God and the tidy room
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.
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.
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.
Comments (460)
A related idea is that if we put a bunch of watch parts in a box and shake the box for eternity, who expects that we'd ever open the box and find a watch? The argument is relying on intuition about entropy. This angle explicitly rules out that God could be disorderly in nature.
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?
With the room, the fact that there's a room in the first place, the fact that there are items in the room, etc., are taken to be evidence that someone built the room, made the things in it, placed the things in it, etc.--and it makes no difference whether it's tidy or not--anyway, that's taken as evidence that someone was involved because we have empirical knowledge that the way that rooms are made, the way that furniture is made and the way it winds up in rooms, etc., is via people doing those things.
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.
One thing that's interesting about that is that anyone would think that natural phenomena are akin to shaking a box full of any arbitrary materials.
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.
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.
I find this analogy to be very cogent and persuasive. I have not heard any clear refutation yet – perhaps something will come along. The reason it is difficult to refute is because there is order in the universe. Perhaps the argument could be made stronger - by not making the original room so tidy. Have a little mess here and there – say a bunch of avocado pits in a compost bowl on the kitchen counter. Avocados are a design mistake because the pits are too large. Porcupines are another design mistake – they cannot snuggle very easily. Or maybe my additional ideas are not so good because we don’t understand the method to the madness.
But the reason you conclude that someone was responsible for the room isn't that it's orderly, is it? You'd have no grounds for concluding that someone was responsible for it on that basis alone.
The idea of the original thesis is that things are put together very well – too well for it to be a coincidence.
Aside from the fact that the word "coincidence" doesn't at all resemble what science posits, too well for it to be a "coincidence" based on what? In the case of man-made stuff, you can only conclude this because you have empirical evidence of it being made-made (in other cases perhaps than the one at hand). In the case of other stuff, you have no basis for saying what "coincidence" can do.
Non sequitur: Affirming the consequent.
Quoting Thinker
Like any other sophism.
Quoting Thinker
It's a fallacy, it's not even worthy of consideration.
I think you are missing the OP’s point. The point is an analogy – one idea to represent another. A room, a movie, a piece of art is a representation of something that was well put together. The analogy states that a movie is not a coincidence. Sorry I meant room; I keep trying to change the OP’s story. Science would be another man made object – just like a movie.
You are very good at throwing out labels - fallacy - sophism - Non sequitur: Affirming the consequent - not so good at explaining them. I guess we just have to take your word for it.
If there's a conscious agency, then there's order.
There's order.
Therefore there's a conscious agency.
The conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premise; it can be false even when the premise is true. The only inference that can be made is: if there's no order then there's no conscious agency.
In layman terms: there could be order in the Universe for other reasons than the existence of God.
I'm expaining why the analogy, why the argument doesn't work.
Quoting TheMadFool
Actually no. Observations have shown that organization out of chaos is the result of the application of energy, not conscious agency. Conscious agency would be considered one form of applying energy.
There isn't order in the universe. Humans try to make it orderly in order to make sense of it. We are the ones that try to put everything in it's own little box. The universe isn't like that.
What the OP first said is that there is a tidy room. The OP did not say first that there is a conscious agency. What the analogy asks is why the room is tidy? In other words is there cause and effect in the universe? If there is causation – what is it? Or is everything just coincidence? Is your refutation coincidence? Or do things just happen?
Is there order in your logic? Is your logic part of the universe? Did order come about only after humans got here? Please explain what is not orderly about the universe. Are the laws of physics consistent – are they man-made?
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.
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?
Order isn't sufficient evidence that someone was responsible for the room. it's bizarre that you'd think it is.
Say that you had zero idea how rooms or furniture in them got there in general. It's a complete mystery to you where those things come from, how they arise or whatever. You'd conclude that they must be the product of a sentient, intelligent being because? What's your answer to that? "They're ordered" is a non-sequitur there. You'd need more than that.
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.
Quoting TheMadFool
Which doesn't follow, it's just a non sequitur which affirms the consequent, a formal fallacy.
Quoting Thinker
And it fallaciously concludes there's someone who made it so.
Quoting TheMadFool
It's evidence, but not proof, like you want to make it.
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.
I find the argument that order is just coincident to be bizarre. I find it bizarre that order and causation are not related.
Who is positing that anything is a coincidence first off? Where is that idea coming from?
It would be bizarre because I know what watches are. I know how they're made.
But okay, let's pretend that we have no idea what watches are. Why would we conclude that it was made by someone? How does the thought process go?
Exactly – the tidy room is not coincidence.
If no one is saying that anything is a coincidence, why did you use that word?
Because the tidy room is not coincidence.
Well, it's not ice cream, either, is it?
Why not say that?
Or how about a musical composition? Is it that? Why not say it's not a musical composition?
Because ice cream we eat in the tidy room.
The answer is simple: sin. They don't want to give up their sinful lifestyle.
Ice cream is sinful?
Too bad this forum has no moderation.
Well, I vote to make you the moderator of what is fallacious.
Yeah, I don't know if Thinker was ever serious in this thread, but it seems like he lost interest in that, at least.
In which case a tidy room is unsurprising to the extent of being inevitable. Don't tell my kids.
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?
No one can prove a sentient force put in motion cause and effect. All I can say is thank you for doing a good and orderly job. Can anybody prove a sentient force is not responsible? I have not heard that proof – yet.
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:
Quoting Harry Hindu
And then you said:
Quoting Harry Hindu
According to logic*. I don't have to come up with a counterargument if your argument is fallacious.
Can you give me a reason why order is insufficient reason to deduce the existence of God?
I never got your argument of fallacious logic - I guess you don't need it - just say it is so. Maybe if you say it repeatedly we will take it as fact - and then there is the small detail of no counterargument.
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.
Possible.
Empirical claims are not provable. So no need to worry about that from any angle.
So, the question becomes--why would we believe one option or another? What's the answer to that?
Actually the tidy room is both tidy and untidy because it is a quantum tidy room. I like being absurd – it's untidy.
Why wouldn't order be a sufficient reason to deduce "not God" in that case?
In the scenario where we have no idea what causes a room, its furniture, etc. to exist, on what grounds are we concluding that a tidy room can only be cause by a person?
Preference – why do we have a predilection? Another untidy phenomenon thrown into the mix. Where did “it” come from?
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.
Now, we get back to the idea of coincidence – we are starting to get a lot of very fortunate coincidences. How lucky for us.
Preference is the only reason you'd believe one thing rather than another?? Yikes. ;-)
Back to the idea? You wouldn't say where the idea was coming from in the first place.
The more ordered universe is higher entropy than the a universe with stuff strewn randomly about. The comparison thus fails.
The argument also applies our intuitions about entropy against a system (God's world) where there is no such law.
Order is not defined as resulting from the actions of a conscious agency.
Quoting Thinker
[i]If there's no God, there's no proof for God's existence.
There's no proof for God's existence.
Therefore there's no God.[/i]
That's valid according to your fallacious logic.
If you need a more in-depth explanation, check an article on it.
What I did say repeatedly is that the tidy room is not coincidence. What I am saying additionally is that consciousness and volition are also not coincidence.
Why would ordered/disordered be flipped there?
Right. And you simply got silly when I asked you why you were talking about coincidences. Could you seriously answer why you're bringing up that term now?
What crosses your mind when you see a clean room? Person or not-person?
How do you define order then?
What really crosses my mind is, "Hmm, this isn't my room."
But that's not what you're asking, of course.
Do you want me to answer in the context of me pretending to not know what rooms are, how they come to have things in them, how they come to have the things in them arranged in a particular way, etc.?
That is not my logic – my logic would be:
There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.
Again, do you want me to answer where I'd pretend to not know what watches are and how they're made? (Or artifacts of that sort?)
It requires work to make the room tidy, but matter strewn about randomly would result in far more energy available for work, mostly due to potential energy of not being so deep in all the gravity wells.
But you'd have to assume that it doesn't require work to make the universe tidy.
Because the number of coincidences are too numerous to ignore.
It takes cause and effect.
So are you saying that on your view either things are designed or they're coincidences?
That is each person's existential choice.
What?? I don't think you understood my question.
Are you saying that on your view, there are just two choices--either things are designed or they're coincidences? Is that correct?
3 choices - either - or - and/or - both.
LoL
Fine, let me ask another question (relevant). What other cause do you have in mind when you see the universe working like clockwork?
Right. So why would you think that things would have to be coincidences if not designed? Why couldn't they be the result of something like physical laws rather than coincidences?
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?
There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.
When I ask you a simple yes or no question, why can't you answer yes or no? C'mon. You're making this way more difficult and laborious than it has to be.
Yes or no, do you want me to answer where I'm pretending to not know what watches and similar artifacts are and how they are made? I'd have a different answer if I were doing that.
What in the world does that have to do with why you'd be assuming a "designed or coincidence" dichotomy?
That's a statement of what you'd be assuming.
I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe.
Quoting noAxioms
I would agree it is an assertion - a hypothesis.
I don't see design/coincidence as a legitimate choice.
I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe. However, coincidence is part of the design.
You seem like a novice with regards to logic. One could reorder the above to make a valid argument as follows:
[I]There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.
Therefore, there is order in the universe.[/I]
But what does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from your conclusion above to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe?
As for analogies with situations like finding a tidy room or a watch on the beach, these are false analogies, and have long since been shown to be so. I don't see the point in starting with the argument, rather than by starting by addressing the problems with it.
A bunch of pelicans just flew by in an orderly pattern. I'm off the coast. :)
My logic forms a hypothesis – not a conclusion – a big difference.
The logic of the analogy is of a tidy room. Not a found room or universe. Conditions that are observed. A tidy room is analogous to an ordered universe. The tidy room is a representation of how the universe is observed to be orderly. The universe is orderly like a tidy room. I think the logic flows. It is a hypothesis.
Fine, but that doesn't excuse you from evading my two-part question. What does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from your hypothesis to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe? Or do you not have any reason to conclude that?
Quoting Thinker
No, my wording matches that in the opening post close enough. The thought experiment requires that one imagine oneself entering a room and finding it clean, well arranged and tidy.
Quoting Thinker
That it is analogous in some ways with a hypothesis is utterly insignificant. Do you know how easy it is to come up with hypotheses and make half-baked analogies? I have asked you to clarify this supposed orderliness, and you have not done so.
How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.
Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.
And I hypothesise the moon is made of cheese.
I tried to lay out my case logically and you mock me – ok – I can absorb that. However, I do not see a serious argument from you?
It's more than mocking. It's a case in point of why having a hypothesis is not in itself good enough grounds for anything other than speculation. The opening post does more than just present a hypothesis, it makes an argument. I don't see a serious argument from you if all you've got is a hypothesis, as you keep pointing out. I have a hypothesis too. I have plenty of them.
My logic is strong – your rebuttal is not. I beg to differ – a hypothesis is speculation – and that is good enough for me. There is no absolute certainty – I don’t know if I will be here tomorrow – I hope so – I speculate – but that is about it.
That't pretty much the original argument: Look at what a perfect place that was given to us for our home! Must have been made for us. Look at the purpose evident in a living thing! Must be a purposefully created thing. What a better explanation popped up, they tried to bend the watchmaker argument to the universe, which actually exhibits none of the apparent purpose ascribed to it in this thread. Throw a bunch of objects out there with attracting properties and you are amazed that it clumps? You call the clumping tidiness? Be more amazing if it did something more unexpected than that.
The tuning thing seems purposeful, but nobody has brought that up, and the argument again is about as powerful as noting how well the conditions on Earth are tuned for human existence.
There must be a God making each environment perfect for each thing, else you'd find trees where the fishes are and sometimes monkeys having a tough time in the arctic and such. Someone up above purposefully made sure the home of each of these things was pretty nice.
No - but you keep resorting to insults - that is trolling - and pompous. Here is my logic again – I would be happy for you to show me the error of my ways – we shall see:
Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.
How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.
No - speculate there is a God.
And I hypothesise the universe is contained in a gigantic fish bowl. You'd need to actually give a good enough reason to favour your hypothesis over competing hypotheses, which would mean a conclusion. Simply declaring what you hypothesise won't get you anywhere on a philosophy forum.
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?
I speculate there is a God - I can not prove God.
You keep suggesting false dichotomies. This time it's either speculation or proof, with nothing in between. Why speculate that there's a God? Why speculate at all?
Hume wrote that a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. He also provided a refutation of the intelligent design argument.
Because that's the best I can do.
Sapientia hypothesizes that the moon is made of cheese. That at least suggests a way to verify or falsify the claim, making it a more viable hypothesis than one that makes no predictions. Indeed they have sent somebody up there and verified that it is in fact, not made of cheese, at least not in the spot they chose to sample.
My post illustrated the ID argument, which was put out as evidence (not proof) of God. So I used the same logic to point out several other conclusions that are equally supported by that logic. The argument has us in a zoo created by God who is not so hateful to put trees in the fish exhibit, etc. The fact that we're in the correct exhibit is presented as evidence for a designing God who wants good environments for everything, and not random exhibits as would have resulted from the zoo being populated from a random physical process.
That's a good reason not to do so.
Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.
How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.
And I hypothesise the universe only continues to exist as a result of a flock of invisible flying giraffes with special powers.
Clearly it's no use trying to reason with you, and this 'speculate off' has ceased to amuse me.
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.
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.
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.
Not if you value reason as much as me. Besides, it's not even a choice. I'd have to be brainwashed.
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?
Quoting Sapientia
Pooh-pooh.
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:
Quoting Sapientia
context for this:
Quoting 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.
Now that I've set the record straight, I will gladly move on.
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.
Good point. But a magnet needs to be applied in the right way for order to emerge. Who(?) does that but a conscious being?
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.
Sorry but I still don''t get it.
That someone is experimenting on test subjects.
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?
I haven't said anything that isn't common knowledge. How's it loaded?
Exactly. Just because some things are designed does not make all things designed.
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?
Sure.
Quoting 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?
Why don't you think this has already been answered?
I want to know why you aren't satisfied with the answers already given, both here and elsewhere.
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.
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.
Then you're not being honest.
Quoting TheMadFool
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.
So, is exposing double standards a logical fallacy?
Why are you so fond of asking loaded questions?
P1: some order is the result of design
P2: the universe has some order
C1: Therefore, the universe is designed.
