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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I deny all of the above. — TheMadFool

Then you're not being honest.

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. — 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.

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

So, is exposing double standards a logical fallacy?

So, is exposing double standards a logical fallacy? — TheMadFool

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...

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

Because the cases aren't sufficiently alike, and that has been brought to your attention.

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

That's not the issue though, the issue is that it is simply a weak argument. — VagabondSpectre

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.

Because the cases aren't sufficiently alike, and that has been brought to your attention. — Sapientia

How so?

Your tactics typically involve asking loaded questions and replying with red herrings — Sapientia

:D You're joking right?

How so? — TheMadFool

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.

You're joking right? — TheMadFool

No. I doubt I could find one of your discussions where you haven't done this.

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

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?

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 — Sapientia

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, as I said, it's only the presence of ''order'' in the room that has any relevance to the inference. — TheMadFool

But that's not right. What we know about rooms and the content of rooms and people and the world has relevance.

Theists simply isolate this relevant attribute (order) and injects it into the argument from design. — TheMadFool

That's called cherry picking, and is a logical fallacy.

So, I don't see the dissimilarity. — TheMadFool

If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's more your problem than mine.

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. — TheMadFool

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.

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. — 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.

Leave aside us and concerns of our welfare or that of life and observe the mathematical relationships in the interplay of matter and energy. Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something? — TheMadFool

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.

But that's not right. What we know about rooms and the content of rooms and people and the world has relevance. — Sapientia

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.

That's called cherry picking, and is a logical fallacy. — 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.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's more your problem than mine — Sapientia

Could it be that you're asking me to look at a mirage you see?

People infer makers for watches etc. because they know what they are and how they're made. They don't infer makers for watches solely because watches are "ordered." I find that idea nonsensical. — Terrapin Station

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.

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 — 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.

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. — TheMadFool

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.

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? — 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.

I can't know what your atheists are thinking but I don't see a clean or tidy Universe anywhere. Not to mention that the nature of the room is unimportant, it can be messy but I'll always think of someone as long as it's a room, because a room is designed for humans, a universe, on the other hand,

is designed for life — TheMadFool

I don't see how this is true. Life is possible in the universe but maybe it's not an intended consequence.
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 could just as easily claim that life is designed for the universe.

Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something? — 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.

Ok. What do you think is the source of the order we see in this universe - these so-called laws of nature?

Ok. What do you think is the source of order in this universe - these so-called laws of nature?

I don't get to have a specific question and my post read? Not cool.

I've come to expect that. It's what he does.

Sorry, I got pretty far behind.

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

Any room at all implies it being a product of a human, just like bird-nest implies bird, in any state of tidiness. One can gauge how long it has been since it has been occupied by perhaps the dust levels, but the tidiness speaks nothing to me on these terms. I would get the same vibes from a messy room.

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

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?

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. — TheMadFool

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.

I see your version of the argument basically accuses me (all too) of affirming the consequent. — TheMadFool

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.

What do you think is the source of the order we see in this universe - these so-called laws of nature? — TheMadFool

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.

Ok. What do you think is the source of the order we see in this universe - these so-called laws of nature? — TheMadFool

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?

I'm quite sure that atheists subscribe to some form of loose scientism. — TheMadFool

Dislike the word, since it is a religion.

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.

No, induction infers all from "all we've measured so far", not from "some".

If the room is ordered, there's an orderer — TheMadFool

Need 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.

I agree but (correct me if I'm wrong) scientists say that had the mathematical relations of the universe been even minutely different life would be impossible. What I'm saying is, the universe is designed for life. — TheMadFool

This is the strong version of the ID argument. Yes, the universe is very poorly designed for life, making up for its deficiencies with sheer numbers, but yes, the tuning is fantastic. This is my zoo argument, to which I got no response. The original argument (before the fantastic tuning coincidence was known) drew this exact conclusion by how well Earth was suited for our existence. Clearly it was designed for us. Now why did that argument fall out of favor but this tuning argument (the exact same argument) lives on?