Any room at all implies it being a product of a human, just like bird-nest implies bird, in any state of tidiness. — noAxioms

Right. So it's begging the question.

I wouldn't say that it's not possible, but that (a) it's not justified, and (b) it's not how people actually reason. People infer makers for watches etc. because they know what they are and how they're made. They don't infer makers for watches solely because watches are "ordered." I find that idea nonsensical. — Terrapin Station

The watchmaker was indeed very much how people reason, and it was a strong argument until Darwin found a cleaner solution. The argument presumes you don't know what a watch is or its purpose, so it is not an argument about you finding a watch on a beach.
Of course TheMadFool is presenting the room being assessed by another human, not an alien with no prior knowledge of what a room is. So your presentation of the watch thing does match his.

The watchmaker was indeed very much how people reason, — noAxioms

No it isn't. No one reasons that people are responsible for something just because it's ordered. That's only based on familiarity with the sorts of things that people do. It's abduction based on empirical evidence. I specified a number of times above watches and similar artifacts. I'm not going to type that whole thing out every time.

Here's something that's manmade. Therefore it's manmade. Here's something that isn't manmade, but that I'll associate with something that's manmade. Therefore God.

Or, if all else fails... I speculate that there's a God! It makes me feel good, alright? Now stop making fun of me and leave me alone.

Solve the problem of universals, meaning, the archetypes, with materialism, or without simply dismissing them as make-believe somehow. It really does lead to a kind of completely disoriented relativism. The worst part being, that people want to act like they've transcended it or something, and can still manage to say something true, which is not just something you either yield to, or make the world obey.

1. If there's order, then there's an orderer
2. There's order
So,
3. There's an orderer. — TheMadFool

Among the points you should consider:

(1) is not, in the modern era, a reasonable premise. We now know many, many ways in which what appears as order to us can arise "bottom up." Normal distributions just happen; no one makes them happen. Evolution by natural selection is a powerful tool for creating order. The recent discoveries in biophysics that Apokrisis is always talking about is another. I'm sure others here could chip in dozens more examples. These sorts of processes were not well understood before the modern era, so the argument from design was more persuasive.

Dawkins's argument: if we perceive complexity that cries out for an explanation, positing a designer does not help, because the designer would have to be even more complex that what it is supposed to explain. By kicking the can down the road, you've only made your task harder. (A similar argument applies to the "likelihood" version: the creator is even more unlikely than the unlikely occurrences it is supposed to explain.)

Hume, from the Dialogues: even granting the argument, you get pretty close to no knowledge about what did this designing, not that it was singular -- it might have been a poorly run committee -- not that it has any of the attributes some expect, like goodness, perfection, etc.

No it isn't. No one reasons that people are responsible for something just because it's ordered. — Terrapin Station

The watchmaker argument is not about order. It is about apparent purpose even to an observer that does not know about watches. TheMadFool's argument differs in that is about (undefined) order, not about purpose.
The universe is not clean, it is full of things strewn about and dust. There are directions one cannot see distant stars for all the dirt in the way.
The universe is not well arranged or tidy in any way that a room might be. It is merely clumped much like a room would be after being hit with a flood.
I don't see the argument from order at all.

Science has a definition of 'ordered', and the universe tends towards disorder. A tendency in the other direction would imply the orderer. — noAxioms

The question is how the initial state of order came about, from which the universe has been tending toward disorder ever since, at least according to our current scientific understanding. The answer depends heavily on one's presuppositions.

Imagine yourself entering a room and finding it clean, well arranged and tidy. You're then asked to infer something from this information. What will be your thoughts? I wouldn't be wrong in saying the first thing to cross your mind would be someone has been in this room, cleaned and put it in order. This is the most likely inference and anyone who disagrees is probably mad or a fool or both (like me). This is a rational inference. Humans (generally) like to order things and so the ordered state of the room serves as good evidence of the existence of a person (a conscious agency).

No problems? Ok.

The argument from design for the existence of god is simply another instance of the above argument. There's order in the universe. Conscious agencies are known to create order. So, the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency - God. Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow?

Comments please. — TheMadFool

Thanks for posting this. The thing that seems to jump out at me is that the only question (besides "No problems?") is the somewhat problematicly worded "Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow?" If the sentence before that one were adjusted to become the main question it would be more neutral, more scientific so to speak, imho. But ok. Before taking the question as is, i wish to ask how you are defining "atheist"? Because to me there is a significant difference between one who states categorically that the existence of a deity is impossible and one who is saying the matter has not been satisfactorily proven, at least to them. And the word "atheist" seems to play a factor in the way the question is presented.

