See, that's what I was talking about. That's the controversial assumption: that in both cases, it's a well-established rational inference; and the controversial and disputed implication is that giving an answer to one commits one to giving that same answer to the other, lest one be guilty of applying a double standard. It's a trap. You pretend that it's just a simple question with no strings attached, but myself and others can see through that quite easily. — Sapientia

So, is exposing double standards a logical fallacy?

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

They fail to address my point. Why is the exact same form of reasoning correct, acceptable in one case and not in the other.


Argument A
If the room is ordered, there's an orderer
The room is ordered
So, there's a orderer

Let's capture the essence of the above argument. It's in the word ''order''. Order implies an orderer. We then extract the form of the above valid argument:

If x is ordered, then there's an orderer
x is ordered
So, there's an orderer

Now, transplant ''universe'' to this valid form. We get:

Argument B
If the universe is ordered, there's an orderer
The universe is ordered
So, there's an orderer (in this case we call it God).

No one has explained to me why argument A is ok and argument B is not.

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? — Sapientia

I deny all of the above. I'm just curious why atheists would deny a well-established rational inference in the real world when it's applied to the universe and god. At a minimum, that's double standards.

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?

From scratch.

Patriotism is a dying concept. In the context of globalization the idea of a nation, necessary for the sentiment of patriotism to make sense, is fading into oblivion. It's only a matter of time before ''we'' means human and not American, Russian, etc. Perhaps the idea will resurface if and when aliens invade the Earth.

Nothing makes sense. Something is wrong.

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.

Simple and loaded — Sapientia

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

Both yes and no.

Again, do you want me to answer where I'd pretend to not know what watches are and how they're made? — Terrapin Station

Watch: a small timepiece worn typically on a strap on one's wrist.

Please use the above Google definition of ''watch''.

Person or not-person?

Also called 'An act of God'. Thus a tidy room is a sign of the absence of God, and the presence of fairies, or some other anal retentive being — unenlightened

LoL

Fine, let me ask another question (relevant). What other cause do you have in mind when you see the universe working like clockwork?

Forget the room. You see a watch on the table. Person or not-person?

I understand entropy as a measure of ''disorder'', so I don't umderstand how a tidy room has lower entropy while a ordered umiverse has higher entropy. Can you clarify (please keep it simple).

Order is not defined as resulting from the actions of a conscious agency — Noblosh

How do you define order then?

Why wouldn't order be a sufficient reason to deduce "not God" in that case — Terrapin Station

What crosses your mind when you see a clean room? Person or not-person?

The answer is simple: sin. They don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle. — lambda

Possible.

In which case a tidy room is unsurprising to the extent of being inevitable. Don't tell my kids. — unenlightened

An untidy room can be caused by chaotic causes e.g. a strong wind, earthquake, etc. However, a tidy room can only be caused by a person.

According to logic*. I don't have to come up with a counterargument if your argument is fallacious. — Noblosh

Can you give me a reason why order is insufficient reason to deduce the existence of God?

If we're using this definition, humans and some other organisms would fall into the category of "God". — Harry Hindu

Well, as I admitted, my definition diminishes the value of the argument. Nonetheless you'll not deny that a creator of the universe certainly at a different level than say, the creator of ice cream.

You said:

Actually no. Observations have shown that organization out of chaos is the result of the application of energy, not conscious agency. — Harry Hindu

And then you said:

There isn't order in the universe. — Harry Hindu

Non sequitur: Affirming the consequent. — Noblosh

So, according to you, a clean room is insufficient evidence for the existence of an agency that did the cleaning. That means you think it's possible for a clean room AND the nonexistence of an agency that does the cleaning. Put otherwise you see another cause for the cleanliness. Apart from how incongruous such reasoning is (most people think otherwise) you'll have to furnish another cause for the cleanliness of the room. Can you do that?

Order isn't sufficient evidence that someone was responsible for the room. it's bizarre that you'd think it is. — Terrapin Station

Why do you say that? If you happen to find a watch on a path and observe its finely crafted machinery and then infer that it was made by chance, that would be bizarre. Most people, as I said in the OP, would infer a someone who put the room in order.

