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 — Terrapin Station

That's an interesting POV. So, it must be the case that you think further inquiry into Natural Law is, well, a waste of time and energy.

I, on the other hand, think it's necessary to question the origins of Natural Law for reasons ranging from simple curiosity to finding the meaning of life. Does nothing along these lines motivate you?

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. — Michael

The difference between human-made order and god-made order is a matter of degree, not type. Sorry for the poorly worded reply that sent you off-track.

The difference between human-made order and god-made order is a matter of degree, not type. Sorry for the poorly worded reply that sent you off-track. — TheMadFool

So, is human-made order a higher degree or a lesser degree?

But this doesn't seem to work anyway. Imagine if the rocks in my scenario were placed intentionally by someone. Surely that counts as human-made order even though it's indistinguishable from a "natural" placement of rocks? It then seems that the difference isn't a matter of degree but a matter of origin.

The problem is that the particular arrangement of things isn't always a good indicator of origin. Human-placed rocks and naturally-placed rocks can be indistinguishable. And although it might be true that particularly complex placements (say rocks placed to form an equilateral triangle) can indicate a human origin (although not necessarily), I don't see how it follows that less complex placements (say rocks placed haphazardly) can indicate (necessarily or not) a divine origin.

That's an interesting POV. So, it must be the case that you think further inquiry into Natural Law is, well, a waste of time and energy.

I, on the other hand, think it's necessary to question the origins of Natural Law for reasons ranging from simple curiosity to finding the meaning of life. Does nothing along these lines motivate you? — TheMadFool

I don't think it's a waste of time, but I think it's sorely misconceived to believe that there MUST be some "background" reason for natural law being as it is. Rather, maybe there's a background reason. Maybe not. And obviously we can't pursue an endless chain of background reasons. We don't have the time for that. ;)

Re "the meaning of life," I already know the answer to that. It's completely subjective. There is no objective meaning. There's only the meaning that persons assign to it, if they do.

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. — TheMadFool

It is in some cases. Funny how you chose a stack of books and a library. Convenient. Provided one doesn't beg the question by defining "organisation" or "order" to imply an organiser or an orderer, it's an open question, and I would argue that there are cases in which it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was an organiser or an orderer.

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. — TheMadFool

The laws of nature don't imply a creator. They're just basically descriptions of regularities present in nature.

So, is human-made order a higher degree or a lesser degree? — Michael

Lesser because the man-made has never, probably never can, violate Natural Law. I said ''Natural Law'' because I'm still unsure of its orgin - is it a chance thing or is it the work of a conscious agency??? All that I'm saying is that a divine origin can't be ruled out.

It then seems that the difference isn't a matter of degree but a matter of origin. — Michael

Please read above.

I don't see how it follows that less complex placements (say rocks placed haphazardly) can indicate (necessarily or not) a divine origin. — Michael

As I said above, even, to borrow your words, a less complex order in the rocks must necessarily follow the laws of nature e.g. the precise location of each rock is determined by the laws that govern mass, inertia, friction, force, gravity, etc. Man-made order, despite its appearance of complexity, can't override the laws of nature i.e. it's confined by them and so in fact, are of lower complexity.

The laws of nature don't imply a creator. They're just basically descriptions of regularities present in nature. — Sapientia

Well, what does it imply then?

And obviously we can't pursue an endless chain of background reasons. We don't have the time for that — Terrapin Station

Good point. An infinite task does deflate our zeal. However, ''a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step''. Georg Cantor, the mathematician, devoted his entire life to the study of infinity and I wouldn't be wrong in saying there are others - theologians, scientists, mathematicians - who study infinity with great enthusiasm.

Also, from a general perspective, an infinite universe is even more exciting than one that is finite. We'll have an endless variety of experiences to have.

Re "the meaning of life," I already know the answer to that. It's completely subjective. There is no objective meaning. There's only the meaning that persons assign to it, if they do. — Terrapin Station

That begs the question ''how do you know life's meaning is subjective, or objective?''

Good point. An infinite task does deflate our zeal. — TheMadFool

The problem isn't that your zeal will be deflated. It's that you literally will run out of time. You, as an individual, are probably only going to be around 80-90 years or so, if you're lucky. Persons in general may not last more than a few billion years, if they're lucky. So you can't keep doing an endless chain of background reasons, no matter how much you want to, simply because you don't have time for it.

