I have asked you to clarify this supposed orderliness, and you have not done so. — Sapientia

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.

I agree - I am way off topic with the Islam thing - it should be in a isolated thread. Maybe I will start one. No more comments here on Islam.

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 addressing the problems with it. — Sapientia

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.

You seem like a novice with regards to logic. One could reorder the above to make a valid argument as follows:

There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.
Therefore, there is order in the universe.

But what does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from that to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe? — Sapientia

My logic forms a hypothesis – not a conclusion – a big difference.

I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe.
— Thinker

I don't see design/coincidence as a legitimate choice. — Terrapin Station

I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe. However, coincidence is part of the design.

What in the world does that have to do with why you'd be assuming a "designed or coincidence" dichotomy? — Terrapin Station

I do not see coincidence as the dominant principle - design is the dominant principle of the universe.

Is that last line an assertion or a conclusion? If the latter, it doesn't follow. — noAxioms

I would agree it is an assertion - a hypothesis.

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? — Terrapin Station

There is order in the universe.
There is cause and effect in the universe.
Order is a function of cause and effect.

Are you saying that on your view, there are just two choices--either things are designed or they're coincidences? Is that correct? — Terrapin Station

3 choices - either - or - and/or - both.

So are you saying that on your view either things are designed or they're coincidences? — Terrapin Station

That is each person's existential choice.

But you'd have to assume that it doesn't require work to make the universe tidy. — Terrapin Station

It takes cause and effect.

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? — Terrapin Station

Because the number of coincidences are too numerous to ignore.

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.
That's valid according to your fallacious logic. — Noblosh

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.

Back to the idea? You wouldn't say where the idea was coming from in the first place. — Terrapin Station

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.

Preference – why do we have a predilection? Another untidy phenomenon thrown into the mix. Where did “it” come from? — Thinker

Now, we get back to the idea of coincidence – we are starting to get a lot of very fortunate coincidences. How lucky for us.

So, the question becomes--why would we believe one option or another? What's the answer to that? — Terrapin Station

Preference – why do we have a predilection? Another untidy phenomenon thrown into the mix. Where did “it” come from?

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. — TheMadFool

Actually the tidy room is both tidy and untidy because it is a quantum tidy room. I like being absurd – it's untidy.

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

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.

What does cause and effect have to do with the idea of their being sentience behind the same? — Terrapin Station

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.

I think the crux of the matter comes down to causation. Is there cause and effect in the universe? I think there is. Order is a function of cause and effect. If the universe is orderly – why is it so? That is the question.

One thing is to be irrational, another to be fallacious and nonsensical.
Too bad this forum has no moderation. — Noblosh

Well, I vote to make you the moderator of what is fallacious.

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

Ice cream is sinful?

Well, it's not ice cream, either, is it?

Why not say that? — Terrapin Station

Because ice cream we eat in the tidy room.

If no one is saying that anything is a coincidence, why did you use that word? — Terrapin Station

Because the tidy room is not coincidence.

Who is positing that anything is a coincidence first off? Where is that idea coming from? — Terrapin Station

Exactly – the tidy room is not coincidence.

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

I find the argument that order is just coincident to be bizarre. I find it bizarre that order and causation are not related.

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. — Harry Hindu

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?

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. — Noblosh

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?

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.

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. — Terrapin Station

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.

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. — Terrapin Station

The idea of the original thesis is that things are put together very well – too well for it to be a coincidence.

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? — TheMadFool

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.

Disapproving of the ways of others will not help in the context of international relations where there are great differences between existing cultures. It might work within societies more or less unified by sets of laws, common practices and beliefs, but if applied outside that context can only widen the rift, and further the division.

