This is illogical, and not an extension of my logic. We find designed order within the bodies of animals and plants, about which we cannot say that the designer is the animal and plant itself. The design comes from the genetics and underlying processes. So an animal such s a human being, designing something, is just an extension of this underlying designing which is occurring in all plants and animals all the time.

Therefore your proposed extension of logic is a composition fallacy. You are proposing that what is true of some instances of design, that the designers are "intelligent terrestrial animals", is true of all instances of design. But in reality we see design in lower level life forms, without intelligence, so we cannot restrict our conception of "designer" in such a way.

What we do, in philosophy and metaphysics is observe very closely, and analyze the intentional acts of human designers, which are very evident to us, so that we can develop an understanding of the underlying designing process which is responsible for the existence of living bodies. This designing is what Aristotle called final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've just decoupled 'intelligence', 'external agent', and even 'external cause' from 'designer'. How do you distinguish design from order?

Right, strictly speaking, we don't "see" the design in plants. We see the order, and with the aid of equipment we might say we "see" the DNA etc., but we don't "see" the design. And this is consistent with human designs. We do not "see" the person's intent, or plan, it exists immaterially in the mind of the person. This is why understanding the nature of final cause, and how the object, as the goal, exists immaterially before it has material existence is very important to understanding the nature of design. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle's entire framework of causation is just that, a framework. It doesn't necessarily map to reality. To give a real world example: There is nothing to suggest that proteins are made to function the way they function. For every functional protein [e.g Hemoglobin], there are hundreds of 'pseudo' genes that failed to function in the process of attempting to make that one.

And proteins don't have singular purposes, they are multifunctional. In fact it's precisely this cognitive bias we have [ functional fixedness ], of assuming purpose, that leads to so many mischaracterizations of proteins -- we fail to realize just because they're important for something in one context, doesn't mean they have entirely different functions in others. To carry the example, hemoglobin, most well-known for carrying oxygen in the blood and most expressed by red blood cells in the blood. Carrying oxygen seems the 'purpose' of hemoglobin, but hemoglobin is also expressed in numerous other tissues. In those cells it plays roles completely different than its role as an oxygen carrier. This also discounts the non-bodily uses of something like hemoglobin. We repurpose proteins all the time, taking them out of their natural contexts to do other things.

How about if we look at it in a different way:

Let's say grass has 100 calories total and herbivores extract 10 calories from it (10%). This, at first, looks like poor design but what if the usable calories in grass is actually 15 calories. Extracting 10 calories gives us an efficiency of 66.66% which is quite good. — TheMadFool

To distinguish between usable and unusable calories is precisely to highlight the inefficiency. There is no fundamental reason why to make that distinction or why the number of usable calories is so little. We could, in theory, design our own proteins that digest more of the bonds in grass and do so in a more energetically efficient manner.

First of all the argument is circular. Your discounting natural cases of order as having an alternative source of order depends on your [in all honesty, narrow-sighted] conclusion that there are no other sources of order. — aporiap

I don't see how the argument is circular. You accept that it is a "conclusion", therefore there is logic behind it. One of the most useful aspects of logic is to exclude from the category of "possible", things which are actually impossible. If this is what you call being narrow-sighted, then so be it. And I've already explained why it is illogical to think that order could come from anything other than design, so call me narrow-sighted, if that's what being logical is. I'd rather be narrow-sighted than believe that something impossible is possible.

This is despite the dis analogies in man-made and natural cases of order pointed out by Isaac - i.e. (1) that hurricane Katrina, black holes, snowflakes, the spherical ordered tangle of the rubber bands in my pocket, and mars, were not made with any clear purpose or intent; (2) that natural order results from self organization as opposed to an external agent or individual. These clearly provide enough justification to assume the things generating natural and man-made order are different . — aporiap

We went through this in this thread already. "Self-organisation" is a bogus concept. Organisation is already presupposed, required as an initial state for any system self-organizing, so it is just a matter of one form of order creating another form of order.

Furthermore, the fact that we can point to instances of order which we do not know the reason for that order, does not justify the claim that there is order with no reason for that order.

