Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it...
Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point?
I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural. I mean what else would a designer use if not natural processes? Or put another way, whatever a designer might use would become a defacto natural process.
As to the question of why is the hypothetical designer is not immediately apparent I don't know but I don't think deception is the only option. Being a wee little human in a 14.5 billion yr old universe with a wee little brain might be another possibility.
As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.
No one is saying that the evidence doesn't matter. I am just taking exception to what is being inferred from the evidence and trying to be rigorous with the logic.
Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?
Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is.
Better check with jar on that but yeah. My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.
The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.
I am just saying that any apparent localized disorder in the goings on of the universe isn't a very robust argument against the existence of a designer.
edit
but apparently we are not talking about that
Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.