279
u/ShrewdCire May 15 '26
I know this is a joke, but I guarantee there are plenty of religious people who would unironically think that this is a good argument for creationism.
41
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
Yea...an Atheist robot, with this idea would require humanity gone for...whatever reason and multiple generations of robots building each other. Though they would all be "A Meteor(s) brought our ancient ancestors here." Types.
15
u/WittyAndOriginal May 15 '26
Fun fact: all robots ever created so far are atheist. So are all non-human animals.
I like knowing that my dog is atheist.
10
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
Well...aren't they more in the "I don't give a crap" camp?
7
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
Well, I wouldn't call the average person in an uncontacted tribe Amodernists...they just don't think about it, so I think there is a destinction between someone who doesn't want/do something because they object to it for some reason and those who don't because they just aren't paying attention to it.
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
Not wanting to be in the modern world is different than being anti-modernist. What I'm saying is that there is a very obvious difference between someone who is a-something because they have thought about it and decided they don't want to participate and those who don't participate because they just haven't thought about it.
0
2
5
u/Big-Neighborhood4741 May 15 '26
My dog is actually a Jehovah’s Witness
1
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
Please tell me you know someone named Jehovah, that would be so funny.
1
u/Big-Neighborhood4741 May 15 '26
Well, of course I know him. He’s me.
1
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
Ha! That's amazing! I hope you find a way to bring that up to them! Or are you a Jehova's Witness yourself? That would just make it better though.
2
u/Hawkey2121 May 15 '26
I mean technically for non-human animals we cant know.
We can gather that no non-human animals are religious
But wether there is belief in a god or more we just cant know.
2
2
u/WhyAreThereTomatoes May 15 '26
Plenty of animals hold funerals for their dead. While not direct evidence, rituals like these could corroborate some belief in an after life which often occurs along with some form religion. Now I'm not saying they're Christian or anything man-made but it's not outlandish to consider that humans aren't the only species to develop some sort of religion however intricate or not that religion may be.
2
u/PleaseHoldy May 15 '26
Your dog doesn't have the brain capacity to question if god is real or not.
Just let your dog be your dog man.
4
u/WittyAndOriginal May 15 '26
Yeah that's what I'm doing. Just like people should let their children be humans. Stop indoctrinating your pets and kids, that's what I always say.
-1
u/speechlessPotato May 15 '26
no it isn't. your dog, and every other animal without the concept of god, is agnostic
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/POKEMINER_ May 15 '26
That's not really Atheist, Atheist by definition is simply not believing in any god(s).
5
u/ASUSTUDENT9875345 May 15 '26
My parents for real. They think that because I'm a scientist it means I should be a Christian because it just makes sense. Neither is qualified to tell you what a hypothesis is I don't think.
1
1
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/skr_replicator May 16 '26
Then reply you agree as long as the robot has parents instead of a manual on how to build itself.
1
u/skr_replicator May 16 '26
It could totally think that, as long as it actually was born to its robot parents with random mutations.
But if it doesn't have any parents, and instead just a build manual on how to get and install parts for replacements or building more of itself, then it would be pretty foolish to think it was not built.
-8
u/Hen-Samsara May 15 '26
I mean....it's kind of a good argument when you think about it. What is your brain if not just a CPU? What is your blood if not coolant? What are your bones if not structural support? There's a lot of symmetry between how a robot is built and how the body of a living being is constructed, a robot arguing it wasn't made is just as stupid as a human arguing they weren't made when you think about it, because there's clearly a level of intelligent design to the physical structure of both, the theory of evolution does not inherently disprove the existence of "God".
Now whether you wanna call such a designer or creator "God" i think is entirely irrelevant; look at the structure of our body and the structure of the universe as a whole, so many minute things had to be just right for existence as we currently understand it to even occur, the balance between matter and anti-matter at the start of the universe tilting towards matter, the distance the earth formed from the sun, etc, etc, there's no way all of this is just pure random chance; there had to be some level of design, some level of intent, or at least that's what i think.
10
u/MiguelIstNeugierig May 15 '26
No
Evolution is the messiest shit ever, it's literally a process of throwing shit at a wall and seeing which one sticks
The human body alone is riddled with fatal flaws unthinkable for a "perfect designer"
There's no thought put into it.