As I see it, what you are spouting is egregiously prejudiced, hysterical fundamentalist nonsense. — John

What did Jesus mean when he said “turn the other cheek”? What I get from the Sermon on the Mount is that we should not engage in personal disputes with others. Was Jesus an anarchist? No. Did he believe in laws and punishment? Yes. Was Jesus a pacifist? I don’t think so; he was being pragmatic in relation to personal disputes. Which means don’t personally get into someone’s face. If someone tries to kill or rape your daughter should you just let them? No, and I believe Jesus would agree. Did Jesus say or think that we should not dispute what others say and think? Absolutely not; he has a very definitive argument for a peaceful point of view. Did Jesus say we should tolerate debauchery and violence? No, he did not. Jesus was a Rabbi and he was into law and order. If something was wrong – he would say so. There is a difference being peaceful and a doormat. Jesus was not a doormat - quite the contrary.

Are you making an argument? I honestly can't tell. — Noble Dust

You certainly are not making an argument with this statement. This thread is about Ignosticism; I laid out a clear definition of how God exists – for me. I heard you talk about Berdyaev’s ideas and your own and I respect them. Then we talked about the beginning of art and metaphysics in the human experience. Then we talked about the fact that we are not very significant in God’s eyes. Then we talked about the fact that most people are sheep because they are either too lazy, apathetic or both to participate in intellectual discourse. Then we talked about the decline of courage in intellectual circles in relation to Islam. I then laid out clearly why Muhammad is an evil man and that doing so is the only way left to combat Islam. Did I miss something – or did you? Or are you questioning my statement about philosophy & linguistics – I don’t know if you don’t say? What is your complaint – argument? Any and all of these ideas are fair game for me – how about you?

She's a great artist — Wosret

The fact that she is an artist and good at it – you can use to your advantage. Praise her work sincerely and often. Offer her incentives to produce more – trips to the ocean, theatre, restaurants, clothes, sleep overs with friends, money, art supplies. Find out what she wants. Make her a trusted friend. Ask for her advice on things. Find out what she thinks.

Try love. You suffer all the time. Go suffer for other people, say for 1 month, and see how you feel. Suffering is a resource and you're spending it on the wrong stuff. You don't have a family to support, so you really are free if you have any balls. — Roke

This is an inspired statement.

At the risk of sounding too philosophical, courage is contextual. If you're not raised in a context where courage is required or exemplified, you won't have much courage. If you are, you will. So, "the greatest generation" lived in the reality of WWII. They had courage. But because of the context. If we live in a cowardly society, it's due largely to our context, and our context is due largely to the previous generations that have handed us the culture we've inherited. We shape it and morph it ourselves, but we do so within our context. I hate how liberal that sounds (I'm fairly apolitical), but I don't know how else to phrase it. — Noble Dust

Courage is a daily affair – we live with or without it every moment in our consciousness. The context is now - forever!

They're not responsible for their situation. As "enlightened" intellectuals, we like to say that all men have autonomy and can change their situation. But how true is that, on an every day scale? — Noble Dust

We are all responsible for our choices – there is no abstention or abdication.

Autonomy requires education, it requires enlightenment (interpret that word however you want). And if we're talking metaphors (I have a tendency to be anal about metaphors), America isn't spiritually fat; we're spiritually malnourished. — Noble Dust

We are all Frodo Baggins, if, we choose to be.

Again, this goes back to my comments about sheep. "Unfortunately"? Again you're implying that the world needs to be more intellectual. I disagree. The rare jewel of the intellectual mind bears itself out; the value of that mind is self-evident. It's value is to give, not to control. Like the Tao, it relinquishes control. Therein lies it's "power". True intellectual power is always self-abrogating. Anything else is a masquerade of power and charisma over others. — Noble Dust

Common sense is not intellectual – it is common. Common sense is what we need and we need our champions to voice it.

The decline of philosophy, though, has more to do with philosophy itself. Disciplines run their course. Philology is no longer a discipline. Philosophy is a fading discipline. This has less to do with the world going to shit, and more to do with the changing landscape of human consciousness, regardless of whether or not you and I particularly like it. — Noble Dust

Philosophy and linguistics will never leave us. They will be with us until the last breathe of humanity. We are here to sustain our wonderful traditions – to listen and admire our forebears – inspire ourselves and our decedents to achieve a new world full of hope and worthiness.