That begs the question ''how do you know life's meaning is subjective, or objective?'' — TheMadFool

The first step is that you note that there's no such thing as "life's meaning" in the extramental world.

Well, what does it imply then? — TheMadFool

Nothing worth mentioning that I can think of right now. It's just a description of a regularity, as I said. It says "this is how it is, and how it has been" and we expect it to continue in that way.

I'm in agreement with Terrapin Station that it could be a brute fact, and that it's sorely misconceived to believe that there must be some "background" reason for natural law being as it is. I made the point earlier, in reply to one of your loaded questions, that I don't assume that there's a "why" to look for, and that if this is what you're doing, then the burden is on you to back that up. You can't just presuppose teleology because that would beg the question.

Q: Why do we not find tidy rooms in nature?
A: A tidy room is the work of a conscious agent, acting with purpose and intelligence.
Q: So we see two different sorts of phenomena in the world: those that show the hallmarks of conscious agency, such as design and purpose, and those that don't. The latter are the results of nature blindly following natural law, so to speak.
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: But isn't the entire natural world something like a machine, following rules laid down by its creator?
A: But to what purpose?
Q: I know not. But if I see a great factory, I may not know what is made there, but still recognize the hallmarks of conscious agency in its design. Is that not so?
A: It is.
Q: Then is not the entire universe like a great tidy room, governed by the laws laid down by its creator?
A: Perhaps. But we began by noting the difference between tidy rooms and nature, and we saw in the distinctiveness of the tidy room evidence of design and purpose. If there is also tidiness in nature, what is it about the room that leads us to infer a conscious agent acting with purpose? If tidiness is everywhere, it is not the distinguishing feature we thought it was.
Q: There are degrees of tidiness.
A: Are they all signs of conscious agency?
Q: They are.
A: Degrees of conscious agency?
Q: Exactly.
A: So the tidy room is distinguished from nature, not by being the work of conscious agency, acting with intelligence and purpose, for so is nature.
Q: Correct, although you should put in the bit about degrees.
A: Then the distinction left for us is that there are tidy rooms on the one side, and there's nature on the other. We no longer deduce from this difference anything, but we happen to know they're both the results of conscious agency.
Q: Of different degrees.
A: How do we know there are these different degrees? How can we tell which is at work in a given instance?
Q: It's as plain as the difference between a tidy room and nature.
A: Then aren't you saying the same thing I was saying before?
Q: You had conscious agency on one side, and nature on the other; I have both on both sides, but with the different degrees.
A: Right.

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). — oranssi

I disagree. Your second paragraph doesn't support your conclusion in the first paragraph, and it actually seems to undermine or even contradict it. A pattern in a painting... so it's in the object. If the observer can't recognise the pattern... so it's being there is independent of recognition.

And, as a counter argument, if I were to order pebbles in a pattern, like the spelling of my name, for example, then, provided the pattern was not disrupted, it would remain, even if no one was there to recognise it as such. That's both intuitive and probable.

To have order, there must obviously be order, but it doesn't have to be recognised. And to recognise order, one must recognise the patterns.

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. — TheMadFool

Besides proceeding from a false premise (it is not true that "every time we see organization/order" we infer conscious agency at work: crystals, for instance are highly ordered structures found in nature which have no apparent designer), this is an instance of a fallacy of composition, i.e. inferring that some characteristic of the parts of a system or object necessarily attaches to the whole. Even if the presence of order in parts of the universe implied a designer (which it doesn't), it would be a non-sequitur to claim that the ordering of the universe as a whole therefore implies that it has a designer.

EDIT: I admit I have not read all 14 pages of this thread; if this point was made earlier, apologies to the poster whose efforts I am duplicating.

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

Actually, in the Dialogues, there is only one part which is about whether this designer is God of the scriptures, as the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy explains:

Philo presents several criticisms against the design argument, many of which are now standard in discussions of the issue.

According to Philo, the design argument is based on a faulty analogy: we do not know whether the order in nature was the result of design, since, unlike our experience with the creation of machines, we did not witness the formation of the world. In Philo’s words, “will any man tell me with a serious countenance, that an orderly universe must arise from some thought and art like the human, because we have experience of it? To ascertain this reasoning, it were requisite that we had experience of the origin of worlds; and it is not sufficient, surely, that we have seen ships and cities arise from human art and contrivance”.

