It is impossible to have no evidence of negative impact when the low and middle skilled workers are losing hours/pay, but there is no effect on high skilled workers. The math doesn't add up.
Appearances can be deceiving. How many variables are at work in a study of 17 countries over 14 years?
He actually has unlimited wants, but almost no demand ability.
What is "demand ability"?
Demand is want. I demand everything, at no cost.
Even though I'll never get that trade, that demand is still there.
Note that you focused on production, not supply. Production is determined (in an efficient economy) by the meeting of supply and demand.
I used "production" as the ability to create something that is of value.
Not all production is valuable, but the ability to produce valuable things (goods) is what leads to trades that allow the consumption of valuable things.
We're talking about robots being more efficient at producing goods in mass, and you think that demand for luxury goods is going to drive the market? And then getting snippy about it?
You don't think iPhones and iWatches are luxury goods? Whether or not they were built by a machine (they are, somewhere), they are luxuries.
Let's look at a hypothetical extreme case. Suppose AI got as smart as an average human and easily took over most jobs we know now.
You have no idea what capabilities the average human has, or the difficulty of building robots to imitate what Nature gives us for free.
Now, under this, how does the middle and lower class get money to buy stuff? (All the wonderful stuff created by the bots.)
In this hypothetical world, scarcity is no longer a constraint, and we don't have to worry about distribution of scarce resources.
As such, any steady-state "solutions" to the hypothetical system have little relation to how things would or should resolve in our world.
Massage: No thanks, I don't want to lie there in full knowledge that the lovely girl massaging me is only doing so because she is paid and wouldn't be within a kilometre of me otherwise
Food Service: No thanks, I don't need or want to interact with a human for something so mundane and easily-abstracted.
Etc etc etc: No thanks - I'm quite happy here. I certainly enjoy interacting with humans via the Internet and spend a lot of time in voice chat with people all over the world. That said I couldn't possibly care less if I ever saw another human being in person.
I don't think you should assume everyone else in the world dislikes the presence of other human beings as much as you do.
Do you accept the existence of extroverts and people persons?
Yes, yes, everyone gets up and dances until the economy craters due to overproduction and a lack of consumers for said goods. But do let's forget the roaring twenties and associated rampant consumerism and stock market speculation, eh?
What about the roaring twenties?
Do you have a point?
Rather uncommon, which I believe is just the point the original poster made. What was yours?
The original poster claimed that the rich people don't have anything left to spend their money on. That the pinnacle of luxury spending they can make is $500 iPhones... so now there's nothing else for them to buy.
If he thinks "the rich" are satisfied with $500 iPhones, he has no clue. If you think he has a point there, neither do you.
It said exactly what I quoted. The article does contain the text you quoted... but you skipped much of the important context. Properly quoted below, with relevant context bolded.
Although we do not find evidence of a negative impact of robots on aggregate employment, we see a more nuanced picture when we break jobs and the wage cost down by skill groups. Robots appear to reduce the hours and the wage costs of low-skilled workers, and to a lesser extent middle skilled workers. They have no significant effect on the employment of high-skilled workers. This pattern differs from the effect that recent work has found for ICT, which seems to benefit high-skilled workers at the expense of middle-skilled workers (Autor 2014, Michaels et al. 2014).
In further results, we find that industrial robots increased total factor productivity and wages. At the same time, we find no significant effect of robots on the labour share.
Exactly, he has no money with which to turn his demand (desires) into economic activity. A part is missing or broken from the usual cycle.
There's nothing missing at all.
There's no such thing as just "consumption". People consume goods comes by trading one thing of value for something else of value.
Consumers have money to consume things because they are producers first. They traded their time and skills for wages, or used their knowledge to reap returns on investments.
Consumers do not magically pop into existence to throw money at economic goods.
Never heard of luxury goods?
Yes, but that's not enough to drive the entire economy.
Are you kidding me? The vast majority of things that the Western world enjoys are luxury goods by definition.
You will not die from lack of a car, or laptop, or Internet access, or smartphone, or fast food or fine dining, or all the trivialities you enjoy in your day to day life.
Humanity has existed for thousands of years without those goods ever existing - that they are mass produced and available to many individuals first world nations is a giant market of luxury goods.
