Cannot have a substantive argument without defining terms. You can, however, have a gee-whiz nonsense-fantasy argument. Sometimes the nonsense is fun; usually for adults, however, it's a waste of time, or confined to topics understood to be fun to argue about, like sports.

If you wish to avoid nonsense, then, offer us definitions, even if just for present purpose, of your terms "design," "order," "universe," "designer," "god," and "exist."

Try to avoid petitio principii in your defining.

Difficult. I suspect it's impossible. And there would be an excellent reason for the impossibility - that is, no failure of yours. And that is because the concepts stand as answers to questions as yet otherwise unanswerable via any reasoned process. They, the questions and all the related impedimenta of these impenetrable subjects, are left to faith to answer. And fifty bookshelf-feet of faith boil down to a short expression: God did it! This latter is susceptible of either faith or reason, but not both. (Not to be confused with having reasons to believe on faith!). If faith, no need for argument. If reason, no room or space for faith.

The exercise, then, of attempting to adduce any proof of any matter of faith is in fact a demonstration of profound and even dangerous ignorance, even to the level of stupidity and even below that. Unless you're just trying to have some fun, but that's a waste of an adult's time, and sports is more fun.

I was thinking of the possibility of design or the semblance of it arising spontaneously out of randomness. — TheMadFool

When we have free will discussions, folks have a problem with saying that the sciences posit anything random. Why in this context would we assume that science is positing randomness and "things arising spontaneously out of it" after all? Do the sciences suppose that the world works randomly? And if not, are we claiming that the sciences are positing a god?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ours-is-the-best-of-all-possible-worlds-1483053873

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/a-fortunate-universe-life-in-a-finely-tuned-cosmos/

I may have posted the topic in the wrong category. The question concerns more about the logic of conditionals - very superficially perhaps - but I'm a beginner. Bear with me.

Which is the correct premise for the design argument for God:

1. If there is order in the universe then there exists a god

2. If there exists a god then there is order in the universe

3. There is order in the universe if and only if there exists a god



By spontaneous random origin I'm referring to the initial state of the universe. What follows from the initial state is not necessarily random.

Thanks.

1. If there is order in the universe then there exists a god — TheMadFool

If A then B,
A,
then B.

Valid, but trivially so, a matter of form only. For example, B could be, "There is a hippopotamus sipping tea in my living room."

If you're in the market for a tea-sipping hippopotamus, I've one to sell you. And don't doubt it, because the above argument proves it.

As tim points out, #1 is the correct form. But this simple argument is rather pointless without including the difficult part, which is to demonstrate how a god is necessary for the existence of order.

:ok: Thanks

As tim points out, #1 is the correct form. But this simple argument is rather pointless without including the difficult part, which is to demonstrate how a god is necessary for the existence of order. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's what I actually want to discuss.

The correct premise according to you and tim wood is:

1. If there is order in this universe then there exists a God

I would like to rephrase statement 1 as below which I hope is correct:

1a. All things that have order are things that have a designer

The argument for God now becomes:

1a. All things that have order are things that have a designer
2a. The universe has order
Therefore
3a. The universe has a designer
4a. This designer of the universe is God

As you can see premise 1a. All things that have order are things that have a designer is the crucial piece of the argument.

Therefore to refute the design argument we must falsify statement 1a. All things that have order are things that have a designer

The negation of 1a would be:

1b. Some things that have order are not things that have a designer.

We need just one instance to prove 1b. What is this instance?

Thanks.

May I suggest you think about what "order" means. Going this way you may find that "design" isn't what you think it is, nor "designer." Nor, for that matter, "means." For these exercises in logic the terms have to be univocal or you have to take great care to make sure the meaning in use is preserved and not altered in the conclusion.

You may even recognize that such proofs are really only about associations of words, some being valid associations, some not - but that the arguments themselves never prove anything at all about the world itself.

That is, the argument from design is merely an exercise in words, and fallacious - invalid - at that. It therefore needs no refutation, being always already self-refuting. It is instead a thing to be set aside, like a childish thing, when you have got the benefit of playing with it, and can.

1a. All things that have order are things that have a designer — TheMadFool

But why would you even think that? Did you not cover statistics at school? The set of {all things which have order and we know to have a designer} is such an infinitesimally small subset of {all things which have order}, and is not even a properly stratified sample (they're all ordered by life on earth). It would be statistically invalid to draw any conclusions at all from such a tiny, unrepresentative sample.

Imagine if I went to Australia for the first time, saw the sand on the beach and thereby concluded all of Australia was probably made entirely of sand.

The negation of 1a would be:

1b. Some things that have order are not things that have a designer.

We need just one instance to prove 1b. What is this instance? — TheMadFool

You're begging the question. If the apparent absence of a designer (I can't, see, hear, or in any other way detect one) is to be counted as insufficient evidence that there is not a designer, then you have, by design, made it impossible to disprove your hypothesis. It is impossible to find one thing that has order but does not have a designer if you close down any reasonable evidence that there isn't a designer.

Let's say it turns out that DNA doesn't have a designer. What could I possibly forward as evidence of that fact?