About your question, as it is worded... So why might this argument be difficult for "atheists" to swallow? Please excuse me if i go beyond the posed logic exercise for a moment to examine some perhaps obvious givens that might be relevant. Both atheists and Theists are human, of course. And so share many more similarities than differences. In fact, there appears to be infinite shades of belief and interpretations. And someone can change belief multiple times. And being human, one is composed of more than a reason-processing intellect. That might be a factor in someone's belief or nonbelief, but not necessarily the only or even the strongest one.

Psycho-spiritual feelings and life experiences count for much. Negative experiences with organized religions would be a strong candidate for belief being "hard to swallow". They might feel as though they have swallowed too much already, and anything else would trigger nausea and be regurgitated. If someone's associations with belief/faith/deity are hypocrisy, politics, quarreling and violence, thought control, repression, etc., that would obviously have a large effect. Then even the appearance of an incredibly intricate order in the world may not be enough to get them to accept this premise's conclusion. I believe it is a not uncommon experience to be filled with hope, wonder, awe, faith, and/or belief at certain moments. Even if it is a vague oceanic or mysterious feeling. Like looking at the stars when far from the city's light pollution, a sunrise at the beach, or peering through a microscope at the tiny elements of the world. Or less warm and fuzzy moments, like near-death experiences or being in battle.

By God I mean a conscious agency; included in this definition is the idea of a creator. I don't want to discuss any other attribute of God. Perhaps this definition will diminish the value of my argument but I still want your views on it. — TheMadFool

I understand any reluctance to going off-topic about the nature of the Creator. But this rather specific working definition seems to make the "playing field" under discussion even smaller and tilted to one side. It seems to lean perhaps unnecessarily to a monotheistic* Judeo-Christian Deity. And as such, might appear to be somewhat anthropomorphic, but that may be by association with the overall Christian tradition including theology, art, method of praying, etc. To paraphrase from The Wizard of Oz, "Play no attention to anything EXCEPT that Man behind the curtain!" :) But that aside, intelligent design, if not yet proven, has to me not been disproven either. What has been proven to me is that the critical point is how one can best live in accord with "What Is" whatever it is, along with the rest of humanity, nature, and oneself. As oblivious or cliched as that may be.

One more question. Is the OP an adaptation of something that you have rephrased? Or is this scenario totally your invention? Not meant as a criticism either way, as i think it is a worthwhile exercise, imho. Just curious if there was a differently worded version. Thanks!

*concerning monotheism, if i may quote an excerpt from Daniel Quinn's The Story of B, a novel dramatizing such themes as evolution and design of the world and life, its past and possible future, and humanity's role in that. I hope it to be relevant here:

Regarding the number of the gods

“Someone inevitably asks why I speak of gods rather than one God, as if I simply hadn’t been informed on this matter and was speaking in error, and I ask them how they happen to know the number of the gods. Sometimes I’m told this is just something ‘everyone’ knows, the way everyone knows there are twenty-four hours in a day. Sometimes I’m told God must be one, because this seems to us the most ‘enlightened’ number for God to be—as if the facts don’t count in this particular case. This is like reasoning that the earth must be the center of the universe, because no other place makes as much sense. Most often, of course, I’m told this is an undoubtable number, since it’s the number given in monotheistic scriptures. Needless to say, I have a rather different take on the whole matter.
“The number of the gods is written nowhere in the universe, Jared, so there’s really no way to decide whether that number is zero (as atheists believe) or one (as monotheists believe) or many (as polytheists believe). The matter is one of complete indifference to me. “I don’t care whether the number of the gods is one, zero, or nine billion. If it turned out that the number of the gods is zero, this wouldn’t cause me to alter a single syllable of what I’ve said to you.”
She seemed to want a reaction to this, so I said okay.
“To speak of gods instead of God has this additional advantage, that I’m spared the embarrassing necessity of forever playing stupid gender games with them. I never have to decide between he and she, him and her. For me, they’re just they and them!”
“A not inconsiderable advantage,” I observed.
She picked up the plastic comb and ran a thumbnail down its teeth. “Is it one thing or many?”
“You mean the comb? I don’t know. Depends on how you look at it.”
“This comb is the number of the gods, Jared. Not something to be added to our work of bricolage, but rather something to be discussed and dismissed.” She tossed the comb over her shoulder and out of sight.”

Excerpt From: Quinn, Daniel. “The Story of B.” Bantam Books, 2010-01-13. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

The universe is not clean, it is full of things strewn about and dust. There are directions one cannot see distant stars for all the dirt in the way.
The universe is not well arranged or tidy in any way that a room might be. It is merely clumped much like a room would be after being hit with a flood.
I don't see the argument from order at all. — noAxioms

I think this is a very strong point. We don’t see the universe – our view is limited and myopic. However, just because we can’t see the totality doesn’t mean it is without symmetry. It means we don’t know.

What we do see clearly is the micro universe – the atom, molecule, virus, bacteria, etc. Are these things ordered? They seem to have a method to their madness. My question to myself and others is why?