Further, the vastness of the universe also weakens any comparison with human artifacts. Although the universe is orderly here, it may be chaotic elsewhere. Similarly, if intelligent design is exhibited only in a small fraction of the universe, then we cannot say that it is the productive force of the whole universe. Philo states that “A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?”.

Philo also argues that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order, and “This at once solves all difficulties” (Dialogues, 6).

And even if the design of the universe is of divine origin, we are not justified in concluding that this divine cause is a single, all powerful, or all good being. According to Philo, “Whether all these attributes are united in one subject, or dispersed among several independent beings, by what phenomena in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy?” (Dialogues 5). — Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

I don't think that it has, unless the fallacy of composition counts as a type of association fallacy, in which case Terrapin Station identified it, but wasn't as specific. It's interesting how many fallacies have been made in this thread by those making or defending this 'tidy room' variation of the argument from design. From memory, we've had:

• Affirming the consequent
• False analogy
• Begging the question
• Fallacy of composition
• Association fallacy
• Cherry picking
• False dichotomy
• Loaded question
• Red herring
• Non sequitur (unspecific)

Nothing worth mentioning that I can think of right now. — Sapientia

That means you're still open to possibilities. I think we're on the same page here.

I'm in agreement with Terrapin Station that it could be a brute fact, and that it's sorely misconceived to believe that there must be some "background" reason for natural law being as it is. — Sapientia

So, what do you make of The principle of sufficient reason. This principle has served us well in all branches of knowledge - history, philosophy, geography, philosophy, science, etc. - and I'm surprised that you're throwing it out the window when it comes to such a critical question.



The situation is tricky because man-made order is a subset of the laws of nature. I made that as clear as I could. Do you have a specific question that you want to ask?

So you can't keep doing an endless chain of background reasons, no matter how much you want to, simply because you don't have time for it. — Terrapin Station

I understand. Infinite tasks by definition can't be completed. However, human history is, despite our intelligence and imagination, replete with occasions where our best predictions and strategies have failed us. For instance, scientists believed the speed of light was infinite. That however didn't stop some of them from experimenting. Zeno proved that motion is impossible and yet we can easily go from our bedrooms to the loo and back. Perhaps an important distinction to make is that between theory and the practical. We may reason that the task is infinite but actual investigation may yield a different answer. So, I don't buy the infinite regress argument because it's just theory and many many theories have been proven wrong.

The situation is tricky because man-made order is a subset of the laws of nature. — TheMadFool

Dude, you're just making stuff up now.

this is an instance of a fallacy of composition, i.e. inferring that some characteristic of the parts of a system or object necessarily attaches to the whole. — Arkady

The fallacy of composition occurs when:

The property in question (in my case ''order'') is distributed collectively rather than distributively

I haven't done that. My argument is statistical, a basic version of which is:

All observed things in this universe are ordered. Therefore ALL things in this universe are ordered. The property (order) is trasnferred distributively and not collectively. So, no, I'm not committing the fallacy of composition.

As for crystals, you won't disagree, their formation is determined by their molecular structure, pressure, temperature, etc. - all of which follow the laws of nature. So, this order, as I mentioned in one of my posts, is of a higher form. And just as we seek a person when we see man-made order, it's logical to seek a God-creator when we see order in the universe as evidenced by the existence of the laws of nature.

Dude, you're just making stuff up now. — Srap Tasmaner

No, I'm not. @Michael raised a pertinent question, asking if a pile of rocks isn't sufficient to infer human intervention then how is it that we can infer god?

My reply to that is there's a difference of degrees between man-made order and god-made order (laws of nature). Humans can't break the laws of nature. The most they can do is pit one law against another e.g. a plane flies by a play between fluid dynamics and gravity. In a sense humans are restricted by the laws of nature and are therefore man-made order is inferior (a subset) of natural laws.

The refutations of the design argument are aimed at the God of scripture.

However, there is a part which I find relevant to my argument which is (I quote):

''Philo also argues that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order, and “This at once solves all difficulties” (Dialogues, 6).''.

