Normal people, including people who make the above counter-argument, actually think the exact opposite. We can run an experiment with two rooms A and B. A is in disarray with things in no particular order and B is neat and objects have been arranged in a discernable pattern. If someone, anyone, were to be taken into the two rooms and asked which room probably had an occupant then the answer would invariably be room B. I don't think anyone will/can disagree with this deduction.

If so, how do we make an exception for the universe? Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool

There is a difference between a human tendency towards certain interpretations and such interpretations actually being warranted by the evidence / supported by arguments.

Examples include the fundamental attribution error (attributing behavior to character flaws when it might as well be based on circumstance), or the way humans tend to judge the probability of an event based on how easy it is to recall instances of said event. These are false assumptions, but "normal" humans will nevertheless gravitate towards them.

It's the same with the designer. Humans are toolmakers, so they see purposes and tools everywhere. Humans also have a tendency to anthropomorphise - attributing human like intentionality to everything from pets to natural disasters. That doesn't mean these tendencies actually represent reality.

Design in nature

a blueprint — TheMadFool

Nature seems to act without a blueprint. But then it has the luxury of an extravagance which human designers do not.

There is a difference between a human tendency towards certain interpretations and such interpretations actually being warranted by the evidence / supported by arguments. — Echarmion

Are you saying this particular inference - design ergo designer - is an erroneous tendency and unwarranted?

Why?

Name one instance of design without a designer. You can't say it's the universe because that would be circular.

Nature seems to act without a blueprint. But then it has the luxury of an extravagance which human designers do not. — Wayfarer

I humbly disagree. There is order in the universe. From whence this order? Surely an intelligent being of some sort.

The way that we reach an abductive conclusion of there being a watchmaker from a watch is simply via knowledge that watches are artifacts that are intentionally made by people. We know (there are) watchmakers, we can observe them work, etc. If we didn't have such knowledge, the notion of a watchmaker wouldn't be justified.

As it is, we often make unjustified apophenic assumptions about things we experience. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia if you're unfamiliar with that.)

The way that we reach an abductive conclusion of there being a watchmaker from a watch is simply via knowledge that watches are artifacts that are intentionally made by people. We know (there are) watchmakers, we can observe them work, etc. If we didn't have such knowledge, the notion of a watchmaker wouldn't be justified. — Terrapin Station

That's actually a straight inductive conclusion. We see that watches are made by watch-makers, and conclude that all watches are made by watch-makers. So when we find something which looks like a watch, and acts like a watch, and we say that it is a watch, then we apply the inductive conclusion as a deductive premise, to make the further conclusion that the watch we have found was made by a watch-maker.

Yes. Good point. Knowledge of watches is required to infer a watchmaker but the point is the universe does resemble a watch - an even bigger more complex watch. If I see a water clock and then a digital watch what should I infer but progressive intelligence?

You can characterize it as abductive, too.

Yes. Good point. Knowledge of watches is required to infer a watchmaker but the point is the universe does resemble a watch — TheMadFool

You'd need knowledge that universes are the sorts of things that are usually made by universe-makers.

You'd need knowledge that universes are the sorts of things that are usually made by universe-makers — Terrapin Station

That's an ideal scenario we're asking for. However, I think the critical deciding factor is the resemblance between a watch and the universe - a certain set of principles which determines how each works. In that there's no doubt and so the inference to a designer isn't mistaken.

You'd need knowledge that universes are the sorts of things that are usually made by universe-makers. — Terrapin Station

Who else would make a universe?

Are you saying this particular inference - design ergo designer - is an erroneous tendency and unwarranted? — TheMadFool

I am saying the inference isn't justified. Upon reflection, there is no actual evidence that the universe is designed.

Name one instance of design without a designer. You can't say it's the universe because that would be circular. — TheMadFool

That is circular. Calling it a design presupposes a designer. The question is: is the universe a design?

That's an ideal scenario we're asking for. However, I think the critical deciding factor is the resemblance between a watch and the universe - a certain set of principles which determines how each works. In that there's no doubt and so the inference to a designer isn't mistaken. — TheMadFool

Would it be possible to discover anything at all that does not work "according to a certain set of principles"?

No one makes a universe. It's a natural occurrence.

That's an ideal scenario we're asking for. However, I think the critical deciding factor is the resemblance between a watch and the universe - a certain set of principles which determines how each works. In that there's no doubt and so the inference to a designer isn't mistaken. — TheMadFool

Again, it would be an example of apophenia.

