RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 15, 2021 at 11:09 am
(This post was last modified: March 15, 2021 at 11:33 am by Mister Agenda.)
(March 12, 2021 at 1:55 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 12, 2021 at 1:34 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: So what's the operational definition for undesignability?
I defined it as "not designable" or "unable to be designed." I'll maintain it as that unless someone shows why things like "not graspable," "not bright," and "not on" are likewise invalid descriptions.
That's not an operational definition, it's just the meaning of the term in a dictionary sense. An operational definition is 'a description of something in terms of the operations (procedures, actions, or processes) by which it could be observed and measured'. If no one can give an operational definition of 'not graspable' or 'not bright' or 'not on' that a reasonable person would find acceptable, then those would lack operational definitions as well.
(March 12, 2021 at 2:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 12, 2021 at 1:28 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Why does everything have to be designable if Intelligent Design is true?
Simply because that is a claim of the theory. Design is intelligence-dependent, meaning that it obviously varies across the gradient of species. But Intelligent Design as a theory encompasses everything because that is what it predicts that gods, or simulations, can do.
If I create a computer simulation, which I can't actually do because I'm deficient in programming; I'm sure I wouldn't have to design every last detail. Some things would be designed and some things wouldn't. If it's possible in principle for something to be undesignable and my simulation included things I didn't design; potentially among the things I didn't design could be something that is undesignable.
I personally don't think anything is undesignable in principle, though making something with quantum-level precision may be impossible, for instance, that doesn't make it undesignable. I think the idea of something being undesignable in principle is both incoherent and unfalsifiable.
(March 12, 2021 at 5:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(March 12, 2021 at 12:47 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: When was this and what was the source of the quote?
Somebody on this forum had it as his signature. It was by H.L. Mencken or somebody like that.
I couldn't find that quote; but here's one I did find related to the ocean that you might find amusing:
Have you ever watched a crab on the shore crawling backward in search of the Atlantic Ocean, and missing? That's the way the mind of man operates.--Mencken
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.