Secondly, there is a chicken and egg dillema here. The thing which allows humans to be intelligent, the their brain [we know this unambiguously because of lesioning studies, in which damage to the brain directly causes deficits in intelligence], is itself a natural object operating by universal natural principles. — aporiap

I really don't know what you might mean when you say that the brain operates by "universal natural principles". I tend to think that you're just spouting words, and you don't know what you're saying.

So, 'design', then isn't really the result of 'designers', it is fundamentally a result of the way the universe is intrinsically structured. So, in this view, there is only ever one ultimate source of order [and disorder] which is nature itself. — aporiap

Yeah sure, but the universe, as an ordered structure was necessarily designed itself, so how does this help your case? This is the same issue with your reference to the brain. The brain, as an ordered structure, was itself designed. So saying that the brain operates according to "universal natural principles" doesn't really say anything, because designed things operate according to such principles. In fact, that's how they are designed, through the use of such principles.

Anyway I've gone on a limb and did a cursory search for clear examples of order arising from entirely unpredictable, random processes. I was able to find a nice article which provides an example of pendulums which take on an orderly state of swinging when swung at in entirely random ways. In this case the ordered properties of the system - the orientation and swinging of the pendulums - results entirely from the disorder of the inputs to the system. So here is one case in which order comes out of disorder. — aporiap

I'll repeat myself, citing instances of order occurring, in which we do not know the reason why the order occurs, does nothing to support the claim that order could arise for no reason. So you might as well give up your search for these examples, if that's the reason why you're looking for them.

Of course we also know the universe is fundamentally indeterministic or random - this is why schrodinger's equation is a probabilistic model, not a deterministic law. — aporiap

This is contradictory. If a probabilistic law is effective, then the system is not random.

You've just decoupled 'intelligence', 'external agent', and even 'external cause' from 'designer'. How do you distinguish design from order? — aporiap

That's the point, any attempt to separate design from order is illogical.

Aristotle's entire framework of causation is just that, a framework. It doesn't necessarily map to reality. To give a real world example: There is nothing to suggest that proteins are made to function the way they function. For every functional protein [e.g Hemoglobin], there are hundreds of 'pseudo' genes that failed to function in the process of attempting to make that one. — aporiap

Ever heard of 'trial and error'? Trial and error by its very nature is a designed procedure. It requires a predetermined condition of success.

And proteins don't have singular purposes, they are multifunctional. In fact it's precisely this cognitive bias we have [ functional fixedness ], of assuming purpose, that leads to so many mischaracterizations of proteins -- we fail to realize just because they're important for something in one context, doesn't mean they have entirely different functions in others. To carry the example, hemoglobin, most well-known for carrying oxygen in the blood and most expressed by red blood cells in the blood. Carrying oxygen seems the 'purpose' of hemoglobin, but hemoglobin is also expressed in numerous other tissues. In those cells it plays roles completely different than its role as an oxygen carrier. This also discounts the non-bodily uses of something like hemoglobin. We repurpose proteins all the time, taking them out of their natural contexts to do other things. — aporiap

I'll repeat again. Just because we do not know the purpose, or in this case if someone says 'X is the purpose' when this may be proven false, that does not mean there is no purpose.

I don't see how the argument is circular. You accept that it is a "conclusion", therefore there is logic behind it. One of the most useful aspects of logic is to exclude from the category of "possible", things which are actually impossible. If this is what you call being narrow-sighted, then so be it. And I've already explained why it is illogical to think that order could come from anything other than design, so call me narrow-sighted, if that's what being logical is. I'd rather be narrow-sighted than believe that something impossible is possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Circular reasoning involves using your conclusion as a premise in the same argument. In order to form the conclusion 'there is no other source for order', you already have to assume there is no other source for order- i.e. that natural cases of order are not caused by something other than a designer.

We went through this in this thread already. "Self-organisation" is a bogus concept. Organisation is already presupposed, required as an initial state for any system self-organizing, so it is just a matter of one form of order creating another form of order.

Furthermore, the fact that we can point to instances of order which we do not know the reason for that order, does not justify the claim that there is order with no reason for that order. — Metaphysician Undercover

We only talked about how there is no explanation for why the world works as it does.

The physical laws that describe how the world works are approximations and are not deterministic, they are probabilistic. Randomness and chaos are intrinsic to the world. You will have to explain why there is chaos.