It takes complete ignorance of what it means to live without to look at the Western world overflowing with luxuries and claim, "can't build an economy on luxury goods".
What are you ranked in the world's income percentiles?
If it's above $34k, you're in the top 1%. It only takes $1.5k to be in the top 50%. Source
There is no impact to those employees, but the other factory goes out of business. That is where the jobs get lost and that is what the study does not measure.
Read the article.
Although we do not find evidence of a negative impact of robots on aggregate employment, we see a more nuanced picture when we break jobs and the wage cost down by skill groups. Robots appear to reduce the hours and the wage costs of low-skilled workers, and to a lesser extent middle skilled workers. They have no significant effect on the employment of high-skilled workers. This pattern differs from the effect that recent work has found for ICT, which seems to benefit high-skilled workers at the expense of middle-skilled workers (Autor 2014, Michaels et al. 2014).
The bottleneck in the cyber-age economy is consumers, so far.
Utter nonsense.
Demand does not create wealth. Production does. A beggar has unlimited demand for every material good, but nothing he can trade for them.
Nobody has figured out how to get more and bigger spending-consumers. Most of the revenue and profits are log-jammed at the 1%, who don't need 500 iPhones each.
And the benefit of the increased productivity to the workers is...?
What does the freaking article summary say?
industrial robots increase labor productivity, total factor productivity and wages
Does higher wages sound like a benefit to you?
How you get Insightful for failing to RTFA is a mystery. I blame the increased productivity your computer is giving you. You can count that as a benefit of technology.
We're not talking about increased productivity. We're talking about longer working hours. Not the same thing.
Reading is hard.
Slashdot article title: "Robots Appear To Raise Productivity Without Causing Total Work Hours To Decline"
Also, "work hours not declining" is not the same thing as "longer working hours".
From the article, they didn't find a significant relationship between automation and hours worked.
When we use our instrument to capture differences in the increased use of robots, we again find that robots increased productivity, and detect no significant effect on hours worked.
If robots don't cause total human working hours to decline, then what the fuck good are they? Are we really automating the work force so people can work more? If so, then please stop with the robots.
People choose to use their increased productivity hours to earn more, so as to buy more stuff.
Take it up with the individuals, not the technology.
If you think about it, it's basically pair programming on steroids.
You reminded me of the last time I did pair programming. It was in college, and I recall thinking, "This is an awesome way to code!"
I can see it becoming tedious when it's forced upon you all the time; but I remember liking the second pair of eyes to notice typos and other bugs, and having a second brain to double check the logic of what I was doing.
What, you actually think "officially" means the same thing as "actually"?
Bwahaha! Were you too afraid to look up your own dictionary source, or did you actually choose to lie despite knowing that I'm willing to quote the dictionary definition?
officially
in a formal and public way.
"next month the election campaign will officially begin"
with the authority of the government or some other organization
"it was officially acknowledged that the economy was in recession"
Are Amazon or Walmart organizations? Did they make a formal and public announcement?
Tell you what, if I'm going to have to explain what words mean to someone, I might as well go right to 8chan to do it and we can skip remedial reading in the comments section of Slashdot. What do you say?
Because those stores have decided not to carry it.
It's because they went from selling any flag, to selling any flag except this one, based on its particular symbolism. That is called a "ban". Especially on Amazon, where 3rd parties who may have been willing to sell the merchandise are no longer able to do so.
Your friendly neighborhood gun shop or convenience store or KKK supply house can still carry Confederate battle flag for all your racist flag needs, because they have not been banned.
Look at the mask slip. For pointing out his falsehood, he now calls me a racist with racist needs.
"Walmart, Amazon, eBay and Sears all announced bans on the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, amid an intensifying national debate over the use of the controversial flag."
You best contact Walmart, Amazon, eBay, and Sears to tell them that their bans do not exist.
You stupid sonofabitch, nothing has been banned. Some state governments have decided not to fly the Confederate battle flag over government properties any more. Some stores have decided, privately not to sell Confederate battle flags any more.
Liar. If nothing has been banned, why is it impossible to buy the flag on Amazon and other big stores?
If he said the government banned it from the country, your criticism would be relevant. But he didn't. A private store's self-imposed ban is still a ban.
Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.
Why would they sue you when they can just disable your account and end the business relationship?
So, because you prefer an epic gaming experience, all other gaming forms should be ignored?
2+ hours of gameplay is not remotely close to being "epic". It means the game has a fairly minimal amount of entertainment value... about the same duration as a movie.
If the game cannot hold a player's attention beyond 2 hours, it's little more than a glorified demo. No one's banning that "gaming form"... but fewer people will want to pay money for it.
Okay, you want to me to say your entire argument is invalid, fine, it is, you've put in place a designer, so who designed it?
Why does the designer of the designer matter to this argument?
Not knowing if man has a designer does not affect whether or not is reasonable to argue that man designed cars/computers/etc. Not knowing if god has a designer does not affect whether or not it is reasonable to argue that god designed man.
You want to claim a designer created life, well then that designer had to be designed. You've caused an infinite regression paradox, so try again.
You are introducing a premise that is not a part of my argument. I know that my argument does not require this premise. You have created a different argument than mine and said that different argument has a paradox. Since it is not my argument, I don't care.
You're welcome to elaborate on how your premise should be included in my argument... but until you show the logical steps on why your different argument is actually identical to mine, I don't give any weight to your claim that my argument is invalidated by paradox.
Again, we can identify human designed objects without knowing the designer of humans (if such exists). We can identify god designed objects without knowing the designer of god (if such exists).
This time put some effort into it.
Do remember that I have the experience of our previous discussion, and I was not impressed with your ability to reason. I'm not impressed now, either. You regularly misread my points, and show no intellectual humility by acknowledging the errors and dropping the prosecutorial stance.
No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.
"Your code is semi-valid"
"Uh, does that mean it's valid?"
"Well, no, I like parts of it, but... "
"So you mean it's broken and invalid then."
Say what you mean. If there are parts that are not correct, then break it and show that it's broke. That's what rational argument *is*.
It's either valid or invalid. If there's any part that is broken, then it is invalid. Otherwise, a failure to find broken parts indicates that the argument is valid.
Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all,
[...]
I wasn't talking about origins. I was criticizing evolution as a design process. It boils down to try random things and see what fails to go extinct.
That's insufficient to build something intricately complex, based on our actual experience with software and computer engineering. It's an article of faith that throwing infinite time at a lousy process will allow it to create excellent outputs.
I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other.2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.
I know you did not. It was part of my overall point about the intricacy of human design and inadequacy of randomly driven evolution as an explanation for its existence.
Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work.
... Theoretically. You have not actually performed that experiment, and the universe has existed for a finite duration of time, based on our current physics understanding and the constraints of thermodynamics.
That I could theoretically level a mountain by myself given an infinite amount of time does not indicate I have actually done so.
The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it.
I said I would offer a rational argument for God. This fulfills the requirements. That you can come up with a counter argument does not negate the existence or rationality of the argument.
I'll give you forgiveness in that I didn't answer abiogenesis, so I won't make you answer abiogod, but you would still have to show beyond all possible doubts that DNA could not started on earth without a designer, which is going to be hard because scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab.
Please look at the italicized and bolded parts and think through your arguments more thoroughly.
Back to the main point, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DNA was designed. That's a standard of evidence used for criminal trials to avoid harming the innocent. We can and do use different standards for different topics.
Whether or not the "design" is actually from a designer does not change that designers are observed to create designs, and designers are a reasonable explanation for the existence of anything that has a "design".
It's poor argument because you've only really said that 1 didn't design 1 and there for God.
1. Someone with the ability to create man and all other life has sufficient creative power to be considered god.
2. The existence of man is evidence for such a being's existence.
3. Thus, the existence of man is evidence for god existing.
I don't care how you feel about the argument. Either break it or accept that it is a valid argument, even if you don't like the conclusion.
I'll give you credit on actually giving me a semi valid point, at least an intelligent, well thought out point, possibly the best on there really is.
Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.
I don't know if you accept evolution, but the current evolution theory can trace DNA from modern man back to early bacteria, this means that DNA has gained complexity over time, though means of replication, this also means that information had to produce itself over time.
As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design.
Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.
Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.
