This just seems like a confused jumble of words to me. You have already assumed that "order = God", so why do you even need an argument? — Arkady

Sorry if my post didn't meet your standards of clarity. Please pick up a book on logic and read up fallacy of composition and how it's confused with fallacy of hasty generalization (both of which I haven't made, fyi)

I haven't assumed anything. I have first made an observation and it reveals undeniable order. I then entertained two possible origins of order viz.

1. God
2. Chance

I find possibility 2 to be unrealistic because it's, mathematically, next to impossible. Option 1 then becomes viable.

Also, frankly speaking, I'm not concerned about the above argument. All I care about is the failure of atheists to satisfactorily argue against a creator-God (which I defined in the OP), nothing more and nothing less.

many of which a lot of people would find ridiculous or unthinkable. Russell's teapot comes to mind. — Sapientia

The absurd doesn't imply falsehood. It's quite absurd that iron ships should float and yet they do.

Russel's teapot is about burden of proof. I agree that the onus of proof falls on the theist's shoulders. However, the onus of disproof also falls on someone's shoulders - the atheist's. If I were to say ''There's a fly in the room'' it would be my responsibilty to show evidence to that effect. However, if I were to say ''There's no fly in this room'' it would again be my responsibility to show evidence of that. You can't, in fact mustn't, conclude there's no fly in the room just because I couldn't prove it. This is the mistake atheists make.

That the PSR has been useful is not that it's true — Sapientia

First, thank you for the beautiful synopsis on the background of PSR. It does appear that poor Liebniz was biased and had hidden religious agenda.

However, examination of PSR, even if its author was biased, reveals no error. If PSR is wrong then you should be able to give me one (or few) examples of events that occur for no reason at all. That would effectively disprove PSR. Can you do that?

100% certainty, proof, categorically ruling out, and suchlike, is not needed to rightly reject the argument from design for being a bad argument, — Sapientia

If my argument is bad then everyone's making a mistake but it isn't the case that everyone's making a mistake (associating order with conscious agency is valid reasoning). So, my argument isn't bad. Please don't accuse me of the bandwagon fallacy

Dude, you're just making stuff up now. — Srap Tasmaner

No, I'm not. @Michael raised a pertinent question, asking if a pile of rocks isn't sufficient to infer human intervention then how is it that we can infer god?

My reply to that is there's a difference of degrees between man-made order and god-made order (laws of nature). Humans can't break the laws of nature. The most they can do is pit one law against another e.g. a plane flies by a play between fluid dynamics and gravity. In a sense humans are restricted by the laws of nature and are therefore man-made order is inferior (a subset) of natural laws.

The refutations of the design argument are aimed at the God of scripture.

However, there is a part which I find relevant to my argument which is (I quote):

''Philo also argues that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order, and “This at once solves all difficulties” (Dialogues, 6).''.

Note the ''may'' which I've underlined. It is an honest admission by Philo that he's not 100% certain about the issue. This peg of uncertainty is where I hang the coat of my argument. There's nothing in these refutations that conclusively proves that a god-creator does NOT exist. All they do is expose weaknesses of the original design argument. That I accept since I too see no evidence for an all-good God. However, these objections do not categorically rule out the existence of a creator-God (which I've defined in my OP)

this is an instance of a fallacy of composition, i.e. inferring that some characteristic of the parts of a system or object necessarily attaches to the whole. — Arkady

The fallacy of composition occurs when:

The property in question (in my case ''order'') is distributed collectively rather than distributively

I haven't done that. My argument is statistical, a basic version of which is:

All observed things in this universe are ordered. Therefore ALL things in this universe are ordered. The property (order) is trasnferred distributively and not collectively. So, no, I'm not committing the fallacy of composition.

As for crystals, you won't disagree, their formation is determined by their molecular structure, pressure, temperature, etc. - all of which follow the laws of nature. So, this order, as I mentioned in one of my posts, is of a higher form. And just as we seek a person when we see man-made order, it's logical to seek a God-creator when we see order in the universe as evidenced by the existence of the laws of nature.