No one makes a universe. It's a natural occurrence. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, just like a watch is a natural occurrence. You know, the principles employed by modern scientists tend to break down the division between artificial and natural. Human beings are considered to be a "natural occurrence", so all things which human beings create are also natural occurrences. So it's really meaningless to say that the universe is "a natural occurrence", because this doesn't distinguish it from anything else; all things are natural occurrences, even watches.

Yeah, just like a watch is a natural occurrence. You know, the principles employed by modern scientists tend to break down the division between artificial and natural. Human beings are considered to be a "natural occurrence", so all things which human beings create are also natural occurrences. So it's really meaningless to say that the universe is "a natural occurrence", because this doesn't distinguish it from anything else; all things are natural occurrences, even watches. — Metaphysician Undercover

That, however, renders any talk of a designer moot as well. Design is eliminated as a category, there are only physical laws.

Yeah, just like a watch is a natural occurrence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I'm using the sense of "natural" where it's distinct from "made by a person." So watches are artifacts, not natural occurrences in that sense. It's the natural/artificial distinction.

Normal people, including people who make the above counter-argument, actually think the exact opposite. We can run an experiment with two rooms A and B. A is in disarray with things in no particular order and B is neat and objects have been arranged in a discernable pattern. If someone, anyone, were to be taken into the two rooms and asked which room probably had an occupant then the answer would invariably be room B. I don't think anyone will/can disagree with this deduction. — TheMadFool

Being a parent and a one-time pet owner, I’d have picked room A because things being in disarray is a sure sign of occupancy, I’d probably say, ‘Round up the kids and can someone put the hamster back in the cage!’

To some there is design in the disorderly and no design in the orderly. What is orderly or disorderly isn’t sufficient for design nor is it enough to just say watches are made by watchmakers. I want to know the materials and processes used for the design of a watch, and why these particular materials and processes as opposed to other materials and processes. ID advocates are usually silent on these matters.

If so, how do we make an exception for the universe? Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool

You are asking about the regress of how 'God' was ordered, and so on.

I humbly disagree. There is order in the universe. From whence this order? Surely an intelligent being of some sort. — TheMadFool

Are "order" and "design" equivalent terms? Can you have order without design?

Being a parent and a one-time pet owner, I’d have picked room A because things being in disarray is a sure sign of occupancy, I’d probably say, ‘Round up the kids and can someone put the hamster back in the cage!’ — Happenstance

What does what you say make you but a designer?

What is orderly or disorderly isn’t sufficient for design nor is it enough to just say watches are made by watchmakers — Happenstance

You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample?

You are asking about the regress of how 'God' was ordered, and so — PoeticUniverse

That's another side to the argument which I want to avoid at the moment. Thanks though.

Thinking of a 'designer' as best explanation is just availability heuristic. Irregardless of whether all designs at present have designers, there could be an alternative explanation that is unintuitive, but true.

At this point, there are good reasons to not think there's a designer because it's now established the universe operates by rules that result in ordering. Those rules are intrinsic to the structure of the universe and not external to it; i.e. it's not a stagnant, lifeless clay that gets molded by some external hands or force; it is self molding.

Even supposing any sort of designer seems so anthropocentric. Maybe the universe is intrinsically self-creative; maybe there is something or process that 'creates' that is entirely unlike any thing we could imagine and would better be understood as just being a fundamental component of reality itself. It'd be hard to imagine a 'creating' force that isn't itself inextricably linked with what it creates because in order to create it must interact with its creation which implies it shares properties with the creation; those properties being what mediate the interaction. If it shares properties with that creation then its substance is the same as that creation. This is the same reason why strict mind-body dualism doesn't work; how would a soul/body interact if there's no intermediative? My point is, even if there's a creative engine, its likely some other fundamental element of one singular reality - be it a multiverse or whatever else`.

You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample? — TheMadFool

Snowflakes, for example, are fromed from chaotic water molecules.

There is also a good post about order from chaos here: https://www.quora.com/In-the-natural-world-can-order-arise-from-chaos-Are-there-examples-of-this

If so, how do we make an exception for the universe? Why does a perfectly normal person infer a designer/occupant from a well-ordered room/space and then contradict him/herself by rejecting a designer for the universe which too is well-ordered? — TheMadFool

There is apparent order and apparent chaos in the universe. A designer may or may not be the source. The same with the rooms, on two levels. Both rooms may be inhabited and designed, one by a person who enjoys order the other by a person who enjoys chaos. Both may be uninhabited, since chaos is peppered with little pockets of order (e.g., the solar system).

