The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Ravenshire]

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."

You've made an unfalsifiable claim. You are, in essence, claiming a world where every light is on. Some are brighter than others, some are too far away to see, but every single one is on. Then you challenge us to prove just one is off. In the world you posit, we cannot even know what an off state is concerning lights. How then do we test for offness? In the same manner, how to we test for, in a world where everything is designable (as you've asseted, without evidence), for undesignability?

---

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. 

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.

Assertion by implication. If there are some things that are not designable, he does not need any of us to show that.

Run along junior. Breezy'll do better without you trying to stick up for him.