This is clearly inductive logic and as such does not guarantee the truth of it's conclusion (presuming we agree on premises). That's not the issue though, the issue is that it is simply a weak argument.
Some order is the result of design, a Lamborghini for instance, but some order is not the result of design, such as the shape of a crystal or the synchronicity of the moon's orbit around the earth with it's rotation (causing the same side of the moon to always face the earth, caused by tidal gravitational effects). Arguably there is more explicitly un-designed order in the world than there is designed order. Were we to agree on this we could then inductively conclude that the universe probably has no designer.
Not everything in the universe is ordered though. The earth is a relative pebble orbiting around a giant pool of fire and plasma. If you wanted to create a temperature controlled environment the size of the earth, would you do it by building a furnace so large that you need to put the earth 150 million kilometers away from it?
You might point out something like "but the earth rotates so that the surface gets more or less heated evenly", and that's true. But if the Earth did not rotate, we would never have evolved or be alive now to sit around remarking about how lucky we are that we live on a rotating earth in a goldy-locks zone (and also haven't been struck by an asteroid recently). Speaking of asteroids, they are a very peculiar design choice in that they float around and randomly bring chaos death and destruction to some of the most interesting order we know of (life). Asteroids definitely don't appear to be ordered or designed...
How many things in the universe are by our standards cold, chaotic or hostile? If the universe was in fact designed, it almost certainly wasn't designed for us humans...
Because the cases aren't sufficiently alike, and that has been brought to your attention.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's not true. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've also seen your tactics both here and in other discussions - they're familiar to me. Your tactics typically involve asking loaded questions and replying with red herrings.
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.
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.
How so?Quoting Sapientia
:D You're joking right?
Because we have much more reason to believe that a room is tidy because someone cleaned it than that the universe has order because it was created by a conscious agency.
Quoting TheMadFool
No. I doubt I could find one of your discussions where you haven't done this.
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?
But, as I said, it's only the presence of ''order'' in the room that has any relevance to the inference. It's not the color of the wall, the shape of the couch, not the brand of TV, etc.Theists simply isolate this relevant attribute (order) and injects it into the argument from design. So, I don't see the dissimilarity.
But that's not right. What we know about rooms and the content of rooms and people and the world has relevance.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's called cherry picking, and is a logical fallacy.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's more your problem than mine.
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.
Quoting TheMadFool
You're claiming that most people reason fallaciously via an error that should be easily avoidable. That error is this: If all types of Gs have property F, then any x with property F must be a G. It's easy to see that that's a fallacy by plugging in various items into the variables:
All dogs have hearts, therefore if x has a heart, it must be a dog. <---this is obviously false.
All types of Stratocasters have whammy bars (vibrato/"tremolo" arms), therefore if x has a whammy bar, it must be a Stratocaster. <---this is obviously false.
Etc.
I don't buy that most people commit that fallacy.
It implies something about us. We naturally try to connect the dots, and that sometimes leads us to mistake our own creation for a discovery. I can understand why you'd want to leave that aside, but I don't agree that it should be.
Whatever these other attributes are, all must have some form of organization (order) for it to be relevant. If there's no order, there's no relevance. So, again, let's focus on the essentials and not get distracted by the inconsequential.
Quoting Sapientia
So a physicist who focuses on the center of gravity of an object is cherry picking? A doctor who focuses on the most life-threatening aspect of a disease is also cherry picking?
Read above. Quoting Sapientia
Could it be that you're asking me to look at a mirage you see?
We infer a maker from a watch, according to you, based on knowledge of what they are and how they're made. What of this ''what they're made and how they're made'' stands out as essential to you? If I see some rocks randomly strewn about on the beach I don't give it a second thought (maybe I should?) but if the rocks are ordered in some geometric pattern (order) then I immediately infer an agency - a creator of the pattern/order. This is a natural and acceptable train of thought.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I see your version of the argument basically accuses me (all too) of affirming the consequent. This is a deductive fallacy but this is an incorrect formulation of the argument from design. The correct form is:
1. If there's order, then there's an orderer
2. There's order
So,
3. There's an orderer.
What's relevant is what we know about people, history and probability. We know the basic history of rooms and most of their contents, in that we know how they came to be, in that they were designed and created by other humans. And we know that if a room is clean, it is probably because someone has cleaned it.
We don't know that the universe was created. Our knowledge cannot go that far back because of the singularity. And it isn't more probable than not that the universe was created by a conscious agency. That some things are created by intelligent designers, and other things are not, is nowhere near enough to justify the giant leap that you're making.
Quoting TheMadFool
More loaded questions. I'm not going to play that game. What I said is cherry picking is cherry picking for the reasons I made clear.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't see how this is true. Life is possible in the universe but maybe it's not an intended consequence.
[i]Railways are designed for human transit, yet dogs use them to transit as well.
Wooden houses are designed for human living, yet fire uses them to spread itself.[/i]
I could just as easily claim that life is designed for the universe.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, a constant impulse and interconnection between things. But I don't see how that qualifies as God.
Seems to me you're the victim of your confirmation bias. If you see confirmation for your God then it's good enough for you. But your analogy is bad, stop trying to find fault with those that don't agree with it.
No, they don't need to be pre-oriented. Throw magnets randomly and they arrange themselves. What do you think a crystal like ice is?
It only makes sense to infer that due to empirical evidence that people do things like arrange rocks on beaches.
You're making an abductive inference based on empirical evidence of the sorts of things that people do. The simple fact that something is ordered some way (which is really interpretive, by the way) isn't sufficient.
It's not affirming the consequent. It's an association fallacy.
Re the formal argument you provide, "If there's order, then there's an orderer" is a false premise.
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.
Is that another loaded question? Do you think that your use of "source" and "order" make that a fair question?
The regularity is attributable to nature itself.
Can you skip to the part where you explain how you get to the conclusion that God created the universe?
No, induction infers all from "all we've measured so far", not from "some".
Quoting TheMadFoolNeed to define ordered. Ice is very ordered water molecules, but there is no orderer, and in fact the creation of ice does not require an input of energy but instead releases it. Science has a definition of 'ordered', and the universe tends towards disorder. A tendency in the other direction would imply the orderer.
Right. So it's begging the question.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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:
[i]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. [/i]
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?
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).
Quoting TheMadFool
This is only assuming that order tends to come from design, which is far from clear (see:"complexity science").
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.
Quoting 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.
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)...
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.
Where does ebola fit in to god's perfection? ;)
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.
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.
Show me how the premise is false.
The laws of nature?
Quoting 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.
The infinte regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for the existence of a God?
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.
Isn't that a tautology? Nature is order. We're asking why?
Quoting 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.
The presence of patterns - qualitative and quantitative.
Quoting 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.
Question begging. This is the issue we're uncertain of. Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The infinite regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for God's existence?
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.
What's the alternative here? What other source of order do you see?
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?
Yes, this is the alternative everyone talks about. I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. In short, it's nothing more than winning a lottery. However, as I logically should, I only take this as an unverified alternative to a God-creator. Why? Where's the evidence?
So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance. You showed me that God is not necessarily the source of order and I, hopefully, did the same for Chance, or if you prefer, chaos
So, logically we should be agnostic - there's no evidence to tip the balance in favor of either option.
Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground?
Why do theists exist? Why do they claim the higher rational ground? Emotional bias. Same as the atheists.
But, per theists, also historical etymology of belief.
And within historical context, the atheistic position, bolstered by science, is the fresher, newer view. So the atheistic view is, in a way, pubescent. It has that same awkward certainty to it.
What comes next? What's the university phase of human thought?
No.
Quoting TheMadFool
No it isn't. Nature is nature and order is order. If nature is order then water is justice, Mars is Venus, and a bicycle is a fish.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, not we, [I]you[/I], and that's yet another loaded question. I don't assume that there's a "why" to look for. It's your job to first argue that there is.
Quoting TheMadFool
So you're sticking with an argument that's been refuted? (Yes, that's a loaded question).
They're messy, they're not even fixed, they're not even clear.
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
Why concern yourself with other fools?
Quoting TheMadFool
I'd argue that everything happens out of chance, that doesn't mean there's no cause and effect.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's nothing more than your personal assumption. What if I say the Universe came into being because of events happening in a possible Multiverse or whatever? Also doesn't your god have free will? Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it?
The uncertainty principle never leaves us – no matter what you think or believe. Why are we here? Are we here to convince others of our righteousness? I think we are here to convince ourselves. To find out what we can think. Uncertainty is our motivator – it drives us to purpose. I like it – an old friend.
Yes, a room (clean or not) speaks agency to me, but not the patterns or the quantity of them. It is mostly due to me being human and a room being a human artifact. Of course I recognize the work of my own kind. I don't see how this is an analogy at all.
Sure, there is a common pattern of planets orbiting stars, whether single or double, etc., for example. There's no evidence at all for an "orderer" for that.
Quoting TheMadFool
If the claim is simply that for any x, there must be a source for x, then nothing can be exempt from that. Anything named would be some x.
It started with what we observed around us: Why is the Earth so beautiful and obviously designed for us? There was God and chance and since the chance was absurdly low, God was the only alternative. Then somebody realized those light dots were other suns and came up with the possible multiplanet theory, and the low odds of this planet's perfection suddenly gets multiplied by the number of planets. The flaw in that theory is that it presumes we're here because this is a nice place, and not that this place is nice because here is where we are. That flaw violated the bias that we are a purposeful creation. The argument was accepted only when another low probability dice roll was detected and it again could be assumed that there was only one roll. The bias was successfully reestablished.
Anyway, the 'order' of the universe is not that low-probability thing. That there is a finite number of kinds of things, yet a lot of each, speaks of no agency at all. A car has lots of parts, mostly different, but a few standard small things like stitching and screws perhaps. The universe does not exhibit that sort of purposeful order at all. It grossly fails at its task of providing us a home since we so completely confined to this limited place which we've inevitably destroyed beyond repair.
Huh?
Do you perceive order here?
I don't know how the universe arose, but that's a slightly different question. You asked why is there order, not why is there existence. So my point about chance is to explain where the apparent order might have came from, not to describe why things exist...
Quoting TheMadFool
I am agnostic. I'm an agnostic soft-atheist. Atheists lack belief in god and since there's no evidence to suggest that a god is more likely than no god, I consequently lack belief in god.
I also don't posses the belief that no god(s) exist because I'm lacking evidence.
Quoting TheMadFool
Well, we don't. But we do claim to not occupy lower rational ground (we abstain).
I claim to not know if god, chaos, or something else created the universe and bestowed it with order, whereas you seem to have assumed that god did it.
In my humble opinion, both atheism and theism suffer from a certainty that is nonexistent in their arguments. All that there is is a possibility which can neither be confirmed nor denied. Do you agree?
Quoting Sapientia
A rationally defective refutation. To make this simple for you I only ask why the same logic works in one instance and fails in the other. All you've done is accuse me of asking loaded questions.
Quoting Noblosh
A good point. The chance origin of the universe doesn't preclude the existence of God.
Quoting noAxioms
This analogy is not mine. I think philosophers should be familiar with it - the argument from design. You've referred to it in your reply to Noblosh.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I'm not saying this God that I defined is an exemption. It could very well have a creator itself. However, it is more likely that ordered states have a creator than not. So, it could be that way back in time (if this even makes sense) that chance did create a conscious being. However, this first consciousness creates a universe of its own and someone in that universe does the same and so on...
I know this may sound bizarre but give it a thought. The odds stacked against simple chance giving birth to order are mindboggling. However, given a concsious agent, order is almost certain. Given these odds what do you think is true?
Quoting noAxioms
Looks like you're the one who's biased. I'm not claiming any life-favoring design. All that is apparent to me, if science is true (who's going to argue against science?), is the mathematical relationships that exist in this universe. This is order and whether it is/isn't designed for life is another topic.
Quoting Sapientia
If there's any reductio ad absurdum in this thread it's mine. I have clearly demonstrated the contradiction inherent in the atheist's position - the same reasoning is ok in one instance and not ok in another.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, no. All I want to demonstrate is the logical error an atheist commits by refuting the argument from design. Speaking for my self, I'm not completely satisfied with the design argument. It still seems incomplete.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't know. Perhaps even our imagination will fail to answer this question.
What would we be using for data to estimate likelihood?
Quoting TheMadFool
In my view, what's mind-boggling is that anyone seriously believes that there's any way whatsoever to estimate the odds for this.
Quoting TheMadFool
If chance can create order, that would undermine the whole argument you're making.
Given this argument:
If I deny (1) or (2) and conclude that there is no orderer, I have committed a fallacy, sure. I deny (1) and conclude that I have still been given no grounds for accepting (3). If it comes to that, there are loads of propositions, actual and possible, that I have never been given grounds for accepting. For some of those, it is clear what I could count as grounds for accepting them; for some it isn't.
To give a simple example take the speed of light (a constant) which is approximately 186,000 miles per second (also called c). This is one value from a possible range from 0 to infinity. So, if you want to play with chance, the probability of the speed of light being exactly c is 1/infinity which is, well, zero. The same logic applies to othe mathematical constants in the universe that make life possible.
Quoting Terrapin Station
As I said before, I don't (can't) rule out chance as an alternative possibility. However, as I demonstrated above (with my limited math abilities), the probability of it being chance is close to impossible.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
My argument's proposition
1) If there's order, then there's an orderer
is based on what you, I, everybody do(es) as of routine. There's nothing rationally defective about it. Why? Because in our experience order is strongly associated with agency of some kind.
If you deny (1) then you'll have to give me an instance of order arising from something other than conscious agency. Can you do that?
Normal distributions. Watch the video.
There's lots more to talk about after you accept that as an example. (At which point I'll beg @andrewk to explain some stuff for me, because he knows a helluva lot more about this stuff than I do.)
There's absolutely no reason to believe that the speed of light could have been anything other than what it is. What would possibly be evidence that the speed of light could have been some other value?
We only have one instantiation to go by for data. You can't assume that it could have been some other value just because you can imagine it.
How so?
Quoting TheMadFool
This has been answered already. How many times do you plan on reverting to the same tired questions? Is this an argument from repetition? Your claim of a double standard relies upon a false analogy.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, this discussion attests to the fact that I've done more than that. But loaded questions, and other fallacies, should be called out, don't you agree? Or, ironically, are you applying a double standard, like the one that you imagine and hastily accuse of others?