I'll repeat myself, citing instances of order occurring, in which we do not know the reason why the order occurs, does nothing to support the claim that order could arise for no reason. So you might as well give up your search for these examples, if that's the reason why you're looking for them. — Metaphysician Undercover

In that example we know the precise reason, it is the randomness of the inputs to the system. When you replace the random inputs with ordered inputs, the order of the pendulum swings goes away.

This is contradictory. If a probabilistic law is effective, then the system is not random. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know what you mean by effective. By definition, probabilistic models incorporate randomness. It will not tell you the coin will be heads or tails after you flip it. It tells you it could be heads or tails. You could imagine there's a 'predictable pattern' though, if you knew all the variables you could know if it would be heads and so there's still a pattern. But fundamentally there is no predictable pattern of movement of a particle or the state of its properties (whether it spins in one or another direction, whether it's in this location or that location). It is fundamentally random.

That's the point, any attempt to separate design from order is illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is it illogical? To my knowledge, it's only you and Madfool that don't distinguish between them.

Even in your applying the term 'design', there is a fundamental difference. You, by definition, know that man-made things are 'designed'. You 'infer', by analogy, 'order' in nature is designed. To infer in the latter case, you necessarily need to distinguish between order and design because prior to inferring the order is designed, you are implicitly acknowledging the thing has a pattern i.e. order and yet, at that moment, it is not known whether that pattern is a design or not. So you do distinguish between them. My question is what way.

Ever heard of 'trial and error'? Trial and error by its very nature is a designed procedure. It requires a predetermined condition of success. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not trial and error. There is no person with a predetermined goal trying to make proteins. There is nothing special or intentional about this world or a single protein, it exists in the middle of nowhere and is the galactic equivalent to a quantum fluctuation - proteins are more than 30 orders of magnitude smaller in diameter than a single light year, galaxies are hundreds of light years across.

I simply can't imagine what would lead you to assume a goal in the random process that just so happened to result in a protein after, billions of years of random iteration. And of course, the equivalent of a galactic eyeblink, it'll all be gone as if nothing ever happened. It's like saying the ripple in your cup of water was intentionally made to be there, and god is using trial and error as his method of doing so.

I'll repeat again. Just because we do not know the purpose, or in this case if someone says 'X is the purpose' when this may be proven false, that does not mean there is no purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point is an object can do very different functions in very different contexts and be considered 'useful'. The definition of a purpose or final cause Aristotelian sense, is the singular intrinsic function of something [candle to light house, seed to form adult plant]. How can there be a fundamentally intrinsic function of something if it can function in multiple contexts? Sure we say a candle as having the purpose of lighting a room, but it can be used in many other ways that have nothing to do with that.

Heat death seems orderly (to me). Fine-tuned?

"Fine-tuned" is used in different ways by religious folk (Christian, Muslims, etc) and scientists (physicists, chemists, etc). Typical scientific definition/use:

1. science is model → evidence convergence (evidence, observation, experimental results accumulate, and models converge thereupon)
2. the models incorporate constants (lightspeed, elementary charge, the molar Planck constant, 3+1 dimensional spacetime)
3. by dialing the constants in the models (like they were variables), and deriving the consequences of the models, various ranges of in/stability can be supposed
4. additional smaller ranges are derived from the models in which life (implicitly as we know it) can presumably come about
5. fine-tuned is (defined as) the ranges found in 3 or 4, against other mathematical values of the constants, that variables otherwise might take
6. apart from these scientific constants, we also have mathematical constants, like π and e, that are used in scientific models

"π was created and fine-tuned so we can have circles?" :)

Our best models per se, suggest micro-chaos and macro-regularities (some of which are trivial). So, this is a fairly narrow definition, especially against a backdrop of possible worlds.

Christians also posit Yahweh, to whom such laws presumably do not apply, but nonetheless is possible according to them. Muslims also posit heaven (for example) as another world. What we'd then be looking for, is an assessment of all possible worlds. Feasible?

Maybe some see faces in the clouds, but that's not much of an argument, though.