Note the ''may'' which I've underlined. It is an honest admission by Philo that he's not 100% certain about the issue. This peg of uncertainty is where I hang the coat of my argument. There's nothing in these refutations that conclusively proves that a god-creator does NOT exist. All they do is expose weaknesses of the original design argument. That I accept since I too see no evidence for an all-good God. However, these objections do not categorically rule out the existence of a creator-God (which I've defined in my OP)

I disagree. Your second paragraph doesn't support your conclusion in the first paragraph, and it actually seems to undermine or even contradict it. A pattern in a painting... so it's in the object. If the observer can't recognise the pattern... so it's being there is independent of recognition.

And, as a counter argument, if I were to order pebbles in a pattern, like the spelling of my name, for example, then, provided the pattern was not disrupted, it would remain, even if no one was there to recognise it as such. That's both intuitive and probable.

To have order, there must obviously be order, but it doesn't have to be recognised. And to recognise order, one must recognise the patterns. — Sapientia

It is only so as you describe, if you consider Consciousness something different from the Universe. I can't give you any proof or valid argument to defend my position. I guess it is a matter of believing. Just like you happen to believe your part, with all the logical foundation of your arguments.

We humans have reason, and by using reason we top the argument to our favor when confrontation with someone who base his arguments in emotion / faith. Obviously, the game is "rigged" from the start. In argument the game is logic and not emotion. But humans are not only defined by logic. If that would be so there would be no mystery. We are also creatures of emotions and that is kind of illogic in terms of subjectivity.

Of course I contradict myself. All is about contradictions. You happen to believe there is order independently of the observer. I happen to believe there is order only when the observer observes it.

That means you're still open to possibilities. I think we're on the same page here. — TheMadFool

Yes, I think that it's at least possible. That's a kind of default position. It hasn't been disproved, as far as I'm aware. But I don't find it plausible, and in that respect, to me at least, it is analogous to numerous other possibilities, many of which a lot of people would find ridiculous or unthinkable. Russell's teapot comes to mind.

So, what do you make of The principle of sufficient reason. This principle has served us well in all branches of knowledge - history, philosophy, geography, philosophy, science, etc. - and I'm surprised that you're throwing it out the window when it comes to such a critical question. — TheMadFool

It's controversial. It's usually attributed to Leibniz, who clearly had a theological agenda, and drove his philosophy towards it. One should bear that in mind. He came up with that and that this is the best of all possible worlds and his theory of monads, in part, because he had God on his mind, and his philosophy is tainted as a result. That the PSR has been useful is not that it's true.

The fallacy of composition occurs when:

The property in question (in my case ''order'') is distributed collectively rather than distributively

I haven't done that. My argument is statistical, a basic version of which is:

All observed things in this universe are ordered. Therefore ALL things in this universe are ordered. The property (order) is trasnferred distributively and not collectively. So, no, I'm not committing the fallacy of composition.

As for crystals, you won't disagree, their formation is determined by their molecular structure, pressure, temperature, etc. - all of which follow the laws of nature. So, this order, as I mentioned in one of my posts, is of a higher form. And just as we seek a person when we see man-made order, it's logical to seek a God-creator when we see order in the universe as evidenced by the existence of the laws of nature. — TheMadFool

Honestly, I have no idea what you are getting on about here. This just seems like a confused jumble of words to me. You have already assumed that "order = God", so why do you even need an argument?

The refutations of the design argument are aimed at the God of scripture. — TheMadFool

No, ultimately, the argument, if taken as a whole, is aimed at the God of the scriptures. That I accept. But if you set aside that particular part, and perhaps make some minor adjustments, then it applies to your version of the design argument as well. That's everything in the quote other than the part in bold.

''Philo also argues that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order, and “This at once solves all difficulties” (Dialogues, 6).''.

Note the ''may'' which I've underlined. It is an honest admission by Philo that he's not 100% certain about the issue. This peg of uncertainty is where I hang the coat of my argument. There's nothing in these refutations that conclusively proves that a god-creator does NOT exist. All they do is expose weaknesses of the original design argument. That I accept since I too see no evidence for an all-good God. However, these objections do not categorically rule out the existence of a creator-God (which I've defined in my OP) — TheMadFool

Seriously? It needn't be about an all-good God! Or the original design argument. And it is, as you yourself said, a refutation, rather than a disproof. 100% certainty, proof, categorically ruling out, and suchlike, is not needed to rightly reject the argument from design for being a bad argument, and your bringing them up looks suspiciously like an attempt to move the goalposts.