Quoting TheMadFool
It relies upon a false analogy, and you're changing the subject again, I see. I can understand if you don't want to address unenlightened's [i]reductio ad absurdum[/I], because it is an effective demonstration of a big flaw in a premise of your argument.
I think it's possible to feel certainty without it being unhealthy or a negative thing in relations with people, but I think most of the time, certainty is a problem. So I sort of agree.
Quoting Terrapin Station
You said order doesn't necessarily arise from conscious agency. That means that you think it arose from chance (that's the only alternative. If you have another alternative I'd be interested to hear). So, if chance is your preferred alternative, you'll have to accept that the constants in this universe could've assumed any value. I'm just following your reasoning to its logical end.
Quoting Sapientia
Because the same logic is good in one case and not in the other. Simply answer me one question: Why is God special that a valid chain of reasoning is unacceptable?
Refuting an argument isn't the same as proving the negative (which requires an entirely separate argument).
If you say you can run faster than 100 miles per hour and you show me a still iage of you running as proof, I can discount your argument as 1) not having a conclusion that is made necessary by your evidence/premises, and 2) discount your evidence/premises as giving little or no indication whatsoever of your stated conclusion.
Maybe you can run faster than 100 miles per hour, but the still photo argument for it can be refuted.
Only about 5% of atheists (yes i've polled several times) will actually take up the position that "no design occurred". Sometimes we call them "hard-atheists" or "positive-atheists" or "strong-atheists".
Most of the rest of us atheists are agnostic soft-atheists who do not accept the positive claims and arguments for and against god's existence. Of course this means we do not actively possess any belief in god, and so pragmatically we wind up behaving as if there is no god (generally) but the distinction is wide-spread and very important.
People not understanding the difference between rejecting a positive claim and asserting one of their own (the non-existence of god) are different is the main reason why the label "atheism" gets such a bad rap.
Yes, that's true. So, how do you explain atheism? Are they wrong in denying the existence of God? With respect to the design argument, are their refutations and counterarguments equally, if not more, ridiculous?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Agnosticism is the most rational position to assume given the lack of evidence. I wonder why it should result in an atheistic lifestyle? Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Perhaps we're getting misled by what '''God'' means here. [I]My[/i] god is only a creator - nothing more.
Only 5% of atheists believe no god(s) exist. I'm not one of them, so I agree with you that they're silly.
Quoting TheMadFool
Strictly speaking, "agnosticism" is an epistemological belief about the knowability of god. It's different than actually taking a position for or against (although most agnosts don't because that would seem silly, yet many do (i.e: blind faith)).
I know what you mean by it though, you mean "someone who does not believe god exists, but also does not believe god does not exist"; it's someone who doesn't take a position either way...
Well, that's 95% of atheism. See: soft atheism. That's me: the agnostic soft-atheist (cuddly even!).
I know why you use the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" differently, and why you might choose not to adopt it (and I wouldn't blame you), but like it or not you're one of us.... One of us.... ONE OF US!
Not quite, but not too far off.
Each acquires a meaning relative to our scientific theories.
A phenomenon is chaotic under theory T if we could predict the phenomenon using T if we had enough precise information, but information at that level of precision is not available in practice and there is enormous sensitivity to the initial conditions, so any predictions we make are likely to be wildly inaccurate.
A phenomenon is random under theory T if there is no imaginable set of information, excluding information about future events, that would enable us to use theory T to predict the phenomenon.
Chaos is about a practical limit on prediction and randomness is about a theoretical limit, but both are relative to the theory T. A phenomenon that is random under theory T may be non-random under more sophisticated theory T2.
No, it doesn't imply that false dichotomy, and I posted as much literally about ten times or so in this thread (although to that "Thinker" dude rather than to you, but he never did get it, either).
How can you have a discussion about science versus religion and have zero idea that science doesn't posit that the universe works via chance? (How, for that matter, can you have even the slightest bit of science education (where you would have received a passing grade) and believe that science posits that the universe works via chance? The idea of that boggles the mind.) Science posits that the world works via natural law. That's not a claim that natural law has anything to do with consciousness, intelligence, etc.
Quoting TheMadFool
Logically that is also false, by the way. You could believe that chance is a factor in things like constants (such as the speed of light), but you could believe that chance is a factor via one of two possibilities obtaining. Or one of three possibilities, etc. That you'd believe that chance is a factor in no way implies that you'd have to believe that any arbitrary number could be the case for any arbitrary constant.
And, regardless of all of this--regardless of what one would believe, we still only have one data set for estimating probabilities. The data set where the speed of light is approximately 3,00x10^8 m/s. So there's no way of saying what the probability of it being any other value is.
Sure, I can see that, and what @andrewk says above is helpful.
Only now we've traded talk of an ordering agency of some kind for talk of order (known or unknown) leading to more order. If every example of something apparently disordered is going to be explained away as either revealing an order we did not previously perceive or indicating the presence of an order we cannot perceive, then I'm left wondering what it was conscious agency was supposed to explain. Were they creating order? Of course not, there was already loads of order. The conscious agent was order. If you reinterpret everything this way, your analogy evaporates, no?
Is it possibly true that there was a conscious agent who created the universe? Sure, I guess.
Is it rational or reasonable to hold that belief? No.
This is the part that seems to bother you. You want everyone to say, "We just don't know," and everyone ends up on an equal footing. That equal footing represents to me an abhorrent laziness.
I presented two options:
1. God as the orderer of the universe
2. Chance as the order of the universe
You say this is a false dilemma. So what's your third option here? I don't see any in your post.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't know how the above squares with the below.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Laziness? But to do anything otherwise would be jumping to conclusions.
Is the evidence for the existence of a conscious agent that created the universe anything like the evidence on which we base other beliefs?
:)
We have to focus on the essential determinant here. In my view the strongest evidence for a conscious agent is order. So, keeping that in mind, the evidence is at par with other beliefs.
Let's say, because we're doing philosophy, that I believe you are responsible for tidying up the living room because I see you doing it. That would be empirical evidence.
Let's say I didn't see you do it, but I knew you were home and I have known you to do it before. That's more complicated but clearly a reasonable if defeasible inference. Note that there is empirical evidence here too; it's what I am inferring from.
Let's say I'm in an office I've never been to and it's tidy. I have empirical knowledge of how offices are run, and I infer the custodial staff does a good job and the other people who work here are not slobs. Again, reasonable and defeasible. I could fill in lots of details about how I acquired my knowledge of offices and the people who work in them.
Are you saying that you are watching God create order right now? No.
Are you saying that you've seen God create order in the universe before? No.
Are you saying that the order in other universes you know of was created by God, and you can fill in details (which will look like the first two options) of how you came to know this? No.
Natural law.
But where there's law, there must be a law-giver.
Per what?
Per Nature.
We are also Nature, and what we think, maybe is Nature thinking about itself, trying to come up with another new thing. Creating something for itself, maybe.
Where in nature do you find that "if there's law, there must be a lawgiver"?
No, that doesn't explain it, because the cases aren't analogous in relevant ways which I suspect you're purposefully sidelining. It's only a double standard if the cases are sufficiently alike. They're not. So it's not a double standard. Try again?
In our human nature, for instance.
How would you find that "in our human nature"? Are you just saying that it's something that people uncritically assume?
Btw, you forgot to tell me what conscious agency was responsible for the behavior of the bean machine.
I find it by studying sciences like Sociology and Politology.
No. I would say that some people uncritically assume this, others don't assume this and are critical. And there even might be another group that I'm not aware of...
Here are some other questions you might consider:
(1) What is a law of nature?
(2) Why are the laws of nature the way they are, and not some other way?
(3) Have the laws of nature always been the same?
(4) Why are there laws of nature at all?
I think those are all pretty good questions. I can't answer any of them.
Well, obviously human laws are created by us. But that's different than natural laws (assuming there are such things).
(6) Why is there an arrow of time?
Likewise for the universe - the laws of nature, in other words order, is the evidence for an organizing agent.
Quoting Terrapin Station
But that is the order I was referring to from the get go. There's no false dichotomy as you allege.
Perhaps you see a difference between order and natural law. Care to explain?
Quoting Sapientia
Since you say the two can't be compared I think I should ask you why? You haven't made that clear as yet.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The bean machine works as any machine does - the laws of physics describes its behavior. If this wasn't so then we wouldn't have a machine in the first place.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I'll give it my best shot:
(1) a law of nature is a rule which governs physical interaction whatever they maybe
(2) Only God knows (if he exists)
(3) Only god knows
(4) Only God knows
For instance someone trained to observe a certain pattern in a painting, will recognize order and it will make sense for the observer. If the observer can't recognize the pattern, the observer wont recognize order.
It is not only one-way (God, the Mystery, Universe) it is more like a two-way channel where the observer has a decisive part in order (just like being God, the Mystery, Universe).
and see Hume's criticism of the design argument, which I've referenced once or twice already.
The problem with the comparison and what you conclude from it is that it involves a wilful ignorance or setting aside of important background information which would ruin the pretty picture you're trying to paint. This is known as cherry picking, and it's a fallacy.
If the universe is ordered then even a pile of rocks is ordered, and so it is reasonable to infer that someone placed those rocks where they are. But does that seem right? I don't think so. We don't look to some ancient civilisation to explain the topography of the Grand Canyon.
Seems strange to look to humans to explain more complex things like a tidy room ('cause I doubt you'd jump to divine intervention) but then look to God to explain less complex things like a barren landscape.
Quoting Michael
The problem here is we can't untangle ourselves from the situation. We have to do the thinking from inside the box, so to speak. Anyway, we can bypass this difficulty using our imagination. We can imagine a world that is chaos, without even a hint of order. Now compare that world to our world, the one in which we're having this conversation. Is the picture now clearer?
No. My point still stands. If there's not enough order in a pile of rocks to infer the existence of some human who placed them where they are then there isn't enough order to infer the existence of some divine creator.
If I recall correctly, he made criticisms along the same lines as those posts I linked to. Either in the Enquiry or in the Dialogues. I'm thinking it's the former, but I could be wrong. It's been a while. I will look it up later, but right now I have to get ready for work.
The false dichotomy was your "where order comes from" comment. You said it either comes from consciousness or chance. A third option, that's not consciousness or chance, is natural law.
I think you're mistaken. I'm glad we agree that there's such a thing as Natural Law. This is our starting point. Where does Natural Law come from? Is it a God or Chance?
Quoting Michael
You're mistaken, sorry. The point is order is naturally associated with a conscious agency. This isn't a fallacy in everyday experience - we do it everytime we see organization/order - whether it's a stack of books or a library. However, the same chain of reasoning is rejected when it comes to the universe. Do you deny that the universe is ordered? Of course you can't. Then, we should, rationally (as in the above situation), infer an orderer.
Another way to look at it, paying more attention to your concern:
To answer your question I have to make a subtle distinction. There are two types of order viz. human-created and God-created. Of course the former is subsumed by the latter.
When I compare a tidy room with a dirty room, I'm concerned about human-created order. When I talk of the laws of nature I'm referring to the laws of nature. Both are contrasted with chaos.
Indeed a pile of rocks lacks human-created order. However, they display a higher form of order - that derived from the laws of nature, which, following your thought-train, must have a creator intelligence superior to that of humans.
Also, it isn't to say that humans can't create a universe with order. There's enough going on in the computer world to prove otherwise, simulations, etc.
Does this answer your question?
Thanks and have a great day.
It need not come from either. It can be a brute fact of the world. That's the whole point of it being natural law, really.
If you're using two types of order then your analogy is a false equivalency. That the order[sub]1[/sub] in a tidy room indicates a creator is not that the order[sub]2[/sub] in the natural world indicates a creator.
That's an interesting POV. So, it must be the case that you think further inquiry into Natural Law is, well, a waste of time and energy.
I, on the other hand, think it's necessary to question the origins of Natural Law for reasons ranging from simple curiosity to finding the meaning of life. Does nothing along these lines motivate you?
Quoting Michael
The difference between human-made order and god-made order is a matter of degree, not type. Sorry for the poorly worded reply that sent you off-track.
So, is human-made order a higher degree or a lesser degree?
But this doesn't seem to work anyway. Imagine if the rocks in my scenario were placed intentionally by someone. Surely that counts as human-made order even though it's indistinguishable from a "natural" placement of rocks? It then seems that the difference isn't a matter of degree but a matter of origin.
The problem is that the particular arrangement of things isn't always a good indicator of origin. Human-placed rocks and naturally-placed rocks can be indistinguishable. And although it might be true that particularly complex placements (say rocks placed to form an equilateral triangle) can indicate a human origin (although not necessarily), I don't see how it follows that less complex placements (say rocks placed haphazardly) can indicate (necessarily or not) a divine origin.
I don't think it's a waste of time, but I think it's sorely misconceived to believe that there MUST be some "background" reason for natural law being as it is. Rather, maybe there's a background reason. Maybe not. And obviously we can't pursue an endless chain of background reasons. We don't have the time for that. ;)
Re "the meaning of life," I already know the answer to that. It's completely subjective. There is no objective meaning. There's only the meaning that persons assign to it, if they do.
It is in some cases. Funny how you chose a stack of books and a library. Convenient. Provided one doesn't beg the question by defining "organisation" or "order" to imply an organiser or an orderer, it's an open question, and I would argue that there are cases in which it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was an organiser or an orderer.
Quoting TheMadFool
The laws of nature don't imply a creator. They're just basically descriptions of regularities present in nature.
[I]Lesser[/i] because the man-made has never, probably never can, violate Natural Law. I said ''Natural Law'' because I'm still unsure of its orgin - is it a chance thing or is it the work of a conscious agency??? All that I'm saying is that a divine origin can't be ruled out.
Quoting Michael
Please read above.
Quoting Michael
As I said above, even, to borrow your words, a less complex order in the rocks must necessarily follow the laws of nature e.g. the precise location of each rock is determined by the laws that govern mass, inertia, friction, force, gravity, etc. Man-made order, despite its appearance of complexity, can't override the laws of nature i.e. it's confined by them and so in fact, are of lower complexity.
Quoting Sapientia
Well, what does it imply then?
Good point. An infinite task does deflate our zeal. However, ''a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step''. Georg Cantor, the mathematician, devoted his entire life to the study of infinity and I wouldn't be wrong in saying there are others - theologians, scientists, mathematicians - who study infinity with great enthusiasm.
