But to do anything otherwise would be jumping to conclusions. — TheMadFool
Is the evidence for the existence of a conscious agent that created the universe anything like the evidence on which we base other beliefs? — Srap Tasmaner
You say this is a false dilemma. So what's your third option here? I don't see any in your post. — TheMadFool
Natural law. — Terrapin Station
Because the same logic is good in one case and not in the other. — TheMadFool
In our human nature, for instance. — oranssi
I find it by studying sciences like Sociology and Politology. — oranssi
Natural law — Terrapin Station
Try again? — Sapientia
Btw, you forgot to tell me what conscious agency was responsible for the behavior of the bean machine — Srap Tasmaner
(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? — Srap Tasmaner
Since you say the two can't be compared I think I should ask you why? You haven't made that clear as yet. — TheMadFool
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 — 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? — TheMadFool
Well, Hume's refutation is aimed at the God of scriptures. My God is nothing more than a creator of order (laws of Nature). So, his criticism doesn't apply to my conception of God. I did say in my OP that defined as such, my God is less appealing because He doesn't have to be omnibenevolent or omni-whatever. All that matters is the order that is clear to see even to the blind. If you do find a particular Humean refutation that's appropriate please do post it. I'll reply. — TheMadFool
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. — Terrapin Station
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. — Michael
I will look it up later, but right now I have to get ready for work — Sapientia
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? — TheMadFool
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? — TheMadFool
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.