Thanks for the clarification.

But to do anything otherwise would be jumping to conclusions. — TheMadFool

Is the evidence for the existence of a conscious agent that created the universe anything like the evidence on which we base other beliefs?

you're one of us.... One of us.... ONE OF US! — VagabondSpectre

:)

Is the evidence for the existence of a conscious agent that created the universe anything like the evidence on which we base other beliefs? — Srap Tasmaner

We have to focus on the essential determinant here. In my view the strongest evidence for a conscious agent is order. So, keeping that in mind, the evidence is at par with other beliefs.

Let's say, because we're doing philosophy, that I believe you are responsible for tidying up the living room because I see you doing it. That would be empirical evidence.

Let's say I didn't see you do it, but I knew you were home and I have known you to do it before. That's more complicated but clearly a reasonable if defeasible inference. Note that there is empirical evidence here too; it's what I am inferring from.

Let's say I'm in an office I've never been to and it's tidy. I have empirical knowledge of how offices are run, and I infer the custodial staff does a good job and the other people who work here are not slobs. Again, reasonable and defeasible. I could fill in lots of details about how I acquired my knowledge of offices and the people who work in them.

Are you saying that you are watching God create order right now? No.

Are you saying that you've seen God create order in the universe before? No.

Are you saying that the order in other universes you know of was created by God, and you can fill in details (which will look like the first two options) of how you came to know this? No.

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

Natural law.

Natural law. — Terrapin Station

But where there's law, there must be a law-giver.

But where there's law, there must be a law-giver. — Srap Tasmaner

Per what?

Per Nature.
We are also Nature, and what we think, maybe is Nature thinking about itself, trying to come up with another new thing. Creating something for itself, maybe.

Where in nature do you find that "if there's law, there must be a lawgiver"?

Because the same logic is good in one case and not in the other. — TheMadFool

No, that doesn't explain it, because the cases aren't analogous in relevant ways which I suspect you're purposefully sidelining. It's only a double standard if the cases are sufficiently alike. They're not. So it's not a double standard. Try again?

In our human nature, for instance.

In our human nature, for instance. — oranssi

How would you find that "in our human nature"? Are you just saying that it's something that people uncritically assume?

Btw, you forgot to tell me what conscious agency was responsible for the behavior of the bean machine.

I find it by studying sciences like Sociology and Politology.
No. I would say that some people uncritically assume this, others don't assume this and are critical. And there even might be another group that I'm not aware of...

Here are some other questions you might consider:

(1) What is a law of nature?
(2) Why are the laws of nature the way they are, and not some other way?
(3) Have the laws of nature always been the same?
(4) Why are there laws of nature at all?

I think those are all pretty good questions. I can't answer any of them.

I find it by studying sciences like Sociology and Politology. — oranssi

Well, obviously human laws are created by us. But that's different than natural laws (assuming there are such things).

(5) Why are there three physical dimensions rather then some other number?
(6) Why is there an arrow of time?

Well, I think I'm repeating myself, the evidence for conscious agency is order. Among the many things that count as evidence in a tidy room that which we (generally speaking) focus on is the organization/order. Order is the giveaway, so to speak, of the presence of a systematic entity.

Likewise for the universe - the laws of nature, in other words order, is the evidence for an organizing agent.

Natural law — Terrapin Station

But that is the order I was referring to from the get go. There's no false dichotomy as you allege.

Perhaps you see a difference between order and natural law. Care to explain?

Try again? — Sapientia

Since you say the two can't be compared I think I should ask you why? You haven't made that clear as yet.

Btw, you forgot to tell me what conscious agency was responsible for the behavior of the bean machine — Srap Tasmaner

The bean machine works as any machine does - the laws of physics describes its behavior. If this wasn't so then we wouldn't have a machine in the first place.

(1) What is a law of nature?
(2) Why are the laws of nature the way they are, and not some other way?
(3) Have the laws of nature always been the same?
(4) Why are there laws of nature at all? — Srap Tasmaner

I'll give it my best shot:

(1) a law of nature is a rule which governs physical interaction whatever they maybe

(2) Only God knows (if he exists)

(3) Only god knows

(4) Only God knows

I would just add, that to have order, one has to recognize the patterns.

For instance someone trained to observe a certain pattern in a painting, will recognize order and it will make sense for the observer. If the observer can't recognize the pattern, the observer wont recognize order.

It is not only one-way (God, the Mystery, Universe) it is more like a two-way channel where the observer has a decisive part in order (just like being God, the Mystery, Universe).

Since you say the two can't be compared I think I should ask you why? You haven't made that clear as yet. — TheMadFool

and see Hume's criticism of the design argument, which I've referenced once or twice already.

The problem with the comparison and what you conclude from it is that it involves a wilful ignorance or setting aside of important background information which would ruin the pretty picture you're trying to paint. This is known as cherry picking, and it's a fallacy.