Nothing worth mentioning that I can think of right now. — Sapientia

That means you're still open to possibilities. I think we're on the same page here.

I'm in agreement with Terrapin Station that it could be a brute fact, and that it's sorely misconceived to believe that there must be some "background" reason for natural law being as it is. — Sapientia

So, what do you make of The principle of sufficient reason. This principle has served us well in all branches of knowledge - history, philosophy, geography, philosophy, science, etc. - and I'm surprised that you're throwing it out the window when it comes to such a critical question.



The situation is tricky because man-made order is a subset of the laws of nature. I made that as clear as I could. Do you have a specific question that you want to ask?

So you can't keep doing an endless chain of background reasons, no matter how much you want to, simply because you don't have time for it. — Terrapin Station

I understand. Infinite tasks by definition can't be completed. However, human history is, despite our intelligence and imagination, replete with occasions where our best predictions and strategies have failed us. For instance, scientists believed the speed of light was infinite. That however didn't stop some of them from experimenting. Zeno proved that motion is impossible and yet we can easily go from our bedrooms to the loo and back. Perhaps an important distinction to make is that between theory and the practical. We may reason that the task is infinite but actual investigation may yield a different answer. So, I don't buy the infinite regress argument because it's just theory and many many theories have been proven wrong.

And obviously we can't pursue an endless chain of background reasons. We don't have the time for that — Terrapin Station

Good point. An infinite task does deflate our zeal. However, ''a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step''. Georg Cantor, the mathematician, devoted his entire life to the study of infinity and I wouldn't be wrong in saying there are others - theologians, scientists, mathematicians - who study infinity with great enthusiasm.

Also, from a general perspective, an infinite universe is even more exciting than one that is finite. We'll have an endless variety of experiences to have.

Re "the meaning of life," I already know the answer to that. It's completely subjective. There is no objective meaning. There's only the meaning that persons assign to it, if they do. — Terrapin Station

That begs the question ''how do you know life's meaning is subjective, or objective?''

So, is human-made order a higher degree or a lesser degree? — Michael

Lesser because the man-made has never, probably never can, violate Natural Law. I said ''Natural Law'' because I'm still unsure of its orgin - is it a chance thing or is it the work of a conscious agency??? All that I'm saying is that a divine origin can't be ruled out.

It then seems that the difference isn't a matter of degree but a matter of origin. — Michael

Please read above.

I don't see how it follows that less complex placements (say rocks placed haphazardly) can indicate (necessarily or not) a divine origin. — Michael

As I said above, even, to borrow your words, a less complex order in the rocks must necessarily follow the laws of nature e.g. the precise location of each rock is determined by the laws that govern mass, inertia, friction, force, gravity, etc. Man-made order, despite its appearance of complexity, can't override the laws of nature i.e. it's confined by them and so in fact, are of lower complexity.

The laws of nature don't imply a creator. They're just basically descriptions of regularities present in nature. — Sapientia

Well, what does it imply then?

It need not come from either. It can be a brute fact of the world. That's the whole point of it being natural law, really — Terrapin Station

That's an interesting POV. So, it must be the case that you think further inquiry into Natural Law is, well, a waste of time and energy.

I, on the other hand, think it's necessary to question the origins of Natural Law for reasons ranging from simple curiosity to finding the meaning of life. Does nothing along these lines motivate you?

If you're using two types of order then your analogy is a false equivalency. That the order1 in a tidy room indicates a creator is not that the order2 in the natural world indicates a creator. — Michael

The difference between human-made order and god-made order is a matter of degree, not type. Sorry for the poorly worded reply that sent you off-track.

I will look it up later, but right now I have to get ready for work — Sapientia

Thanks and have a great day.

The false dichotomy was your "where order comes from" comment. You said it either comes from consciousness or chance. A third option, that's not consciousness or chance, is natural law. — Terrapin Station

I think you're mistaken. I'm glad we agree that there's such a thing as Natural Law. This is our starting point. Where does Natural Law come from? Is it a God or Chance?

