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

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. Why? Where's the evidence?

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.

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground?

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.

But, per theists, also historical etymology of belief.

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?

Isn't that a tautology? — TheMadFool

No.

Nature is order. — TheMadFool

No it isn't. Nature is nature and order is order. If nature is order then water is justice, Mars is Venus, and a bicycle is a fish.

We're asking why? — TheMadFool

No, not we, you, and that's yet another loaded question. I don't assume that there's a "why" to look for. It's your job to first argue that there is.

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

So you're sticking with an argument that's been refuted? (Yes, that's a loaded question).

See unenlightened 's reductio ad absurdum.

The laws of nature? — TheMadFool

They're messy, they're not even fixed, they're not even clear.

By atheist I mean someone who says god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool

Why concern yourself with other fools?

I think I won't be too off the mark if I say that you think the universe arose out of chance. — TheMadFool

I'd argue that everything happens out of chance, that doesn't mean there's no cause and effect.

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?

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

The uncertainty principle never leaves us – no matter what you think or believe. Why are we here? Are we here to convince others of our righteousness? I think we are here to convince ourselves. To find out what we can think. Uncertainty is our motivator – it drives us to purpose. I like it – an old friend.

Need to define ordered.
— noAxioms

The presence of patterns - qualitative and quantitative. — TheMadFool

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.

Yes, a room (clean or not) speaks agency to me, but not the patterns or the quantity of them. It is mostly due to me being human and a room being a human artifact. Of course I recognize the work of my own kind. I don't see how this is an analogy at all.

Show me how the premise is false. — TheMadFool

Sure, there is a common pattern of planets orbiting stars, whether single or double, etc., for example. There's no evidence at all for an "orderer" for that.

The infinte regress. Can you tell me exactly why this is a problem for the existence of a God? — TheMadFool

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.

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

This argument is actually one of the oldest ones, and still one of the best despite its repeated refutation.

It started with what we observed around us: Why is the Earth so beautiful and obviously designed for us? There was God and chance and since the chance was absurdly low, God was the only alternative. Then somebody realized those light dots were other suns and came up with the possible multiplanet theory, and the low odds of this planet's perfection suddenly gets multiplied by the number of planets. The flaw in that theory is that it presumes we're here because this is a nice place, and not that this place is nice because here is where we are. That flaw violated the bias that we are a purposeful creation. The argument was accepted only when another low probability dice roll was detected and it again could be assumed that there was only one roll. The bias was successfully reestablished.

Anyway, the 'order' of the universe is not that low-probability thing. That there is a finite number of kinds of things, yet a lot of each, speaks of no agency at all. A car has lots of parts, mostly different, but a few standard small things like stitching and screws perhaps. The universe does not exhibit that sort of purposeful order at all. 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.

which we've inevitably destroyed beyond repair — noAxioms

Huh?

Do you perceive order here?

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

I don't know how the universe arose, but that's a slightly different question. You asked why is there order, not why is there existence. So my point about chance is to explain where the apparent order might have came from, not to describe why things exist...

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

I am agnostic. I'm an agnostic soft-atheist. Atheists lack belief in god and since there's no evidence to suggest that a god is more likely than no god, I consequently lack belief in god.

I also don't posses the belief that no god(s) exist because I'm lacking evidence.

Then why do atheists exist? Why do the claim the higher rational ground? — TheMadFool

Well, we don't. But we do claim to not occupy lower rational ground (we abstain).

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.

Does anyone know what an un-ordered universe might be like?

Why do theists exist? Why do they claim the higher rational ground? Emotional bias. Same as the atheists. — Noble Dust

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?

So you're sticking with an argument that's been refuted? — Sapientia

A rationally defective refutation. To make this simple for you I only ask why the same logic works in one instance and fails in the other. All you've done is accuse me of asking loaded questions.

Can't your god do creation by chance? Why couldn't it? — Noblosh

A good point. The chance origin of the universe doesn't preclude the existence of God.

I don't see how this is an analogy at all. — noAxioms

This analogy is not mine. I think philosophers should be familiar with it - the argument from design. You've referred to it in your reply to Noblosh.

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

I'm not saying this God that I defined is an exemption. It could very well have a creator itself. However, it is more likely that ordered states have a creator than not. So, it could be that way back in time (if this even makes sense) that chance did create a conscious being. However, this first consciousness creates a universe of its own and someone in that universe does the same and so on...

