The watchmaker was indeed very much how people reason, and it was a strong argument until Darwin found a cleaner solution. The argument presumes you don't know what a watch is or its purpose, so it is not an argument about you finding a watch on a beach.I wouldn't say that it's not possible, but that (a) it's not justified, and (b) it's not how people actually reason. People infer makers for watches etc. because they know what they are and how they're made. They don't infer makers for watches solely because watches are "ordered." I find that idea nonsensical. — Terrapin Station
The watchmaker was indeed very much how people reason, — noAxioms
1. If there's order, then there's an orderer
2. There's order
So,
3. There's an orderer. — TheMadFool
The watchmaker argument is not about order. It is about apparent purpose even to an observer that does not know about watches. TheMadFool's argument differs in that is about (undefined) order, not about purpose.No it isn't. No one reasons that people are responsible for something just because it's ordered. — Terrapin Station
Science has a definition of 'ordered', and the universe tends towards disorder. A tendency in the other direction would imply the orderer. — noAxioms
Imagine yourself entering a room and finding it clean, well arranged and tidy. You're then asked to infer something from this information. What will be your thoughts? I wouldn't be wrong in saying the first thing to cross your mind would be someone has been in this room, cleaned and put it in order. This is the most likely inference and anyone who disagrees is probably mad or a fool or both (like me). This is a rational inference. Humans (generally) like to order things and so the ordered state of the room serves as good evidence of the existence of a person (a conscious agency).
No problems? Ok.
The argument from design for the existence of god is simply another instance of the above argument. There's order in the universe. Conscious agencies are known to create order. So, the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency - God. Why is this version of the same argument difficult for atheists to swallow?
Comments please. — TheMadFool
By God I mean a conscious agency; included in this definition is the idea of a creator. I don't want to discuss any other attribute of God. Perhaps this definition will diminish the value of my argument but I still want your views on it. — TheMadFool
The universe is not clean, it is full of things strewn about and dust. There are directions one cannot see distant stars for all the dirt in the way.
The universe is not well arranged or tidy in any way that a room might be. It is merely clumped much like a room would be after being hit with a flood.
I don't see the argument from order at all. — noAxioms
You're right. The argument has an inductive version viz. the one you presented.
I wouldn't be wrong in saying atheists attribute greater credibility to science than religion. However, science too is based entirely on induction. Again, the double standards stands out like a sore thumb. — TheMadFool
One may say the inductive version of the design argument is weaker than scientific induction. However, note that science, through induction, is discovering order everywhere. So, in fact, scientific body of knowledge strongly supports a God - a creator. — TheMadFool
Also, you're issue with the design argument is colored with anthropomorphism. You reject the design argument by citing examples, which are true, of the generally unfavorable conditions for life and humans. I agree but (correct me if I'm wrong) scientists say that had the mathematical relations of the universe been even minutely different life would be impossible. What I'm saying is, the universe is designed for life. — TheMadFool
Even if the above was false I have no issue with your objections because I'm only concerned about a creator (who I've called God). I don't know if this God is all-good, etc. Leave aside us and concerns of our welfare or that of life and observe the mathematical relationships in the interplay of matter and energy. Don't you see order? Doesn't that imply something? — TheMadFool
This is what makes your argument the most questionable: some things that are ordered are intelligently designed to be so, but very often things which are ordered are not so due to design, but rather thanks to a host of basic contributory factors out of which eventual balances and imbalances have emerged. — VagabondSpectre
The universe is not well arranged or tidy in any way that a room might be. It is merely clumped much like a room would be after being hit with a flood.
I don't see the argument from order at all. — noAxioms
You make it sound like the perfect environment would not include death.But it's not all luck from down here in the human condition... Humans die all the time because life and our environment aren't perfect (in fact they're still works in progress) — VagabondSpectre
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.If there is something, there is a somethinger. — unenlightened
I like your general critique. The first postulate pretty much can be whatever you're trying to prove. The original ID arguments were little better: If something seems to have a purpose, the purpose must serve that which I'm trying to demonstrate, therefore the thing I'm trying to demonstrate.But I was exploiting your comment to make a much more general critique of all arguments for or against existence of all kinds. — unenlightened
Re the formal argument you provide, "If there's order, then there's an orderer" is a false premise — Terrapin Station
I don't see a clean or tidy Universe anywhere. — Noblosh
Life is possible in the universe but maybe it's not an intended consequence. — Noblosh
I don't see any reason to believe that there is a source, especially because that wouldn't answer the question, it would just push it back another step--you'd then need a source for the source and so on. — Terrapin Station
I would get the same vibes from a messy room — noAxioms
The regularity is attributable to nature itself. — Sapientia
Can you skip to the part where you explain how you get to the conclusion that God created the universe — Sapientia
Need to define ordered. — noAxioms
Now why did that argument fall out of favor but this tuning argument (the exact same argument) lives on? — noAxioms
now know many, many ways in which what appears as order to us can arise "bottom up." — Srap Tasmaner
By kicking the can down the road, you've only made your task harder. — Srap Tasmaner
This is only assuming that order tends to come from design, which is far from clear (see:"complexity science"). — VagabondSpectre
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.