God and the tidy room

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.

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.

Mongrel

↪TheMadFool

It's the proof of God that was presented to me in childhood. I noticed early on its weakness. Is God supposed to be an untidy, disorderly entity? If not, then who created him?

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.

TheMadFool

If not, then who created him — Mongrel

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?

Terrapin Station

↪TheMadFool

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.

Terrapin Station

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? — Mongrel

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.

Mongrel

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? — TheMadFool

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.

unenlightened

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? — TheMadFool

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.

Thinker

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.

Terrapin Station

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. — Thinker

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.

Thinker

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.

Terrapin Station

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

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.

Noblosh

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 — TheMadFool

Non sequitur: Affirming the consequent.

I find this analogy to be very cogent and persuasive — Thinker

Like any other sophism.

I have not heard any clear refutation yet — Thinker

It's a fallacy, it's not even worthy of consideration.

Thinker

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.

Thinker

↪Noblosh

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.

Noblosh

↪Thinker

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.

Terrapin Station

I think you are missing the OP’s point. The point is an analogy – one idea to represent another. — Thinker

I'm expaining why the analogy, why the argument doesn't work.

Harry Hindu

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

If we're using this definition, humans and some other organisms would fall into the category of "God".

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

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.

Thinker

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?

Thinker

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?

TheMadFool

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. — Terrapin Station

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.

TheMadFool

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. — Mongrel

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?

Terrapin Station

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). — TheMadFool

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.

TheMadFool

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 — unenlightened

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.

Noblosh

What the OP first said is — Thinker

the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency — TheMadFool

Which doesn't follow, it's just a non sequitur which affirms the consequent, a formal fallacy.

What the analogy asks is why the room is tidy? — Thinker

And it fallaciously concludes there's someone who made it so.

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? — TheMadFool

It's evidence, but not proof, like you want to make it.

TheMadFool

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

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.

Thinker

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.

Terrapin Station

I find the argument that order is just coincident to be bizarre. — Thinker

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

Terrapin Station

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. — TheMadFool

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?

Thinker

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.

Terrapin Station

Exactly – the tidy room is not coincidence. — Thinker

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

Thinker

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.

God and the tidy room

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions