot.

great. i will show you why definitions are problematic. do you agree that by definition a robot most be a designed object?

 

[Paleophyte]

so you cant tell if this is a car?:

I can tell that that is what I call a car. I can't be certain that it's what you call a car. Worse, we may agree that it is a car but for different reasons. Maybe I call it a car because it has wheels on the bottom and you call it a car because it has a windshield. Having failed to define our terms we end up in an argument about whether jet fighters are actually rollerskates.

Or if penguins are robots.

But since you can't/won't define a robot, just tell us what characteristics to look for. Do they have wheels on the bottom? How about windshields?

Specifically, are robots necessarily designed?

 

[doubtingmerle]

great. i will show you why definitions are problematic. do you agree that by definition a robot most be a designed object?

No. In theory, at least, it would be possible for a computer running a genetic algorithm to make a robot. So one cannot say that all robots that will ever be made will be designed by an intelligent being.

Genetic algorithms can in theory make a robot just like genetic processes make penguins

 

[Kylie]

great. i will show you why definitions are problematic. do you agree that by definition a robot most be a designed object?

Tell ya what...

To avoid any problems with any possible future discussions about robots, let's leave them out of this for a minute.

Let's deal with the definition of the word "Bicycle."

Show me the problems with definitions using BICYCLE as an example.