If the third world is on fire, and ours soon will be, it has nothing to do with religion and could not be cured by philosophy. It is due to economic greed, exploitation and resource depletion and degradation, and of course, burning fossil fuels. Islam itself is mostly against globalization and the erosion of their traditional cultures and exploitation of the resources that goes with it. — John

It is not only the third world that is on fire. Europe is in crisis mode, with regard to Islam, as well as the US; although not as much as Europe. Islam is a behemoth, 25% of all people of the Earth. Islam is everywhere and a chameleon, a shape shifter – it changes its tactics as need be – but – it moves forward relentlessly. It uses guile and deceit and most importantly the apathy of thinkers to move its ugly agenda on the way to dominion. Once it takes hold it never let’s go. As a soldier of Christ, John, I wonder when you come before the “Pearly Gates”; if you be able to say you had the courage Jesus demands. Please don’t answer to me – look to yourself. Our only possible defense, at this time in history, is to expose Muhammad as the fraud he is. Islam cannot be beaten militarily, economically or politically. Those battles are long past – although still pursued in vain. We of the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist - decent world - have one card left to play – philosophy – reason – common sense. If we just employ the Golden Rule – ask any Muslim man if he wants to wear a head scarf? Then we go on and ask – is it ok to have sex with a nine year old girl? Is it ok to behead a man with a sword? Is it ok to create and deal in slaves? Is it ok to sentence a man to death for defaming Muhammad? Muhammad did these things and more. Would Jesus approve these things? Would Buddha - Lao Tzu – Plato - Bertrand Russell? We are their heirs. I read the Daily Word:

Healing
EVERY CELL OF MY BODY IS AGLOW WITH THE LIGHT AND LIFE OF GOD.
I believe in the healing power of God. I affirm this truth daily through my thoughts, words, and actions. My faith in God’s healing energy allows this energy to move in and through me. I open myself up to receive and I am restored to wholeness.
If I am experiencing illness, I continue to affirm that I am one with God. In truth, my spirit is always whole, but as a human being I may experience dis-ease. I use affirmative prayer and meditation to help bring me back into balance with God. I focus my mind on the healing power of God and envision each cell of my body vibrant with light and life.
I trust in the healing power of God. I speak and act in ways that demonstrate my faith, and I open myself up to experience wholeness.

Oh Lord my God, I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.—Psalm 30:2

I think this concept of sheep is misguided. It's such a common notion, but it's not grounded in reality. Imagine a world full of philosophers. It would be a world of total disagreement and intellectual chaos (just take the disagreement on this forum and magnify it to the size of the world population). The assumption here seems to be, classically, that if only the world weren't sheep and understood "the truth" (my worldview), things would be better off. — Noble Dust

I don’t think we are in danger of a philosopher uprising. As a matter of fact the humanities, and philosophy in particular, are on the decline. What we are in danger of is less and less courage in society. People in the world, especially the US, have become so fat - literally and spiritually – they only see their own hedonistic needs and desires. That’s why we have Trump! The intellectually rigorous mind has always been a rare thing. Unfortunately, it will always be uncommon. Just because one deals in philosophy, does not necessarily mean one has courage. Many times it is the most elegant and suave thinkers who are spineless. I see a lot of sophist around here. Hedonism and apathy work hand in hand – don’t kid yourself – have courage.

Alrighty, then...done and dusted! — John

The problem I see is an overwhelming apathy. People do not look around and if they do – they do not care. It’s the idea that – my side of the world is not on fire. It is the philosopher’s job to stand up and be counted. It is our job to have courage – like Socrates. If we do not, we will all be lost and our side of the world will be on fire too.

the Holy Roman Inquisition lasted 1200 years and killed over 100 million people. Many in the most horrible way. — Thinker

Where would we be now if we did not have the church? What advancement would we have made without it? Great institution and now we can look forward to Sharia law!