(March 11, 2021 at 7:23 pm)Apollo Wrote: Hypothesis #1: There is a design and there is a designer who designed the universe how it is.

If you take this hypothesis and extrapolate it to rest of the universe you would expect certain things. Why? To gauge the validity of the hypothesis we'd come up with some predictive behavior consistent to design.  Based on this predictive model we look at the universe and try to figure out how is it "designed".  We later find out that universe is isotropic when it comes to cosmological laws of nature. So if those laws are part of the design (and they must be because they are the ones that enforce everything in universe) then you should see the product of such design isotropically too based on such predictive model.

Since laws of nature are isotropic, the consequent design will be isotropic too. What that means is that we will have more or less similar ratio of matter/energy & their interactions, giving rise to more complex structures etc, making design isotropic characteristic of universe and you'll see more matter based designed objects (planets, galaxies, stars etc) than not. 

As I understand it, the Big Bang theory assumes that space is isotropic. Given this isotropic space, we have ended up with some "empty" areas and some not so empty areas. 
In what way does this argue against design?

Quote:Universe would be a consistently "interesting" place rife with design elements than the cold lonely pitch black place that we see.

You think the cold lonely pitch black places aren't interesting? Physicists tell us that there is more going on in those "empty" places than we suspected at first.

I think golf isn't interesting, but it was clearly designed by somebody. 

Again, you're judging a design to be a failure based on your personal taste. 

Quote:None of the design arguments we know of presented historically (Movers, watchmaker, guided evolution, irreducible biochemical complexity, fine tuning, so and so forth ) posit #2 & #3 above.

All design arguments made by people aware of the state of the universe posit that the big empty spaces were designed. 

Quote:I disagree. A random anonymous name and avatar is better suited for an anonymous forum. I do not expect others to discuss greek mythology here with me. Don't judge a person by the avatar. I could have picked a rocket just the same.

So you're going to choose a name with a meaning, and millennia of historical and mythical associations, and then expect people to ignore all that. It's just a random assortment of letters to you. 

I guess you could call yourself "Chairman Mao" and then expect people to ignore the historical meaning of the name. 

Educated people know what Apollo stands for, what his attributes are, whom he defeated, etc. It's silly to choose a name and then hope people don't think of those things. Maybe you should call yourself Marsyas.

Since design arguments often include discussions of order vs. chaos, and Apollo is a traditional symbol of one side of that debate, your name associates you with an intellectual position, whether you know it or not. If you called yourself Mussolini, people would assume that you supported a certain position, and if you denied that your name had any meaning, it would just be confusing.

(March 11, 2021 at 1:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 11, 2021 at 1:34 pm)Sandman Slim Wrote: You going to support your claim or just keep making squawking sounds? Your claim, your burden.

Science is not a courtroom. We formulate hypotheses via Modus Tollens. We seek to deny the consequent, because affirming it is a logical fallacy.

Not going to support that claim, then? Mmm-kay. What is proposed without support can be just as easily dismissed. Thanks for playing.

---

(March 11, 2021 at 4:22 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 11, 2021 at 1:34 pm)Sandman Slim Wrote: He made a clear claim. Proving it is on him. It's not on anyone else to disprove it, but thanks for playing.

John's argument has been that if we could falsify designability, then the whole idea of intelligent design would become untenable. This is NOT an attempt to avoid a burden, it is a description of how the issue could be resolved.

He made a claim that all things are "designable." This is a positive claim (not a theory or even a proper hypotehesis) and needs to be supported to be taken seriously. If he's unwilling to support the claim, we're free to dismiss it with a similar effort. Thanks again for playing.

(March 11, 2021 at 7:02 pm)Nomad Wrote: Unlike you Pol Pot wasn't an atheist.  He was a weird mix of buddhist and christian.

Yeah, I know - but gl getting Kloro to realize as much.  He'd have never posted what he did if he could.......

You have to meet these nutballs where you find them, where they feel at ease.

(March 11, 2021 at 8:04 pm)Sandman Slim Wrote: He made a claim that all things are "designable." This is a positive claim (not a theory or even a proper hypotehesis) and needs to be supported to be taken seriously. If he's unwilling to support the claim, we're free to dismiss it with a similar effort. Thanks again for playing.

How do I play your game lol? Consider the following:

"If Intelligent Design is true, then everything is designable."

The above is how you formulate hypotheses in science. If we conduct an experiment and see that something isn't designable, we conclude that Intelligent Design is not true. But if I "support" my claim, as you ask, and show that something is designable, concluding that it was therefore designed is fallacious. (The universe could be designable, and not be designed.)

I was taught never to use the words "prove" or "support." The only acceptable term here is "failed to falsify."

Repeating the same thing over again does not help your case

(March 11, 2021 at 8:03 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 11, 2021 at 7:23 pm)Apollo Wrote: Hypothesis #1: There is a design and there is a designer who designed the universe how it is.

If you take this hypothesis and extrapolate it to rest of the universe you would expect certain things. Why? To gauge the validity of the hypothesis we'd come up with some predictive behavior consistent to design.  Based on this predictive model we look at the universe and try to figure out how is it "designed".  We later find out that universe is isotropic when it comes to cosmological laws of nature. So if those laws are part of the design (and they must be because they are the ones that enforce everything in universe) then you should see the product of such design isotropically too based on such predictive model.

Since laws of nature are isotropic, the consequent design will be isotropic too. What that means is that we will have more or less similar ratio of matter/energy & their interactions, giving rise to more complex structures etc, making design isotropic characteristic of universe and you'll see more matter based designed objects (planets, galaxies, stars etc) than not. 

As I understand it, the Big Bang theory assumes that space is isotropic. Given this isotropic space, we have ended up with some "empty" areas and some not so empty areas. 
In what way does this argue against design?

Quote:Universe would be a consistently "interesting" place rife with design elements than the cold lonely pitch black place that we see.

You think the cold lonely pitch black places aren't interesting? Physicists tell us that there is more going on in those "empty" places than we suspected at first.

I think golf isn't interesting, but it was clearly designed by somebody. 

Again, you're judging a design to be a failure based on your personal taste. 

Quote:None of the design arguments we know of presented historically (Movers, watchmaker, guided evolution, irreducible biochemical complexity, fine tuning, so and so forth ) posit #2 & #3 above.

All design arguments made by people aware of the state of the universe posit that the big empty spaces were designed. 

Quote:I disagree. A random anonymous name and avatar is better suited for an anonymous forum. I do not expect others to discuss greek mythology here with me. Don't judge a person by the avatar. I could have picked a rocket just the same.

So you're going to choose a name with a meaning, and millennia of historical and mythical associations, and then expect people to ignore all that. It's just a random assortment of letters to you. 

I guess you could call yourself "Chairman Mao" and then expect people to ignore the historical meaning of the name. 

Educated people know what Apollo stands for, what his attributes are, whom he defeated, etc. It's silly to choose a name and then hope people don't think of those things. Maybe you should call yourself Marsyas.

Since design arguments often include discussions of order vs. chaos, and Apollo is a traditional symbol of one side of that debate, your name associates you with an intellectual position, whether you know it or not. If you called yourself Mussolini, people would assume that you supported a certain position, and if you denied that your name had any meaning, it would just be confusing.

There is not some empty space and some not empty space. More than 99% is empty space. Big difference. See response to hypothesis #1.

Rest already addressed it under #2 & #3. We are now talking in circles.

Is Mao or hitler the same same in pop culture as Apollo, Jupiter, or Venus? Ok.

I guess we don’t agree on methods of picking anonymous nicks. No biggie. Now you know.

(March 11, 2021 at 8:54 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Repeating the same thing over again does not help your case

Repetition helps with comprehension. Or at least one can hope lol

(March 11, 2021 at 8:04 pm)Sandman Slim Wrote: Not going to support that claim, then? Mmm-kay. What is proposed without support can be just as easily dismissed. Thanks for playing.

You have asserted that the person making the assertion bears a burden of proof. But you have not provided proof for your assertion.

Please provide proof that the person making the assertion bears a burden. According to you, you have a burden to do this. So far you have proposed it without support, so we can dismiss it until you offer something. 

Quote:He made a claim that all things are "designable." This is a positive claim (not a theory or even a proper hypotehesis) and needs to be supported to be taken seriously. If he's unwilling to support the claim, we're free to dismiss it with a similar effort. 

It is true that some things are designable. He supported that. He did not argue that all things are designable. He said that one method to falsify intelligent design would be to show that there are things in nature which are not designable. 

Please read more carefully.

(March 11, 2021 at 8:57 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 11, 2021 at 8:54 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Repeating the same thing over again does not help your case

Repetition helps with comprehension. Or at least one can hope lol

That explains a lot of your posts.  How's that comprehension coming along?

(March 11, 2021 at 9:09 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 11, 2021 at 8:04 pm)Sandman Slim Wrote: Not going to support that claim, then? Mmm-kay. What is proposed without support can be just as easily dismissed. Thanks for playing.

You have asserted that the person making the assertion bears a burden of proof. But you have not provided proof for your assertion.

Please provide proof that the person making the assertion bears a burden. According to you, you have a burden to do this. So far you have proposed it without support, so we can dismiss it until you offer something. 

Quote:He made a claim that all things are "designable." This is a positive claim (not a theory or even a proper hypotehesis) and needs to be supported to be taken seriously. If he's unwilling to support the claim, we're free to dismiss it with a similar effort. 

It is true that some things are designable. He supported that. He did not argue that all things are designable. He said that one method to falsify intelligent design would be to show that there are things in nature which are not designable. 

Please read more carefully.

Bold mine...

MEOW