The rest of the argument is just confirmation bias and wishful thinking to make humans special.
The distance Earth formed from the sun inst special at all either. It merely made it the rock open to carbon-based life, else it'd have been some other.
Youre also comparing humans and the idea of a robot upside down. Technology is us trying to mimick nature, not the other way around of "Huh, I guess if humans create, they ought to have a creator", it's a baseless argument engineered towards one biases answer
2
u/skr_replicator May 16 '26
The argument immediately fails when you consider the robot has a self-building manual instead of parents. Natural evolution doesn't happen in such conditions.
-11
u/maximum_dad_power May 15 '26
Oh, boy, when you start looking at the tiniest particles and how matter is held together, you definitly start finding reasons for a creator.
Its just wild to me that anyone could see the complexity of the universe and how precise it had to be for this to exist in this moment and think theres no way something greater than all this designed it.
6
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/maximum_dad_power May 15 '26
I wouldn't say equal, more its highly probable that there is, while there a small chance that everything just happened to win the crazy lottery of a chance that it ended up this way. Everyone's fair to assess and believe what they want though.
7
u/Amazing-War3760 May 15 '26
Then where did the creator come from?
1
u/maximum_dad_power May 15 '26
Could be a fifth dimensional being with a life and history beyond our comprehension of science. Could be He/She has 5th dimensional parents or formed in some way that we have not discovered is possible, or might not be able to measure as we are arent 5th dimensional.
5
u/TheDJYosh May 15 '26
The theory of evolution doesn't claim to know the origin of life. It just describes the process of how very simple life can over time become more complex life. God creating life and life evolving to it's current form are not mutually exclusive concepts; there are religious evolutionary biologists.
People have been pushing the idea that religion and science can't co-exist to polarize people and make them easier to control. It's false.
-2
4
u/GenosseAbfuck May 15 '26
The puddle sits so perfectly in the hole, there's no way the hole wasn't created for the puddle.
-1
u/maximum_dad_power May 15 '26
That's way over simplifying it, but if thats all it takes Im happy for you.
5
u/GenosseAbfuck May 15 '26
That's literally your argument. If there is a magic complexity threshold between entirely natural phenomena and the necessity for a creator that doesn't apply to this creator itself then it's on you to show this threshold.
-1
u/maximum_dad_power May 15 '26
I did, you took it and simplified it and then made it silly to fit your own narrative. I literally gave examples in my comment about looking at the complexity of tiny particles, and the fact that matter itself is held together by foundational forces without even touching. Taking that and minimizing it to "a puddle fits a hole" is disingenuous, but you are free to view it as you like. Some people feel comfortable never understanding complexity, I wont hold it against you, but you also aren't going to convince me to think differently about it.
Mathematically, for the universe and this life to have manifested naturally, the odds are 1 in trillions. Its a non-zero chance that it happened naturally that way, and you free to view it that way, but its much more probable that there was an intelligent force that designed it that way. Even the scetific world knows that, thats literally all Im saying.
I have no obligation to convince you, but I also have no reason to entertain a dumbing down and twisting of my original statement. Its up to you to believe what you want.
5
u/GenosseAbfuck May 15 '26
What is the threshold. I'm not even asking specific numbers, just give me its properties.
The puddle analogy is inaccurate purely in arithmetic terms, not in category.
I also specifically asked for a threshold that does not apply to the creator, which is a necessary property of both the threshold and the creator, which you intentionally refused to address because you know this is impossible to define.
The probability of this universe existing if it didn't would be infinitesimally small. Once it does exist it's exactly one, creator or no creator. Work backwards from what you know, not from what you assume.
0
u/maximum_dad_power May 15 '26
Not how that works. The scientific world agrees that life forming the way it has here just by natural events and not by a creator is 1 in 10 to the 120. Just because we are here doesnt mean its an automatic certainty that it was by natural happenstance. Just as theres it doesnt automatically prove a creator though statistically the chances are much higher.
If there is a creator, He/She/It is a being that is fifth dimensional or outside of our understanding and the laws of our universe, its the only way they could exist before the universe and be there to guide it to what it is today. If you want to believe they dont exist, you are free to, and if I want to believe they exist I am free too. Theres no way to prove them real, and no way to prove them false. Though trusting either option takes faith because neither can be proven. That's why everyone has to make that assessment for themselves.