I know this may sound bizarre but give it a thought. The odds stacked against simple chance giving birth to order are mindboggling. However, given a concsious agent, order is almost certain. Given these odds what do you think is true?

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

Looks like you're the one who's biased. I'm not claiming any life-favoring design. All that is apparent to me, if science is true (who's going to argue against science?), is the mathematical relationships that exist in this universe. This is order and whether it is/isn't designed for life is another topic.

See unenlightened 's reductio ad absurdum. — Sapientia

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.

Do you perceive chaos in G = (m1*m2)/r^2? Or in E = mc^2?

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

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.

Does anyone know what an un-ordered universe might be like? — VagabondSpectre

I don't know. Perhaps even our imagination will fail to answer this question.

However, it is more likely that ordered states have a creator than not. — TheMadFool

What would we be using for data to estimate likelihood?

The odds stacked against simple chance giving birth to order are mindboggling. — TheMadFool

In my view, what's mind-boggling is that anyone seriously believes that there's any way whatsoever to estimate the odds for this.

it could be that way back in time (if this even makes sense) that chance did create a conscious being. — TheMadFool

If chance can create order, that would undermine the whole argument you're making.

All I want to demonstrate is the logical error an atheist commits by refuting the argument from design. — TheMadFool

Given this argument:

(1) If there is order, there is an orderer.
(2) There is order.
∴ (3) There is an orderer.

If I deny (1) or (2) and conclude that there is no orderer, I have committed a fallacy, sure. I deny (1) and conclude that I have still been given no grounds for accepting (3). If it comes to that, there are loads of propositions, actual and possible, that I have never been given grounds for accepting. For some of those, it is clear what I could count as grounds for accepting them; for some it isn't.

What would we be using for data to estimate likelihood? — Terrapin Station

To give a simple example take the speed of light (a constant) which is approximately 186,000 miles per second (also called c). This is one value from a possible range from 0 to infinity. 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. The same logic applies to othe mathematical constants in the universe that make life possible.

If chance can create order, that would undermine the whole argument you're making — Terrapin Station

As I said before, I don't (can't) rule out chance as an alternative possibility. However, as I demonstrated above (with my limited math abilities), the probability of it being chance is close to impossible.

I deny (1) — Srap Tasmaner

My argument's proposition
1) If there's order, then there's an orderer

is based on what you, I, everybody do(es) as of routine. There's nothing rationally defective about it. Why? Because in our experience order is strongly associated with agency of some kind.

If you deny (1) then you'll have to give me an instance of order arising from something other than conscious agency. Can you do that?

Normal distributions. Watch the video.

There's lots more to talk about after you accept that as an example. (At which point I'll beg @andrewk to explain some stuff for me, because he knows a helluva lot more about this stuff than I do.)

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

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the speed of light could have been anything other than what it is. What would possibly be evidence that the speed of light could have been some other value?

We only have one instantiation to go by for data. You can't assume that it could have been some other value just because you can imagine it.

A rationally defective refutation. — TheMadFool

How so?

To make this simple for you I only ask why the same logic works in one instance and fails in the other. — TheMadFool

This has been answered already. How many times do you plan on reverting to the same tired questions? Is this an argument from repetition? Your claim of a double standard relies upon a false analogy.

All you've done is accuse me of asking loaded questions. — TheMadFool

No, this discussion attests to the fact that I've done more than that. But loaded questions, and other fallacies, should be called out, don't you agree? Or, ironically, are you applying a double standard, like the one that you imagine and hastily accuse of others?

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

It relies upon a false analogy, and you're changing the subject again, I see. I can understand if you don't want to address unenlightened's reductio ad absurdum, because it is an effective demonstration of a big flaw in a premise of your argument.

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

I think it's possible to feel certainty without it being unhealthy or a negative thing in relations with people, but I think most of the time, certainty is a problem. So I sort of agree.

Thanks for posting the video. It's very interesting. However, it doesn't say much. 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.

What would possibly be evidence that the speed of light could have been some other value? — Terrapin Station

You said order doesn't necessarily arise from conscious agency. 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). 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.

How so? — Sapientia

Because the same logic is good in one case and not in the other. Simply answer me one question: Why is God special that a valid chain of reasoning is unacceptable?