My point is that something such as DNA can be decomposed into smaller, simpler systems, which when assembled, create more complex, "designed", states. Scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab, which granted, is not full DNA, but it does demonstrate the simple system design methodology.
How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?
Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.
The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.
If you want to pose a designer, then you have ask yourself, who designed the designer?
No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man.
Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want...")
However you posed probably the one acceptable argument for God, however, it doesn't really answer anything because it requires a designer for a designer, which just pushes the one true creator into an infinite regression paradox.
Nothing about my argument says that every designer must have his own designer. It merely points out that man did not design himself and that man isn't even capable of designing himself; therefore this is evidence for the existence of a superior being that designed man.
And no, it's not the one acceptable argument for god. It's the one that I like, though, and one that every techie should acknowledge. To deny it is like denying the existence of lolcats and porn on the Interwebz.
Yep, all I really want to hear are some logical, rational arguments in favor of a God, that's it.
/sigh. Knowing our previous discussion, I don't believe you. There's too much history of people thinking and arguing on the topic for you to have not found a single rational argument, if that's all you were looking for.
But I said I would offer one, and so here's one from a systems engineering point of view.
I work with computer systems and building up software/hardware to collect information, process it, and pass it around. I can recognize the complexity of a system, and the level of effort needed to build complex systems versus simple ones. There's an obvious difference in wht it takes to rendering realistic 3D graphics versus displaying the simple text "Hello World!", for example
As such, I can recognize that the human body far exceeds the functionality of any human built system in history. There are an estimated 37.2 trillion cells in your body, all working together to make you continue to live. Those trillions of cells are grouped into a dozen or so systems throughout your body. Those parts working together using many nested layers of feedback loops. All of that starts from a single cell, working from its DNA blueprint.
That's an amazing design, and we don't even understand it enough to replicate it, let alone build something better.
The fact that the human body operates from an amazing intricate design is evidence for a superhuman designer. That is, a being that is above humans in ability to create designs.
Manipulating search results is essentially a service available to the highest bidder.
There is a benign reason for why the AIG link ended up on top of the list - that Google happened to use an algorithm that weighted it as the "best answer" (faultily?).
So evidence is there that AIG paid to manipulate search engine results and get their page at the top of the list?
Slashdot Mirror
It is impossible to have no evidence of negative impact when the low and middle skilled workers are losing hours/pay, but there is no effect on high skilled workers. The math doesn't add up.
Appearances can be deceiving. How many variables are at work in a study of 17 countries over 14 years?
He actually has unlimited wants, but almost no demand ability.
What is "demand ability"?
Demand is want. I demand everything, at no cost.
Even though I'll never get that trade, that demand is still there.
Note that you focused on production, not supply. Production is determined (in an efficient economy) by the meeting of supply and demand.
I used "production" as the ability to create something that is of value.
Not all production is valuable, but the ability to produce valuable things (goods) is what leads to trades that allow the consumption of valuable things.
We're talking about robots being more efficient at producing goods in mass, and you think that demand for luxury goods is going to drive the market? And then getting snippy about it?
You don't think iPhones and iWatches are luxury goods? Whether or not they were built by a machine (they are, somewhere), they are luxuries.
In this hypothetical world, scarcity is no longer a constraint, and we don't have to worry about distribution of scarce resources.
As such, any steady-state "solutions" to the hypothetical system have little relation to how things would or should resolve in our world.
Massage: No thanks, I don't want to lie there in full knowledge that the lovely girl massaging me is only doing so because she is paid and wouldn't be within a kilometre of me otherwise
Food Service: No thanks, I don't need or want to interact with a human for something so mundane and easily-abstracted.
Etc etc etc: No thanks - I'm quite happy here. I certainly enjoy interacting with humans via the Internet and spend a lot of time in voice chat with people all over the world. That said I couldn't possibly care less if I ever saw another human being in person.
I don't think you should assume everyone else in the world dislikes the presence of other human beings as much as you do.
Do you accept the existence of extroverts and people persons?
Yes, yes, everyone gets up and dances until the economy craters due to overproduction and a lack of consumers for said goods. But do let's forget the roaring twenties and associated rampant consumerism and stock market speculation, eh?
What about the roaring twenties?
Do you have a point?
Rather uncommon, which I believe is just the point the original poster made. What was yours?