My first thought was - clearly no one lives here (because living is a messy business). Creation is clearly a messy business, and God is not so neurotic as to tidy away all the unused galaxies, as anyone with a telescope can see. There's crap all over the place. Cleanliness is a very long way from Godliness — unenlightened

Yes, I was thinking of the same thing too. However, there is no mess. Everything is subject to the laws of nature, always. I read somewhere that ''chaos is order undeciphered'' and I think this applies here. Order is undeniable.

It's a problem because it requires that the person presenting the argument either

1. accepts that the argument implies a contradiction, or
2. provides some work-around for which no argument has been given, for example: God is eternal. — Mongrel

1. I don't see the contradiction. Can you specify

2. I'm not saying God is eternal. All I want to know is why is a tidy room evidence for a person's involvement while an ordered universe is not evidence for a God? Why the double standards?

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

I think you're not entirely correct. As I said in my OP the two scenarios (the room and the universe) are united by a common theme - the order. It is only this that makes one infer an agency (person) in the first case (the ordered room) and therefore, should be sufficient to infer an agency (god) in the second case (the universe).

And order is the evidence.

I'll have to challenge the basic premise as laid out in the OP — anonymous66

All I want to say is math seems to be the language of the universe. Do you think this isn't so? Why?

If not, then who created him — Mongrel

I hope you're referring to the infinite regress problem because if you are I have to say that this counter-argument doesn't show up in the tidy room argument as in we never ask who created the someone who's the purveyor of the order in the room. So, why is this a problem for the argument from design?

Suppose I gave you $1. Does that mean I also thereby gave you the number 1? — Nagase

But you gave me something.

But 0 is not <nothing>, it is something — Nagase

Then why don't I feel ecstatic about someone gifting me $0?

for any x not equal to 0, there is no z such that 0*z=x. But so what? How is this a problem? — Nagase

I thought not having a solution to a mathematical problem is, well, a problem itself. For instance, before zero became a number 2 - 2 had no solution. Zero was invented and now 2 - 2 = 0. Fine. However, 4 ÷ 0 has no solution. So, doesn't this take the punch out of zero's use. It solved some problems but created new ones.

Also, zero is nothing. And, mathematically, there's no solution to 4 ÷ 0. Put differently, the solution to 4 ÷ 0 is nothing. But nothing in mathematics is, well, zero. So, I shouldn't be completely off the mark in saying 4 ÷ 0 = 0.

The ''cat is on the mat'' is not true always and everywhere e.g. well, when the cat is not on the mat. However, the laws of nature are always true, everywhere.

A painting can capture the moment but that's it. Time and change will make the painting, to say the least, outmoded. But, again, the laws of nature are universal, both temporally and spatially.

It's the timing that really strikes me as odd though. Pundits were bandying that imminent war with North Korea could be possible last week, so what could entice Rodman to choose now of all times to head over for another visit? — VagabondSpectre

Freedom, as enshrined in the US constitution, can make you do odd things.

Seriously, I don't know. Perhaps it's not that odd as you make it out to be. Rodman isn't a government official who, well, carries the burden of being in line with US policies and therefore, would be guilty of oddity by visiting NK.

I think, quite to the contrary, considering America is the champion of the free world and all that, it should encourage such visits to reassure the NK people that America doesn't have any bad intentions and their first resort would always be diplomacy.

Would you use a woolly hat to hammer in a nail? — andrewk

No, I'd use my brains:)

You're being purposely cryptic. Anyway I'll play along.

You seem to be saying only a person can be rational or irrational. A coin toss is not a person, it is random and so, it's neither rational nor irrational.

However...the natural thing when faced with equally desirable/undesirable options is not to pull out a coin and make a toss. What we actually do is make a random choice. So, here a person is making the choice. Is s/he rational or irrational? Clearly s/he is NOT rational because if rationality could assist s/he wouldn't resort to random choices.

C

Because it's just an example of fiction writing. — Terrapin Station

Well, the mathematical description of gravity is true everywhere and for everyone. What I said may've been hypothetical but the laws of nature are still real as ever.

Poor Kim, having to deal with the paradox of hating America but not Americans.