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? — Thinker

Not talking about human concept of integers, but the integers themselves, whether they have ontological existence of their own or not.

But since you limit me only to objects within this cause-and-effect sort of universe, your request is unfair. I can only point to the universe itself which started as a completely orderly singularity all neat and tidy in one place, and it progresses from that to a mess of clumps strewn randomly about, and finally to timeless heat death with no order at all. Cause and effect seem not to necessarily order anything.

You didn't respond to the primary criticism, that your conclusion of the laws of physics bring about order follows from the premise of cause and effect being part of physics.

The difference is that NO-God is really much less satisfying speculation. That is why I prefer the opposite. — Thinker

Now that is a good reason to believe, and I agree with the logic.

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. — Thinker

I don't need to prove the antithesis or speculate, and my preference or what I find satisfying is not relevant. Wild speculation is fair game for ridicule. If you catch me doing it, feel free to let rip.

Magnets create much more orderly order than conscious beings, who in my experience are always leaving random stuff in the sink and putting unflushable things in the loo. How everything lines up neatly when a magnet comes round for tea. So I would find magnets easier to swallow than conscious beings. Yum.

Now that is a good reason to believe, and I agree with the logic. — noAxioms

Not if you value reason as much as me. Besides, it's not even a choice. I'd have to be brainwashed.

The difference is that NO-God is really much less satisfying speculation. — Thinker

Like any other speculation about a negative. I guess the choice would be between filling the position with a placeholder or leaving it vacant. It seems to me you chose the 1st, so I ask you what are the benefits of doing so? You said satisfaction but satisfaction derived from what?

Are you trolling or...? — Sapientia

Pooh-pooh.

Pooh-pooh. — Noblosh

Except that I didn't just leave it at that, but went on to address the little substance that was there. So you've quoted me out of context.

How is this:

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 — Sapientia

context for this:

Are you trolling or...? — Sapientia

?

You 1st dismissed his reasoning, then you addressed it anyway but the latter doesn't disprove the 1st.

Ah, forget it. This is not productive.

You're right, the latter doesn't disprove the former, but it does mean that it's not an instance of the pooh-pooh informal fallacy, which is a rhetorical device in which the speaker ridicules an argument without responding to the substance of the argument. However, if you merely meant that the rhetorical question that you isolated was dismissive, then yes, it was, well-observed, and I make no apologies.

Now that I've set the record straight, I will gladly move on.

Not if you value reason as much as me. — Sapientia

I apparently hold multiple sets of mutually conflicting beliefs. One is a rational belief set that is effectively along monist-realist lines, and which strangely leads to the same sort of comfort that others find with their religion. The other set is more part of my core programming, and is not particularly open to correction. It seems I am a product of a process that produced fit things over things aware of truth. Belief in certain lies makes one more fit. So comfort seems not to be the base goal since I personally get it more from the realist set of beliefs. But making choices for the benefit of that carrot on a stick in front of me seems to be unavoidable. So I believe in the damn thing on an irrational level despite the rational part of me knowing that the carrot is just bait. Truth seems to serve nobody's purpose here.

Besides, it's not even a choice. I'd have to be brainwashed.

Yes, I think anybody part of an organized religion has been brainwashed. It is not hard to do. Goes on in politics all the time. People by nature want a story that provides comfort, however obviously fictional and inevitably accompanied by a plaid suited salesman who finds a way to sell it to you. Hence my approval for the reason for the belief. But such logic has no place in a forum like this where preferences hold no weight. I have a preference for vanilla, but I don't offer that as any evidence that vanilla is the true answer to the flavor debate.

I think one can have any irrational belief as long as it doesn't affect their reasoning. I think even though there's no necessary context, Sapientia would agree to that much.

The reasoning of everybody (myself very much included) is hampered by those irrational beliefs. I have rationally worked around some of that, but I don't believe my own conclusions at a core level. It is a plausible answer to the Fermi paradox. Lies make you fit. Learn enough truth, enough to actually believe it, and you cease to be fit, and evolution knows how to deal with an unfit thing. Philosophy is dangerous.

Magnets create much more orderly order than conscious beings — mcdoodle

Good point. But a magnet needs to be applied in the right way for order to emerge. Who(?) does that but a conscious being?

Magnets. Therefore God.

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. — Terrapin Station

Now I get it. You mean to say that without some foreknowledge of what a watch is it's not possible/natural to infer a maker.

It appears to make sense but here's the thing. We do know something that's a deciding factor here and that is our handiwork (most of it at least) is defined by order. This is deeply ingrained in our minds, to the extent that we usually associate an object with any hint of organization (order) with a maker.

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

Sorry but I still don''t get it.

Let me ask you a simple question. What inference do you draw from a clean room?

Simple and loaded.

What inference do you draw from a clean room? — TheMadFool

That someone is experimenting on test subjects.

Did you consider reading, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument?

That someone is experimenting on test subjects. — Noblosh

Yes someone. It's a natural inference shaped by experience and knowledge. However when we apply the same to the universe (inferring a God), atheists have a problem. Why?

Simple and loaded — Sapientia

I haven't said anything that isn't common knowledge. How's it loaded?

Isn't it quite similar to the design argument? I chose the argument from design because its refutation goes against a generally accepted rationalization. In a nutshell people think ''person'' when they see a tidy room but this isn't allowed in the context of the universe. I want to know why.

It is the argument from design. I just wondered if you were familiar with any previous discussion of the argument, or if you're starting from scratch here.

From scratch.

In other words, no one is reaching the conclusion that people were involved simply because the room, the furniture, etc. are there. We're reaching the conclusion because we know something about how rooms, furniture and so on are made.

With the Earth, trees, etc. there's zero evidence that anyone makes them. The evidence rather suggests that they're made entirely by natural/not-person-made phenomena. — Terrapin Station

Exactly. Just because some things are designed does not make all things designed.

Exactly. Just because some things are designed does not make all things designed. — darthbarracuda

You've raised a pertinent issue here. Your logic is, well, correct. There's a fallacy in inferring an all from some. It's deductively invalid.

However, reasoning such as yours exposes another fault in the atheistic refutation of the design argument. I'm quite sure that atheists subscribe to some form of loose scientism. That means they think science is a more valid perspective on the universe as compared to religion. However, they ignore/fail to notice that science too is based on inferring ''all'' from ''some''. It's called induction.

So, I ask you, why the double standards, the bias?

I haven't said anything that isn't common knowledge. — TheMadFool

Sure.

How's it loaded? — TheMadFool

Do you deny that it was? Are you saying there was no controversial assumption behind asking the question? It wasn't set up like a a trap so that you could pounce on the answer you were expecting by claiming that it implies something that is controversial and disputed?

Yes someone. It's a natural inference shaped by experience and knowledge. However when we apply the same to the universe (inferring a God), atheists have a problem. Why? — TheMadFool

Why don't you think this has already been answered?

Isn't it quite similar to the design argument? I chose the argument from design because its refutation goes against a generally accepted rationalization. In a nutshell people think ''person'' when they see a tidy room but this isn't allowed in the context of the universe. I want to know why. — TheMadFool

I want to know why you aren't satisfied with the answers already given, both here and elsewhere.