The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

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'.

I agree; but such a measurable description exists for my use of designability. Things are designable if they can be modeled, replicated, simulated, mentally constructed, etc. (Each of which has a measurable and observable quantity.)

The problem is that the forum wants a similar description for the absence of these descriptions, beyond just saying there's an absence. I think this is because the forum wants to predict the null hypothesis, instead of the alternative hypothesis (designability), which is often frowned upon in statistics. Significance tests don't provide evidence for the null hypothesis—you can't draw very strong conclusions from studies that don't show significant results.

Operational definitions, I would say, allow us to measure the alternative hypothesis, not define the null hypothesis.

---

By coincidence I happen to have recently re-read the first 8 chapters of Job (KJV); but I missed the verse indicating there might be other planets. I would be very interested if you would elaborate on that.

It is an inference into Job 1:6. We see a meeting where the Sons of God (angels or other representatives) appear before God. Satan appears as the representative of our planet. And so it's possible that these other Sons of God likewise represent their own planets.

[The Grand Nudger]

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'.

I agree; but such a measurable discription does exist for my use of designability. Things are designable if they can be modeled, replicated, simulated, mentally constructed, etc. (Each of which has a measurable and observable quantity.)

Then, no again..nothing about any part of this world or universe is designable by gods. Beavers, dams, ferraris.

Nothing can be modeled by, replicated by, simulated by, or mentally constructed by a god.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I agree; but such a measurable discription does exist for my use of designability. Things are designable if they can be modeled, replicated, simulated, mentally constructed, etc. (Each of which has a measurable and observable quantity.)

Then, no again..nothing about any part of this world or universe is designable by gods.  Beavers, dams, ferraris.

Nothing can be modeled by, replicated by, simulated by, or mentally constructed by a god.

Not the mention the fact that just because we can replicate or model it says nothing about the origins of the thing being modeled or replicated and even we couldn't do for something that wouldn't prove it wasn't designed. Ultimately this wouldn't resolve anything.

[Apollo]

Flirting with quranic miracles territory, frankly.

If we found out that we were the only show in the universe the faithful would shout hosanna - and if we find out that there are other shows in the universe the faithful would insist that their magic book already told us so.

That’s the beauty of the design argument—everything is “design”. All you have to do is call it so. There is no non-design to compare it with so it will always be a win win argument.

[Belacqua]

That’s the beauty of the design argument—everything is “design”. All you have to do is call it so. There is no non-design to compare it with so it will always be a win win argument.

Of course calling it so doesn't necessarily make it so. The argument may be wrong.

Like all metaphysical arguments, it isn't something science can solve. We can only argue for or against it, more or less persuasively. That's why it's extremely important to be aware of one's prior metaphysical assumptions, and think about whether they are relevant in any given case. We wouldn't want to take a position merely out of habit.

[Foxaèr]

God doesn't exist. It's just a fact.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Like all metaphysical arguments, it isn't something science can solve. We can only argue for or against it, more or less persuasively. That's why it's extremely important to be aware of one's prior metaphysical assumptions, and think about whether they are relevant in any given case. We wouldn't want to take a position merely out of habit.

Scientists often defer to philosophers whenever definitions and questions themselves need a better foundation. Earlier you mentioned the philosophy of aesthetics (which I knew little about). I've been looking into it and there is a large literature focused on the question of design. These two books review the topic and have chapters dedicated to disecting definitions, ontology, history, etc:

1. The Philosophy of Design - "The design theorist Christopher Jones, for example, suggested a definition of design as the intentional initiation of change."

2. Design: A Very Short Introduction - "Design, stripped to its essence, can be defined as the human capacity to shape and make our environment in ways without precedent in nature, to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives."

[GUBU]

It is an inference into Job 1:6. We see a meeting where the Sons of God (angels or other representatives) appear before God. Satan appears as the representative of our planet. And so it's possible that these other Sons of God likewise represent their own planets.

So, basicly you're reading something into the bible that isn't there in an attempt to make it look less like fantasy than it is.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Hmm I wasn't aware that saying there are other worlds with representatives that had to meet before God made the Bible sound less fictitious lol.

Perhaps it's a view unique to my church. Though I suspect LDS and JWs may have similar views. Here are some quotes from the late 1800s:

"Many seem to have the idea that this world and the heavenly mansions constitute the universe of God. Not so." -Review and Herald, March 9, 1886.

"God has worlds upon worlds that are obedient to His law. These worlds are conducted with reference to the glory of the Creator. As the inhabitants of these worlds see the great price that has been paid to ransom man, they are filled with amazement" -Review and Herald, September 25, 1900.

[Angrboda]

The Christian God is human-centric, Bel.  If you're arguing about some other god, let us know, because if the design isn't human-centric then it wasn't made by that god.

What do you mean he's human-centric?

John 3:16

---

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Richard Dawkins