_{Wikipedia » Ramsey theory — order from chaos
Wikipedia » Ramsey's theorem
Wikipedia » Universality (dynamical systems) — emergence
Wikipedia » Self-organization
Wikipedia » Chaos theory » Spontaneous order
Wikipedia » Texas sharpshooter fallacy — :fire:}

So, 'design', then isn't really the result of 'designers', it is fundamentally a result of the way the universe is intrinsically structured. So, in this view, there is only ever one ultimate source of order [and disorder] which is nature itself. — aporiap

I agree. But I also infer from the constructive order of the universe that the "intrinsic structure" of the system was not a random accident. And, since the structure as a whole is evolving in an apparently positive direction, I can't buy the Genesis account of a "designer" who made a perfect world, and then was chagrined to see it quickly falling into disorder. That's why I prefer the analogy of an Evolutionary Programmer who uses randomness to generate novel options, and selective criteria to guide the process toward an optimum solution.The search method is heuristic : a journey of discovery, not a fait accompli. That's why I think evolution is not just about the destination : "getting there is half the fun." :grin:

Intrinsic = essential, inherent

Anyway I've gone on a limb and did a cursory search for clear examples of order arising from entirely unpredictable, random processes. . . . results entirely from the disorder of the inputs to the system. So here is one case in which order comes out of disorder. — aporiap

Chaos Theory is based on the fact that there is potential for order in randomness. For example, the random interactions of heat, moisture, and wind produce recognizable weather patterns, that forecasters can analyze to predict short range future arrangements. But the key to such ephemeral capricious phenomena -- which caused the ancients to infer that whimsical gods were responsible -- is only possible because Natural Laws (criteria) combine with Initial Conditions to produce repeatable patterns under similar conditions. But, since those "Laws of Order", and the Energy to enforce them, were in effect at the very beginning of evolution, they must have been established prior to the Big Bang.

So, of course there is order in random behavior. And although those simple patterns seem to arise spontaneously, the "Rules of Order" are intrinsic in the system. Yet, weather patterns are never progressive, but cyclical. The image link below is an example of design by Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Programming. Marvelous, but the codes and criteria for the process didn't emerge spontaneously. They were input by human "designers" of the goal-oriented process. :cool:


EVOLVED ANTENNA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Circular reasoning involves using your conclusion as a premise in the same argument. In order to form the conclusion 'there is no other source for order', you already have to assume there is no other source for order- i.e. that natural cases of order are not caused by something other than a designer. — aporiap

The conclusion does not involve the prior assumption of "no other source of order". That is the conclusion, and this comes about from understanding the distinction between order and disorder, and the fact that order cannot come from disorder without a cause. That cause is design. That's simply what creating by design is, and ordering things is something only done in the act of creating by design. So when things are ordered there is design at work, because that's what ordering is. And things could not be ordered without having been ordered, by way of contradiction.

Randomness and chaos are intrinsic to the world. You will have to explain why there is chaos. — aporiap

I already discussed this with someone else in this thread, maybe you should go back and reread some sections. There is no randomness and chaos in the natural world, as the world appears to us. All that we sense is orderly, and this is because human beings are so disposed so as only orderly things are sensed. If there were unordered things out there we would not sense them. One might create a system where it appears like randomness and chaos prevail, but that would be a created system, and therefore it would be designed and ordered simply to produce the appearance of randomness and chaos, when the system is actually ordered to do this.

In that example we know the precise reason, it is the randomness of the inputs to the system. When you replace the random inputs with ordered inputs, the order of the pendulum swings goes away. — aporiap

But the system itself is created, which is what a "system" is, and is therefore ordered by that act of creation. For example, we create dice to give a random roll. But that system is created for that purpose, so it is inherently ordered, and this will not suffice as an example of natural randomness for that very reason. The pendulum system is set up (ordered) with random (unknown) inputs, just like the roll of dice gives unknown outputs. Since the system is artificial, and made to be this way, it is contradictory to say that it is not ordered.

I don't know what you mean by effective. By definition, probabilistic models incorporate randomness. It will not tell you the coin will be heads or tails after you flip it. It tells you it could be heads or tails. You could imagine there's a 'predictable pattern' though, if you knew all the variables you could know if it would be heads and so there's still a pattern. But fundamentally there is no predictable pattern of movement of a particle or the state of its properties (whether it spins in one or another direction, whether it's in this location or that location). It is fundamentally random. — aporiap

If there is no predictable pattern, then Schrodinger's equation would be useless. So when you talk about "no predictable pattern" you are not talking about the universe according to Schrodinger's equation, and that's why I accused you of contradiction. There is a predictable pattern, but some aspects are not predictable. Again, I went though this earlier in the thread, the overall system, as a whole, is orderly and predictable, though some aspects (what we call accidentals) are not predictable.

