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
a blueprint — TheMadFool
There is a difference between a human tendency towards certain interpretations and such interpretations actually being warranted by the evidence / supported by arguments. — Echarmion
Nature seems to act without a blueprint. But then it has the luxury of an extravagance which human designers do not. — Wayfarer
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
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 — Terrapin Station
You'd need knowledge that universes are the sorts of things that are usually made by universe-makers. — Terrapin Station
Are you saying this particular inference - design ergo designer - is an erroneous tendency and unwarranted? — TheMadFool
Name one instance of design without a designer. You can't say it's the universe because that would be circular. — TheMadFool
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
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
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, just like a watch is a natural occurrence. — Metaphysician Undercover
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!’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
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
Are "order" and "design" equivalent terms? Can you have order without design?I humbly disagree. There is order in the universe. From whence this order? Surely an intelligent being of some sort. — 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!’ — Happenstance
What is orderly or disorderly isn’t sufficient for design nor is it enough to just say watches are made by watchmakers — Happenstance
You are asking about the regress of how 'God' was ordered, and so — PoeticUniverse
You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample? — TheMadFool
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
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.What does what you say make you but a designer? — 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:You have a point but if order is insufficient to prove a designer can you give me a counterexample? — TheMadFool
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
Snowflakes, for example, are fromed from chaotic water molecules. — Echarmion
Your argument centers on a troublesome analogy: — ZzzoneiroCosm
If you mean an example of order not implying design then I know of a factual story: — Happenstance
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.