The original poster claimed that the rich people don't have anything left to spend their money on. That the pinnacle of luxury spending they can make is $500 iPhones ... so now there's nothing else for them to buy.
If he thinks "the rich" are satisfied with $500 iPhones, he has no clue. If you think he has a point there, neither do you.
Although we do not find evidence of a negative impact of robots on aggregate employment, we see a more nuanced picture when we break jobs and the wage cost down by skill groups. Robots appear to reduce the hours and the wage costs of low-skilled workers, and to a lesser extent middle skilled workers. They have no significant effect on the employment of high-skilled workers. This pattern differs from the effect that recent work has found for ICT, which seems to benefit high-skilled workers at the expense of middle-skilled workers (Autor 2014, Michaels et al. 2014).
In further results, we find that industrial robots increased total factor productivity and wages. At the same time, we find no significant effect of robots on the labour share.
Exactly, he has no money with which to turn his demand (desires) into economic activity. A part is missing or broken from the usual cycle.
There's nothing missing at all.
There's no such thing as just "consumption". People consume goods comes by trading one thing of value for something else of value.
Consumers have money to consume things because they are producers first. They traded their time and skills for wages, or used their knowledge to reap returns on investments.
Consumers do not magically pop into existence to throw money at economic goods.
Never heard of luxury goods?
Yes, but that's not enough to drive the entire economy.
Are you kidding me? The vast majority of things that the Western world enjoys are luxury goods by definition.
You will not die from lack of a car, or laptop, or Internet access, or smartphone, or fast food or fine dining, or all the trivialities you enjoy in your day to day life.
Humanity has existed for thousands of years without those goods ever existing - that they are mass produced and available to many individuals first world nations is a giant market of luxury goods.
It takes complete ignorance of what it means to live without to look at the Western world overflowing with luxuries and claim, "can't build an economy on luxury goods".
What are you ranked in the world's income percentiles?
If it's above $34k, you're in the top 1%. It only takes $1.5k to be in the top 50%. Source
There is no impact to those employees, but the other factory goes out of business. That is where the jobs get lost and that is what the study does not measure.
Read the article.
Although we do not find evidence of a negative impact of robots on aggregate employment, we see a more nuanced picture when we break jobs and the wage cost down by skill groups. Robots appear to reduce the hours and the wage costs of low-skilled workers, and to a lesser extent middle skilled workers. They have no significant effect on the employment of high-skilled workers. This pattern differs from the effect that recent work has found for ICT, which seems to benefit high-skilled workers at the expense of middle-skilled workers (Autor 2014, Michaels et al. 2014).
The bottleneck in the cyber-age economy is consumers, so far.
Utter nonsense.
Demand does not create wealth. Production does. A beggar has unlimited demand for every material good, but nothing he can trade for them.
Nobody has figured out how to get more and bigger spending-consumers. Most of the revenue and profits are log-jammed at the 1%, who don't need 500 iPhones each.
Never heard of luxury goods? Like $17K watches?
If not, you have no business critiquing economic systems.
And the benefit of the increased productivity to the workers is...?
What does the freaking article summary say?
industrial robots increase labor productivity, total factor productivity and wages
Does higher wages sound like a benefit to you?
How you get Insightful for failing to RTFA is a mystery. I blame the increased productivity your computer is giving you. You can count that as a benefit of technology.
We're not talking about increased productivity. We're talking about longer working hours. Not the same thing.
Reading is hard.
Slashdot article title: "Robots Appear To Raise Productivity Without Causing Total Work Hours To Decline"
Also, "work hours not declining" is not the same thing as "longer working hours".
From the article, they didn't find a significant relationship between automation and hours worked.
When we use our instrument to capture differences in the increased use of robots, we again find that robots increased productivity, and detect no significant effect on hours worked.
If robots don't cause total human working hours to decline, then what the fuck good are they? Are we really automating the work force so people can work more? If so, then please stop with the robots.
People choose to use their increased productivity hours to earn more, so as to buy more stuff.
Take it up with the individuals, not the technology.
If you think about it, it's basically pair programming on steroids.
You reminded me of the last time I did pair programming. It was in college, and I recall thinking, "This is an awesome way to code!"