You 'infer', by analogy, 'order' in nature is designed. — aporiap

It's not inferred by analogy, it's an understanding of the word "order", what it means to be ordered. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what it means to be ordered, and you go off using the word in strange ways, as if when human beings set up a system like a random number generator, this is not an ordered system. Isn't it obvious to you that these systems are designed to produce these so-called random results and are therefore ordered?

To infer in the latter case, you necessarily need to distinguish between order and design because prior to inferring the order is designed, you are implicitly acknowledging the thing has a pattern i.e. order and yet, at that moment, it is not known whether that pattern is a design or not. — aporiap

You seem to misunderstand. To say that a thing has order is to say that it has been ordered, and this implies "by design". There is nothing else which orders things but a designer.

I see you mention "pattern", and you might want to go to Isaac's position, and argue that a pattern is completely subjective. Isaac said there is no order inherent within the thing, it is only in the observing subject's mind. Is this what you are saying? But if the pattern or order is within the thing itself, it must have been put there by design. Otherwise we could not call it a pattern or order, could we? If the things were positioned by some random force, then it would necessarily be just some random positioning of the parts. Don't you agree? It might look like a pattern to one of us, but we'd have to say that it's really random positioning. What could make it not-random, other than being positioned by design?

There is no person with a predetermined goal trying to make proteins. — aporiap

Who said there's a person involved? Trial and error is a process not restricted to human activities, and your description sounded exactly like trial and error:
"For every functional protein [e.g Hemoglobin], there are hundreds of 'pseudo' genes that failed to function in the process of attempting to make that one."
Do you not understand that "function" implies purpose? You write phrases like this, then in total self-contradiction you proceed to deny purpose. I really don't think that you have a good understanding of what you are saying.

The point is an object can do very different functions in very different contexts and be considered 'useful'. The definition of a purpose or final cause Aristotelian sense, is the singular intrinsic function of something [candle to light house, seed to form adult plant]. How can there be a fundamentally intrinsic function of something if it can function in multiple contexts? Sure we say a candle as having the purpose of lighting a room, but it can be used in many other ways that have nothing to do with that. — aporiap

You seem to misunderstand Aristotle's "final cause". The final cause is the goal, or end, what we might call purpose, and this is specific to the circumstances. Yes, it might be true that each particular thing has a singular final cause specific to itself, but that's because each particular thing exists in its own particular set of circumstances. You might say that this object, if it were in a different context, would serve a different function (in a counterfactual way), but the fact is that each object only exists in one unique set of circumstances.

TheMadFool,

I have summarized and outlined your argument below:

1. If order is to explain the existence of God, then order should always assume a designer.
2. Order does not always assume a designer.
3. Order does not explain the existence of God.

Although I understand the argument that the existence of order should not assume the existence of a designer, I think it misses the argument asserted by the watchmaker analogy. The watchmaker analogy, or the fine-tuning argument, asserts that our world is so intricately set in tune with its natural laws that it requires a Creator. In this argument, I will disagree with Premise 2 of your argument and assert that the order we experience in our universe should always assume the existence of a designer, or God.

The thought experiment you provide of room A and room B seems to miss the argument of the watchmaker analogy. First, it should not be assumed that occupying a space and designing a space are interchangeable. Second, the fact that processes of thermodynamics naturally lead to chaos or disorder, also known as entropy, makes the case that room A is more likely to have a designer. The fact that order exists in room A and not in room B assumes that somebody entered and cleaned the room to create that order. The fact that things naturally move to states of disorder explains the disorder of room B as well as the future disorder of room A upon human interaction. Consider a new thought experiment, imagine infinite possible rooms in which each one contains all the normal fixings of a room. Each room has the capability for each desk, table, nightstand, chair or other items included in the room to be situated in any possible manner. Some rooms have furniture situated on the ceiling while some have upside-down desks and tables. The fine-tuning argument for God’s existence postulates that our world is one in which, if placed in the thought experiment of infinite rooms, would have all of the furniture correctly situated, a perfectly made bed, a full color-coded closet, the perfect color palette, and, on top of it all, an ocean view. The point here is not simply that the evidence of order and design leads to the conclusion that God exists, but rather that our world is so finely tuned in regards to physics, gravity, molecules, and other scientific factors for human life to persist that there must be a Creator. The thought experiment of infinite rooms proves that having a room that is perfectly designed is much more unlikely than having a room that experiences any sort of disorder whatsoever.