No. My point still stands. If there's not enough order in a pile of rocks to infer the existence of some human who placed them where they are then there isn't enough order to infer the existence of some divine creator. — Michael

You're mistaken, sorry. The point is order is naturally associated with a conscious agency. This isn't a fallacy in everyday experience - we do it everytime we see organization/order - whether it's a stack of books or a library. However, the same chain of reasoning is rejected when it comes to the universe. Do you deny that the universe is ordered? Of course you can't. Then, we should, rationally (as in the above situation), infer an orderer.

Another way to look at it, paying more attention to your concern:

To answer your question I have to make a subtle distinction. There are two types of order viz. human-created and God-created. Of course the former is subsumed by the latter.

When I compare a tidy room with a dirty room, I'm concerned about human-created order. When I talk of the laws of nature I'm referring to the laws of nature. Both are contrasted with chaos.

Indeed a pile of rocks lacks human-created order. However, they display a higher form of order - that derived from the laws of nature, which, following your thought-train, must have a creator intelligence superior to that of humans.

Also, it isn't to say that humans can't create a universe with order. There's enough going on in the computer world to prove otherwise, simulations, etc.

Does this answer your question?

Well, Hume's refutation is aimed at the God of scriptures. My God is nothing more than a creator of order (laws of Nature). So, his criticism doesn't apply to my conception of God. I did say in my OP that defined as such, my God is less appealing because He doesn't have to be omnibenevolent or omni-whatever. All that matters is the order that is clear to see even to the blind. If you do find a particular Humean refutation that's appropriate please do post it. I'll reply.

If the universe is ordered then even a pile of rocks is ordered, and so it is reasonable to infer that someone placed those rocks where they are. But does that seem right — Michael

The problem here is we can't untangle ourselves from the situation. We have to do the thinking from inside the box, so to speak. Anyway, we can bypass this difficulty using our imagination. We can imagine a world that is chaos, without even a hint of order. Now compare that world to our world, the one in which we're having this conversation. Is the picture now clearer?

Well, the domination-submission dynamic is found in animals and we are animals.

The male-female divide in terms of the OP's main point is also reasonable. In the animal world, females (unless you're a praying mantis or have cubs to defend) are more submissive. As @Agustino said the accepted belief is aggression and the accompanying dominance behavior has to do with how much testosterone is pumping through your bloodstream.

But the above is descriptive - what is - and the question the OP raises is whether this state of affairs is acceptable in the modern world within the context of a philosophical outlook, religion, etc.? Put otherwise is domination-submission behavior as cureently exhibited prescriptive too?

Well, I think I'm repeating myself, the evidence for conscious agency is order. Among the many things that count as evidence in a tidy room that which we (generally speaking) focus on is the organization/order. Order is the giveaway, so to speak, of the presence of a systematic entity.

Likewise for the universe - the laws of nature, in other words order, is the evidence for an organizing agent.

Natural law — Terrapin Station

But that is the order I was referring to from the get go. There's no false dichotomy as you allege.

Perhaps you see a difference between order and natural law. Care to explain?

Try again? — Sapientia

Since you say the two can't be compared I think I should ask you why? You haven't made that clear as yet.

Btw, you forgot to tell me what conscious agency was responsible for the behavior of the bean machine — Srap Tasmaner

The bean machine works as any machine does - the laws of physics describes its behavior. If this wasn't so then we wouldn't have a machine in the first place.

(1) What is a law of nature?
(2) Why are the laws of nature the way they are, and not some other way?
(3) Have the laws of nature always been the same?
(4) Why are there laws of nature at all? — Srap Tasmaner

I'll give it my best shot:

(1) a law of nature is a rule which governs physical interaction whatever they maybe

(2) Only God knows (if he exists)

(3) Only god knows

(4) Only God knows

Is the evidence for the existence of a conscious agent that created the universe anything like the evidence on which we base other beliefs? — Srap Tasmaner

We have to focus on the essential determinant here. In my view the strongest evidence for a conscious agent is order. So, keeping that in mind, the evidence is at par with other beliefs.

you're one of us.... One of us.... ONE OF US! — VagabondSpectre

:)

Thanks for the clarification.