I can see it becoming tedious when it's forced upon you all the time; but I remember liking the second pair of eyes to notice typos and other bugs, and having a second brain to double check the logic of what I was doing.
Dummy, "officially" means "by someone in office".
What, you actually think "officially" means the same thing as "actually"?
Bwahaha! Were you too afraid to look up your own dictionary source, or did you actually choose to lie despite knowing that I'm willing to quote the dictionary definition?
Are Amazon or Walmart organizations? Did they make a formal and public announcement?
Tell you what, if I'm going to have to explain what words mean to someone, I might as well go right to 8chan to do it and we can skip remedial reading in the comments section of Slashdot. What do you say?
Physician, heal thyself.
I bet you think blocking someone on Twitter is censorship, too.
When companies announce they are banning certain merchandise from their store, I am able to take them at their word.
I have no need to lie that they are not banning anything.
officially or legally prohibit.
Note the use of OR. Obviously the companies do not write law, so it cannot be legally.
For the other adverb, have the companies involved OFFICIALLY prohibited the items from being sold? You know, as opposed to UNOFFICIALLY?
Because those stores have decided not to carry it.
It's because they went from selling any flag, to selling any flag except this one, based on its particular symbolism. That is called a "ban". Especially on Amazon, where 3rd parties who may have been willing to sell the merchandise are no longer able to do so.
Your friendly neighborhood gun shop or convenience store or KKK supply house can still carry Confederate battle flag for all your racist flag needs, because they have not been banned.
Look at the mask slip. For pointing out his falsehood, he now calls me a racist with racist needs.
I bet you're lily-white, too.
You might want to look up the word "ban".
Ban: 1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict.
Or just read the news:
"Walmart, Amazon, eBay and Sears all announced bans on the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, amid an intensifying national debate over the use of the controversial flag."
You best contact Walmart, Amazon, eBay, and Sears to tell them that their bans do not exist.
You stupid sonofabitch, nothing has been banned. Some state governments have decided not to fly the Confederate battle flag over government properties any more. Some stores have decided, privately not to sell Confederate battle flags any more.
Liar. If nothing has been banned, why is it impossible to buy the flag on Amazon and other big stores?
If he said the government banned it from the country, your criticism would be relevant. But he didn't. A private store's self-imposed ban is still a ban.
Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.
Why would they sue you when they can just disable your account and end the business relationship?
Could this explain why so many Americans do not understand science?
Does that explain America scientific ranking?
So, because you prefer an epic gaming experience, all other gaming forms should be ignored?
2+ hours of gameplay is not remotely close to being "epic". It means the game has a fairly minimal amount of entertainment value ... about the same duration as a movie.
If the game cannot hold a player's attention beyond 2 hours, it's little more than a glorified demo. No one's banning that "gaming form" ... but fewer people will want to pay money for it.
Okay, you want to me to say your entire argument is invalid, fine, it is, you've put in place a designer, so who designed it?
Why does the designer of the designer matter to this argument?
Not knowing if man has a designer does not affect whether or not is reasonable to argue that man designed cars/computers/etc. Not knowing if god has a designer does not affect whether or not it is reasonable to argue that god designed man.
You want to claim a designer created life, well then that designer had to be designed. You've caused an infinite regression paradox, so try again.
You are introducing a premise that is not a part of my argument. I know that my argument does not require this premise. You have created a different argument than mine and said that different argument has a paradox. Since it is not my argument, I don't care.
You're welcome to elaborate on how your premise should be included in my argument ... but until you show the logical steps on why your different argument is actually identical to mine, I don't give any weight to your claim that my argument is invalidated by paradox.
Again, we can identify human designed objects without knowing the designer of humans (if such exists). We can identify god designed objects without knowing the designer of god (if such exists).
This time put some effort into it.
Do remember that I have the experience of our previous discussion, and I was not impressed with your ability to reason. I'm not impressed now, either. You regularly misread my points, and show no intellectual humility by acknowledging the errors and dropping the prosecutorial stance.
No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.
"Your code is semi-valid"
"Uh, does that mean it's valid?"
"Well, no, I like parts of it, but ... "
"So you mean it's broken and invalid then."
