The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[polymath257]

Actually, no you did NOT give a description in that link. You gave some rather vague fluff that could not be used to actually dstinguish any particular case. In particular, you make a logical claim that if everything in the universe was designed, then everything in the universe *could* be designed. But you don't say how to definitively say when something *cannot* be designed. What, precisely, would be something that we could use to conclude design is impossible?

Apologies for missing this. 

I described design as representational; spatial rather than propositional; episodic rather than semantic; intentional rather than accidental; all of which can coordinate an "initiation of change" in the world (as one philosopher puts it). And I presented the "square circle" example to illustrate what does not qualify as design. I'm not sure how any of that was vague fluff?  

ps. In fact, I'm in danger of over-specifying what design is. For example, people often use the term design to describe processes (e.g. an experimental design). That's a problem for my definition. One solution (which I think is right) is to argue that design in this sense is not design, but rather a metaphorical extension. But another option is to broaden my definition to include temporal aspects (such as music) not just spatial.

It's vague fluff because such a description cannot be used in any particular case to show design where it wasn't already known to exist.

You cannot, for example, turn this into a description on what *observations* are required to show something is designed.

For example, how to you prove intentionality if you didn't already know something to be intentional?

More to the point, how would you use this to determine that something is NOT designed?

So, yes, it is vague fluff. If you cannot actually use it to say whether things are designed or not, it isn't specific enough to be useful.