If the universe is ordered then even a pile of rocks is ordered, and so it is reasonable to infer that someone placed those rocks where they are. But does that seem right? I don't think so. We don't look to some ancient civilisation to explain the topography of the Grand Canyon.

Seems strange to look to humans to explain more complex things like a tidy room ('cause I doubt you'd jump to divine intervention) but then look to God to explain less complex things like a barren landscape.

Well, Hume's refutation is aimed at the God of scriptures. My God is nothing more than a creator of order (laws of Nature). So, his criticism doesn't apply to my conception of God. I did say in my OP that defined as such, my God is less appealing because He doesn't have to be omnibenevolent or omni-whatever. All that matters is the order that is clear to see even to the blind. If you do find a particular Humean refutation that's appropriate please do post it. I'll reply.

If the universe is ordered then even a pile of rocks is ordered, and so it is reasonable to infer that someone placed those rocks where they are. But does that seem right — Michael

The problem here is we can't untangle ourselves from the situation. We have to do the thinking from inside the box, so to speak. Anyway, we can bypass this difficulty using our imagination. We can imagine a world that is chaos, without even a hint of order. Now compare that world to our world, the one in which we're having this conversation. Is the picture now clearer?

The problem here is we can't untangle ourselves from the situation. We have to do the thinking from inside the box, so to speak. Anyway, we can bypass this difficulty using our imagination. We can imagine a world that is chaos, without even a hint of order. Now compare that world to our world, the one in which we're having this conversation. Is the picture now clearer? — TheMadFool

No. My point still stands. If there's not enough order in a pile of rocks to infer the existence of some human who placed them where they are then there isn't enough order to infer the existence of some divine creator.

Well, Hume's refutation is aimed at the God of scriptures. My God is nothing more than a creator of order (laws of Nature). So, his criticism doesn't apply to my conception of God. I did say in my OP that defined as such, my God is less appealing because He doesn't have to be omnibenevolent or omni-whatever. All that matters is the order that is clear to see even to the blind. If you do find a particular Humean refutation that's appropriate please do post it. I'll reply. — TheMadFool

If I recall correctly, he made criticisms along the same lines as those posts I linked to. Either in the Enquiry or in the Dialogues. I'm thinking it's the former, but I could be wrong. It's been a while. I will look it up later, but right now I have to get ready for work.

The false dichotomy was your "where order comes from" comment. You said it either comes from consciousness or chance. A third option, that's not consciousness or chance, is natural law.

The false dichotomy was your "where order comes from" comment. You said it either comes from consciousness or chance. A third option, that's not consciousness or chance, is natural law. — Terrapin Station

I think you're mistaken. I'm glad we agree that there's such a thing as Natural Law. This is our starting point. Where does Natural Law come from? Is it a God or Chance?

No. My point still stands. If there's not enough order in a pile of rocks to infer the existence of some human who placed them where they are then there isn't enough order to infer the existence of some divine creator. — Michael

You're mistaken, sorry. The point is order is naturally associated with a conscious agency. This isn't a fallacy in everyday experience - we do it everytime we see organization/order - whether it's a stack of books or a library. However, the same chain of reasoning is rejected when it comes to the universe. Do you deny that the universe is ordered? Of course you can't. Then, we should, rationally (as in the above situation), infer an orderer.

Another way to look at it, paying more attention to your concern:

To answer your question I have to make a subtle distinction. There are two types of order viz. human-created and God-created. Of course the former is subsumed by the latter.

When I compare a tidy room with a dirty room, I'm concerned about human-created order. When I talk of the laws of nature I'm referring to the laws of nature. Both are contrasted with chaos.

Indeed a pile of rocks lacks human-created order. However, they display a higher form of order - that derived from the laws of nature, which, following your thought-train, must have a creator intelligence superior to that of humans.

Also, it isn't to say that humans can't create a universe with order. There's enough going on in the computer world to prove otherwise, simulations, etc.

Does this answer your question?

I will look it up later, but right now I have to get ready for work — Sapientia

Thanks and have a great day.

I think you're mistaken. I'm glad we agree that there's such a thing as Natural Law. This is our starting point. Where does Natural Law come from? Is it a God or Chance? — TheMadFool

It need not come from either. It can be a brute fact of the world. That's the whole point of it being natural law, really.

To answer your question I have to make a subtle distinction. There are two types of order viz. human-created and God-created. Of course the former is subsumed by the latter.

When I compare a tidy room with a dirty room, I'm concerned about human-created order. When I talk of the laws of nature I'm referring to the laws of nature. Both are contrasted with chaos.

Indeed a pile of rocks lacks human-created order. However, they display a higher form of order - that derived from the laws of nature, which, following your thought-train, must have a creator intelligence superior to that of humans.

Also, it isn't to say that humans can't create a universe with order. There's enough going on in the computer world to prove otherwise, simulations, etc.

Does this answer your question? — TheMadFool

If you're using two types of order then your analogy is a false equivalency. That the order₁ in a tidy room indicates a creator is not that the order₂ in the natural world indicates a creator.