"The FACT of God's existence": non-Biblical LOGICAL DEBATE

[quatona]

so if someone will create a human you will consider it as a robot too?

Huh? Where did you conclude that from?

 

[Philip_B]

what is human?

Psalm 8
O Lord, our Sovereign,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

You have set your glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouths of babes and infants
you have founded a bulwark because of your foes,
to silence the enemy and the avenger.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?

Yet you have made them a little lower than God,
and crowned them with glory and honour.
You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

O Lord, our Sovereign,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!​

 

[Dave Ellis]

again: not if he eternal.

So why can't the universe have a naturally occurring eternal source?

 

[xianghua]

So why can't the universe have a naturally occurring eternal source?

because we have many evidences that it have a beginning.

 

[TBDude65]

because we have many evidences that it have a beginning.

An origin is very different than a cause. So while there is evidence of the Universe's origin, there is no evidence that demonstrates it must be caused, let alone caused by a sentient and conscious entity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

because we have many evidences that it have a beginning.

I never argued the universe as we know it had a beginning, but the source could be natural. Why could this not be the case?

 

[xianghua]

I never argued the universe as we know it had a beginning, but the source could be natural. Why could this not be the case?

because we know that a robot need a designer. therefore nature need one.

 

[Dave Ellis]

because we know that a robot need a designer. therefore nature need one.

That doesn't follow at all. Can you demonstrate that?

 

[xianghua]

That doesn't follow at all. Can you demonstrate that?

we can found kinds of robots in nature too.

 

[Dave Ellis]

we can found kinds robots in nature too.

You must be using a very uncommon definition of robot.

However, even if I grant you that point, that still doesn't demonstrate everything was designed by a designer.

 

[pitabread]

You must be using a very uncommon definition of robot.

xianghua brings up this "robot" stuff a lot. Although I'm starting to wonder, as English isn't his native language, if something is getting lost in translation.

 

[Philip_B]

we can found kinds robots in nature too.

Definition of Robot
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.​

Given that this is a reasonable dictionary definition of a robot, it does seem that as a 'machine' it must have been made/manufactured in some way distinguishing it from things found in nature.

In light of that for the benefit of the conversation I would ask you to unpack your statement so that we might understand what you want to convey to us in the way of meaning.

 

[xianghua]

You must be using a very uncommon definition of robot.

However, even if I grant you that point, that still doesn't demonstrate everything was designed by a designer.

true. but it does prove that some objects in nature are the result of design.

 

[xianghua]

Definition of Robot
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.​

Given that this is a reasonable dictionary definition of a robot, it does seem that as a 'machine' it must have been made/manufactured in some way distinguishing it from things found in nature.

In light of that for the benefit of the conversation I would ask you to unpack your statement so that we might understand what you want to convey to us in the way of meaning.

so if someone will creat a robot without a computer it will not be a robot by definition?

 

[Dave Ellis]

true. but it does prove that some objects in nature are the result of design.

No it doesn't. It just shows that robots are designed, and we have no instances of naturally occurring robots.

 

[TBDude65]

true. but it does prove that some objects in nature are the result of design.

The fact that some animals have designed things, doesn't mean that animals are designed. That is a non sequitur