The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

Since falsifiability is based on being able to make observations that affect the probability that a position is correct, this seems to be a terminological distinction with no actual substance.

This isn't just a semantic distinction it is a logical one―consider the problem of underdetermination.

[polymath257]

Since falsifiability is based on being able to make observations that affect the probability that a position is correct, this seems to be a terminological distinction with no actual substance.

This isn't just a semantic distinction it is a logical one―consider the problem of underdetermination.

If there is no observational difference, then there is no real difference.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are there things within the universe that are NOT designed? Most people would say that there are. So, by what crietia do we distinguish between those things that are not designed and those that are?

Tired of waiting for the nutbars to give a credible answer to anything.  It's never going to happen - that's not why they're here.

We can use the same criteria anyone else would.  A christian, can use the same criteria anyone else would.  It's not actually an article of christian belief that every single thing in everything was designed to some specific purpose.  God created it, sure, but I create alot of shit on accident and don't much care about the specifics everytime I intentionally build some other thing.
The universe doesn't look designed..because it isn't.  God threw seeds at the void.  I do that too.  God doesn;t need to design anything in the first place, all things are as a god can make them and there's no intermediary step like a design required to accomplish it.  Maybe, even using the same criteria for design, and even though everything doesn't look designed - maybe some things are.  Maybe we are. Gods plan - for us..is the only non-negotiable item of christian theology. Magic book doesn't say he died for the martians that don't exist but that christians will absolutely pretend to believe in so that they might claim that they aren't arguing for christ - just some intelligence, just some design.



Now, hey, I agree with you that we don't look designed by any straightforward explanation of design - but if other people see the same stuff in a shared reality and think we do...that much, at least, is a genuine disagreement. John, otoh, has been trolling the boards for page upon endless page. He sees design nowhere - which is why he can give no example of design. I think he might be going for the ring..but the bar is high. It takes a few hundred pages of obvious bullshit to even get in the running.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If there is no observational difference, then there is no real difference.

Is this in reference to design? If so two comments:

1. You cannot arbitrarily decide there's no difference—you have to show it. For example, there's no observable difference between a heliocentric and geocentric universe, unless you know to look for a parallax effect out in the distant stars. In other words, saying "I can't think of anything therefore there's no difference" is not a good argument.

2. And if you are right and there is no difference, you not only forfeit your ability to say Intelligent Design is wrong, you also don't get to arbitrarily decide your perspective is the default perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, indeed, you don't get to decide that there's a difference, you have to show it. If you're right that there is a difference, and you fail to show that difference in your example, you forfeit your ability to say that intelligent design is right.

Sort of like what happened when ID was so publicly falsified and then legally humiliated for good measure? It seems we may have memory holed this.....

[polymath257]

If there is no observational difference, then there is no real difference.

Is this in reference to design? If so two comments:

1. You cannot arbitrarily decide there's no difference—you have to show it. For example, there's no observable difference between a heliocentric and geocentric universe, unless you know to look for a parallax effect out in the distant stars. In other words, saying "I can't think of anything therefore there's no difference" is not a good argument.

2. And if you are right and there is no difference, you not only forfeit your ability to say Intelligent Design is wrong, you also don't get to arbitrarily decide your perspective is the default perspective.

Actually, there are observational differences between a geocentric and a heliocentric universe. For example, the brightness of Venus. The positions of Mars. Those were noted as problems even before the other data for the heliocentric model were found (like the actual phases of Venus, the moons of Jupiter, the size of the planetary disks over time, etc).

The default perspective is the one that sticks closest to the evidence. The design model introduces a host of new assumptions without supporting observations and is legitimately discarded on that basis if there is no observational differences.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The default perspective is the one that sticks closest to the evidence.

Hmm again if you look into underdetermination, you'll see why this sentence is problematic—for any given set of observations more than one theory can be logically compatible with the evidence.

[polymath257]

The default perspective is the one that sticks closest to the evidence.

Hmm again if you look into underdetermination, you'll see why this sentence is problematic—for any given set of observations more than one theory can be logically compatible with the evidence.

In which case, we always take the easiest. The one with the fewest additional assumptions.

Occasionally, having more than one thoery is useful *if* the calculations are easier in one description than another. For example, classical physics can use Newton's formulation involving forces or Lagrange's formulation using a principle of least action. The latter often leads to easier calculations, but ultimately the same observational results.

But in the case of design, even that isn't an advantage. it is *solely* the addition of assumptions that have no observational consequences. As such, it is reasonable to discard it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

In which case, we always take the easiest.

It doesn't get much easier than "God did it." It consolidates all of nature's problems into a single locus. (Not that nature actually cares what your brain finds easy or convinient anyway.)

[The Grand Nudger]

That's where you're wrong. God did it is one hell of a lift. We've yet to see gods escape the pages of their magic books or the minds of their cultists to do anything.

Something very strange, very new, and almost incomprehensibly difficult to explain would be going on, if gods started doing things. The housecat did it, no matter what it is, is easy.