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).

If you say you can run faster than 100 miles per hour and you show me a still iage of you running as proof, I can discount your argument as 1) not having a conclusion that is made necessary by your evidence/premises, and 2) discount your evidence/premises as giving little or no indication whatsoever of your stated conclusion.

Maybe you can run faster than 100 miles per hour, but the still photo argument for it can be refuted.

Only about 5% of atheists (yes i've polled several times) will actually take up the position that "no design occurred". Sometimes we call them "hard-atheists" or "positive-atheists" or "strong-atheists".

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.

People not understanding the difference between rejecting a positive claim and asserting one of their own (the non-existence of god) are different is the main reason why the label "atheism" gets such a bad rap.

Refuting an argument isn't the same as proving the negative (which requires an entirely separate argument). — 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?

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

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.

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

Only 5% of atheists believe no god(s) exist. I'm not one of them, so I agree with you that they're silly.

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

Strictly speaking, "agnosticism" is an epistemological belief about the knowability of god. It's different than actually taking a position for or against (although most agnosts don't because that would seem silly, yet many do (i.e: blind faith)).

I know what you mean by it though, you mean "someone who does not believe god exists, but also does not believe god does not exist"; it's someone who doesn't take a position either way...

Well, that's 95% of atheism. See: soft atheism. That's me: the agnostic soft-atheist (cuddly even!).

I know why you use the labels "atheist" and "agnostic" differently, and why you might choose not to adopt it (and I wouldn't blame you), but like it or not you're one of us.... One of us.... ONE OF US!

Rather he thinks randomness arises from unknown order. — TheMadFool

Not quite, but not too far off.

Each acquires a meaning relative to our scientific theories.

A phenomenon is chaotic under theory T if we could predict the phenomenon using T if we had enough precise information, but information at that level of precision is not available in practice and there is enormous sensitivity to the initial conditions, so any predictions we make are likely to be wildly inaccurate.

A phenomenon is random under theory T if there is no imaginable set of information, excluding information about future events, that would enable us to use theory T to predict the phenomenon.

Chaos is about a practical limit on prediction and randomness is about a theoretical limit, but both are relative to the theory T. A phenomenon that is random under theory T may be non-random under more sophisticated theory T2.

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

No, it doesn't imply that false dichotomy, and I posted as much literally about ten times or so in this thread (although to that "Thinker" dude rather than to you, but he never did get it, either).

How can you have a discussion about science versus religion and have zero idea that science doesn't posit that the universe works via chance? (How, for that matter, can you have even the slightest bit of science education (where you would have received a passing grade) and believe that science posits that the universe works via chance? The idea of that boggles the mind.) Science posits that the world works via natural law. That's not a claim that natural law has anything to do with consciousness, intelligence, etc.

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

Logically that is also false, by the way. You could believe that chance is a factor in things like constants (such as the speed of light), but you could believe that chance is a factor via one of two possibilities obtaining. Or one of three possibilities, etc. That you'd believe that chance is a factor in no way implies that you'd have to believe that any arbitrary number could be the case for any arbitrary constant.

And, regardless of all of this--regardless of what one would believe, we still only have one data set for estimating probabilities. The data set where the speed of light is approximately 3,00x10^8 m/s. So there's no way of saying what the probability of it being any other value is.

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

Sure, I can see that, and what @andrewk says above is helpful.

Only now we've traded talk of an ordering agency of some kind for talk of order (known or unknown) leading to more order. If every example of something apparently disordered is going to be explained away as either revealing an order we did not previously perceive or indicating the presence of an order we cannot perceive, then I'm left wondering what it was conscious agency was supposed to explain. Were they creating order? Of course not, there was already loads of order. The conscious agent was order. If you reinterpret everything this way, your analogy evaporates, no?

Is it possibly true that there was a conscious agent who created the universe? Sure, I guess.

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.

No, it doesn't imply that false dichotomy, — Terrapin Station

I presented two options:

1. God as the orderer of the universe
2. Chance as the order of the universe

You say this is a false dilemma. So what's your third option here? I don't see any in your post.

Is it possibly true that there was a conscious agent who created the universe? Sure, I guess. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know how the above squares with the below.

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

Laziness? But to do anything otherwise would be jumping to conclusions.