The tidy room is a lower entropy state compared to the messy room.
The more ordered universe is higher entropy than the a universe with stuff strewn randomly about. The comparison thus fails. — noAxioms

Why would ordered/disordered be flipped there?

What I did say repeatedly is that the tidy room is not coincidence. — Thinker

Right. And you simply got silly when I asked you why you were talking about coincidences. Could you seriously answer why you're bringing up that term now?

Why wouldn't order be a sufficient reason to deduce "not God" in that case — Terrapin Station

What crosses your mind when you see a clean room? Person or not-person?

Order is not defined as resulting from the actions of a conscious agency — Noblosh

How do you define order then?

What crosses your mind when you see a clean room? Person or not-person? — TheMadFool

What really crosses my mind is, "Hmm, this isn't my room."

But that's not what you're asking, of course.

Do you want me to answer in the context of me pretending to not know what rooms are, how they come to have things in them, how they come to have the things in them arranged in a particular way, etc.?

If there's no God, there's no proof for God's existence.
There's no proof for God's existence.
Therefore there's no God.
That's valid according to your fallacious logic. — Noblosh

That is not my logic – my logic would be:
There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.

I understand entropy as a measure of ''disorder'', so I don't umderstand how a tidy room has lower entropy while a ordered umiverse has higher entropy. Can you clarify (please keep it simple).

Forget the room. You see a watch on the table. Person or not-person?

Again, do you want me to answer where I'd pretend to not know what watches are and how they're made? (Or artifacts of that sort?)

Why would ordered/disordered be flipped there? — Terrapin Station

It requires work to make the room tidy, but matter strewn about randomly would result in far more energy available for work, mostly due to potential energy of not being so deep in all the gravity wells.

It requires work to make the room tidy, — noAxioms

But you'd have to assume that it doesn't require work to make the universe tidy.

Right. And you simply got silly when I asked you why you were talking about coincidences. Could you seriously answer why you're bringing up that term now? — Terrapin Station

Because the number of coincidences are too numerous to ignore.

But you'd have to assume that it doesn't require work to make the universe tidy. — Terrapin Station

It takes cause and effect.

Because the number of coincidences are too numerous to ignore. — Thinker

So are you saying that on your view either things are designed or they're coincidences?

So are you saying that on your view either things are designed or they're coincidences? — Terrapin Station

That is each person's existential choice.

That is each person's existential choice. — Thinker

What?? I don't think you understood my question.

Are you saying that on your view, there are just two choices--either things are designed or they're coincidences? Is that correct?

Are you saying that on your view, there are just two choices--either things are designed or they're coincidences? Is that correct? — Terrapin Station

3 choices - either - or - and/or - both.

Also called 'An act of God'. Thus a tidy room is a sign of the absence of God, and the presence of fairies, or some other anal retentive being — unenlightened

LoL

Fine, let me ask another question (relevant). What other cause do you have in mind when you see the universe working like clockwork?

Right. So why would you think that things would have to be coincidences if not designed? Why couldn't they be the result of something like physical laws rather than coincidences?

I understand entropy as a measure of ''disorder'', so I don't umderstand how a tidy room has lower entropy while a ordered umiverse has higher entropy. Can you clarify (please keep it simple). — TheMadFool

Entropy is a measure of energy available for doing work, as opposed to energy not thus available. It requires work to make a room tidy, but not to make matter go downhill and gather naturally into clumps. A neat pile of rocks in a flat place like Hunebeds are a sign of conscious agency. The same pile of rocks at the base of a mountainside is not.

Again, do you want me to answer where I'd pretend to not know what watches are and how they're made? — Terrapin Station

Watch: a small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist.

Please use the above Google definition of ''watch''.

Person or not-person?

Right. So why would you think that things would have to be coincidences if not designed? Why couldn't they be the result of something like physical laws rather than coincidences? — Terrapin Station

There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.

But you'd have to assume that it doesn't require work to make the universe tidy. — Terrapin Station

The tidying of the universe indeed does not require work. Instead of requiring energy, it releases it. Hydroelectric dams harness the negative work required to make the water all tidy and in one low place.

When I ask you a simple yes or no question, why can't you answer yes or no? C'mon. You're making this way more difficult and laborious than it has to be.

Yes or no, do you want me to answer where I'm pretending to not know what watches and similar artifacts are and how they are made? I'd have a different answer if I were doing that.

There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect. — Thinker

What in the world does that have to do with why you'd be assuming a "designed or coincidence" dichotomy?

The tidying of the universe indeed does not require work. — noAxioms

That's a statement of what you'd be assuming.

There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect. — Thinker

Is that last line an assertion or a conclusion? If the latter, it doesn't follow.

What in the world does that have to do with why you'd be assuming a "designed or coincidence" dichotomy? — Terrapin Station

I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe.

Is that last line an assertion or a conclusion? If the latter, it doesn't follow. — noAxioms

I would agree it is an assertion - a hypothesis.

I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe. — Thinker

I don't see design/coincidence as a legitimate choice.

Both yes and no.