You're right. The argument has an inductive version viz. the one you presented.

I wouldn't be wrong in saying atheists attribute greater credibility to science than religion. However, science too is based entirely on induction. Again, the double standards stands out like a sore thumb. — TheMadFool

Let me give you an example of weak induction and strong induction:

Weak: I saw a whale once, therefore I will see a whale today.
Strong: I saw a human every day of my life, therefore I will see a human today.

The fact that I've seen a whale before inductively might make it slightly more likely that I will see a whale today, but it's easy to see that statistically I'm probably not going to see a whale today, which is why this amounts to an incredibly weak inductive argument.

Seeing a human every day of my life is a premise which gives very very strong statistical indication that I'm going to see another human today. It's this kind of statistical/repeatable strength that makes some inductive arguments strong.

In the case of science, we run repeatable experiments to steadily increase the strength of our inductive conclusions which state things like: gravity exists, or, the force of acceleration due to gravity acts on all objects equally.

Every time a scientist successfully runs an experiment to make sure their predictions aren't inaccurate, the strength of their inductive position grows (and they have necessary demands on precision in measurement to be considered scientific when precision is a factor).

Some inductive arguments are horrible (like the whale sighting prediction), and others are undeniable (like the theory of gravity).

One may say the inductive version of the design argument is weaker than scientific induction. However, note that science, through induction, is discovering order everywhere. So, in fact, scientific body of knowledge strongly supports a God - a creator. — TheMadFool

This is only assuming that order tends to come from design, which is far from clear (see:"complexity science").

Also, you're issue with the design argument is colored with anthropomorphism. You reject the design argument by citing examples, which are true, of the generally unfavorable conditions for life and humans. I agree but (correct me if I'm wrong) scientists say that had the mathematical relations of the universe been even minutely different life would be impossible. What I'm saying is, the universe is designed for life. — TheMadFool

If the laws of physics were different, maybe life as we know it would be impossible, and maybe life as we don't know it would instead be possible.

The way the universe and life unfolds is affected by the laws of physics, so of course if they were changed things would be different. We evolved to survive in this universe (on this earth, at this distance from a star of a given size and composition), not some other hypothetical universe. This is why we need things like water and gravity for life (things we have lots of) and not uranium (something we have little of). If life evolved on a uranium rich world they might wonder whether it was designed for them, but it could just have been a random hand dealt by a mechanical dealer which life then learned to exploit by whatever means available through evolutionary processes.

Even if we're in a lucky "fine-tuned" universe we should not be surprised because if the universe wasn't finely tuned we wouldn't be around to complain about our bad luck. If I cooked up a million random batches of Universe Suprisé and only one of them turned out to be finely tuned for life, the intelligent life which might evolve inside of it could think the recipe was precisely designed when in reality it was entirely un-directed chaos and chance.

Even if the above was false I have no issue with your objections because I'm only concerned about a creator (who I've called God). I don't know if this God is all-good, etc. Leave aside us and concerns of our welfare or that of life and observe the mathematical relationships in the interplay of matter and energy. Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something? — TheMadFool

I see order on the surface of a vast ocean; repeating patterns of growing complexity clashing and creating surface ripples and repeating waves. But I know that these waves are far from a synchronized orchestra, that underneath the surface there are innumerable disturbances and asymmetries of all kinds which create random turbulence.

It's out of this random turbulence (temperature differences, saline content differences, ocean floor geography, and the things that move around according to their own mind) that the ordered currents and biological structures of the ocean are formed. It's order from chaos; balance from imbalance.

We could create beautiful fractal patterns by rolling a thousand dice to determine initial conditions, and to the uninitiated it would have every appearance of being designed. This is what makes your argument the most questionable: some things that are ordered are intelligently designed to be so, but very often things which are ordered are not so due to design, but rather thanks to a host of basic contributory factors out of which eventual balances and imbalances have emerged.

This is what makes your argument the most questionable: some things that are ordered are intelligently designed to be so, but very often things which are ordered are not so due to design, but rather thanks to a host of basic contributory factors out of which eventual balances and imbalances have emerged. — VagabondSpectre

I think your arguments are strong. What I would like you to consider is the number “host of basic contributory factors”. It seems like a lot of luck.

Yes, luck indeed.

But the life which might emerge were things different would also feel very lucky that they're not living in a universe like ours, and we wouldn't be around to confirm our intuitive assumptions that we should have lost a dice roll by now...

But it's not all luck from down here in the human condition... Humans die all the time because life and our environment aren't perfect (in fact they're still works in progress)...

The universe is not well arranged or tidy in any way that a room might be. It is merely clumped much like a room would be after being hit with a flood.
I don't see the argument from order at all. — noAxioms

Try the argument from disorder, then.

If there is disorder, there is a disorderer.
There is disorder.
Therefore there is a disorderer.