Also, from a general perspective, an infinite universe is even more exciting than one that is finite. We'll have an endless variety of experiences to have.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That begs the question ''how do you know life's meaning is subjective, or objective?''
The problem isn't that your zeal will be deflated. It's that you literally will run out of time. You, as an individual, are probably only going to be around 80-90 years or so, if you're lucky. Persons in general may not last more than a few billion years, if they're lucky. So you can't keep doing an endless chain of background reasons, no matter how much you want to, simply because you don't have time for it.
Quoting TheMadFool
The first step is that you note that there's no such thing as "life's meaning" in the extramental world.
Nothing worth mentioning that I can think of right now. It's just a description of a regularity, as I said. It says "this is how it is, and how it has been" and we expect it to continue in that way.
I'm in agreement with Terrapin Station that it could be a brute fact, and that it's sorely misconceived to believe that there [I]must[/I] be some "background" reason for natural law being as it is. I made the point earlier, in reply to one of your loaded questions, that I don't assume that there's a "why" to look for, and that if this is what you're doing, then the burden is on you to back that up. You can't just presuppose teleology because that would beg the question.
Q: Why do we not find tidy rooms in nature?
A: A tidy room is the work of a conscious agent, acting with purpose and intelligence.
Q: So we see two different sorts of phenomena in the world: those that show the hallmarks of conscious agency, such as design and purpose, and those that don't. The latter are the results of nature blindly following natural law, so to speak.
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: But isn't the entire natural world something like a machine, following rules laid down by its creator?
A: But to what purpose?
Q: I know not. But if I see a great factory, I may not know what is made there, but still recognize the hallmarks of conscious agency in its design. Is that not so?
A: It is.
Q: Then is not the entire universe like a great tidy room, governed by the laws laid down by its creator?
A: Perhaps. But we began by noting the difference between tidy rooms and nature, and we saw in the distinctiveness of the tidy room evidence of design and purpose. If there is also tidiness in nature, what is it about the room that leads us to infer a conscious agent acting with purpose? If tidiness is everywhere, it is not the distinguishing feature we thought it was.
Q: There are degrees of tidiness.
A: Are they all signs of conscious agency?
Q: They are.
A: Degrees of conscious agency?
Q: Exactly.
A: So the tidy room is distinguished from nature, not by being the work of conscious agency, acting with intelligence and purpose, for so is nature.
Q: Correct, although you should put in the bit about degrees.
A: Then the distinction left for us is that there are tidy rooms on the one side, and there's nature on the other. We no longer deduce from this difference anything, but we happen to know they're both the results of conscious agency.
Q: Of different degrees.
A: How do we know there are these different degrees? How can we tell which is at work in a given instance?
Q: It's as plain as the difference between a tidy room and nature.
A: Then aren't you saying the same thing I was saying before?
Q: You had conscious agency on one side, and nature on the other; I have both on both sides, but with the different degrees.
A: Right.
I disagree. Your second paragraph doesn't support your conclusion in the first paragraph, and it actually seems to undermine or even contradict it. A pattern in a painting...[/I] so it's in the object. [I]If the observer can't recognise the pattern... so it's being there is independent of recognition.
And, as a counter argument, if I were to order pebbles in a pattern, like the spelling of my name, for example, then, provided the pattern was not disrupted, it would remain, even if no one was there to recognise it as such. That's both intuitive and probable.
To [i]have[/I] order, there must obviously [i]be[/I] order, but it doesn't have to be recognised. And to [i]recognise[/I] order, one must [i]recognise[/I] the patterns.
Besides proceeding from a false premise (it is not true that "every time we see organization/order" we infer conscious agency at work: crystals, for instance are highly ordered structures found in nature which have no apparent designer), this is an instance of a fallacy of composition, i.e. inferring that some characteristic of the parts of a system or object necessarily attaches to the whole. Even if the presence of order in parts of the universe implied a designer (which it doesn't), it would be a non-sequitur to claim that the ordering of the universe as a whole therefore implies that it has a designer.
EDIT: I admit I have not read all 14 pages of this thread; if this point was made earlier, apologies to the poster whose efforts I am duplicating.
Actually, in the Dialogues, there is only one part which is about whether this designer is God of the scriptures, as the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy explains:
[quote=Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy] Philo presents several criticisms against the design argument, many of which are now standard in discussions of the issue.
According to Philo, the design argument is based on a faulty analogy: we do not know whether the order in nature was the result of design, since, unlike our experience with the creation of machines, we did not witness the formation of the world. In Philo’s words, “will any man tell me with a serious countenance, that an orderly universe must arise from some thought and art like the human, because we have experience of it? To ascertain this reasoning, it were requisite that we had experience of the origin of worlds; and it is not sufficient, surely, that we have seen ships and cities arise from human art and contrivance”.
Further, the vastness of the universe also weakens any comparison with human artifacts. Although the universe is orderly here, it may be chaotic elsewhere. Similarly, if intelligent design is exhibited only in a small fraction of the universe, then we cannot say that it is the productive force of the whole universe. Philo states that “A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?”.
Philo also argues that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order, and “This at once solves all difficulties” (Dialogues, 6).
And even if the design of the universe is of divine origin, we are not justified in concluding that this divine cause is a single, all powerful, or all good being. According to Philo, “Whether all these attributes are united in one subject, or dispersed among several independent beings, by what phenomena in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy?” (Dialogues 5).[/quote]
That means you're still open to possibilities. I think we're on the same page here.
Quoting Sapientia
So, what do you make of The principle of sufficient reason. This principle has served us well in all branches of knowledge - history, philosophy, geography, philosophy, science, etc. - and I'm surprised that you're throwing it out the window when it comes to such a critical question.
The situation is tricky because man-made order is a subset of the laws of nature. I made that as clear as I could. Do you have a specific question that you want to ask?
Quoting Terrapin Station
I understand. Infinite tasks by definition can't be completed. However, human history is, despite our intelligence and imagination, replete with occasions where our best predictions and strategies have failed us. For instance, scientists believed the speed of light was infinite. That however didn't stop some of them from experimenting. Zeno proved that motion is impossible and yet we can easily go from our bedrooms to the loo and back. Perhaps an important distinction to make is that between theory and the practical. We may reason that the task is infinite but actual investigation may yield a different answer. So, I don't buy the infinite regress argument because it's just theory and many many theories have been proven wrong.
Dude, you're just making stuff up now.
The fallacy of composition occurs when:
The property in question (in my case ''order'') is distributed collectively rather than distributively
I haven't done that. My argument is statistical, a basic version of which is:
All observed things in this universe are ordered. Therefore ALL things in this universe are ordered. The property (order) is trasnferred distributively and not collectively. So, no, I'm not committing the fallacy of composition.
As for crystals, you won't disagree, their formation is determined by their molecular structure, pressure, temperature, etc. - all of which follow the laws of nature. So, this order, as I mentioned in one of my posts, is of a higher form. And just as we seek a person when we see man-made order, it's logical to seek a God-creator when we see order in the universe as evidenced by the existence of the laws of nature.
No, I'm not. @Michael raised a pertinent question, asking if a pile of rocks isn't sufficient to infer human intervention then how is it that we can infer god?
My reply to that is there's a difference of degrees between man-made order and god-made order (laws of nature). Humans can't break the laws of nature. The most they can do is pit one law against another e.g. a plane flies by a play between fluid dynamics and gravity. In a sense humans are restricted by the laws of nature and are therefore man-made order is inferior (a subset) of natural laws.
The refutations of the design argument are aimed at the God of scripture.
However, there is a part which I find relevant to my argument which is (I quote):
''Philo also argues that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order, and “This at once solves all difficulties” (Dialogues, 6).''.
Note the ''may'' which I've underlined. It is an honest admission by Philo that he's not 100% certain about the issue. This peg of uncertainty is where I hang the coat of my argument. There's nothing in these refutations that conclusively proves that a god-creator does NOT exist. All they do is expose weaknesses of the original design argument. That I accept since I too see no evidence for an all-good God. However, these objections do not categorically rule out the existence of a creator-God (which I've defined in my OP)
It is only so as you describe, if you consider Consciousness something different from the Universe. I can't give you any proof or valid argument to defend my position. I guess it is a matter of believing. Just like you happen to believe your part, with all the logical foundation of your arguments.
We humans have reason, and by using reason we top the argument to our favor when confrontation with someone who base his arguments in emotion / faith. Obviously, the game is "rigged" from the start. In argument the game is logic and not emotion. But humans are not only defined by logic. If that would be so there would be no mystery. We are also creatures of emotions and that is kind of illogic in terms of subjectivity.
Of course I contradict myself. All is about contradictions. You happen to believe there is order independently of the observer. I happen to believe there is order only when the observer observes it.
Yes, I think that it's at least possible. That's a kind of default position. It hasn't been disproved, as far as I'm aware. But I don't find it plausible, and in that respect, to me at least, it is analogous to numerous other possibilities, many of which a lot of people would find ridiculous or unthinkable. Russell's teapot comes to mind.
Quoting TheMadFool
It's controversial. It's usually attributed to Leibniz, who clearly had a theological agenda, and drove his philosophy towards it. One should bear that in mind. He came up with that and that this is the best of all possible worlds and his theory of monads, in part, because he had God on his mind, and his philosophy is tainted as a result. That the PSR has been useful is not that it's true.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are getting on about here. This just seems like a confused jumble of words to me. You have already assumed that "order = God", so why do you even need an argument?
No, ultimately, the argument, if taken as a whole, is aimed at the God of the scriptures. That I accept. But if you set aside that particular part, and perhaps make some minor adjustments, then it applies to your version of the design argument as well. That's everything in the quote other than the part in bold.
Quoting TheMadFool
Seriously? It needn't be about an all-good God! Or the original design argument. And it is, as you yourself said, a [i]refutation[/I], rather than a disproof. 100% certainty, proof, categorically ruling out, and suchlike, is not needed to rightly reject the argument from design for being a bad argument, and your bringing them up looks suspiciously like an attempt to move the goalposts.
And what about all the other parts in the quote? (Besides, obviously, the part in bold).
That would not throw a spanner into the works, since there is very good reason to consider consciousness to be different from the universe.
Quoting oranssi
Not another one. :-}
Quoting oranssi
Give me strength! What nonsense, what a cop out, what a waste of time this has been. I think I'll bring this to an abrupt end right here.
??? It's not that complicated. Either for every x you need a background reason or you do not. If you need a background reason for every x, you're out of luck, because you can't get one, because you'll run out of time. It's a simple matter of logic.
Sorry if my post didn't meet your standards of clarity. Please pick up a book on logic and read up fallacy of composition and how it's confused with fallacy of hasty generalization (both of which I haven't made, fyi)
I haven't assumed anything. I have first made an observation and it reveals undeniable order. I then entertained two possible origins of order viz.
1. God
2. Chance
I find possibility 2 to be unrealistic because it's, mathematically, next to impossible. Option 1 then becomes viable.
Also, frankly speaking, I'm not concerned about the above argument. All I care about is the failure of atheists to satisfactorily argue against a creator-God (which I defined in the OP), nothing more and nothing less.
Quoting Sapientia
The absurd doesn't imply falsehood. It's quite absurd that iron ships should float and yet they do.
Russel's teapot is about burden of proof. I agree that the onus of proof falls on the theist's shoulders. However, the onus of disproof also falls on someone's shoulders - the atheist's. If I were to say ''There's a fly in the room'' it would be my responsibilty to show evidence to that effect. However, if I were to say ''There's no fly in this room'' it would again be my responsibility to show evidence of that. You can't, in fact mustn't, conclude there's no fly in the room just because I couldn't prove it. This is the mistake atheists make.
Quoting Sapientia
First, thank you for the beautiful synopsis on the background of PSR. It does appear that poor Liebniz was biased and had hidden religious agenda.
However, examination of PSR, even if its author was biased, reveals no error. If PSR is wrong then you should be able to give me one (or few) examples of events that occur for no reason at all. That would effectively disprove PSR. Can you do that?
Quoting Sapientia
If my argument is bad then everyone's making a mistake but it isn't the case that everyone's making a mistake (associating order with conscious agency is valid reasoning). So, my argument isn't bad. Please don't accuse me of the bandwagon fallacy
If I'm not mistaken, Aristotle had many theories in science, none of which were subjected to empirical verification. And they were false.
Galileo began the empirical approach to science and look where we are.
Reason alone doesn't lead to knowledge. A good balance between theory and experimentation does. So, while I have faith in logic I don't think we should put all our eggs in that basket.
Yes, I'm aware that the absurd, in that sense, doesn't imply falsehood. But we were talking about possibility, and then I brought up plausibility. My point was that possibility alone means next to nothing, and if, on top of that, it seems absurd and implausible, then the burden is even greater. That would apply as much to the claim that iron ships can float - if we didn't know what we do about that - as to other claims, like that there's a celestial teapot.
And no, that's a mistake that some atheists make. Someone else in this discussion already pointed out that not all atheists are of the same type, namely the hardest type. I am not one of them, at least with regards to your conception of a creator, and I haven't made that mistake here in this discussion. If you think otherwise, then please show me where I have done so. I have just been giving reasons as to why your argument is faulty.
Quoting TheMadFool
You're welcome.
It's funny that you should say that, because it has been examined countless times over the centuries, and yet it is considered to be problematic and controversial. Perhaps it's not that no errors have been revealed, but just that you can't see the errors, or do not want to see them. All I need to do is give an example in which it is not known whether or not there's a reason, which I can. I don't need to give an example in which there is no reason. Anyone can come up with a reason for anything, but what matters is whether it's the right reason or whether there even is a reason. There is good reason to reject the reason you've given as the right reason, as this discussion has shown, and 'no reason' is still on the table.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's either a non sequitur, or there's a hidden premise which is false. It's not a given that concluding conscious agency from what is arguably order makes a valid or sound argument. Furthermore, in some cases it is invalid, and in some cases it is unsound.
Sorry, but your argument is bad because it's fallacious, as has been shown multiple times.
I'm talking about this from more of a psychological angle though--whether one feels there's a need for a background reason for every x or not. Either you need that or you do not.
That's different than whether there's "really" a reason behind something.
Ok. You prefer not to ask the questions I'm asking. That's fine by me. Have you considered how The Principle of Sufficient Reason may apply here?
