What's the alternative to designed order? Un-designed order... I did suggest that you look into complexity science, but essentially the answer is that sometimes "order" emerges from "chaos". — VagabondSpectre
Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool
Isn't that a tautology? — TheMadFool
Nature is order. — TheMadFool
We're asking why? — TheMadFool
My OP is clear on that. To repeat, a tidy room is associated with an agency. So, an ordered universe is associated with God. In a nutshell. — TheMadFool
They're messy, they're not even fixed, they're not even clear.The laws of nature? — TheMadFool
By atheist I mean someone who says god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
Why concern yourself with other fools?Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool
I'd argue that everything happens out of chance, that doesn't mean there's no cause and effect.I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. — TheMadFool
That's nothing more than your personal assumption. What if I say the Universe came into being because of events happening in a possible Multiverse or whatever? Also doesn't your god have free will? Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it?So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance. — TheMadFool
And within historical context, the atheistic position, bolstered by science, is the fresher, newer view. So the atheistic view is, in a way, pubescent. It has that same awkward certainty to it.
What comes next? What's the university phase of human thought? — Noble Dust
A clean room would seem to lack most patterns like animal tracks across the floor. Instead we have the lamp on the table, no dust to hold the patterns, and all the toys clumped where they belong, which the storm could well have done.Need to define ordered.
— noAxioms
The presence of patterns - qualitative and quantitative. — TheMadFool
Show me how the premise is false. — TheMadFool
The infinte regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for the existence of a God? — TheMadFool
This argument is actually one of the oldest ones, and still one of the best despite its repeated refutation.So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance.
— TheMadFool
That's nothing more than your personal assumption. What if I say the Universe came into being because of events happening in a possible Multiverse or whatever? Also doesn't your god have free will? Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it? — Noblosh
Yes, this is the alternative everyone talks about. I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. In short, it's nothing more than winning a lottery. However, as I logically should, I only take this as an unverified alternative to a God-creator. — TheMadFool
So, we now have two alternatives: God and Chance. You showed me that God is not necessarily the source of order and I, hopefully, did the same for Chance, or if you prefer, chaos
So, logically we should be agnostic - there's no evidence to tip the balance in favor of either option. — TheMadFool
Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool
Why do theists exist? Why do they claim the higher rational ground? Emotional bias. Same as the atheists. — Noble Dust
So you're sticking with an argument that's been refuted? — Sapientia
Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it? — Noblosh
I don't see how this is an analogy at all. — noAxioms
If the claim is simply that for any x, there must be a source for x, then nothing can be exempt from that. Anything named would be some x. — Terrapin Station
It grossly fails at its task of providing us a home since we so completely confined to this limited place which we've inevitably destroyed beyond repair. — noAxioms
See unenlightened 's reductio ad absurdum. — Sapientia
I claim to not know if god, chaos, or something else created the universe and bestowed it with order, whereas you seem to have assumed that god did it — VagabondSpectre
Does anyone know what an un-ordered universe might be like? — VagabondSpectre
However, it is more likely that ordered states have a creator than not. — TheMadFool
The odds stacked against simple chance giving birth to order are mindboggling. — TheMadFool
it could be that way back in time (if this even makes sense) that chance did create a conscious being. — TheMadFool
All I want to demonstrate is the logical error an atheist commits by refuting the argument from design. — TheMadFool
What would we be using for data to estimate likelihood? — Terrapin Station
If chance can create order, that would undermine the whole argument you're making — Terrapin Station
I deny (1) — Srap Tasmaner
So, if you want to play with chance, the probability of the speed of light being exactly c is 1/infinity which is, well, zero — TheMadFool
A rationally defective refutation. — TheMadFool
To make this simple for you I only ask why the same logic works in one instance and fails in the other. — TheMadFool
All you've done is accuse me of asking loaded questions. — TheMadFool
If there's any reductio ad absurdum in this thread it's mine. I have clearly demonstrated the contradiction inherent in the atheist's position - the same reasoning is ok in one instance and not ok in another. — TheMadFool
In my humble opinion, both atheism and theism suffer from a certainty that is nonexistent in their arguments. All that there is is a possibility which can neither be confirmed nor denied. Do you agree? — TheMadFool
What would possibly be evidence that the speed of light could have been some other value? — Terrapin Station
How so? — Sapientia
No, no. All I want to demonstrate is the logical error an atheist commits by refuting the argument from design. Speaking for my self, I'm not completely satisfied with the design argument. It still seems incomplete. — TheMadFool
Refuting an argument isn't the same as proving the negative (which requires an entirely separate argument). — VagabondSpectre
Most of the rest of us atheists are agnostic soft-atheists who do not accept the positive claims and arguments for and against god's existence. Of course this means we do not actively possess any belief in god, and so pragmatically we wind up behaving as if there is no god (generally) but the distinction is wide-spread and very important. — VagabondSpectre
Yes, that's true. So, how do you explain atheism? Are they wrong in denying the existence of God? With respect to the design argument, are their refutations and counterarguments equally, if not more, ridiculous? — TheMadFool
Agnosticism is the most rational position to assume given the lack of evidence. I wonder why it should result in an atheistic lifestyle? Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Perhaps we're getting misled by what '''God'' means here. My god is only a creator - nothing more. — TheMadFool
Not quite, but not too far off.Rather he thinks randomness arises from unknown order. — TheMadFool
That means that you think it arose from chance (that's the only alternative. If you have another alternative I'd be interested to hear). — TheMadFool
So, if chance is your preferred alternative, you'll have to accept that the constants in this universe could've assumed any value. I'm just following your reasoning to its logical end. — TheMadFool
A normal distribution is just a discovery that when studying large samples, values under study tend to be arranged (ordered) in a particular pattern. It however doesn't claim the origin of such order is chaos. If andrewk explains he'll disappoint you because he believes random (the normal distribution) is NOT chaos. Rather he thinks randomness arises from unknown order. — TheMadFool
No, it doesn't imply that false dichotomy, — Terrapin Station
Is it possibly true that there was a conscious agent who created the universe? Sure, I guess. — Srap Tasmaner
Is it rational or reasonable to hold that belief? No
This is the part that seems to bother you. You want everyone to say, "We just don't know," and everyone ends up on an equal footing. That equal footing represents to me an abhorrent laziness — Srap Tasmaner
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.