May I suggest you think about what "order" means. Going this way you may find that "design" isn't what you think it is, nor "designer." Nor, for that matter, "means." For these exercises in logic the terms have to be univocal or you have to take great care to make sure the meaning in use is preserved and not altered in the conclusion.

You may even recognize that such proofs are really only about associations of words, some being valid associations, some not - but that the arguments themselves never prove anything at all about the world itself.

That is, the argument from design is merely an exercise in words, and fallacious - invalid - at that. It therefore needs no refutation, being always already self-refuting. It is instead a thing to be set aside, like a childish thing, when you have got the benefit of playing with it, and can. — tim wood

Thanks for pointing at the possibility of equivocation between design and order. As someone in another thread was kind enough to explain that order is the existence of a pattern which is simply a set of rules matter-energy obeys.

Design is most definitely order but with one additional element - a conscious intellect behind the order, a designer.

When and why did humans teach themselves that a conscious intellect (a designer) is necessary for any and all instances of order? Surely this must be from observation. For example a well-used water well differs from one that is abandoned. The former has features like cleanliness and working pulleys while the latter is overgrown with vegetation and the tools are rusted or broken.

As you can see the inference of a designer (conscious intellect) from order is quite well-founded. To deny it you'd need to show me order without a designer. Keep in mind that any such example would be far more complex than anything humans can do; forcing us to conclude an even greater intellect (designer) rather than no designer.

But why would you even think that? Did you not cover statistics at school? The set of {all things which have order and we know to have a designer} is such an infinitesimally small subset of {all things which have order}, and is not even a properly stratified sample (they're all ordered by life on earth). It would be statistically invalid to draw any conclusions at all from such a tiny, unrepresentative sample. — Isaac

That's a fantastic observation. However the design argument is an argument from analogy where the universe is taken as ONE object and not as a composite of smaller parts. It's not a case of distributing the property of order and therefore designer to all members of the universe. Rather the design argument says the universe, as ONE object, has a designer. Note that if the universe has a designer then all objects in it also have a designer.

the design argument is an argument from analogy where the universe is taken as ONE object — TheMadFool

Well then it can't be an argument from analogy as there is no other object to which to compare it.

To deny it you'd need to show me order without a designer. — TheMadFool

Just look out the window. Again, everything is in some order, and that order is unique. You're arbitrarily favoring some orders. Different example: a building is "imploded"; after the smoke and dust clears, it's just a pile of rubble. Ordered? yes, and uniquely so. Designed? Well, the order is a consequence - is that a designer?

it's just a pile of rubble. — tim wood

Hmmm......

Can chaos be designed?
If order implies design, and if everything is ordered, wouldn’t chaos be impossible?

If order implies design, and if everything is ordered, wouldn’t chaos be impossible? — Mww

Short answer, chaos, as well other things, is in the eye of the beholder. And, too, the connections and arguments in the eye's mind.

Eye’s mind. I like it!!

Reason’s greatest teaching tool: euphemism.

Reason’s greatest teaching tool: euphemism. — Mww

We happy band of Sunday-afternoon wasters! Or do I speak only for myself? And who cooks where you live?

Just look out the window. Again, everything is in some order, and that order is unique. You're arbitrarily favoring some orders. Different example: a building is "imploded"; after the smoke and dust clears, it's just a pile of rubble. Ordered? yes, and uniquely so. Designed? Well, the order is a consequence - is that a designer? — tim wood

My point is very simple.

Argument A:

1.A digital watch is more complex than a sun dial.

2. We infer, from the above, that a digital watch is designed by a far more intelligent being

Argument B:

1. The universe is far more complex than any man-made object

2. What should/could I conclude but that the universe has a designer of extraordinary ability?

Well then it can't be an argument from analogy as there is no other object to which to compare it. — Isaac

There is. man-made objects, as a group, is compared to the universe itself.

There is. man-made objects, as a group, is compared to the universe itself. — TheMadFool

Yes, but you're not talking about man-made objects. The footprint I just made in the sand is a man-made object, the eddies I just made in the water as I walked through it are man-made objects. Neither were designed intelligently. The vast majority of man-made objects are complex but not designed, we make them every time we interact with anything.

What you're really talking about is the set {objects made with the intention to carry out some function}, but in this case the property you're claiming to deduce from that set is the very defining factor of it. It's like saying all things in the set {things which are red} are red.

So you end up begging the question. You haven't' taken a set with property X and found that every member also has property Y (for you to then say All other things with Property Y might well be considered to have property X. You've taken a set and determined it has Property X simply because you defined the set that way in the first place. This then gives you no information at all about members of another set.

I only want to address the point you made - that the sample (man-made objects) is inadequate for the generalization that ALL things are designed.

You're correct but only if the argument is statistical in which case I would be saying that ALL objects in the universe are designed.

However the argument from design doesn't make this claim as a primary objective although it follows quite naturally from it.