Quoting Sapientia
Kindly provide an example...
Quoting Sapientia
To my knowledge possibility has to do with logic and plausibility with knowledge. An atheistic position deals with the former - denying god is tantamount to asserting god is impossible. They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. So, I still think my focus on possibility is appropriate to the issue that concerns me.
Quoting Sapientia
That's great to hear.
Quoting Sapientia
Please read above.
Yeah, by "you're making stuff up," I didn't mean that you hadn't actually said this, but that what you say here again you're just making up. This has nothing to do with the original argument. There's no plausible analogy between the two things you describe here. People move around bits of already existing stuff in accordance with rules they can't break; God makes all the stuff out of nothing and creates all the rules. I'm sure you can find some way to make these analogous, but no one would ever think to start the argument from design here-- it's just something you make up later to hold it together.
Why would you think that I buy the principle of sufficient reason? I'm challenging the notion that there's any good justification for it.
Any gap in our knowledge with regards to a "why" question would be an example. There's either a reason or there isn't. If you claim to know that there's a reason, then the burden is on you. Then we can take it from there. We've actually already done this earlier on when you asked me about the laws of nature. The known explanation only goes so far, and that's where I stop, and where you assume that there must be a further reason, and proceed to propose filling in the gap with God.
Quoting TheMadFool
Your understanding is in need of improvement. Atheism encompasses both. There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible. Atheism is defined primarily in terms of belief, rather than possibility. I am an atheist. I [i]do not[/I] believe that God exists (unless you define "God" as something that I [i]do[/I] believe exists, but that'd just be wordplay and sophistry). I also [i]believe[/I] that God, according to some conceptions, does not exist, and according to some conceptions, [i]can[/I] not exist.
Quoting TheMadFool
What? Why would that be necessary? It doesn't work like that. God, based on your conception and argument here, is implausible for someone like me. I haven't encountered good enough reason to believe. There may be none, but I haven't ruled it out. You haven't provided it here in this discussion.
Quoting TheMadFool
I have, and I stand by my claim. What you're referring to doesn't even begin to address all of the problems with your argument, which are many.
Because so far, i see no empirical reason for your room to be cleaned by someone, it is logic because how our society work and how things are going in our lives, but it is absolutely not a rule in itself
Also we know that for a room to be cleaned without any conscient intervention it is near from impossible because we know about science, but from a larger perspective (at the level of the universe or beyond ) we know almost nothing, so maybe what seems impossible from our perspective is common or logic in the larger one
Hence, god is a possibility as credible as any other.
As I said before, how we answer the question depends entirely on our presuppositions. Treating the laws of nature as brute facts is no more "scientifically" warranted than treating them as the intentional product of a creative intelligence.
I have not followed this thread for a while. However, you have stayed here from almost the beginning. So now, I am curious why you are so adamant about your brand of atheism? Can you prove there is no God? Or is this just a supposition? Perhaps you are just trying to improve your logic – is that it?
I think what I am seeing is that you base your belief upon logic. You hold an atheist position because it is most logical to you. However, it annoys you that others bring emotion into the mix. Is your annoyance an emotion? Indeed, logic must be your God. I shall have no other logic before my logic. Did I get it right?
I would say the same to you. Answer the question - is logic your God?
I don't need to prove the thesis - what I feel is enough. Can you say the same? I can accept that position, if, it is so for you.
I think you are trivializing because it is a point of contention. The only thing that holds your position together is your logic. You disparage your own emotion – to say nothing of mine. I can take it – can you? I say suppositions are valid.
One can have critical thinking about emotions. If we did not - I don't think we would have much to talk about. In addition, we cannot separate our feelings from our thoughts - critical thinking. Or perhaps you can Mr. Spock - I mean Mr. Sapientia.
Anyway, we should stop this, because it's a digression.
All of which is says nothing about God, the coherency of any notion of God or the existence of any God. I mean are our feelings we might talk about God?
Critical thinking shows us is appeals to emotion do not work because all that is at stake is our feelings, not an existing state or point of logic. All your "argument (if we could call it that; really it's mindless rehtoric)" does is talk about how someone cares about something. Reason, thought and even emotion have a wider scope. One is not arguing or following God just because they "feel" something is true.
One can certainly have critical thinking about emotions; in this discussion, you do not.
So, your argument rests upon the “supposition” that we must only use logic to substantiate our philosophical positions. In other words we must not let emotion into our critical thinking. No emotion – exactly how do we do that? More importantly – why would we want to try? Please show me how your arguments are devoid of emotion? Your logic is just a supposition in the final analysis. How do you determine this supposition is correct? My supposition is that it is impossible to separate emotion and logic. I think I have the stronger supposition. One always needs motivation to do anything – motivation always has an emotional component.
Would you likewise go as far as acknowledging that they could be the intentional product of a creative intelligence?
Quoting Sapientia
How should we determine what counts as evidence and how much is sufficient?
Quoting Sapientia
It is impossible to leave all of our presuppositions behind.
If you deny PSR then please give me an example that disproves it.
Quoting Sapientia
Ok. My belief in the PSR is cemented by all the fields of knowledge from prehistory till now. The dinosaurs died because an asteroid hit the earth about 65 million years ago. Leibniz's PSR is suspect because he had theological agenda. And so on.
You reject the PSR. Give me proof why.
Quoting Sapientia
That's great! That's reasonable.
Quoting Sapientia
Take for example a man from Biblical times. With his background knowledge flying is implausible. Now consider a man from this century. With his background knowledge flying is not only plausible but also a reality. Comparing the two, who's knowledge is more extensive? Likewise before an atheist says God is implausible he must have knowledge of the entire universe - because that's the extent of the possibility that God exists - and that, we all know, isn't the case.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
[B]Michael[/b] raised an interesting objection and I responded.
It's hard to navigate the world of thoughts - with our errors and biases - and so I present my argument to the forum in the hope that others will see my mistakes or, preferably, confirm my beliefs.
If it looks like I'm making up stuff ''to hold it together'' I probably am but...are there any logical errors? That's the question that I care about.
PSR is incoherent.
The idea is built out of ignoring logical distinctions. PSR posed as the glue which logically distinguishes one thing from another, which allows us to say "why" a tree is tree rather than a rock (or anything else). Without PSR, supposedly, nothing can make sense.
In this suggestion, though, people are ignoring how things have already been defined as distinct in themselves. We are asking how the tree is defined in the first instance. We've already accounted for the logical distinction which we supposedly have to explain. The meaning and logical distinction are already there in the first instance. PSR is doing no work at all.
[B]BECAUSE...[/b]
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You've just PSR to reject PSR. Self-contradictory?
Please explain.
I didn't appeal to PSR at all. My point was logical discintion are given in-themsleves, so need no force of PSR to make them so. The question: "What makes a tree a tree and not a rock?" is just a red-herring. There is no such force. The logical distinction of tree is just itself. To suggest we need PSR acting to make the logical distinction of tree is only to ignore the distinction itself.
From wikipedia:
[I]"The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
1) For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
2)For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
3)For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true."[/i]
I think you did. Look at 3). Please explain.
I can't see the PSR, in variant 3 or any other variant, being invoked in Willow's post, implicitly or explicitly. In which part of the post do you believe it was invoked, and what makes you believe it was invoked there?
My guess, based on your upper texting of 'because' in your post, is that you are thinking that providing a reason for something is using the PSR.
That is not correct.
Providing a reason is saying 'look, here is a reason', whereas invoking the PSR is assuming there must be a reason even if we can't see one. It's the difference between the proposition (which almost everybody believes):
1. Some things have explanations
and the proposition (which is the PSR, which is not widely believed outside the Rationalist camp)
2. All things have explanations.
Even this one displays the rejection of logical distinction I'm calling out.
If P (the meaning of tree} is true, then there must be a sufficient explanation (what is this? PSR supposedly) which is distinct and allows P (the meaning of tree to be true).
But the very question this asks in the first instance is incoherent. The meaning of tree is a logical truth. It is necessary. There is no instance where the meaning of tree is not the meaning of tree-- it cannot be false.
The supposition of PSR is being used to ground a truth when it isn't required. P is a logical discintion and so is not contingent. There are no other possibilities we need to justify the elimination of with PSR.
No doubt there is a "explanation" or description of these logical truths; I am giving it right now, but it doesn't make use of or have dependence on PSR.
There is quite a bit of irony in that. Some rationalists (e.g. Spinoza) reject PSR precisely because it amounts to doubting the logical structure of reality.
The rationalists who don't reject PSR are actually thinking like empiricists. To them logical structure (e.g. the meaning of tree) is treated like a contingent state which may or may not be. Supposedly, PSR must be there to make every logical distinction, else something else might be true in place of that logical distinction-- "We must find the (efficient) cause of logical structure. It must be PSR."
To advocate PSR is to reject the logical structure of reality.
Your objection as pertains to the discussion between me and @TheWillowOfDarkness implies that you don't accept the PSR (at least not in the way I'm using it).
All I want from you and TheWillowOfDarkness is ONE example which falsifies the PSR. I'm not asking for much am I?
Either you disprove that P or you accept that P?
For any phenomenon, however bizarre and seemingly inexplicable, how could one ever prove that there is not some reason for it that is hidden from our view?
There are plenty of things for which we have no explanations. Dark Matter is one that springs to mind. It is entirely possible that there is no explanation. But how could we ever know for sure that there isn't one?
Straw man.
Quoting Thinker
I'll just simply say that if you have a disregard for logic, then I do not have a serious interest in what you have to say.
Quoting Thinker
That's ambiguous, but if you mean that that cannot be done to any extent whatsoever, then that's demonstrably false.
Quoting Thinker
Good for you. I think that I'm Queen of the United Kingdom.
Quoting Thinker
Missing the point.
I have already done so. I also said that that in itself means next to nothing, and that I find that possibility implausible.
Quoting aletheist
In this discussion there has been that which has been proposed as evidence of a creator, and rejected, as either failing to count as evidence or as being too weak.
As for brute facts, I'm not sure. Maybe it's something about a certain kind of fact that renders certain questions about it inappropriate. Maybe if x number of attempts to explain it have failed over x amount of time, that counts as evidence. But anything without explanation could be a brute fact.
Quoting aletheist
But that's not something that I've claimed.
Liquid methane is nonexistent on the surface of the Earth because the temperature, pressure conditions are not right. Liquid water is nonexistent on Mercury because the temperature conditions are not right. I could go on.
Anyway, we prove nonexistence in the negative i.e. we first try to prove existence and when this can't be done we default to nonexistence. This actually works against your views on the PSR. Because to say some thing or event has no reason, you'd have to first look for a reason. Only upon finding none can you say that there's no reason for such and such.
Quoting andrewk
That's exactly my point. Like it or not, even if you want to just deny PSR, you'll have to assume it's true. Kind of like when you do a proof by contradiction. You can't escape the PSR.
Btw you haven't given me an example that negates PSR.
Empirical claims are not provable.
I very much doubt this. I am pretty confident there will be laboratories in which liquid methane is produced or stored for some experimental purpose or other. In any case, I said it is rarely possible, not that it is never possible. A handful of counterexamples (of which the liquid methane case is not one) does not contradict that.
Quoting TheMadFool
What makes you think that?
What I'd not do is just assume that the PSR is true. I'm not assuming that it's not true, but I'd certainly not just accept that it is true, either. It seems to only be motivated by a tendency to think that way.
We can't prove that something doesn't exist directly. We have to first assume that it does. The next step would be to look for it. When the search is negative we may conclude nonexistence. In short nonexistence can be proved only negatively.
Likewise, to prove something has no reason/cause we have to first assume that it does (an instance of PSR) and only when such a search comes up with nothing can we say that said thing has no reason.
Also, you said
Quoting andrewk
To what do you attribute the failure to prove non-existence?
I accept your apology.
And nor have I accused you of a hasty generalization: a hasty generalization fallacy in this context would be something like examining a small sample of a population of universes, observing that they're ordered, and thereby concluding that all universes must be ordered. Nothing like that has transpired here: we currently have observational access to one, and only one, universe, namely ours.
I accused you of a compositional fallacy, because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions about the whole of a system based on observation of certain of its parts.
Your mathematical hand-waving aside, the point you have failed to realize, which Harry Hindu pointed out to you way back on page 2 or so, is that there is nothing special, magical, or supernatural about order: it simply must be purchased by an input of energy, a purchase which tends to lead to increased disorder in the universe as a whole. That's it.
No we may not.
There have been many intense searches that failed to find the sought object, only for somebody to find it in another search years later.
Quoting andrewk
I think it depends on the situation. If, for instance, particle physicists perform a series of experiments designed to detect a particle which their theory predicts will possess a mass within a certain range, and the experiment comes up empty-handed, that is at least preliminary evidence of the non-existence that particle. At the very least, the theory will need to be re-worked, and its ontological commitments re-examined.
When astronomers consistently failed to detect the putative planet which was causing aberrations in the orbit of Mercury ("Vulcan", I believe they called it?), then they were justified in at least tentatively rejecting the existence of that body when repeated observations in its hypothetical orbit were negative.
I said may. Again, I see a difficulty in proving non-existence which doesn't relate to the PSR. Can you tell me where exactly non-existence and PSR connect?
You seem to be missing that the PSR is a principle. It's not merely saying that there are sufficient explanations for various things. It's saying that there MUST be.
So whether particular things--maybe every single thing in the universe minus one--have sufficient reasons is irrelevant. What's at issue is whether it's true as a principle.
The Mad Fool was talking about proof, though, not just reaching a conclusion that could be modified later.
You'd need to do that with [i]everything[/I] and [i]every possibility[/I]. I'm saying that there are possible exceptions, and have referred to examples.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think I made it clear that I'm only talking about the here-and-now with the evidence available to me, i.e. fallibilism.
I know, right? How many times is that now? Shouldn't have to keep explaining this.
Mathematic is the purist form of logic that man has invented. Logic as a science seems to be a subset of mathematics. Can pure mathematics, as opposed to applied mathematics, live beyond the motivation of its inventors? Does it have a reach that goes beyond human connection? Perhaps in artificial intelligence it will reach its purity. At least that is the theory. We shall see – and – I think we have to help it happen.
