Okay, well, pretending to not know what watches and similar artifacts are and how they are made, I'd make no assumptions about where it must have come from, especially not with respect to assuming that something sentient made it. That wouldn't be justified, because I'd have no experience base for concluding that.

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. — Terrapin Station

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

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

You seem like a novice with regards to logic. One could reorder the above to make a valid argument as follows:

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

But what does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from your conclusion above to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe?

As for analogies with situations like finding a tidy room or a watch on the beach, these are false analogies, and have long since been shown to be so. I don't see the point in starting with the argument, rather than by starting by addressing the problems with it.

don't see the contradiction. Can you specify — TheMadFool

A bunch of pelicans just flew by in an orderly pattern. I'm off the coast. :)

You seem like a novice with regards to logic. One could reorder the above to make a valid argument as follows:

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

But what does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from that to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe? — Sapientia

My logic forms a hypothesis – not a conclusion – a big difference.

As for analogies with situations like finding a tidy room or a watch on the beach, these are false analogies, and have long since been shown to be so. I don't see the point in starting with the argument, rather than by addressing the problems with it. — Sapientia

The logic of the analogy is of a tidy room. Not a found room or universe. Conditions that are observed. A tidy room is analogous to an ordered universe. The tidy room is a representation of how the universe is observed to be orderly. The universe is orderly like a tidy room. I think the logic flows. It is a hypothesis.

My logic forms a hypothesis – not a conclusion – a big difference. — Thinker

Fine, but that doesn't excuse you from evading my two-part question. What does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from your hypothesis to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe? Or do you not have any reason to conclude that?

The logic of the analogy is of a tidy room. Not a found room or universe. — Thinker

No, my wording matches that in the opening post close enough. The thought experiment requires that one imagine oneself entering a room and finding it clean, well arranged and tidy.

Conditions that are observed. A tidy room is analogous to an ordered universe. The tidy room is a representation of how the universe is observed to be orderly. The universe is orderly like a tidy room. I think the logic flows. It is a hypothesis. — Thinker

That it is analogous in some ways with a hypothesis is utterly insignificant. Do you know how easy it is to come up with hypotheses and make half-baked analogies? I have asked you to clarify this supposed orderliness, and you have not done so.

I have asked you to clarify this supposed orderliness, and you have not done so. — Sapientia

How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.

Fine, but that doesn't excuse you from evading my two-part question. What does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from your hypothesis to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe? Or do you not have any reason to conclude that? — Sapientia

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe. — Thinker

And I hypothesise the moon is made of cheese.

And I hypothesise the moon is made of cheese. — Sapientia

I tried to lay out my case logically and you mock me – ok – I can absorb that. However, I do not see a serious argument from you?

I tried to lay out my case logically and you mock me – ok – I can absorb that. However, I do not see a serious argument from you? — Thinker

It's more than mocking. It's a case in point of why having a hypothesis is not in itself good enough grounds for anything other than speculation. The opening post does more than just present a hypothesis, it makes an argument. I don't see a serious argument from you if all you've got is a hypothesis, as you keep pointing out. I have a hypothesis too. I have plenty of them.

It's more than mocking. It's a case in point of why having a hypothesis is not in itself good enough grounds for anything other than speculation. — Sapientia

My logic is strong – your rebuttal is not. I beg to differ – a hypothesis is speculation – and that is good enough for me. There is no absolute certainty – I don’t know if I will be here tomorrow – I hope so – I speculate – but that is about it.

Are you trolling or...? I don't care if speculation is good enough for you. It's not good enough for any reasonable person. And you seem to have pulled the notion of absolute certainty from the same place you pulled the notion of coincidence.

Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions. — Thinker

This suggests God must have made this planet orderly for us. If no God, we'd have been stuck on a place that is disorderly like Venus perhaps (lacking in about half those qualities). Is that what you're suggesting?