No, it doesn't imply that false dichotomy, — Terrapin Station

I presented two options:

1. God as the orderer of the universe
2. Chance as the order of the universe

You say this is a false dilemma. So what's your third option here? I don't see any in your post.

Is it possibly true that there was a conscious agent who created the universe? Sure, I guess. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know how the above squares with the below.

Is it rational or reasonable to hold that belief? No

This is the part that seems to bother you. You want everyone to say, "We just don't know," and everyone ends up on an equal footing. That equal footing represents to me an abhorrent laziness — Srap Tasmaner

Laziness? But to do anything otherwise would be jumping to conclusions.

Refuting an argument isn't the same as proving the negative (which requires an entirely separate argument). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that's true. So, how do you explain atheism? Are they wrong in denying the existence of God? With respect to the design argument, are their refutations and counterarguments equally, if not more, ridiculous?

Most of the rest of us atheists are agnostic soft-atheists who do not accept the positive claims and arguments for and against god's existence. Of course this means we do not actively possess any belief in god, and so pragmatically we wind up behaving as if there is no god (generally) but the distinction is wide-spread and very important. — VagabondSpectre

Agnosticism is the most rational position to assume given the lack of evidence. I wonder why it should result in an atheistic lifestyle? Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Perhaps we're getting misled by what '''God'' means here. My god is only a creator - nothing more.

Thanks for posting the video. It's very interesting. However, it doesn't say much. A normal distribution is just a discovery that when studying large samples, values under study tend to be arranged (ordered) in a particular pattern. It however doesn't claim the origin of such order is chaos. If @andrewk explains he'll disappoint you because he believes random (the normal distribution) is NOT chaos. Rather he thinks randomness arises from unknown order.

What would possibly be evidence that the speed of light could have been some other value? — Terrapin Station

You said order doesn't necessarily arise from conscious agency. That means that you think it arose from chance (that's the only alternative. If you have another alternative I'd be interested to hear). So, if chance is your preferred alternative, you'll have to accept that the constants in this universe could've assumed any value. I'm just following your reasoning to its logical end.

How so? — Sapientia

Because the same logic is good in one case and not in the other. Simply answer me one question: Why is God special that a valid chain of reasoning is unacceptable?

What would we be using for data to estimate likelihood? — Terrapin Station

To give a simple example take the speed of light (a constant) which is approximately 186,000 miles per second (also called c). This is one value from a possible range from 0 to infinity. So, if you want to play with chance, the probability of the speed of light being exactly c is 1/infinity which is, well, zero. The same logic applies to othe mathematical constants in the universe that make life possible.

If chance can create order, that would undermine the whole argument you're making — Terrapin Station

As I said before, I don't (can't) rule out chance as an alternative possibility. However, as I demonstrated above (with my limited math abilities), the probability of it being chance is close to impossible.

I deny (1) — Srap Tasmaner

My argument's proposition
1) If there's order, then there's an orderer

is based on what you, I, everybody do(es) as of routine. There's nothing rationally defective about it. Why? Because in our experience order is strongly associated with agency of some kind.

If you deny (1) then you'll have to give me an instance of order arising from something other than conscious agency. Can you do that?

Do you perceive chaos in G = (m1*m2)/r^2? Or in E = mc^2?

I claim to not know if god, chaos, or something else created the universe and bestowed it with order, whereas you seem to have assumed that god did it — VagabondSpectre

No, no. All I want to demonstrate is the logical error an atheist commits by refuting the argument from design. Speaking for my self, I'm not completely satisfied with the design argument. It still seems incomplete.

Does anyone know what an un-ordered universe might be like? — VagabondSpectre

I don't know. Perhaps even our imagination will fail to answer this question.

Why do theists exist? Why do they claim the higher rational ground? Emotional bias. Same as the atheists. — Noble Dust

In my humble opinion, both atheism and theism suffer from a certainty that is nonexistent in their arguments. All that there is is a possibility which can neither be confirmed nor denied. Do you agree?