Even if you were assuming a sort of many-universes hypothesis in which universes can be randomly generated and one universe is destined to have life-permitting natural laws, it still would not prove against the existence of God. For example, if universes were randomly generated then what scientific process would facilitate the continual creation of universes? This universe generator of sorts would need to be designed by a Creator. The generator would also be required to self-select the laws of physics but who is to determine what those laws are? A creator is needed to determine the boundaries of natural laws. And finally, why was the universe originally created with such meticulous order despite the laws of entropy? A creator is needed to explain the order that exists within the universe.

In conclusion, although disorder can be symbolic of human life, like that of an unorganized room, complete and perfect order requires the existence of a Creator for its' explanation. The order we experience in our universe is so finely tuned for human life that the existence of a designer is simply necessary.

Your argument seems to go, as follows, like a usual design argument:
1. If the universe has all the trappings of design, then the universe must have a designer.
2. The universe has all the trappings of design.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.

As you mention, people object to this argument by objecting to (1) by saying that the order of the universe could arise randomly without a designer. You argue, using the two rooms experiment, that this is a bad objection because people see ordered things on earth and conclude that there is a designer/occupant, yet reject a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered.

I would argue that your experiment is disanalogous to the design arguments for the universe. Clearly, both rooms have at least a touch of design; they have items in the room that got there somehow. Room A is in disarray, but not by chance. At least one being put those items in the room, whether they were placed orderly or not. Also, as one who has seen a college dorm, it is not unjustified to conclude that the room in disarray is the occupied one. There are reasons to believe that an occupant’s intentions are to be disorderly. Perhaps the room started out orderly, then a person over time made it disorderly. Clearly, if both rooms started out orderly and only one ended up disorderly, the disordered one is the one with the occupant. This is in opposition to what you said about the two room experiment. Perhaps, in the same way, the universe could have been disorderly even with a designer. Maybe one would object that purposeful disorder is still, in fact, a design. But nonetheless, it still seems possible that disorder could arise with a designer.

Additionally, a room is like an artifact, which is intentionally made by humans, rather than something like the ocean or the mountains. But the universe is not like an artifact. Humans make justified assumptions about things like artifacts because we know how they work. But humans often make unjustified assumptions about things that are not like artifacts, such as experiences.

To distinguish between usable and unusable calories is precisely to highlight the inefficiency. There is no fundamental reason why to make that distinction or why the number of usable calories is so little. We could, in theory, design our own proteins that digest more of the bonds in grass and do so in a more energetically efficient manner. — aporiap

I must humbly disagree. The whole question of efficiency, in this case of nutrition, must be considered in terms of which creatures we're talking about. May be it is true that a specific animal x has access to 10% of the calories in grass but there could be other creatures a, b, c, etc. that share the rest, 90% resulting in 100% group efficiency.

Think of it as a soccer team Each player forms a specific percentage of the game having a role to play as a keeper, defender, striker, etc. and they all come together to yield 100%.

I think one could argue that, but not I am not going that far. I am saying that once you think everything is determined, YOU have to wonder if the reasons you think an argument makes sense are correct and also if they are the reasons you believe something. If everything is determined, then your sense that argument A is correct is determined. Now, it might be determined by argument A making sense. But the quale that the argument makes sense is also determined. The 'this argument makes sense' quale is determined also. — Coben

Here's what I think:

1. If determinism is true then there must be causality
2. If design is true then ther must be causality

As is obvious the link between design and determinism is causality and confusion is inevitable.

However, there is no necessity that design implies determinism. For example:

1a. A is the friend of B
2a. C is the friend of B

It doesn't follow that A is the friend of C.

Your argument seems to go, as follows, like a usual design argument:
1. If the universe has all the trappings of design, then the universe must have a designer.
2. The universe has all the trappings of design.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a designer.