And what about all the other parts in the quote? (Besides, obviously, the part in bold).

It is only so as you describe, if you consider Consciousness something different from the Universe. — oranssi

That would not throw a spanner into the works, since there is very good reason to consider consciousness to be different from the universe.

I can't give you any proof or valid argument to defend my position. I guess it is a matter of believing. — oranssi

Not another one. :-}

Of course I contradict myself. All is about contradictions. You happen to believe there is order independently of the observer. I happen to believe there is order only when the observer observes it. — oranssi

Give me strength! What nonsense, what a cop out, what a waste of time this has been. I think I'll bring this to an abrupt end right here.

I understand. Infinite tasks by definition can't be completed. However, human history is, despite our intelligence and imagination, replete with occasions where our best predictions and strategies have failed us. For instance, scientists believed the speed of light was infinite. That however didn't stop some of them from experimenting. Zeno proved that motion is impossible and yet we can easily go from our bedrooms to the loo and back. Perhaps an important distinction to make is that between theory and the practical. We may reason that the task is infinite but actual investigation may yield a different answer. So, I don't buy the infinite regress argument because it's just theory and many many theories have been proven wrong. — TheMadFool

??? It's not that complicated. Either for every x you need a background reason or you do not. If you need a background reason for every x, you're out of luck, because you can't get one, because you'll run out of time. It's a simple matter of logic.

This just seems like a confused jumble of words to me. You have already assumed that "order = God", so why do you even need an argument? — Arkady

Sorry if my post didn't meet your standards of clarity. Please pick up a book on logic and read up fallacy of composition and how it's confused with fallacy of hasty generalization (both of which I haven't made, fyi)

I haven't assumed anything. I have first made an observation and it reveals undeniable order. I then entertained two possible origins of order viz.

1. God
2. Chance

I find possibility 2 to be unrealistic because it's, mathematically, next to impossible. Option 1 then becomes viable.

Also, frankly speaking, I'm not concerned about the above argument. All I care about is the failure of atheists to satisfactorily argue against a creator-God (which I defined in the OP), nothing more and nothing less.

many of which a lot of people would find ridiculous or unthinkable. Russell's teapot comes to mind. — Sapientia

The absurd doesn't imply falsehood. It's quite absurd that iron ships should float and yet they do.

Russel's teapot is about burden of proof. I agree that the onus of proof falls on the theist's shoulders. However, the onus of disproof also falls on someone's shoulders - the atheist's. If I were to say ''There's a fly in the room'' it would be my responsibilty to show evidence to that effect. However, if I were to say ''There's no fly in this room'' it would again be my responsibility to show evidence of that. You can't, in fact mustn't, conclude there's no fly in the room just because I couldn't prove it. This is the mistake atheists make.

That the PSR has been useful is not that it's true — Sapientia

First, thank you for the beautiful synopsis on the background of PSR. It does appear that poor Liebniz was biased and had hidden religious agenda.

However, examination of PSR, even if its author was biased, reveals no error. If PSR is wrong then you should be able to give me one (or few) examples of events that occur for no reason at all. That would effectively disprove PSR. Can you do that?

100% certainty, proof, categorically ruling out, and suchlike, is not needed to rightly reject the argument from design for being a bad argument, — Sapientia

If my argument is bad then everyone's making a mistake but it isn't the case that everyone's making a mistake (associating order with conscious agency is valid reasoning). So, my argument isn't bad. Please don't accuse me of the bandwagon fallacy

It's a simple matter of logic — Terrapin Station

If I'm not mistaken, Aristotle had many theories in science, none of which were subjected to empirical verification. And they were false.

Galileo began the empirical approach to science and look where we are.

Reason alone doesn't lead to knowledge. A good balance between theory and experimentation does. So, while I have faith in logic I don't think we should put all our eggs in that basket.

The absurd doesn't imply falsehood. It's quite absurd that iron ships should float and yet they do.