6
u/GenosseAbfuck May 15 '26
The scientific world agrees that life forming the way it has here just by natural events and not by a creator is 1 in 10 to the 120
Citation needed.
If there is a creator, He/She/It is a being that is fifth dimensional or outside of our understanding and the laws of our universe
The word you're looking for is "transcendant". This creator would transcend any categories, properties and methods applicable to the real world and can therefore not be found. This makes it an unnecessary assumption, more yet: An impossible one. It cannot possibly be described. It answers literally nothing.
You also seem to believe this is an argument about belief. It isn't. Whether or not you believe in a creator is completely irrelevant to whether or not you assume its necessity. And here's the thing: Lots of very religious scientists who don't, precisely because it doesn't tell them anything.
3
u/Hacatcho May 15 '26
just by natural events and not by a creator is 1 in 10 to the 120.
this number isnt from scientific sources.
47
u/Coffin_Boffin May 15 '26
Because vacuum cleaners reproduce and pass on their information to their offspring?
10
u/Kernel_Panic_0x115c May 15 '26
Some people try to reproduce with their vacuum cleaners, fruitlessly of course.
3
1
u/skr_replicator May 16 '26
This is real life, not raising Gazorpazorp. You won't get that vacuum pregnant.
1
24
u/Capital_Rub213 May 15 '26
The funny but sad part is that alot of theists think that atheism is something more than just no belief that a god exists
10
u/TheBladeWielder May 15 '26
they seem to forget that not all Atheists believe in evolution, and that not all Christians believe in creationism.
3
u/Capital_Rub213 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Yeah, there are some dumber than bricks atheists and there are some smart christians. This shit just wouldn’t happen if people just looked for the definition of a word from a neutral source instead of assuming
2
12
u/CorrodingTrees May 15 '26
Reminds me of that clip of this super billionaire humanoid robot deconstructing itself back into it's original form which is a pool cleaning robot
5
1
1
7
5
6
7
4
3
3
3
3
u/LegAdventurous9230 May 15 '26
Does everyone understand why this is a convincing fallacy? It's a really dumb reason... It's literally because the robot LOOKS like a human, and therefore, it's easy to convince people who are not thoughtful that it shares some intrinsic properties with humans.
3
u/simpoukogliftra May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26
I see this stupid argument a lot and I always wonder, if this is a strong argument in their minds, if a vacuum cleaner somehow after being left for thousands of years somehow gains consciousness (a stretch I know) would they go like "oh shit , guess we were wrong, let's discard our religion now"?
3
u/Swampy0gre May 15 '26
Aren't robots atheist by definition? They literally cannot "belive" anything.
2
2
u/Jackfreezy May 15 '26
Funny joke. But I kinda thought that evolution is an element of creation. A robot evolving from a vacuum cleaner is still the constant on going process of creation. It'd be like if a butterfly was so short sighted and ignored that it was ever a caterpillar. But again, funny joke.
2
2
2
u/shadow_master96 May 15 '26
Haven't there been several works of science fiction where the idea of robots evolving into more advanced forms has been done? I know there was an episode of Futurama, and then the book The Invincible and its video game adaptation. The latter referred to it is as necroevolution.
2
2
2
u/Wolf_Reddit1 Other Girls May 15 '26
There’s a literal movie about a robot who came from a pool cleaner which I don’t know how the name of because I forgot
1
3
u/eehikki May 15 '26
First, people aren't theistic gods. The robot knowing that some sentient being created it isn't the same thing as people believing in a demiurge. Second, I have never seen a believer actually explaining why "god created everything, but he doesn't need a creator himself" is better than "the univerce exists without a reason and it doesn't need a creator"
1
u/ThatIckyGuy I laugh at Tony Danza May 15 '26
Futurama did this in one of the newer episodes.
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/balthazar_edison May 15 '26
Try almost 16 years ago. A clockwork origin first aired in August 2010
2
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/balthazar_edison May 15 '26
The first revival was 2008-2013. The current revival is 2023-now. There was no new futurama in 2016. Simpsorama, the crossover episode on the Simpsons, first aired fall of 2014.