Say what you mean. If there are parts that are not correct, then break it and show that it's broke. That's what rational argument *is*.
It's either valid or invalid. If there's any part that is broken, then it is invalid. Otherwise, a failure to find broken parts indicates that the argument is valid.
Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all, [...]
I wasn't talking about origins. I was criticizing evolution as a design process. It boils down to try random things and see what fails to go extinct.
That's insufficient to build something intricately complex, based on our actual experience with software and computer engineering. It's an article of faith that throwing infinite time at a lousy process will allow it to create excellent outputs.
I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other .2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.
I know you did not. It was part of my overall point about the intricacy of human design and inadequacy of randomly driven evolution as an explanation for its existence.
Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work.
That I could theoretically level a mountain by myself given an infinite amount of time does not indicate I have actually done so.
The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it.
I said I would offer a rational argument for God. This fulfills the requirements. That you can come up with a counter argument does not negate the existence or rationality of the argument.
I'll give you forgiveness in that I didn't answer abiogenesis, so I won't make you answer abiogod, but you would still have to show beyond all possible doubts that DNA could not started on earth without a designer, which is going to be hard because scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab.
Please look at the italicized and bolded parts and think through your arguments more thoroughly.
Back to the main point, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DNA was designed. That's a standard of evidence used for criminal trials to avoid harming the innocent. We can and do use different standards for different topics.
Whether or not the "design" is actually from a designer does not change that designers are observed to create designs, and designers are a reasonable explanation for the existence of anything that has a "design".
It's poor argument because you've only really said that 1 didn't design 1 and there for God.
1. Someone with the ability to create man and all other life has sufficient creative power to be considered god.
2. The existence of man is evidence for such a being's existence.
3. Thus, the existence of man is evidence for god existing.
I don't care how you feel about the argument. Either break it or accept that it is a valid argument, even if you don't like the conclusion.
I'll give you credit on actually giving me a semi valid point, at least an intelligent, well thought out point, possibly the best on there really is.
Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.
I don't know if you accept evolution, but the current evolution theory can trace DNA from modern man back to early bacteria, this means that DNA has gained complexity over time, though means of replication, this also means that information had to produce itself over time.
As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design.
Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.
Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.
My point is that something such as DNA can be decomposed into smaller, simpler systems, which when assembled, create more complex, "designed", states. Scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab, which granted, is not full DNA, but it does demonstrate the simple system design methodology.
How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?
Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.
The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.
If you want to pose a designer, then you have ask yourself, who designed the designer?
No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man.
Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want ...")
However you posed probably the one acceptable argument for God, however, it doesn't really answer anything because it requires a designer for a designer, which just pushes the one true creator into an infinite regression paradox.
Nothing about my argument says that every designer must have his own designer. It merely points out that man did not design himself and that man isn't even capable of designing himself; therefore this is evidence for the existence of a superior being that designed man.
And no, it's not the one acceptable argument for god. It's the one that I like, though, and one that every techie should acknowledge. To deny it is like denying the existence of lolcats and porn on the Interwebz.
Yep, all I really want to hear are some logical, rational arguments in favor of a God, that's it.
But I said I would offer one, and so here's one from a systems engineering point of view.
I work with computer systems and building up software/hardware to collect information, process it, and pass it around. I can recognize the complexity of a system, and the level of effort needed to build complex systems versus simple ones. There's an obvious difference in wht it takes to rendering realistic 3D graphics versus displaying the simple text "Hello World!", for example
As such, I can recognize that the human body far exceeds the functionality of any human built system in history. There are an estimated 37.2 trillion cells in your body, all working together to make you continue to live. Those trillions of cells are grouped into a dozen or so systems throughout your body. Those parts working together using many nested layers of feedback loops. All of that starts from a single cell, working from its DNA blueprint.
That's an amazing design, and we don't even understand it enough to replicate it, let alone build something better.
The fact that the human body operates from an amazing intricate design is evidence for a superhuman designer. That is, a being that is above humans in ability to create designs.
Manipulating search results is essentially a service available to the highest bidder.
There is a benign reason for why the AIG link ended up on top of the list - that Google happened to use an algorithm that weighted it as the "best answer" (faultily?).
So evidence is there that AIG paid to manipulate search engine results and get their page at the top of the list?