My favorite argument for the existence of God

[HitchSlap]

"Well, if you are indeed correct, why don't you try using an actual reasonable argument?"

I can do better than that, I can give you the cure.
Helps to emotional stability

Lol. This is the best you got?

 

[bhsmte]

Answer a fool according to her folly and she is wise in her own eyes. The only thing bigger than your ego is your pride. Capiche? Or do you need a long drawn out explanation on that one as well.

Whatever happened to "taking the log out of one's own eye"?

 

[xianghua]

Please show me how a rock formation goes through any process even remotely similar to biological evolution.

who is talking about biological evolution? i talking about a natural process that can produce a bicycle. will you call it a bicycle if it was made by a natural process or not? its very simple question. i will call it a bicycle.

 

[Speedwell]

who is talking about biological evolution?

Everybody but you, apparently. Isn't biologial evolution what you are trying to debunk?

i talking about a natural process that can produce a bicycle. will you call it a bicycle if it was made by a natural process or not? its very simple question. i will call it a bicycle.

So what?

 

[Kylie]

who is talking about biological evolution? i talking about a natural process that can produce a bicycle. will you call it a bicycle if it was made by a natural process or not? its very simple question. i will call it a bicycle.

But there is no such process. The only natural process that can possibly result in something as complex as a bicycle is evolution.

So either we have bicycles that can evolve (which is impossible due their lack of reproductive abilities) or we have magic.

Now, I'm perfectly happy to assume that there is some process that can do it for your hypothetical situation here, but you must be aware that none of the argument you build from that hypothetical will apply to reality. So I don't see what your point is.

And WHEN are you going to get to the bit where you explain the trouble with definitions?

 

[HitchSlap]

who is talking about biological evolution? i talking about a natural process that can produce a bicycle. will you call it a bicycle if it was made by a natural process or not? its very simple question. i will call it a bicycle.

Is there a natural process that will make a bicycle?

 

[Speedwell]

And so what? Must a bicycle produced by natural processes be designed because a man-made bicycle is designed? If that's the point you've been trying to make then you have been wasting our time.

 

[Archie Dupont]

who is talking about biological evolution? i talking about a natural process that can produce a bicycle. will you call it a bicycle if it was made by a natural process or not? its very simple question. i will call it a bicycle.

So a circular flat eroded pebble is a wheel? The fact we make wheels in that shape does not make everything in that shape a wheel.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

who is talking about biological evolution? i talking about a natural process that can produce a bicycle. will you call it a bicycle if it was made by a natural process or not? its very simple question. i will call it a bicycle.

Let's try this one on you:

Close your eyes. Imagine you live in a world where bicycles aren't produced by a natural process. Where cars don't have sex. Where penguins are just birds. Now open your eyes. Does the world you are in match your imagination?

Welcome to reality! I hope you're not too disorientated. If you need help settling in just ask.

 

[xianghua]

Now, I'm perfectly happy to assume that there is some process that can do it for your hypothetical situation here

thanks. so will it be a bicycle in this case or not?

 

[xianghua]

So a circular flat eroded pebble is a wheel? The fact we make wheels in that shape does not make everything in that shape a wheel.

again: i talk about the same object and not about something that only looks similar.

 

[Speedwell]

again: i talk about the same object and not about something that only looks similar.

That would be quite some feat of evolution, to produce refined metals and alloys which don't occur in nature as well as plastic parts, all bearing mold and tool marks. Then there are rivits and other headed fasteners which require the application of an outside force to set. Also think about synthetic oils and greases...

 

[Kylie]

thanks. so will it be a bicycle in this case or not?

If the process is entirely separate from the bicycle itself, then sure, why not?

Still, remember that the argument you are now making doesn't actually apply to reality, since there is no such process.

The argument you are making applies to a fictitious world where such a process exists.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That would be quite some feat of evolution, to produce refined metals and alloys which don't occur in nature as well as plastic parts, all bearing mold and tool marks. Then there are rivits and other headed fasteners which require the application of an outside force to set. Also think about synthetic oils and greases...

And since there is no conceivable way for a big metal frame to grow from a baby metal frame, I guess that means the mother had to push a full bicycle frame out the birth canal.

Ouch!

 

[xianghua]

If the process is entirely separate from the bicycle itself, then sure, why not?

so if you will consider a bicycle that was made by a natural process as a bicycle, then the process that made objects doenst need to be a part of the definition. so if someonw will create an artificial penguin then we can consider it to be a robot too.

 

[Kylie]

so if you will consider a bicycle that was made by a natural process as a bicycle, then the process that made objects doenst need to be a part of the definition. so if someonw will create an artificial penguin then we can consider it to be a robot too.

What justification do you have for calling it a robot? You still haven't defined what a robot is. Why not call it a car, or a satellite?

 

[xianghua]

What justification do you have for calling it a robot? You still haven't defined what a robot is. Why not call it a car, or a satellite?

because its very similar to a walking robot. so why not actually?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

because its very similar to a walking robot. so why not actually?

A robot shaped like a penguin is a robot - but it's not a penguin.

Something identical to a penguin is a penguin - but it's not a robot.

Does this help?

 

[tyke]

because its very similar to a walking robot.

I'm afraid "similar" doesn't cut it. It really is that simple!

Once you take this on board we can forward - until then we are going to go round and round in circles getting precisely nowhere.

 

[Kylie]

because its very similar to a walking robot. so why not actually?

Because "very similar" is NOT the same as "identical to."

Two species of seagull can be very similar, but that doesn't mean they're the same species after all, does it?

In any case, how do you know it's similar to a walking robot? How do you recognise a robot?