If not, then who created him — Mongrel
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
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
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
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. — 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. — Thinker
Non sequitur: Affirming the consequent.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
Like any other sophism.I find this analogy to be very cogent and persuasive — Thinker
It's a fallacy, it's not even worthy of consideration.I have not heard any clear refutation yet — 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. — Thinker
If we're using this definition, humans and some other organisms would fall into the category of "God".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
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
What the OP first said is — Thinker
Which doesn't follow, it's just a non sequitur which affirms the consequent, a formal fallacy.the all so evident order in our universe implies the existence of a conscious angency — TheMadFool
And it fallaciously concludes there's someone who made it so.What the analogy asks is why the room is tidy? — Thinker
It's evidence, but not proof, like you want to make it.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
Order isn't sufficient evidence that someone was responsible for the room. it's bizarre that you'd think it is. — Terrapin Station
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. — Thinker
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
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. — Thinker
If no one is saying that anything is a coincidence, why did you use that word? — Terrapin Station
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.