The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

What do you mean he's human-centric?

John 3:16

Hmm human-centric means God loves the world? Perhaps a more accurate word is anthropophilic.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Well, interjecting a whole universe into your "holy" book to pretend that it managed to get something right would be a hint.

But then, you're deluded enough to think that you're not lying for Jesus.

[Angrboda]

John 3:16

Hmm human-centric means God loves the world? Perhaps a more accurate word is anthropophilic.

The term anthropophilic is used to describe parasites that prefer or seek human as host rather than other animals. Etymologically, the term comes from the combining words of Greek anthropos meaning human being and philos meaning fondness.

Works for me.

[Belacqua]

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.

I hadn't noticed the line in Job that hints at other worlds. 

There was a Bishop in the 15th century who, due to his work in the mathematics of infinity, proposed that the universe isn't geocentric and that what look like stars to us could be other planets, with inhabitants looking at us. This was decades before Galileo.

Of course he was burned at the stake.

Ha ha. No he wasn't. He was a high-level Vatican official and special envoy for several popes.

---

John 3:16

Hmm human-centric means God loves the world? Perhaps a more accurate word is anthropophilic.

Yeah, I don't think we were using "human-centric" to refer to God. 

I was using it to talk about judgments of the design of the universe which use human criteria to judge success or failure. The idea that a lot of space is wasted because humans can't use it is human-centric.

I agree that anthropophilic is better when talking about God. For one thing, God is said not to have a center, so anything "centric" wouldn't apply. The philia in anthropophilic refers to love, but doesn't rule out loving other things too.

[Apollo]

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.

Great. Now apply this rule to see if “empty space is part of design” or “design failure arguments” are out of habit metaphysics or not —after all, to say “part of design” or “design failure” you need to have some idea of the intent of the designer.

But we don’t have designer’s brain on hand to examine —the best we can do is follow the crumbs (of matter particles) as basis of our clues and at the point where there are no crumbs left, we are not at liberty to make as good assumptions anymore as we did —we have reached a point of conclusion where we can make some conjectures on the crumbs story.

[The Grand Nudger]

I was using it to talk about judgments of the design of the universe which use human criteria to judge success or failure. The idea that a lot of space is wasted because humans can't use it is human-centric.

Not useful isn't spaces problem, actively lethal is.  It's a super useful fence to keep the livestock in the meat grinder.

In so many other words, god botherers have flirted with this exact notion. Every garden has a gate, every kingdom has borders. Recall magic books story of the tower.

[polymath257]

So, what is the *actual* evidence that the universe is designed?

Not just information that is *consistent* with design, but some piece of information that changes the probability that it is designed?

In particular, what observable differences are there between a designed universe and one that is not designed?

What *sort* of information would be positive evidence of design?

It seems that nobody is making an actual, evidence-based, argument here.

[zwanzig]

So, what is the *actual* evidence that the universe is designed?

Not just information that is *consistent* with design, but some piece of information that changes the probability that it is designed?

In particular, what observable differences are there between a designed universe and one that is not designed?

What *sort* of information would be positive evidence of design?

It seems that nobody is making an actual, evidence-based, argument here.

+1

And here we are, back at my OP. If everything is designed, with nothing to compare it to(so we don't know what not designed looks like) then what actual evidence do we have of design?

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems that nobody is making an actual, evidence-based, argument here.

Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of those comments.  Obviously, they aren't designed to be an actual argument, an evidence based argument, or in fact any kind of argument at all.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If everything is designed, with nothing to compare it to(so we don't know what not designed looks like) then what actual evidence do we have of design?

Notice the reverse argument can be inserted into your question: If everything is natural with nothing to compare it to, then what evidence do we have for naturalism?