An accurate model for understanding the universe has no utilitarian value? Wow bid claim
You haven’t proposed nor demonstrated an “accurate model for understanding the universe”.
I have not been asked to do this only to show a reason for the design inference. If we assume for arguments sake that the design inference is true does that affect how we make sense of our universe?
I still do know what the intent of your so-called design inference is so I can’t tell you what it being “true” even means. And you appear to be uninterested in expanding on that point.
The intent is to help make sense of the universe which is what science is trying to do by building models like general relativity. Biological Science primarily and all of science in addition has been misled by not using the design inference in addition to methodological naturalism.
The inference is pretty logical if you are not resisting it for ideological reasons.
You previously stated that the design inference is “[to] help us understand if something is purposefully made.”
I asked you what “purposefully made” is supposed to mean and how that is different from something having an artificial origin (since you also stated that the design inference doesn’t allow to distinguish something of artificial origin).
If it’s so logical, then why can’t you just answer my question about what you meant by “purposefully made” and how that is different than something being of artificial origin?
If you can’t answer questions like these, it doesn’t seem like you have anything that is logical at all. From my perspective, I’m just seeing contradictory gibberish.
I think it quite obvious what purposefully made means and more importantly defining this had little if anything to do with your question about the reason for the design inference.
Your continued request for questions about a definition that is not relevant to the discussion is sealioning. Something people here accuse me of
I would entail that “purposefully made” and “artificial” are synonymous in this context. That is what is obvious to me.
Therefore your claim that the design inference doesn’t allow use to distinguish whether something is artificial or not, while also claiming it helps us understand if something is purposefully made, appears to be a blatant contradiction.
Which in turn means what you have proposed is inherently illogical and therefore cannot be true by definition.
If I’m a little less charitable, I would also entail you don’t have any sort of real “design inference” or model to begin with (at not in any formal sense). So we’re arguing about something that doesn’t even appear to exist.
Thanks
I would counter that they are different and this is why a useful function is an important part of the inference. If you look at ones and zeros on a page you cannot tell if they are made for a well defined purpose or someone one has just typed them arbitrarily. If you run them through a computer and get a useful output then you can infer a well defined purpose.
Your argument demands black and white statements and lacks nuance which leads you to a false equivalence between "purposefully made and “artificial”. The real world is not black and white it is nuanced.
Why do you think they are different? You’re still not explaining what you think the distinction is and why that matters.
For all you know, the purpose might be to just type a string of arbitrary ones and zeroes. How is a string of ones and zeroes not being purposefully made in that instance?
We don’t know if it is not purposely made but the inference to purpose is much weaker than if they run a computer program. The computer program is much more useful than an arbitrary string of ones and zeros and has a much stronger design inference.
Not black and white but nuanced.
A bigger question comes to mind: If the self-replication of an imported iPhone took place within the borders of the United States, would the replicants also be subject to tariffs?
Below is a picture of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Also depicted is a device of his invention that, he claimed, could demonstrate that plants (including their fruit) feel pain when you slice them. He is employing this device on a tomato.
If, for the sake of argument, this device actually worked, I would agree that it would affect our understanding of the universe.
Pretty sure it cannot. Not that I understand what making sense of the universe means in this context, but assuming it is something actually practically useful, the evidence would suggest that the “design inference” carries no such function.
Not when it comes to general relativity, no. It’s utility – the ability to correctly predict the movement of energy densities through spacetime – seems in no way whatsoever to depend on whether anybody anywhere ever accepts or rejects some nebulous “the design inference”.
So what? What feels obvious to one is not an indicator to another as to what they mean, let alone of anything factual about nature. And that’s to say nothing of the weight and quality of specifically your intuitions…
As decided by… you?
To be fair, a physical device that really interacts with tomatoes in a way that yields otherwise obscure information to humans is an actual way something can really affect the information at our avail and how we can process it with scientific modeling.
“The design inference”, sadly, doesn’t have electrodes or dials for anyone to make any use of…
I am telling you it is.
Look, here is an arbitrary string of ones and zeroes: 0111010001110100011100011
I just made this purposefully. For the purpose of demonstrating that it is possible to purposefully make a string of ones and zeroes.
I disagree. The above string is much more useful as an illustration that it is possible to purposefully make a string of arbitrary ones and zeroes.
Therefore the string clearly has the stronger design inference than any string of ones and zeroes derived from any computer program.
To reiterate my earlier question: If the pattern of 0’s and 1’s printed on a sheet of paper follow a merely arbitrary pattern, the “design inference” is weak. That would imply that you have little reason to conclude that it was produced by intelligent design.
In that case you would have to, instead, conclude that wood fibres from a tree spontaneously formed themselves into a perfectly rectangular sheet of paper, and the ink simularly arose thru unguided chemical reactions and then, again purely by chance arranged itself into a neatly organized series of perfectly formed 0’s and 1’s.
Again, I don’t really believe you are that stupid. It’s just your argument for the “design inference” that is.
At some point you may realise your argument relies on black and white logic. Purpose is not something that is black and white.
Sure, I’ll buy that.
But I still stand by my claim that the arbitrary string of ones and zeroes I typed has a greater purpose than any string of ones and zeroes derived from any computer program.
Even a string of ones and zeros that are a bot program that allowed you to extract 1 bitcoin a day for the next year