The design argument in the most common version of it:

1. A watch has order. The watch has a designer
2. The universe (as ONE object) has order
Therefore
3. The universe has a designer
4. If the universe has a designer then ALL objects in it have a designer
Therefore
5. All objects in the universe have a designer

Statement 5, which is relevant to your point, is only a corollary of statement 3 which is the main claim of the argument from design.

As you can see there is no statistical generalization from a sample to the whole for the conclusion (statement 3) of the design argument. It's just an analogy.

If the main conclusion of the design argument had been statement 5 without statement 3 then your objection is to the point.

1. A watch has order. The watch has a designer
2. The universe (as ONE object) has order
Therefore
3. The universe has a designer — TheMadFool

3 does not follow from 1 unless there is some reason to think that the universe is otherwise in the same category as watches.

Consider...

1. A watch has parts made of metal. A watch has been designed the way it is by a watchmaker.
2. A randomly scattered pile of nails has parts made of metal
Therefore
3. A randomly scattered pile of nails must have been designed that way by a watchmaker.

Doesn't make sense does it?

3 does not follow from 1 unless there is some reason to think that the universe is otherwise in the same category as watches.

Consider...

1. A watch has parts made of metal. A watch has been designed the way it is by a watchmaker.
2. A randomly scattered pile of nails has parts made of metal
Therefore
3. A randomly scattered pile of nails must have been designed that way by a watchmaker. — Isaac

The property of being a metal is too weak a link to draw such a conclusion. Your argument is susceptible to disanalogies because there are many metallic objects that aren't designed, the pile of nails in your argument being one such case.


Order, however, is strongly associated with a designer providing a strong connection between the order in the universe and the presence of a designer.

No. To say order is strongly associated with a designer is begging the question. That is the very matter the argument is trying to resolve. Does the order in the universe mean that it is designed?

In order to say empirically, that order is associated with a designer in all or most cases, you must have evidence of a large number of diverse cases of order, all of which have a designer. But we have no such sample. All we have is a very small number of cases (using the same scale/complexity criteria for both sets) of very specific cases of order (all objects made by one species on one planet in a tiny solar system off one end of one of the smaller galaxies). That is not a sufficiently large or diverse sample from which to justifiably reach the conclusion that all ordered things are associated with a designer. Not even close.

To solve this problem by 'fixing' the scales (one watch counts as a single example in one group, but 'the whole universe' becomes the comparitve object in the other) is just blatant bias. Set up an experiment with that level of bias in any serious science and you'd be laughed out of the establishment. It's this sort of crap that gives philosophy such a bad reputation.

The hidden premises are, if it is ordered then it has a designer, and, if it has a designer the designer is a being. And back somewhere did you ever define order?.

You can create arguments all day long, but they have to do with reality only as much and in so far as they have to do with reality. Nor more nor less.

No. To say order is strongly associated with a designer is begging the question. That is the very matter the argument is trying to resolve. Does the order in the universe mean that it is designed? — Isaac

The order in a watch or any man-made object is strongly associated with a designer (human).

This connection (order-designer) between man-made objects and human is then used to infer a designer (god) from the order in the universe.

There is no begging the question fallacy because the order-designer link is inferred from man-made objects to the universe.

There is no begging the question fallacy because the order-designer link is inferred — TheMadFool

Maybe think about inference a bit? I can infer that the moon is made of green cheese. Doesn't make it so. And denying a fallacy isn't so much illogical, but rather pathological.

Language gives many gifts. Misused, misunderstood, those same gifts can become curse.

Maybe think about inference a bit? I can infer that the moon is made of green cheese. Doesn't make it so. And denying a fallacy isn't so much illogical, but rather pathological.

Language gives many gifts. Misused, misunderstood, those same gifts can become curse. — tim wood

Your last paragraph hits the bullseye.

As for your moon-green cheese "inference" you'll have to show me what you mean. Thanks.

As for your moon-green cheese "inference" you'll have to show me what you mean. Thanks. — TheMadFool

1) If I'm tim, then the moon is made of green cheese.
2) I'm tim
---
Conclusion: the moon is made of green cheese.

If you're willing to assume the antecedent, then you can infer anything from anything.

1) If I'm a magic hippopotamus, then the moon is made of green cheese.
1. a) Assume I'm a magic hippopotamus
2) I'm a magic hippopotamus. (1. a)
-----
Conclusion, and so forth.

1) If I'm tim, then the moon is made of green cheese.
2) I'm tim
---
Conclusion: the moon is made of green cheese.

If you're willing to assume the antecedent, then you can infer anything from anything.

1) If I'm a magic hippopotamus, then the moon is made of green cheese.
1. a) Assume I'm a magic hippopotamus
2) I'm a magic hippopotamus. (1. a)
-----
Conclusion, and so forth. — tim wood

Yes, the logic is correct but there seems to be something missing - I'll call it relevance. The antecedent, tim isn't relevant to consequent the moon is made of green cheese.

Perhaps you have something else in mind. Do tell.

I don't know about relevance. There's validity - the form is ok. And there's truth. The point is that some people think they get truth out of validity. And clearly that's not so. Nothing else in mind here. If you can figure out how to "encode" relevance into logic, that might be a big deal.