That't pretty much the original argument: Look at what a perfect place that was given to us for our home! Must have been made for us. Look at the purpose evident in a living thing! Must be a purposefully created thing. What a better explanation popped up, they tried to bend the watchmaker argument to the universe, which actually exhibits none of the apparent purpose ascribed to it in this thread. Throw a bunch of objects out there with attracting properties and you are amazed that it clumps? You call the clumping tidiness? Be more amazing if it did something more unexpected than that.

The tuning thing seems purposeful, but nobody has brought that up, and the argument again is about as powerful as noting how well the conditions on Earth are tuned for human existence.
There must be a God making each environment perfect for each thing, else you'd find trees where the fishes are and sometimes monkeys having a tough time in the arctic and such. Someone up above purposefully made sure the home of each of these things was pretty nice.

Are you trolling or...? — Sapientia

No - but you keep resorting to insults - that is trolling - and pompous. Here is my logic again – I would be happy for you to show me the error of my ways – we shall see:

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.

How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.

There must be a God making each environment perfect for each thing — noAxioms

No - speculate there is a God.

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. — Thinker

The second one by no means follows from the first. Cause and effect do not necessarily bring about order. Order can be had without cause and effect. The integers are nice and orderly, all equally spaced and whatnot. No cause and effect made them that way.

I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe. — Thinker

And I hypothesise the universe is contained in a gigantic fish bowl. You'd need to actually give a good enough reason to favour your hypothesis over competing hypotheses, which would mean a conclusion. Simply declaring what you hypothesise won't get you anywhere on a philosophy forum.

No - speculate there is a God. — Thinker

That's what I meant. Read the whole thing in that light.

The second one by no means follows from the first. Cause and effect do not necessarily bring about order. Order can be had without cause and effect. The integers are nice and orderly, all equally spaced and whatnot. No cause and effect made them that way. — noAxioms

I beg to differ – integers are a man-made invention – they do not exist in time and space – only in the mind of man. Show me another example of something that is orderly without causation?

No - speculate there is a God.
— Thinker
That's what I meant. Read the whole thing in that light. — noAxioms

I speculate there is a God - I can not prove God.

I speculate there is a God - I can not prove God. — Thinker

You keep suggesting false dichotomies. This time it's either speculation or proof, with nothing in between. Why speculate that there's a God? Why speculate at all?

Hume wrote that a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. He also provided a refutation of the intelligent design argument.

Why speculate at all? — Sapientia

Because that's the best I can do.

I speculate there is a God - I can not prove God. — Thinker

What is the point of contributing to this thread then? You must think you have some sort of argument, even if not proof.

Sapientia hypothesizes that the moon is made of cheese. That at least suggests a way to verify or falsify the claim, making it a more viable hypothesis than one that makes no predictions. Indeed they have sent somebody up there and verified that it is in fact, not made of cheese, at least not in the spot they chose to sample.

My post illustrated the ID argument, which was put out as evidence (not proof) of God. So I used the same logic to point out several other conclusions that are equally supported by that logic. The argument has us in a zoo created by God who is not so hateful to put trees in the fish exhibit, etc. The fact that we're in the correct exhibit is presented as evidence for a designing God who wants good environments for everything, and not random exhibits as would have resulted from the zoo being populated from a random physical process.

Why speculate at all? — Sapientia

You beat me to it...

Because that's the best I can do. — Thinker

That's a good reason not to do so.

I find both of you individual's funny. I put forward sound logic; neither of you addressed it. Then you tried to show me order without causation – a feeble attempt and no other examples. And now I see argumentation of ridicule – not logic. So, here is my logic again – please refute it:

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.


How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.

I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe. — Thinker

And I hypothesise the universe only continues to exist as a result of a flock of invisible flying giraffes with special powers.

Clearly it's no use trying to reason with you, and this 'speculate off' has ceased to amuse me.

That's a good reason not to do so. — Sapientia

I would ask you to prove the antithesis, but I know in the end that thesis is speculation too. I have already been there – done that. The difference is that NO-God is really much less satisfying speculation. That is why I prefer the opposite. Plus, I do not feel the need to ridicule you for your speculation – that is also very satisfying.