So you're sticking with an argument that's been refuted? — Sapientia

A rationally defective refutation. To make this simple for you I only ask why the same logic works in one instance and fails in the other. All you've done is accuse me of asking loaded questions.

Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it? — Noblosh

A good point. The chance origin of the universe doesn't preclude the existence of God.

I don't see how this is an analogy at all. — noAxioms

This analogy is not mine. I think philosophers should be familiar with it - the argument from design. You've referred to it in your reply to Noblosh.

If the claim is simply that for any x, there must be a source for x, then nothing can be exempt from that. Anything named would be some x. — Terrapin Station

I'm not saying this God that I defined is an exemption. It could very well have a creator itself. However, it is more likely that ordered states have a creator than not. So, it could be that way back in time (if this even makes sense) that chance did create a conscious being. However, this first consciousness creates a universe of its own and someone in that universe does the same and so on...

I know this may sound bizarre but give it a thought. The odds stacked against simple chance giving birth to order are mindboggling. However, given a concsious agent, order is almost certain. Given these odds what do you think is true?

It grossly fails at its task of providing us a home since we so completely confined to this limited place which we've inevitably destroyed beyond repair. — noAxioms

Looks like you're the one who's biased. I'm not claiming any life-favoring design. All that is apparent to me, if science is true (who's going to argue against science?), is the mathematical relationships that exist in this universe. This is order and whether it is/isn't designed for life is another topic.

See unenlightened 's reductio ad absurdum. — Sapientia

If there's any reductio ad absurdum in this thread it's mine. I have clearly demonstrated the contradiction inherent in the atheist's position - the same reasoning is ok in one instance and not ok in another.

I have two questions:
1. Is nothing part of everything?
2. Nothing is something? — wax1232

For me nothing is pure, unfettered potential. The infinite possibilities it represents is awe-inspiring. From depressed viruses to clownish Gods - anything, everything is a possibility.

What's the alternative to designed order? Un-designed order... I did suggest that you look into complexity science, but essentially the answer is that sometimes "order" emerges from "chaos". — VagabondSpectre

Yes, this is the alternative everyone talks about. I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. In short, it's nothing more than winning a lottery. However, as I logically should, I only take this as an unverified alternative to a God-creator. Why? Where's the evidence?

So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance. You showed me that God is not necessarily the source of order and I, hopefully, did the same for Chance, or if you prefer, chaos

So, logically we should be agnostic - there's no evidence to tip the balance in favor of either option.

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground?

This is only assuming that order tends to come from design, which is far from clear (see:"complexity science"). — VagabondSpectre

What's the alternative here? What other source of order do you see?

Thanks for bringing a different perspective to the discussion. A few clarifications (it's already there in the OP).

1. I don't want to discuss the thorny issues of omnibenevolence, etc. All I want to show is how a general pattern of reasoning while accepted in everyday experience is rejected on the issue of God (only as a creator - the source of order). I also want to know why this is so.

2. By atheist I mean someone who says god doesn't exist.

now know many, many ways in which what appears as order to us can arise "bottom up." — Srap Tasmaner

Question begging. This is the issue we're uncertain of.

By kicking the can down the road, you've only made your task harder. — Srap Tasmaner

The infinite regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for God's existence?

Need to define ordered. — noAxioms

The presence of patterns - qualitative and quantitative.

Now why did that argument fall out of favor but this tuning argument (the exact same argument) lives on? — noAxioms

Because the fine-tuning argument is stronger and clearly shows that the universe is designed for life which the origins. Surely, there's no logical fallacy in changing minds when stronger evidence comes along.

The regularity is attributable to nature itself. — Sapientia

Isn't that a tautology? Nature is order. We're asking why?

Can you skip to the part where you explain how you get to the conclusion that God created the universe — Sapientia

My OP is clear on that. To repeat, a tidy room is associated with an agency. So, an ordered universe is associated with God. In a nutshell.

I would get the same vibes from a messy room — noAxioms

A messy room has alternative possibilities e.g. a strong wind, an earthquake, etc. but a clean and tidy room is strongly associated with an agency.