However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions. Emotion is where our motivation becomes genesis. How did it get here? We cannot say. Why do I have eyes? I do not know. I cannot wish my eyes away or my emotions. Everything I do has motivation.
I think your logic is sound. I agree with what you say. I cannot prove the antithesis or the thesis. I agree with both. A contradiction to be sure. In the end I must try to be true to myself. I am in a box, a small box, which I cannot escape – and – I ask myself – what do I have? I have emotion – always – sometimes I have reason – I have other faculties like intuition, sensation and alike. I almost never perceive anything without emotion. The exception is a still mind – pure awareness. Emotion is a chain which binds me in my box. I say to myself – everyone else is bound too. You are bound to your emotions and you cannot be Mr. Spock – ever – except with a still mind. However, we don’t do anything with a still mind. If we do – we are no longer still.
That is the topic - your antithesis is bound to your emotions and motivation. To dismiss this fact is a straw man.
That's not specific to this topic, nor is it of any particular relevance, in my view.
Do you actually know what a straw man is? I don't think you do.
What is not specific to what topic? You are playing word games to avoid your own bindings.
You are claiming a pure logic – like artificial intelligence may possess – but there is no purity in human logic. It is always bound to emotion and our motivations.
I think, as I tried to show in my little dialogue, and in the post before that, the argument from design undercuts itself. Remember, conscious agency only gets in at all by noticing there is a difference between things attributable to it and things not. Once you say those things are all the same, you've lost the ground for attributing anything to conscious agency.
Besides, contra my dialogue, there are tidy rooms in nature. The first time you find an intricately woven bird's nest can be a puzzling experience. Did this grow this way? Incredible! But do birds serve a long apprenticeship learning how to make these things, study the nests of other birds, make smaller, simpler practice nests before they attempt the real thing? No. There's agency at work here, and birds do have some consciousness obviously, but even though a bird's nest obviously has a design with a definite purpose, it's hard to say whether its production was conscious. What about anthills? Which ant is the architect?
There are extraordinary structures, crystals for instance, created by natural processes of nonliving matter. There are extraordinary structures, which seem different, roses for instance, attributable to living matter, but maybe not to consciousness. The chambered nautilus. Life shows different patterns of sensitivity and reaction to its environment, and we can see that. Then there are extraordinary structures attributable only to conscious agency.
You'll think the preceding paragraph is making your point for you, because, even though we agree that the universe is a quite astonishing place, you're looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope.
Your point about emotions and motivation. My views, and everyone else's, are most likely affected to at least some extent by emotions and motivations. That isn't specific to my views on this topic. We aren't all Spock. None of us are, in fact.
Straw man = an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Oh, am I now? :-}
Have fun arguing with yourself. I'm out.
Not to some extent - to an inextricable great extent.
Btw, I'm almost certain Hume had a related argument that the order you perceive in the universe could be the order only of the little bit you have knowledge of, and that for all you know the far greater portion of it is a seething chaotic hellscape, or words to that effect.
Do you actually believe this, or were you just having a go at @Sapientia?
What are you talking about? We are bound to emotions - do you think otherwise? Please show me any reason to think differently?
Emotions have a gravitational pull. That's where our motivation comes from.
My question really is whether you think someone's motivation determines the truth of what they say. Mathematicians enjoy mathematics, and of course that's why they do it. Finding an especially good result may make you especially happy, but the converse obviously does not hold.
There has been some controversy within philosophy in recent years about whether alternative points of view are suppressed by charging them with committing the genetic (and related) fallacies. I was wondering if you were taking a side here.
How would you go about proving/disproving this principle? I'd say the PSR is grounded firmly on evidence which spans across all of history. If you think it's false then the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree. There could be exceptions - it's possible - but where are they? Until such a time that the PSR is disproved I'll continue to accept it as a valid principle.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
You're right but the order could also be universal. Remember I'm not trying to prove god exists. I'm only trying to counter an atheist's position, specifically his/her refutation of the design argument. I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I didn't say they're ''all the same''. There's a difference in degree. Natural order is of a higher degree than man-made order. Think of it like an office. You, as an employee, have your own set of rules that guide your behavior, work habit, the setup of your room, etc. BUT your rules must be sub-ordinate to your boss's rules.
Your dilemma as I see it – is that no God exists – because it cannot be proven. This is a valid supposition. However, the supposition/antithesis that there is no God – also cannot be proven. So, we have two unprovable suppositions. In essence we are at a stalemate. However, my further supposition is that each argument is connected to our emotions; because we cannot escape emotion. In addition my argument is that our emotional disposition is what motivates us to choose one argument over the other. Not force of reason – not veracity of logic – not strength of one argument over the other. Each argument comes to an end – beyond which there is no reason – logic – primacy. They are equal in veracity – although different in character.
Why do I like vanilla as opposed to chocolate ice cream – I do not know. I do not care. Perhaps I can consult a geneticist or psychologist or both. Perhaps a palm reader can tell – I am certain in your sarcastic wisdom you will suggest this is what I have done. That is a straw man and you are very good at proposing them. If you will pay attention to my reference to a still mind – you will see the feather that tips the scale for me. I understand you have a different feather or cinder block – tell me what it is? If you have more logic which we have not considered – please share it. If you think there was something unclear in the logic you presented – please clarify. I have already stated that the scale of God – no-God is perfectly balanced. If, you don’t agree – tell me how the scale is not balanced? For me – it is the feather of a still mind that makes the difference.
In essence a still mind is devoid of emotion – logic – reason. It is empty but aware. A very curious circumstance. Afterward, I am given pause – I am reflective – pensive. This pure awareness – not pure logic – not pure reason – not pure emotion – gets me thinking. What is it? I do not know – but I like it. Perhaps you have experienced this – please tell me if you have? Many a Buddhist experiences the still mind and is atheistic – many are theists – many are both. It is a choice based upon emotions and motivation. Emotions never leave us – except in a still mind. I await your reply.
You had better, or your analogy doesn't get off the ground. I'll try again:
Option 1:
Here's a house. Designed. Must've been a person.
The universe itself looks designed. Must've been a person.
Oh crap! I only recognized the house as designed because it's different from, say, trees and mountains. If everything looks designed, there's nothing about a house that suggests it's the work of a person.
Option 2:
There are two kinds of design or order.
One of them I know to be the work of a person.
Oh crap! There's nothing more to say, without heading back to Option 1.
You have to somehow get person into Option 2. You're trying, but it's just by postulating--the analogy from Option 1 is just gone. You tried the word "subset" first and now you're saying "degrees," but what's missing is any real argument that these things are similar enough to be considered different species of the same genus, and that whatever that genus turns out to be, it's something we'll recognize as the result of personal agency.
Rules won't do the trick. Everyone knows that physical law and regular old human law aren't the same sort of thing at all. They are not species of the genus Law. Just using the word "law" to describe how the universe works is probably a hangover from a more theist period of physics.
Yeah I know you didn't say anything about human law, but when you say "your rules must be sub-ordinate to your boss's rules," it's exactly the same equivocation. The rules of an employee should be subordinate to his boss's. It's normative. Physical law is a necessity. There's no choice about obeying. If I'm an employee of the universe, I'm a good employee whether I want to be or not.
Whichever word you choose--order or design or rules or laws--you have to argue that the high and the low are different types of the same thing. Option 1 was plausible in, say, the 17th and 18th centuries when you could compare an orrery to the actual solar system and say, "Hey, they're both machines. I made this one; He made that one."
The dilemma, once again, is this: sufficient similarity, the feature is no longer a sign of personal agency; insufficient similarity and you can only attribute to personal agency the one you already know.
Assuming that there are really reasons for anything (and it's not simply a way that we think about things), no amount of experience is going to justify it as a principle. Hence, there being no good reason to buy it as a principle.
Truth is a slippery little lizard. Emotions are like the carrot and the stick. Our preferences come from a variety of sources. Sometimes it is the stomach that is charge – sometimes the brain – sometimes the heart – sometimes a combination. Who is to say what is right? In the end – truth is in the eye of the beholder. With enough pressure my truth may change. What I view as truth today can change tomorrow. Sometimes my vision of truth need glasses – sometimes a microscope – sometimes I cannot make out what I am looking at. How about you?
Wait, how can you reconcile being a proponent of the PSR [I]and[/I] accepting that there could be exceptions? That's inconsistent. The PSR rules out the possibility of any exception. You can't have your cake and eat it.
As for "where are they?", I've referred to possible exceptions [i]already[/I], examples [i]in this very discussion[/I]. Don't ask me where they are, instead seek out what I referred to. Go back over our discussion where I indicated. Also, I think that the TheWillowofDarkness gave a good example.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's an argument from ignorance: a fallacy. And your previous reply suggested a hasty generalisation: another fallacy. You're like one of those people who concluded that all swans are white. That's quite a list you've accumulated now. Do you really not see all of these problems with your argument? Do you admit that your argument is flawed?
Now that you mention it...
Ironic.
Quoting TheMadFool
But in doing so, you're making the same error as do the theists you refer to above. You're pushing these flawed arguments, and at the same time, acting as though you occupy some kind of balanced middle-ground which escapes criticism. That illusion needs to be shattered.
I find this ironic too. I am not so sure the madfool has a position - he may just like to hear himself talk.
It's easy to work out. Just write out your favourite version of the PSR and look for where the word 'exists' or 'there is' occurs. Sometimes it's disguised as a 'has', but I'm confident you can see through that.
Thanks for the compliment. :s
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
If it's all the same'' then they're identical, which is not the case. Surely you can see the difference between man-made order and natural order?! Natural law is immutable, so far - a round lead ball will sink in water everywhere, anytime. Man-made order can be overriden e.g. when a strong wind scatters a ream of neatly stacked papers. So, the two are NOT identical in that respect. However, the common feature that unites the two is order/organization/rules. It's only this aspect (order) that's of any relevance. Thus, human derives from man-made order AND god derives from natural order. Simple.
Quoting Terrapin Station
You're contradicting yourself. You used the word ''hence'' which is an instance of PSR. So, you do, deep down somewhere, believe that it's nonsense to believe without reason. I think the whole edifice of philosophy is based on this premise, this very thread being, your participation, being proof of the PSR. Anyway, to the point, give me an example that negates PSR. You can't. However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius
. Etc. Etc. Your turn.
Quoting Sapientia
There's nothing inconsistent about scientific principles being provisional. If I'm right all scientific principles are open to challenge. No scientist makes claims to absolute truths. I think they call it falsifiability. However, until such events that disconfirms a principle it is assumed to be true. The same for PSR.
Quoting Sapientia
But there's evidence for PSR and none to the contrary. You have failed to provide a counterexample to the PSR.
Quoting Sapientia
Sometimes the correct answer is ''I don't know''. As important as it is to be confident in our knowledge is the awareness of our own ignorance. This is an option many fail to see.
Quoting andrewk
Just give me a counterexample to PSR.
Suppose I built a house and God created this universe.
Tell me exactly what those two acts have in common.
The organization/order is what's common.
Perhaps you could be more specific.
Science does not assume that some event is true just becasue it has not been falsified. If I claim there are mermen living at the bottom of some unexplored sea trench, science does not say: "Yes, of course. We haven't explored down there. Those mermen must exist." You would have us asserting unicorns existed just because we haven't explored a certain forest yet, a veritable confusion of imagination (i.e. what someone might think exists in an as yet unobserved area) for the world itself. Us realising something might exist in an unexplored or unobserved area does not mean that it does.
Furthermore, this line of argument makes no sense with respect to the PSR. The PSR is posited as a logical necessity. It's the force we supposedly need to make logical distinctions coherent. It doesn't have an empirical form to confirm or falsify through observation.
If someone is arguing for the PSR, it's a point about a logical reason which does not manifest empirically. It's thought to be a necessary force of order which allows things to be themselves rather than any other thing. By your arguments here, I would say you don't even know what you are trying to support.
[quote=TheMadFool]You can't. However I can give you evidence for PSR e.g. 6 million jews were killed in ww2 because of Nazi Germany's race philosophy. The WTC was attacked because of radical Islam. Water turns to ice because the temperature falls to or below 0 degree celsius[/quote]
All of those are wrong. 6 million Jews were killed because the Nazis killed them; a race philosophy isn't the many actions and people involved in genocide. The WTC wasn't attacked by "radical Islam." It was hijacked planes which flew into the buildings. Radical Islam was just the ideology of the people who did it. Water doesn't turn to ice becasue the water falls below 0 degrees celsius ( Seawater isn't frozen at 0C ). It does so because, at 0C, some instances of water become solid.
A house is organized - the plumbing, the lighting, the orientation, the layout, the furniture, etc. - all are designed for convenience, comfort, energy efficiency, structural stability, etc.
The universe is organized - there are laws that govern matter-energy and their interaction. Netwton's laws, Theory of Relativity, Laws of thermodynamics, etc.
Perhaps sloppy writing is to blame. I don't mean to say PSR is simply assumed to be true. There's evidence that spans all of history - from the jurassic extinction 65 million years ago to the current terrorist attacks in Europe that are making headlines. All of these have a reason. Do you deny that? Given this degree of depth and breadth of evidence isn't it rational to believe in the PSR?
You, on the other hand, are rejecting the PSR and doing it by giving reasons. Apart from the self-refuting nature of such an exercise you also haven't been able to provide a single counterexample to PSR.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
As far as I can see PSR applies to two domains:
1.The physical world (for it says there's a cause for every event)
2.The other is the domain of rationality (propositions need evidence).
As is evident (from 1) PSR does have empirical form (which you're denying).
You reject PSR which means you reject 1 or 2 or both.
If you reject 1 then please provide a counterexample (I've asked this many times).
If you reject 2 then so much for rationality, the world, this forum, this argument we're having.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The similarity is the existence of principles that is common to both a house and the universe.
Are you saying the similarity is that there are principles at all, or that the principles themselves are similar?
That's it.
Is the relation between my house and its principles the same as the relation between the universe and its principles?
To the extent that we can posit a creator of the principles.
The PSR is not a scientific principle. If it's true that there must be a reason, then that rules out the possibility of exceptions. If you assume it to be true, then you tacitly assume that there can be no exceptions. Neither assumption has been justified by you, and that's what you'd need to do (although you'd only really need to justify one, since the other would follow).
Quoting TheMadFool
I thought we were doing metaphysics and epistemology. Assumptions don't count. It's about truth and knowledge respectively.
