The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Belacqua]

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

99% is some. 1% is some. 

Again, please explain to me why this argues against design. A designer who wanted this ratio would design it this way. 

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

Here are #2 and #3:

Hypothesis #2: Empty space with pitch black cold conditions itself is a design

Hypothesis #3: Universe is failure of design because

I agree that if the universe is designed, then #2 is true. You have not supported #3. 

Why are pitch black cold conditions in not-really-empty space a design failure? You haven't answered this yet.

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

They are all names with referents. Why would you choose a name with a particularly large number of referents and then tell us to ignore all of them? 

What does pop culture have to do with it? But it would be the same in pop culture too. If you called yourself Pickle Rick, people would say "oh, like the cartoon?" and you'd say "NO, no relation to the cartoon. Don't think about that." 

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

True. I think that if you use a word with a meaning, it will prompt people to think of the meaning. If you yourself don't know the meaning of the name you picked, you may be projecting something you don't intend.

[Apollo]

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

99% is some. 1% is some. 

Again, please explain to me why this argues against design. A designer who wanted this ratio would design it this way. 

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

Here are #2 and #3:

Hypothesis #2: Empty space with pitch black cold conditions itself is a design

Hypothesis #3: Universe is failure of design because

I agree that if the universe is designed, then #2 is true. You have not supported #3. 

Why are pitch black cold conditions in not-really-empty space a design failure? You haven't answered this yet.

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

They are all names with referents. Why would you choose a name with a particularly large number of referents and then tell us to ignore all of them? 

What does pop culture have to do with it? But it would be the same in pop culture too. If you called yourself Pickle Rick, people would say "oh, like the cartoon?" and you'd say "NO, no relation to the cartoon. Don't think about that." 

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

True. I think that if you use a word with a meaning, it will prompt people to think of the meaning. If you yourself don't know the meaning of the name you picked, you may be projecting something you don't intend.

I am not making #2 & #3– I am merely pointing out other possible hypotheses people can make. There could be more.

But I am only responding to #1. If you do agree to #2 & #3 then you should present and predictive model based on which they make sense to you.

As for the name is concerned, i have seen servers (computers) and conference rooms named after greek and roman gods. I never thought for a minute they signify anything more than just identifying things/places etc, like they used to name planets etc. I would assume that when someone sees jupiter or apollo they just would have cursory greek reference in mind, not some advanced greek stuff because greek mythology isn’t even taught in many places in the world including where i come from.

[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.

[LadyForCamus]

I’m late to the party. Someone catch me up. 😁

[Ravenshire]

Same shit, different thread.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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?

I want to make sure you are clear on what falsification means before we go any further.

A proposition is unfalsifiable when it predicts every possibly outcome of an experiment. The proposition that every light is on, will be falsified by a light that is off. This is true regardless of how hard it is for you to search every light or of every light indeed being on.

The only way for this proposition to be unfalsifiable is if it predicts both off-ness and on-ness. Say, if fairies exist then every light will be on; but if a light is not it's because the fairies turned it off. We cannot test whether fairies exist, because every outcome of the test (lights being on or off) is being predicted.

[arewethereyet]

I’m late to the party. Someone catch me up. 😁

SSDD

[Ravenshire]

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?

I want to make sure you are clear on what falsification means before we go any further.

A proposition is unfalsifiable when it predicts every possibly outcome of an experiment. The proposition that every light is on, will be falsified by a light that is off. This is true regardless of how hard it is for you to search every light or of every light indeed being on.

The only way for this proposition to be unfalsifiable is if it predicts both off-ness and on-ness. Say, if fairies exist then every light will be on; but if a light is not it's because the fairies turned it off. We cannot test whether fairies exist, because every outcome of the test (lights being on or off) is being predicted.

You obviously missed (ignored?) what I actually said. You've asserted a world where there is no off condition for lights, thus your assertion is unfalsifiable.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You obviously missed (ignored?) what I actually said. You've asserted a world where there is no off condition for lights, thus your assertion is unfalsifiable.

No; I'm aware of what you said. And I've described the off condition of designability just about every time I've brought it up. But like I said—I want to make sure we are clear on what falsification means before we go any further. So are we?

[LadyForCamus]

You obviously missed (ignored?) what I actually said. You've asserted a world where there is no off condition for lights, thus your assertion is unfalsifiable.

No; I'm aware of what you said. And I've described the off condition of designability just about every time I've brought it up. But like I said—I want to make sure we are clear on what falsification means before we go any further. So are we?

Are you a theist?