Second:

Your argument centers on a troublesome analogy: between human beings and "designers." Universes are not a thing, like a room, that a human being creates. Your leap from "human being" (a human being ordered this room) to the abstraction "designer" (a designer designed this ordered room) is unwarranted. The category "designer" contains too many unknowns to be a meaninful tool in philosophical exchange. It was a human being that ordered the room. Your analogy and argument are about humans and should read:

1. Order (e.g., an orderly room) is something a human being creates.
2. The universe is orderly.
3. A human being created the universe.

Both premises are questionable.

(The "rooms" and "universes" analogy seems to have a problem too. One is a thing and one is all things: A category issue?)

It's the natural/artificial distinction — Terrapin Station

As I said, there is no scientific validity to such a distinction. Human beings are natural and so are the things created by human beings. The "artificial" is just a specific type of natural thing.

As I said, there is no scientific validity to such a distinction. Human beings are natural and so are the things created by human beings. The "artificial" is just a specific type of natural thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

We can make a distinction between things that people make and things that aren't made by people.

What does what you say make you but a designer? — TheMadFool

Yeah I suppose you could say that the kids and the hamster designed room A but the missus and I would like room B please. Should we add the clause that this intelligent designer must be an adult? But joking aside, my point is that it could be the case that either room A or room B were designed and so it’s not enough that order/disorder (one over the other) implies design. There needs to be knowledge of design also.

You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample? — TheMadFool

I don’t understand what you mean by counterexample given that I think disorder either is not enough to imply design. If you mean an example of order not implying design then I know of a factual story:

One day a Christian missionary in an Amazon Jungle observed a few tribe members digging a trench with their hands so he gave them a couple of spades. The tribal folk didn’t know what to make of the spades so the missionary showed them how to use such tools.
 
Once they had been shown the function of a spade, the tribe members used them like they’d had spades all their lives. However when it came to the end of the digging, they threw the spades into a river much to the exasperation of the missionary. The reason they did this was because they didn’t realise that the spades had been designed artificially and thought they were just sticks with metal at the end that white folk had pulled up from the ground and so plenty more where they come from. And It’s not as if they had no idea of things being designed given their own huts, hunting weapons and tools.

So the orderly shape of a spade, or its primary function of being a digging tool, didn't imply to this tribe that they had been designed because the tribe lacked the knowledge of spades being manufactured.

Maybe the universe is intrinsically self-creative; maybe there is something or process that 'creates' that is entirely unlike any thing we could imagine and would better be understood as just being a fundamental component of reality itself. — aporiap

Thinking of a 'designer' as best explanation is just availability heuristic. — aporiap

Thanks. It's the wide-scale application of this heuristic (order/design ergo designer) in our everyday lives and then making a singular exception of rejecting it when it comes to the universe that I'm asking an explanation for.

I understand that exceptions are the rule, so to speak, but there must be a good reason which I presume is an instance of order/design without a designer. Can you give me an example of that?

Snowflakes, for example, are fromed from chaotic water molecules. — Echarmion

This isn't a good example because the water molecules are chaotic to observers without complete information. To those who possess the right information the molecules will be behaving in accordance with the laws of physics.

Your argument centers on a troublesome analogy: — ZzzoneiroCosm

The analogy depends only on the presence/absence of order and this is demonstrated quite well in my argument.

If you mean an example of order not implying design then I know of a factual story: — Happenstance

Sorry but, not to be disparaging, a certain level of education is a prerequisite for seeing the connection which is absent in your story. An interesting story. Thanks.


To All:

The argument from design:

1. There is design/order in the universe
2. If there is design/order in the universe then there exists a designer/God
Ergo
3. There exists a designer/God

One can't reject 1 because order in the universe is obvious.

Therefore we can question only premise 2. To falsify this premise we need to find an instance, a counterexample, of order without design.

What is it that has order without design?

I just thought of something and would like your opinion on it.

Consider the universe as the universal set U. Now the design argument works by picking a subset D consisting of human-designed objects and then generalizes it to the set U.

Now, someone may reject the design argument by referring to another subset of U, call it R, which consists of objects that have order e.g. a flower but obviously isn't human-designed.

As you can see both arguments are on an equal footing, referencing a subset of U and then generalizing to U itself.

There is a particular fallacy that appears relevant viz. the fallacy of composition - attributing to the whole, properties of its parts. This fallacy, if committed, negates both for and against design arguments.

However, we may view this in terms of which analogical argument is the more powerful or are they both equal?

Personally speaking I find the design argument more powerful because the order/design ( the primary relevant feature in the analogy) is multiplied many times from, say, a man-made watch to the universe. In other words there is an even greater order in the universe than in a watch.

The same can't be said of the analogy against the design argument simply because the absence of a designer, as the relevant feature in the analogy, isn't increased from my example, a flower, to the universe.

What can be said in a book, can also be said in a sentence.