The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

Very well, we may disagree on some details but I'd like to address another argument that you made earlier:

But, to go further and claim the universe at large is designed goes *way* beyond what we can observe.

And you know that because? Your argument mirrors that of the behaviorists which claimed cognition was an unobservable black box—that's no longer true. From atoms to the neuron doctrine, science is full of once unobservable entities that had to be inferred. Your inability to think of an observation has no bearing on the question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Very well, we may disagree on some details but I'd like to address another argument that you made earlier:

But, to go further and claim the universe at large is designed goes *way* beyond what we can observe.

And you know that because? Your argument mirrors that of the behaviorists which claimed cognition was an unobservable black box—that's no longer true. From atoms to the neuron doctrine, science is full of once unobservable entities that had to be inferred. Your inability to think of an observation has no bearing on the question.

But what we CAN observe about the universe doesn’t logically lead to an inference of design. Observation leads to the inference that the universe wasn’t designed, but evolved. The only way to claim the universe is designed is to admit ignorance, which is what creationists always do.

‘If the universe was deliberately designed, why do species go extinct? Shouldn’t a perfect Creator have designed them to be able to cope with issues like habitat loss or changes in climate?’

‘That’s God’s plan.’

‘Seems kind of slipshod, doesn’t it?’

‘Well, God’s ways are mysterious. We can possibly know why he does things the way he does.’

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Very well, we may disagree on some details but I'd like to address another argument that you made earlier:


And you know that because? Your argument mirrors that of the behaviorists which claimed cognition was an unobservable black box—that's no longer true. From atoms to the neuron doctrine, science is full of once unobservable entities that had to be inferred. Your inability to think of an observation has no bearing on the question.

But what we CAN observe about the universe doesn’t logically lead to an inference of design. Observation leads to the inference that the universe wasn’t designed, but evolved. The only way to claim the universe is designed is to admit ignorance, which is what creationists always do.

‘If the universe was deliberately designed, why do species go extinct? Shouldn’t a perfect Creator have designed them to be able to cope with issues like habitat loss or changes in climate?’

‘That’s God’s plan.’

‘Seems kind of slipshod, doesn’t it?’

‘Well, God’s ways are mysterious. We can possibly know why he does things the way he does.’

Boru

Yup it's pure laziness

[John 6IX Breezy]

But what we CAN observe about the universe doesn’t logically [emphasis added] lead to an inference of design. Observation leads to the inference that the universe wasn’t designed, but evolved.

Okay, then show me: Put both of these arguments in standard form and let's see if your premises are justified and your conclusions valid. Science is a lot more permissive than you seem to realize.

[The Grand Nudger]

Already been done.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Already been done.

You're on record claiming that irreducible complexity is a hypothesis of design rather than an argument against evolution lol. I don't think you're in a position to recognize an argument in standard form—but feel free to post the link.

[Angrboda]

Already been done.

You're on record claiming that irreducible complexity is a hypothesis of design rather than an argument against evolution lol. I don't think you're in a position to recognize an argument in standard form—but feel free to post the link.

Please don't waste our time. Dembski's argument explicitly appealed to design in its grounding premises.

Go read a book, for Christ's sake.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Please don't waste our time.  Dembski's argument explicitly appealed to design in its grounding premises.

It doesn't matter what anyone appeals to (including your appeal to Dembski); you are still responsible for the validity of your own arguments. The premise that the universe was designed could be true, and the conclusion that life is irreducibly complex still be false. Obviously—many Christians believe God used evolution in his design. Irreducible complexity is specifically an argument against evolution. There's no debate here, so please don't waste my time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Many christians believe many untrue things. I'm pretty sure that this isn't something you'd argue, either.

[polymath257]

Very well, we may disagree on some details but I'd like to address another argument that you made earlier:

But, to go further and claim the universe at large is designed goes *way* beyond what we can observe.

And you know that because? Your argument mirrors that of the behaviorists which claimed cognition was an unobservable black box—that's no longer true. From atoms to the neuron doctrine, science is full of once unobservable entities that had to be inferred. Your inability to think of an observation has no bearing on the question.

OK, propose an observation. I'm certainly willing to listen.

What sort of observation would lead to the conclusion of design?

That is the basic question that has to be answered. Without that, no design claim can even get off the ground.