Quoting TheMadFool
No, no and no. What evidence? Your hasty generalisation doesn't count. The evidence to the contrary, and the possible counterexamples, consist of the examples I've been referring to that you've been ignoring.
Quoting TheMadFool
That's the correct answer with regards to the PSR, it seems to me. It might also be the correct answer with regards to your proposed designer, but we haven't even gotten around to discussing evidence of absence yet, which could pose a big problem for you and your argument. If you're claiming that this designer entails a humongous amount of evidence, but this evidence is absent, then that would count as extremely good evidence against the existence of this designer.
Haven't you noticed how a toilet waste connector is just like the Theory of Relativity? ;)
No, because that'd be a hasty generalisation.
Quoting TheMadFool
I've seen that this error has [i]already[/I] been explained to you, yet you [i]persist[/I] in making it. Why?
Giving a reason is [i]no where near[/I] a self-refutation with regards to rejecting the PSR.
That there are reasons for some things is not that there are reasons for everything.
As for an example of something without a reason, perhaps that there is something rather than nothing, or that the fundamental features of the universe are what they are.
It's worse than that. The PSR posits a necessity. Even if there [I]are[/I] reasons for everything, that doesn't mean that there [I]must[/I] be.
[I]There are reasons for some things, so there must be reasons for everything[/I] is an obvious [i]non sequitur[/I], as is [I]it's right unless you prove it wrong[/I].
You have zero understanding of the difference between (a) thinking about something in terms of reasons, (b) there being a reason for something, (c) there being a principle regarding there being a reason for everything and (d) feeling that there needs to be a reason for everything.
Quoting TheMadFool
You could give 50 billion reasons for different things, where we can assume that they're really reasons for things and not simply ways that we think about things and their connections to each other. But that's in no way evidence of a principle that everything must have a reason. You apparently have zero understanding of what principles are in general.
Think of it this way: suppose that someone says, "No, the principle is actually a Reason Exception Principle--REP: For every billion facts in the universe, fifteen have no reason for occurring, although the acausality of those fifteen things necessarily remains empirically unknown to us." That's incompatible with the PSR. And listing 50 billion reasons for different things is just as much support of the REP as it is support of the PSR, because the REP claims that the vast majority of things have a reason, and doesn't claim that we do not empirically know those reasons.
So what you need is evidence of the principle, qua the principle..
Quoting Michael
Give me a counterexample to the PSR.
Give me a counterexample to the PSR.
1. Learn how the burden of proof works.
2. Pay closer attention.
I gave you some suggested examples in that very post. There might be no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There might be no explanation for why the fundamental features of the world are the way they are.
Give me something that actually supports the supposed principle. (Or at least attempt to demonstrate that you have some understanding of what a principle is and why it's different than any particular empirical evidence.)
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Quoting TheMadFool
So we've agreed that the principles that somehow relate to the house or to my building the house are not similar to the principles that somehow relate to the universe or to God creating the universe.
If I understand your last post, the idea is that what matters is that the builder or creator is the source of the principles that relate to the project. My ideas about the house guide the building of the house and determine the result; God's ideas about the universe guide his creation of it and determine the result. To say something is designed is to say that it embodies some person's ideas. Is that it?
So, absent direct evidence like watching someone design and build something, we can tell something is designed if we can tell that the principles of its organization were someone's ideas. In the presence of something designed, we feel it was done deliberately, or intentionally, or on purpose, at any rate that it didn't just happen, that there was an agency at work in addition to natural processes.
We can be wrong about this. Sometimes trees just happen to grow in circles. But if they are very precisely spaced, or if they line up with constellations or something, we may suspect they were planted. An archaeologist can spot a broken arrowhead where laymen would only see one rock among others. Pattern is not everything though, because nature is full of patterns.
And now we're right back where we started, because the claim is that the existence of patterns in nature is indeed evidence that nature is the way it is deliberately. We clearly cannot reach this conclusion the same way we determine, say, that the shape of this rock must have been deliberately imparted to it by a skilled craftsman. That method is comparative. Natural processes are known to shape rocks in certain ways, and this isn't one of them.
Since we cannot evaluate the universe comparatively--we are not in a position to say something like, this neat, orderly universe appears to have been made deliberately, but those other messy universes seem to have just happened--we must hold that design, deliberate intent, etc. can be apparent in a thing without reference to anything else. The object must wear its designedness on its sleeve.
The problem we encounter immediately though is that concepts are comparative by nature. Even though it is conceivable that, having acquired, say, the concept [red], you could tell something is red without comparing it to anything not red, you could not possibly acquire such a concept in the first place.
In this case, if designedness is to play the role demanded, it must be an innate concept. We must be born with the ability to recognize what is the result of deliberate, intentional design and what is not. And note that it has to be this particular concept. It will not do to say we are born with the ability to recognize patterns or something. No one is disputing that there are patterns in nature. What's at issue is whether those patterns are designed, whether the universe itself is designed, and we must be able to recognize this without comparing the universe to anything else.
Note also that the issue here is not whether there are different sorts of design. We could, for the moment, allow that there might be human design, ant design, divine design, and so on, and that it may be possible to acquire those distinctions through experience. The issue is whether they are all types of one and the same thing and whether you can tell they are just by looking, from the moment you're born.
Philo, however, moves quickly away from chipping at the argument's strength to questioning the intelligibility of its conclusion. We have no experience of the origin of a universe. Since causal inference requires a basis in experienced constant conjunction between two kinds of things, how can we legitimately draw any conclusion whatsoever about the origin of the universe? Does it even require a cause? One or many? Does the cause of the universe itself require a cause? The problem, then, is not just that the analogy is weak; the real problem is that it attempts to take us beyond what we can know.[/quote]
I think it is true for most of us – that we have no way to know answers for certain questions. That is our lot. Do we not ask the questions? Most people don’t, but some of us do. Most people rely on other people’s answers. However, there are people who claim to receive direct communication with the divine or devil. Do we believe them – I don’t. I personally am waiting for an infinitely advance alien to beam me up and take me away to paradise. I am sure it is going to happen soon.
In the mean time I muddle around and play with what I have. Natural organization seems real to me. Life on this planet seems very fortunate. Consciousness is a real blessing. Love is a gift to me. I don’t know why I have these “things”. But I speculate and I am thankful. I think I am lucky. As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? If you are not thankful – that seems sad.
Notice that you've used "might" which is the truth - we don't know - and that's insufficient as evidence against PSR. I need stronger evidence than just doubt to deny a well established principle. Please read my reply to Terrapin Station below.
Quoting Terrapin Station
A) 65 million years ago: The dinosaurs were killed because of an asteroid
B) Now: Terrorist attacks in the West [/i]because[/i] of ISIS ideology
And also EVERYTHING between A and B serves as evidence for the PSR.
This is the 21st century. So many discoveries have been made in science and mathematical laws dominate them. Do you think if Philo or Demea knew what we know they'd be so confident in pronouncing judgments like that? Also, their arguments seem to be classic examples of argument from ignorance. I think we can let that slide because they were arguing with theists who believe in the god of scripture.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I can't understand you. Can you simplify?
Yet you're clinging to an argument that was refuted way back in the 18th century.
Quoting TheMadFool
The main thrust of Philo's argument is applicable today, as it was back then. The dissimilarities between human artifacts and the universe are more striking than their similarities. Vast swathes of the universe remain unknown to us. How can we legitimately infer anything of this sort about remote parts of the universe, much less the universe as a whole?
Quoting TheMadFool
Philo is the one you need to pay attention to. And no, not at all. Hume was a cautious sceptic.
Quoting TheMadFool
There's nothing there to let slide. And bringing up the god of scripture seems to be a red herring you employ to evade addressing the parts of the argument that are relevant to your argument here. The basic structure is the same, even if yours doesn't go on to conclude that the designer is the god of scripture.
The refutation is equally old and actually less plausible given the evidence we've accumulated through science.
Quoting Sapientia
I'm glad you brought that up. It applies in equal measure to atheism. In fact I'd go further and say it applies more to atheism than theism because the proof of theism may be found on Earth or on some remote star system but the proof of atheism has to include the entire universe.
Quoting Sapientia
No red herring here. The strongest refutations are against the god of scripture. My God is only a creator, nothing more and nothing less. Where I found relevance I responded accordingly.
You apparently didn't understand this:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Another thing...you haven't given me a counterexample that disproves the PSR.
If there's something specific you don't get, ask me.
I just don't have it in me, man. If you ask me a more specific question, I'll try to answer.
It's equally old and seems to have settled the matter for a very long time right up to the present. You haven't been able to overcome the objections that were raised back then and which I've been trying to bring to your attention in this discussion. You keep ignoring important parts of what I've been saying. For example, you talk of what you claim to be evidence accumulated by science, but I've explained the problem with that: hasty generalisation. Are you going to respond to that or carry on ignoring it? You're trying to stretch science and knowledge [i]way[/I] beyond where they're able to go. The problem is not science, it's [I]you[/I].
Quoting TheMadFool
So you accept that the criticism applies to your argument? Yes or no? If so, that's a [i]big[/I] concession. You haven't given me the impression that you realise the gravity of biting that bullet.
You're falling back into making your earlier error where you mistake atheism for one version of it. Remember, this version is not my version in general or by default, and not the version of others in this discussion. However, I would take a harder stance if absence of evidence is evidence of absence - another issue I've raised and you've avoided.
Quoting TheMadFool
It [i]is[/I] a red herring. And you haven't explained in necessary detail why you don't think those other criticisms apply. You've dismissed them because of a mistaken belief which you haven't properly explained. Just an excuse, it seems. Or, as above, you've avoided giving a clear answer, and expounding on it, but have instead shifted the focus on to your impoverished understanding of atheism, which, as you've shown, is quite resistant to correction.
Quoting Sapientia
Hasty generalization?! All the mathematical laws written in scientific books and journals amount to nothing then?
Quoting Sapientia
Thanks. I can see that I've overlooked the nuances of what atheism means. Yet, my concern is why (going back to my OP) atheists would infer a person from an ordered room and find it hard to do the same with the universe. This hasn't been adequately explained by you.
They don't amount to what you'd need to make your argument work.
Quoting TheMadFool
Well, I think it has, so you can go over what I've already contributed and raise a specific concern. Or not. But I'm not going to humour you. I think the effort has been more one-sided rather than quid pro quo.
Principles are the realm of logic, not science, and I'm an anti-realist on natural law.
As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What?
What is good about it?
As an atheist – do you feel lucky to have life – consciousness – love – are you thankful? If you are thankful – to what – the universe – luckiness? What?
I'm an atheist and we're obviously all the same, so I'll answer!
We're thankful to our mother for giving us life and consciousness (i.e, not aborting us), and are thankful to our family for giving us love... If you're thankful to an invisible friend more so than to your family, then I'd say you have questionable priorities...
But here you will surely say "Yea but who gave your mother life? Really you ought to be thankful to them!". And the answer is yes, sure, and we can go back through the countless generations of our ancestors, through the variations of hominids, through to smaller and smaller mammals, then through amphibians, then fish, then through less complex multi-cellular life, through single cellular photosynthesis/hydrothermal supported single cells, all the way to the first proto-cell which began the interesting and repeating spiral we call life.
Here you will surely say "Aha! The chance of the formation of the first proto-cell! Surely you must thank this!?"
Well, if you are asking if we atheists would prefer it if life existed, then yes, generally we prefer that. But we have no object or entity to thank for this. You could suggest that chance is a thankable entity, but an arbitrary set of physical circumstances which give rise to a proto-cell would have come from previous states of matter. We can then begin rewinding causation in the universe to a time where from our perspective it seems like everything in the universe was infinitely hot and infinitely dense. Beyond this "singularity" we have no way of knowing or describing what came before (let alone even conceive of a "before").
So are you asking whether or not we atheists thank the infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity? No because it's not a conscious thing. Would we prefer it if the big bang happened? Generally yes, we would prefer that, and if there is something that can actually be meaningfully thanked for this, we're ignorant of it.
I have a few questions of my own though (quid pro quo and all):
Do you thank the socks on your feet? Do you thank the air that you breathe or the water that you drink?
Do you thank the gravity of the earth and the earth's distance from the sun?
If not why not?
Yes I am thankful for these things.
I think your answers were great - and - I would say truthful. Do you think that you are fortunate to have all these things? Lucky?
You're asking if I like existing... Yes I like existing... No I don't feel lucky to exist, because if I didn't exist I wouldn't be around to feel unlucky, so why should I be surprised to find out that I exist?
Can you define "thankful" though? (if someone has a feeling of thankfullness, do you think that means there must be a sentient and responsible third party toward which your thanks is aimed?)
And regarding your thankfulness for the distance between the earth and sun, is there anything to which you personally thank for that reality?
Not quite - I am not asking a question of causation - I think cause or no cause is irrelevant. In fact I don't want us to consider causation - just circumstance. Are we lucky to exist?
There's probability: is it statistically anomalous that we exist? (the answer is not from our perspective)
And then there's favorability: "is our existence favorable/good to/for us?" (the answer is yes, us atheists generally categorize existence as a good thing)
If you want a more direct answer than this you've got to define "luck".
I don't think the question makes sense. It strikes me, at it's heart, based upon a nihilistic supposition: that someone how our existence doesn't make sense because we are particular type of state amongst the many which could have been.
I would say it's ignorance of ourselves and world to think in such terms-- we might be one possibility amongst many, but given the nature of ourselves and what does exist, these are the only the which would come to exist. In this sense, our absence was never a risk we would have to deal with, despite us being one of many possible states.
"Luck" really only makes sense if you are talking about causality, in the significance of how someone exists in one position rather than another, by circumstance and themselves, such they one way rather than another (e.g. a rich person is who "lucky" to be born into wealth, person belonging to a plentiful environment, etc.).
Looking back, I think there's a spot where I skipped a step.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
This is unclear.
A concept more or less neatly divides the universe into things that fall under it and things that don't. That matches up just as neatly with how we acquire concepts: here's something that's red and here's something that isn't. (Allow me a bit of simplification here.)
I'm also allowing the possibility that you could apply a concept you have, even if you don't have to hand something that falls under it and something that doesn't.