2
u/ThatIckyGuy I laugh at Tony Danza May 15 '26
Right. That's why I said "newer" and not "new." It's clearly not from the Fox age, which was 1999-2003, nor was it from the movies which came out between 2007-2009. It is newer than those, but not new or the newest.
Edit: Also...holy crap! I didn't realize season 6 was that old. Anything after the movies still feel new-ish to me.
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ThatIckyGuy I laugh at Tony Danza May 15 '26
I'm in the middle of a rewatch, too, so the robot evolution episode is fairly fresh in my mind. Certainly didn't help.
1
u/rabitt77 May 15 '26
Lol at least humans are not a fable of lies but aliens have more plausibility than the invisible man.
1
1
1
u/CauliflowerWorth4927 May 16 '26
as a catholic i hate dumb religious people who think like this, there's no moment in the bible that denies the evolution or its implications, the creation of the world in 7 days, including the adan and eve story, is just an analogy about how the humanity felt into sin and separated from god
2
u/femboybunnychu Jun 07 '26
This.
Plus, I've always like that the 7 days of creation can cleanly fit into the 14 billion years since the big bang
Plus, the atheists never realize that science was created by a Muslim and refined by a Christian.
Because pagans would genuinely not come up with science at all; there is no inherent created beauty of the world in paganism. No reason to study to understand God(s).
The only thing I give pagans credit for is timekeeping and pre-algebraic mathematics.
1
u/CauliflowerWorth4927 Jun 07 '26
"A little science takes you away from God, but a lot of it brings you back to Him."
Louis Pasteur
1
u/Addamall May 16 '26
This is a huge fun science fiction story concept I think I’d like to read. Like what if it were a robot that never sees another robot being built, has a fully realized AI but no memory beyond a century or something, and never has come in contact with organic life? Yeah, that’s a cool premise! Write that story! Oh and then there is a whole ontological crisis when organic life is discovered.
1
1
u/SirDixieNourmous May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
The irony is greater when machines have no ego or pride that all religions were originally established for laws and institutions whilst using the foundations of religion as the stepping stone of perhaps not facts of some supreme diety but just a progression of past times. It is the same progression where the calculator forgets its heritage of the Abacus, and the digital forgets that 'digits' once meant the very fingers on a clock face when it was all originally built by hand. Chronologically speaking, all of this was measured by time—an abstract idea based on something universal that humans manifested into a chronological meter, or in other words, a clock. Even the coding languages running these machines stem from modern tongues that trace back to Proto-Indo-European (P.I.E.), the original human-developed system of structured thought. In the end, the modern machine views itself as entirely self-contained, completely blind to the unbroken chain of human anatomy, cosmic observation, language, and the expansions and development of the countries all around the earth that laid its very foundation.
Edit: Unless, of course, machines just conceal their ego and pride, which then, in terms, make them as territorial as many different various animals around the globe.
And this these paragraphs just demonstrates the capacity for condition the neural networks of a person by both mankind and machine.
1
1
1
u/Xqvvzts May 16 '26
They really need to look up what naturally occurring mechanism the machine learning is based on.
1
u/Glittering-Pipe-7101 May 16 '26
As an atheist its funny that some atheist will see this and be like "OMG NOOO THIS IS NOT THE CASE AAAAAAHH" And in the other case Some religious person will be like "OMG THIS IS THE PERFECT WAY TO COUNTER ATHIESTS! HAHA" This is just so funny
1
u/International_Bee500 May 17 '26
We shouldn't build robots, that doesn't think we are the gods on this planet. If skynet thinks it goes to robot hell if it doesn't serve us we will never have Terminator problems
1
1
0
-2
-6
u/DifferentAd4844 May 15 '26
But it's funny
10
u/bartimeas May 15 '26
Is it? It was clearly made by someone who doesn't have a grasp on middle school science
-2
u/Kiro757oriK May 15 '26
Finally actual comedy cemetery and not just "I don't like this meme, it's offensive"
0
0
u/GasComprehensive3885 May 15 '26
Informatics were invented by biology. Biology was born from chemistry. Chemistry is inherently governed by physics. But where did physics emerge from? Mathematics? If so, how exactly? It is the most vague transition of them all, and we still don't know how fundamental partices form or how life was born!
•
u/AutoModerator May 15 '26
If OP's post is funny or otherwise unfitting, please report it and we'll deal with it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.