As you mention, people object to this argument by objecting to (1) by saying that the order of the universe could arise randomly without a designer. You argue, using the two rooms experiment, that this is a bad objection because people see ordered things on earth and conclude that there is a designer/occupant, yet reject a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered.

I would argue that your experiment is disanalogous to the design arguments for the universe. Clearly, both rooms have at least a touch of design; they have items in the room that got there somehow. Room A is in disarray, but not by chance. At least one being put those items in the room, whether they were placed orderly or not. Also, as one who has seen a college dorm, it is not unjustified to conclude that the room in disarray is the occupied one. There are reasons to believe that an occupant’s intentions are to be disorderly. Perhaps the room started out orderly, then a person over time made it disorderly. Clearly, if both rooms started out orderly and only one ended up disorderly, the disordered one is the one with the occupant. This is in opposition to what you said about the two room experiment. Perhaps, in the same way, the universe could have been disorderly even with a designer. Maybe one would object that purposeful disorder is still, in fact, a design. But nonetheless, it still seems possible that disorder could arise with a designer.

Additionally, a room is like an artifact, which is intentionally made by humans, rather than something like the ocean or the mountains. But the universe is not like an artifact. Humans make justified assumptions about things like artifacts because we know how they work. But humans often make unjustified assumptions about things that are not like artifacts, such as experiences. — Teaisnice

You raise an important issue that disorder is correlated with conscious being. However, the point is order is always associated with a conscious being (a designer).

We have the following:

1. Disorder is either designer or no designer
2. Order is always a designer

The stronger, ergo reasonable, connection is that between order and design.

I don't disagree with this, but I am still working, from quite a ways back from the following....

Let's suppose determinism is true and we lack free will. However one thing is certain - we're capable of rational judgment and analysis which informs us that order is strongly associated with a designer. So, despite a lack of free will, we must conclude that the universe has a designer. — TheMadFool

Your argument is focused on the possibility of order an objection to the watchmaker analogy. You create the example of their being two rooms; one in disarray (Room A) and one the other in order (Room B), and when asking which one was designed/ lived in, the obvious answer is Room A. I agree with this example but I think it misses the point of the original objection because it only has two rooms and is not considering the chances of life existing/ the universe being finely tuned.
For this example to work I think there would need to be as many rooms as there are chances, however minuscule, for life to exist. Only having two rooms to choose from fails to address the main claim in the counter-argument. In the objection to the design argument one could claim that the chances of life and the universe existing are very improbable and we just happen by chance to live here where we can contemplate it.
For argument's sake let's say the probability of humans existing is one in one million. Similarly, when tweaking the room example, instead of their being two rooms, there would need to be one million rooms. If all these different rooms had arrangements in no particular order, seemingly at random, and I happen to come across one that is in a perceived discernable pattern, i'm not sure I would conclude that it was designed. If most people had the time to go through all these rooms, I think they would conclude that even though improbable, the neat room just happen by chance to be neat. I might claim that it seems suspicious, but I think it would be false to conclude that the room was designed.

Your argument is focused on the possibility of order an objection to the watchmaker analogy. You create the example of their being two rooms; one in disarray (Room A) and one the other in order (Room B), and when asking which one was designed/ lived in, the obvious answer is Room A. I agree with this example but I think it misses the point of the original objection because it only has two rooms and is not considering the chances of life existing/ the universe being finely tuned.
For this example to work I think there would need to be as many rooms as there are chances, however minuscule, for life to exist. Only having two rooms to choose from fails to address the main claim in the counter-argument. In the objection to the design argument one could claim that the chances of life and the universe existing are very improbable and we just happen by chance to live here where we can contemplate it.
For argument's sake let's say the probability of humans existing is one in one million. Similarly, when tweaking the room example, instead of their being two rooms, there would need to be one million rooms. If all these different rooms had arrangements in no particular order, seemingly at random, and I happen to come across one that is in a perceived discernable pattern, i'm not sure I would conclude that it was designed. If most people had the time to go through all these rooms, I think they would conclude that even though improbable, the neat room just happen by chance to be neat. I might claim that it seems suspicious, but I think it would be false to conclude that the room was designed. — Jesse

Order is a more unlikely event than disorder for the simple reason that there are more ways to be in the latter state than the former. I have taken that into my consideration and the 2 rooms represent and capture this truth adequately. There is a strong correlation between order and designer.