I also argue that the concept of designedness you need cannot be acquired in the usual comparative way, so if we have such a concept it must be innate. The concept itself is also somewhat odd in that is true of the universe as a whole and everything in it, but I am not relying on that, as I have explicitly allowed that you might still be able to apply the concept if you have it.
The question that's left is whether we do possess such a concept and possess it innately.
You wouldn't have to have thesis and antithesis at hand, but you'd have to know about the opposition. Any property possessed by the whole universe and everything in it would be unknowable for lack of the ability to know about an associated opposition. For instance, if everything in the universe was green, there could be no concept of green. Right?
I'm just allowing, for the sake of argument, that the concept could be innate and usable. (Someone might have cleverly bestowed this concept upon us, after all.)
I'm not seeing how composition helps. There would still have to be a concept that you can just know applies to the universe without comparing the universe to anything else. There may be concepts you can manage because you get to compare the universe to parts of itself, but in the case of designedness, all the parts fall under the concept too.
EDIT: fixed an autocorrection.
Those who accept the argument from design not only disagree, but think their view is obviously correct.
I tried maybe four or five variations on this theme and got nowhere. We're trying something else now.
I define "lucky" as fortunate, fortuitous, favourable, auspicious, advantageous, propitious, opportune.
My point, overall, is that we are inordinately lucky. I think any honest person – atheist or theist – has to admit our circumstance is fortunate – overwhelmingly so. I also think most atheists resist any sense of gratitude or thankfulness because they fear any servile-ness or obligation. I think atheists should thank the universe for doing a good job – even by accident. This is a weakness in atheist thinking. If you deny gratefulness, you limit your compassion and empathy. Being ungrateful restricts your appreciation for everything. Most Buddhist atheists do not have this problem. Most non-spiritual atheists do suffer from this dilemma. However, I think it is fixable, and one can still be atheist and not Buddhist.
Be careful not to restrict your gratitude - it will not hurt you. Rather, the more you have, the better off you are. I would call lack of gratitude the atheists neurosis.
Is remarking that life is good not enough?
What's the purpose behind making a gesture of gratitude toward a thing which cannot perceive it?
It seems nonsensical...
EDIT: If you refuse to kiss the blarney stone then you're limiting your own belief in the future???
Lucky/thankful not really. Glad/satisfied, yes.
I would say you miss the point. I don't think about my socks or the sun and moon very much. Being grateful of your consciousness and love in your life is beneficial in itself. The more gratefulness you can generate in all dimensions improves the quality of your life – and the world. Want to be more happy – be more grateful – simple as that.
Glad - satisfied sounds mild - you should be ecstatic - the benefits would be more. You should be screaming from the rooftop - I am lucky. We would all laugh at you - but - you would be happier.
It's for that very reason I say you use of "luck" is meaningless. The ones to have gratitude towards are others whom act to provide for one's own circumstances: other people, the environment, social institutions, etc., without which one's life and the world would be a worse place.
Gratitude outside causality, that is gratitude to no-one, is meaningless. It just the nihilistic neurosis-- that world and ourselves are meaningless in themselves, such that we would have to thank nothing for allowing us to exist.
I don't believe in luck though.
I personally define luck when opportunity meets preparation.
On topic too.
You really miss the point - it is gratitude to everything - you - choose to be grateful for. You don't need a cause to be grateful. Be grateful there is no cause.
That's the way I look at it.
That's the neurosis though, for if a case is not a stake, neither is my being. The possibility I "might not be" isn't present. In nothing, I have no cause or danger to fear, no possible absence for which to thank another for saving me from.
Rather than "grateful," I should just be "joyful."
I am suspicious of you TheWillowOfDarkness - your name says a lot. Stay away from nothingness thoughts. Yes, be joyful and then after you reach joyfulness - be grateful.
You religious folks always give me a cult vibe.
I am a cult of one. I think of myself as spiritual and anti-religion.
What standards of evidence will convince you?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't understand how the nature of the concept of order, as to its being innate or acquired, bears on my argument. Anyway I read up a bit and here's what I think you want to say...
First, given that the concept of order is acquired, we'd actually need to have observed some universes created by a Gods to generate the causal inference order-->God. Lacking this kind of observation we aren't justified to make this inference.
My answer: We're a part of this universe and this relationship, as far as I know, is not voidable. We can't just come out of this universe and observe other universes (if they exist) and look for the presence or absence of a creator.
So, this objection, good as it may seem, is, for all practical purposes, a dead end. It appears to make sense but is a pointless objection. When paleantologists and archeologists make inferences from fossils and ruins we don't object. We don't say that since they weren't there during the time of the dinosaurs or ancient mesopotamia their inferences are completely invalid. I agree some gaps will be filled by the imagination but that's how the game must be played. We don't have a choice. This objection to the design argument is like denying the Big Bang Theory because nobody saw it. There are reasonable recommendations/objections/proposals bit asking for the impossible is not one of them.
Second, given the universe is ordered, we lack a comparison (chaos?) to make sense of what we mean by order.
I think this is your main point. To that my simple reply is imagination. We are endowed with this powerful thinking tool that can contemplate almost anything, chaos being one of them. So, the issue of whether the concept of order is innate or acquired is moot because we can imagine the antithesis of order.
The PSR makes 2 claims
1. Every event has a cause
2. Every proposition has a reason
Surely 1 is in the realm of science
From what I read on anti-realism (not much sorry) it's got to do with the unobservable aspects of science. However there are plenty of mathematical laws that describe observable phenomena e.g. the flight of a rocket, the flow of water through a pipe, machines, etc.
I find that naive for a few reasons. There isn't an on-and-off switch, and there are other important things besides happiness. I'd rather be a little less happy than be a gullible, crazy fool that's the butt of everyone's jokes.
For starters, my standard disqualifies logical fallacies, and your argument commits multiple fallacies. I've already told you what would be required, so if you don't already know, then must not have been paying enough attention. And if you don't pay attention to what I say, then why should I continue? What have I said about the universe? What have I said about the PSR? What have I said about what is arguably order? What have I said about the laws of nature? What have I said about the differences in your analogy? What have I said about science, and what it does and does not do? What have I said about what we know and do not know? The answers are there to be found.
I told you, I'm not just going to humour you. I'm not going to do your work for you. You have to demonstrate to me that you've been listening and that it's [I]quid pro quo[/I]. Or I might just give up on you like others have.
As I said in an earlier post, someone could say that the principle is actually this:
Quoting Terrapin Station
How would we support one principle rather than the other?
Atheist and agnostic, by some definitions. I mainly self-identify as the former.
I'm agnostic.
I think you take me a little too literally about "screaming from the rooftop". That was a joke. However, the engineering your attitude in life to maximize happiness and productivity is not a joke. Each individual is free to design their own attitude towards their life. All I am saying is that some attitudes are more beneficial than others. Attitude is everything.
Attitude
By Charles Swindall
The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company…a church…a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We can not change our past…we can not change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We can not change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you…we are in charge of our Attitudes!
This is a very fine thought.
I feel stupid.
As I was working on a response to your last post, there were some things I was puzzled about and obviously you've been puzzled by some of what I was writing recently. I started to worry that we were losing the thread of the argument. So I decided to go back through everything and I realized there was something about your position that I had fundamentally misunderstood.
A long time ago, you admitted that the argument from design is not deductive but inductive. I had been assuming that the issue, since then, was how to make that induction work, and I've gotten caught up in the details of that. I now realize that, as far as you were concerned, the inductive argument was actually complete at that moment, as soon as you agreed that it was an inductive argument. From your point of view, the conclusion of the argument, that order is always attributable to conscious agency, was established a long time ago. That the universe, being ordered, must be the work of a conscious agency, is just an application.
There are two peculiarities about this. One I should have understood, because it's pretty fundamental to the way the argument from design works. The other is interesting.
At first, a lot of us reached for examples from nature of things that are ordered, apparently without any conscious agency taking a hand--crystals, normal distributions, complexity, etc. None of this was relevant, as it turns out, because of the way the argument works.
It's an induction. You throw every ordered thing you can find into a box, then take them out one-by-one and check to see if they are the result of conscious agency. There's trillions upon trillions of human artifacts in the box--the usual watches, tidy rooms, and 747s--and then there's the universe. The whole universe. A single object that is ordered, like one of the billions of watches in the box. Although a typical scientist might see what humans have done as an unimaginably small dataset compared to all she could conceivably learn from looking at the vastly hugely mind-blowingly big universe, here the tables are turned: the entire universe is just one more ordered thing, just another wristwatch. Of course, that's how the argument from design works, and I feel stupid for having forgotten that.
But here's where it gets interesting. Say you have a hypothesis that all ravens are black. You put every raven you can find into a box, then take them out one-by-one and check to see if they're black. Suppose among all those ravens--black, black, black, black--there's one that somehow is indeterminate in color. From one direction it looks blackish, from another kinda grey, from another nearly brown. You could stop, and decide that the induction fails because here's a raven that is not definitely black. Who knows how many more of these there are? Doesn't matter anyway, one's enough to scuttle the project. Or you could decide, weird raven, let's set it aside for now and check the rest. You go through the whole box, find nothing but black, and conclude that the induction is still pretty strong. Now what about that indeterminate-color raven? Having finished your work, can you now say, my inductive argument shows it must be black? Er, no. It's still indeterminate in color, despite the strength of the induction. It's not even probably black.
Now suppose that the one indeterminate-color raven is, for some reason, kept, unexamined, in a separate box, and you go through the entire box of black ones first. Then you can conclude, without even opening the box containing the last one, that so long as there's a raven in there, the inductive argument shows that it's black.
So that's exactly what happened here. Every possible instance of order in nature was lumped together as one single data point, the universe, and then that data-point isn't even examined. It's held back until we've gone through all the watches and tidy rooms and 747s, the conclusion is established, and then we apply our inference to the universe--it's ordered, must have been ordered by someone.
Well, that's cheating. It's not supposed to matter what order you examine your data points in. If you reach an instance of order that isn't clearly the work of a person--maybe it's the first one you pulled out of the box, maybe it's the 587th--you're done. Even if you decide this is just an outlier and set it aside, once you're done you don't get to go back and say the induction showed that the universe must be the work of a person. It's still an outlier, induction or no induction.
The argument cheats. It compresses almost all of the data available into a speck, and then it even hides that speck to make sure we don't look at it and wonder why it's not obviously like everything else.
Side notes:
(1) "Science is just as bad." I had forgotten that this was your real point. Well, no. After the raven study, a scientist will report that very nearly every raven is black, but there's at least one outlier, and conclude that we'll just have to learn more about the process of raven pigmentation.
(2) "It still makes it likely that the universe, being ordered, is the work of a conscious agency." True enough, if you treat every doodled smiley face as a datapoint equal to the entirety of universe, oh yeah the odds are going to be on your side. If, instead, you actually look at nature instance by instance, you'll find overwhelming evidence of self-organization at every level can you think of, all of it happening without any sign of a conscious agent behind it all.
(3) "It's no less likely that the universe is the work of a conscious agency." Could be, but I'd spend a lot of time in point number 2 before reaching a conclusion.
Sure, maximise in proportion to other considerations, not unconditionally.
First, hank you for you interest in my argument.
However, as you directed me to point 2 of your post, note that the issue is whether the universe is designed or not. You can't say (I'm quoting you) "you'll find overwhelming evidence of self-organization at every level can you think of, all of it happening without any sign of a conscious agent behind it all.". Wouldn't that be begging the question?
The design argument infers the connection that order-->person through observation (perhaps falsely perceiving an absence of order in what hasn't been touched by a human). Nevertheless, man-made order has that unique quality that suffices to make the distinction man-made vs. natural. It's comparatively very recent, through science, that we've discovered that natural laws determine all the goings on in the physical realm. To add to this mounting evidence we only need to understand that man-made order is bound within the limits set by natural laws. From this we can infer a higher power, a greater being, whose laws are, to us, unbreakable.
At this point, I'm not even sure there's a coherent question here. I'll try to get back to you on that. I am convinced that the approach taken by the argument from design is worse than useless, and I'm not giving it any more of time. (I learned some stuff arguing with you, so it's all good.)
I remember telling you a while back that you were looking at the universe through the wrong end of the telescope. At the time, I wasn't really sure why I said that. Now it makes sense.
Thanks...please share your insights
I’d like to critique your argument, specifically your use of the analogy of a tidy room to demonstrate the idea that God is responsible for the order present in the universe. I'm inclined to like this analogy, but I think it could be refined a bit.
To illustrate this analogy, you say, “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.” You’re correct: that was my first thought (since rooms don’t, unfortunately, clean themselves). However, I then was struck by this point: the very existence of a room and its contents implies intervention. In keeping with your analogy, somebody built the room, and the furniture, and then arranged the contents of the room. The existence of the room demonstrates some creator: without it, there would be no room and no contents to be tidied, and I wonder if that might be another avenue for this analogy, because it could be extended via metaphor to the complex universe. The fact that the room is well arranged is not the only thing that suggests intervention. I do, however, understand that your metaphor of the organized room is analogous to the perfectly arranged, life-conducive universe, which suggests the intervention of a creator (God). You state, “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 agency - God. Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow?” This would be stronger if you elaborated on the existence of order in the universe, maybe adding some specific examples of ways that the universe has been perfectly designed. Further, you say that the “evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious agency - God.” This makes me wonder about the roles of chaos or random events. Do you consider those to be present? If so, are they also the creation of God, or do they pose a problem to the idea of order implying God’s existence?
Well, I was working from the premise that what's key to the inference of god is order which, many have argued, is a sign of intelligence. The room here represents the universe and had it been chaotic, the room itself, the universe itself, wouldn't give us sufficient warrant to conclude the involvement of intelligence.
Quoting Julianne Carter
My intention isn't exactly to prove the existence of god but to reveal what I feel is an inconsistency, an inconsistency that has to do with our common sense, the faculty that we employ in our daily lives and it goes like this: Most people, when they see a well-ordered room immediately infer the existence of a person who was the cause of the order and no one objects to such logic because it, as we all know from our personal experiences, turns out to be true. Contrast this reasoning - this common sense logical inference that serves us well and almost 100% of the time to boot - to the objections raised by opponents of the argument from order (in the universe) for god. Those who disagree with this particular variety of theistic argument are, in essence, rejecting a form of reasoning that's being validated, right now, at this very moment, in one way or another in some part of the globe. What gives?