Or even better:

If there is a rock, there is a rocker.
There is a rock.
Therefore there is a rocker.

If there is something, there is a somethinger.
And if not there is a nothinger.

Really? :-$

Which neatly illustrates that the conclusion of an argument must be contained in the premises. Which is to say that the existence of something can only be proved by assuming the existence of that something.
The way I like to put this is that no matter how cleverly one arranges one's words into premises and conclusions, they cannot oblige things to be thus and not so.

But it's not all luck from down here in the human condition... Humans die all the time because life and our environment aren't perfect (in fact they're still works in progress) — VagabondSpectre

You make it sound like the perfect environment would not include death.

At least not shit like ebola.

Where does ebola fit in to god's perfection? ;)

If there is something, there is a somethinger. — unenlightened

Agree with the absurdity of that, but I guess I was commenting the second line. There is order, and there is disorder. We're not at either extreme.
It seems to dismiss the watchmaker argument that certain things suggest purpose, and that purpose must be not be self-serving. It benefits Earth not at all to be pleasant to us, therefore it was designed to be a pleasant place for us. You call it a somethinger. I call it a zookeeper, and it assumes humans needed a habitat in which they could live.

Yes, we are on the same side. The suggestion that God designs every snowflake, and when he takes a break amorphous masses result is rather peculiar. But I was exploiting your comment to make a much more general critique of all arguments for or against existence of all kinds.

But I was exploiting your comment to make a much more general critique of all arguments for or against existence of all kinds. — unenlightened

I like your general critique. The first postulate pretty much can be whatever you're trying to prove. The original ID arguments were little better: If something seems to have a purpose, the purpose must serve that which I'm trying to demonstrate, therefore the thing I'm trying to demonstrate.

I recently created my one and only thread because I failed to find a way to argue for or against existence. The only real response was a consideration of all possible things existing, which mean God and everything else except blatant self contradictions. Unsatisfied, I've abandoned the effort for a time.

Re the formal argument you provide, "If there's order, then there's an orderer" is a false premise — Terrapin Station

Show me how the premise is false.

I don't see a clean or tidy Universe anywhere. — Noblosh

The laws of nature?

Life is possible in the universe but maybe it's not an intended consequence. — Noblosh

That doesn't matter. I'm not concerned about the consequences of the design is for humans, life. All I'm interested in is the undeniable existence of order - the laws of nature.

P.S. sorry for not responding specifically. I wanted to get to the heart of the issue. Anyway you have my comments.

I don't see any reason to believe that there is a source, especially because that wouldn't answer the question, it would just push it back another step--you'd then need a source for the source and so on. — Terrapin Station

The infinte regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for the existence of a God?

I would get the same vibes from a messy room — noAxioms

A messy room has alternative possibilities e.g. a strong wind, an earthquake, etc. but a clean and tidy room is strongly associated with an agency.

The regularity is attributable to nature itself. — Sapientia

Isn't that a tautology? Nature is order. We're asking why?

Can you skip to the part where you explain how you get to the conclusion that God created the universe — Sapientia

My OP is clear on that. To repeat, a tidy room is associated with an agency. So, an ordered universe is associated with God. In a nutshell.

Need to define ordered. — noAxioms

The presence of patterns - qualitative and quantitative.

Now why did that argument fall out of favor but this tuning argument (the exact same argument) lives on? — noAxioms

Because the fine-tuning argument is stronger and clearly shows that the universe is designed for life which the origins. Surely, there's no logical fallacy in changing minds when stronger evidence comes along.

now know many, many ways in which what appears as order to us can arise "bottom up." — Srap Tasmaner

Question begging. This is the issue we're uncertain of.

By kicking the can down the road, you've only made your task harder. — Srap Tasmaner

The infinite regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for God's existence?

Thanks for bringing a different perspective to the discussion. A few clarifications (it's already there in the OP).

1. I don't want to discuss the thorny issues of omnibenevolence, etc. All I want to show is how a general pattern of reasoning while accepted in everyday experience is rejected on the issue of God (only as a creator - the source of order). I also want to know why this is so.

2. By atheist I mean someone who says god doesn't exist.

This is only assuming that order tends to come from design, which is far from clear (see:"complexity science"). — VagabondSpectre

What's the alternative here? What other source of order do you see?

What's the alternative to designed order? Un-designed order... I did suggest that you look into complexity science, but essentially the answer is that sometimes "order" emerges from "chaos".

For example, life evolved on earth through un-designed processes. You can say that the laws of nature themselves are designed because they lead to the existence of ordered physical structures (like life), but it's entirely possible that if the laws of nature were different then different structures would emerge, just ordered differently.

Take the constant force of gravity as an example: If we lived in a universe where gravity was weaker or stronger then everything would be different but there would still be order. What is so special about our fundamental laws of nature that makes you think they're designed?