I don't see any reason to believe that there is a source, especially because that wouldn't answer the question, it would just push it back another step--you'd then need a source for the source and so on. — Terrapin Station

The infinte regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for the existence of a God?

I don't see a clean or tidy Universe anywhere. — Noblosh

The laws of nature?

Life is possible in the universe but maybe it's not an intended consequence. — Noblosh

That doesn't matter. I'm not concerned about the consequences of the design is for humans, life. All I'm interested in is the undeniable existence of order - the laws of nature.

P.S. sorry for not responding specifically. I wanted to get to the heart of the issue. Anyway you have my comments.

Re the formal argument you provide, "If there's order, then there's an orderer" is a false premise — Terrapin Station

Show me how the premise is false.

Ok. What do you think is the source of order in this universe - these so-called laws of nature?

Ok. What do you think is the source of the order we see in this universe - these so-called laws of nature?

People infer makers for watches etc. because they know what they are and how they're made. They don't infer makers for watches solely because watches are "ordered." I find that idea nonsensical. — Terrapin Station

We infer a maker from a watch, according to you, based on knowledge of what they are and how they're made. What of this ''what they're made and how they're made'' stands out as essential to you? If I see some rocks randomly strewn about on the beach I don't give it a second thought (maybe I should?) but if the rocks are ordered in some geometric pattern (order) then I immediately infer an agency - a creator of the pattern/order. This is a natural and acceptable train of thought.

You're claiming that most people reason fallaciously via an error that should be easily avoidable. That error is this: If all types of Gs have property F, then any x with property F must be a G. It's easy to see that that's a fallacy by plugging in various items into the variables — Terrapin Station

I see your version of the argument basically accuses me (all too) of affirming the consequent. This is a deductive fallacy but this is an incorrect formulation of the argument from design. The correct form is:

1. If there's order, then there's an orderer
2. There's order
So,
3. There's an orderer.

But that's not right. What we know about rooms and the content of rooms and people and the world has relevance. — Sapientia

Whatever these other attributes are, all must have some form of organization (order) for it to be relevant. If there's no order, there's no relevance. So, again, let's focus on the essentials and not get distracted by the inconsequential.

That's called cherry picking, and is a logical fallacy. — Sapientia

So a physicist who focuses on the center of gravity of an object is cherry picking? A doctor who focuses on the most life-threatening aspect of a disease is also cherry picking?

Read above.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's more your problem than mine — Sapientia

Could it be that you're asking me to look at a mirage you see?

Because we have much more reason to believe that a room is tidy because someone cleaned it than that the universe has order because it was created by a conscious agency — Sapientia

But, as I said, it's only the presence of ''order'' in the room that has any relevance to the inference. It's not the color of the wall, the shape of the couch, not the brand of TV, etc.Theists simply isolate this relevant attribute (order) and injects it into the argument from design. So, I don't see the dissimilarity.

Also, you're issue with the design argument is colored with anthropomorphism. You reject the design argument by citing examples, which are true, of the generally unfavorable conditions for life and humans. I agree but (correct me if I'm wrong) scientists say that had the mathematical relations of the universe been even minutely different life would be impossible. What I'm saying is, the universe is designed for life.

Even if the above was false I have no issue with your objections because I'm only concerned about a creator (who I've called God). I don't know if this God is all-good, etc. Leave aside us and concerns of our welfare or that of life and observe the mathematical relationships in the interplay of matter and energy. Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something?

Because the cases aren't sufficiently alike, and that has been brought to your attention. — Sapientia

How so?

Your tactics typically involve asking loaded questions and replying with red herrings — Sapientia

:D You're joking right?

That's not the issue though, the issue is that it is simply a weak argument. — VagabondSpectre

You're right. The argument has an inductive version viz. the one you presented.

I wouldn't be wrong in saying atheists attribute greater credibility to science than religion. However, science too is based entirely on induction. Again, the double standards stands out like a sore thumb.

One may say the inductive version of the design argument is weaker than scientific induction. However, note that science, through induction, is discovering order everywhere. So, in fact, scientific body of knowledge strongly supports a God - a creator.