Russel's teapot is about burden of proof. I agree that the onus of proof falls on the theist's shoulders. However, the onus of disproof also falls on someone's shoulders - the atheist's. If I were to say ''There's a fly in the room'' it would be my responsibilty to show evidence to that effect. However, if I were to say ''There's no fly in this room'' it would again be my responsibility to show evidence of that. You can't, in fact mustn't, conclude there's no fly in the room just because I couldn't prove it. This is the mistake atheists make. — TheMadFool

Yes, I'm aware that the absurd, in that sense, doesn't imply falsehood. But we were talking about possibility, and then I brought up plausibility. My point was that possibility alone means next to nothing, and if, on top of that, it seems absurd and implausible, then the burden is even greater. That would apply as much to the claim that iron ships can float - if we didn't know what we do about that - as to other claims, like that there's a celestial teapot.

And no, that's a mistake that some atheists make. Someone else in this discussion already pointed out that not all atheists are of the same type, namely the hardest type. I am not one of them, at least with regards to your conception of a creator, and I haven't made that mistake here in this discussion. If you think otherwise, then please show me where I have done so. I have just been giving reasons as to why your argument is faulty.

First, thank you for the beautiful synopsis on the background of PSR. It does appear that poor Liebniz was biased and had hidden religious agenda.

However, examination of PSR, even if its author was biased, reveals no error. If PSR is wrong then you should be able to give me one (or few) examples of events that occur for no reason at all. That would effectively disprove PSR. Can you do that? — TheMadFool

You're welcome.

It's funny that you should say that, because it has been examined countless times over the centuries, and yet it is considered to be problematic and controversial. Perhaps it's not that no errors have been revealed, but just that you can't see the errors, or do not want to see them. All I need to do is give an example in which it is not known whether or not there's a reason, which I can. I don't need to give an example in which there is no reason. Anyone can come up with a reason for anything, but what matters is whether it's the right reason or whether there even is a reason. There is good reason to reject the reason you've given as the right reason, as this discussion has shown, and 'no reason' is still on the table.

If my argument is bad then everyone's making a mistake... — TheMadFool

That's either a non sequitur, or there's a hidden premise which is false. It's not a given that concluding conscious agency from what is arguably order makes a valid or sound argument. Furthermore, in some cases it is invalid, and in some cases it is unsound.

Sorry, but your argument is bad because it's fallacious, as has been shown multiple times.

And don't think I haven't noticed what you avoided addressing, @TheMadFool. That's bad form. It should be quid pro quo. If you need to more time to contemplate it, or to put together a reply, then that's fine. Just say so.

If I'm not mistaken, Aristotle had many theories in science, none of which were subjected to empirical verification. And they were false. — TheMadFool

I'm talking about this from more of a psychological angle though--whether one feels there's a need for a background reason for every x or not. Either you need that or you do not.

That's different than whether there's "really" a reason behind something.

I'm talking about this from more of a psychological angle though--whether one feels there's a need for a background reason for every x or not. Either you need that or you do not.

That's different than whether there's "really" a reason behind something. — Terrapin Station

Ok. You prefer not to ask the questions I'm asking. That's fine by me. Have you considered how The Principle of Sufficient Reason may apply here?

All I need to do is give an example in which it is not known whether or not there's a reason, which I can — Sapientia

Kindly provide an example...

But we were talking about possibility, and then I brought up plausibility. My point was that possibility alone means next to nothing, and if, on top of that, it seems absurd and implausible, then the burden is even greater. — Sapientia

To my knowledge possibility has to do with logic and plausibility with knowledge. An atheistic position deals with the former - denying god is tantamount to asserting god is impossible. They surely can't be saying god is simply implausible because if they are then they'd need to have access to a vast amount of knowledge - extending from the subatomic to the intergalactic - and that I'm confident they don't. So, I still think my focus on possibility is appropriate to the issue that concerns me.

...namely the hardest type. I am not one of them — Sapientia

That's great to hear.

Sorry, but your argument is bad because it's fallacious, as has been shown multiple times. — Sapientia

Please read above.

My reply to that is there's a difference of degrees between man-made order and god-made order (laws of nature). Humans can't break the laws of nature. The most they can do is pit one law against another e.g. a plane flies by a play between fluid dynamics and gravity. In a sense humans are restricted by the laws of nature and are therefore man-made order is inferior (a subset) of natural laws. — TheMadFool

Yeah, by "you're making stuff up," I didn't mean that you hadn't actually said this, but that what you say here again you're just making up. This has nothing to do with the original argument. There's no plausible analogy between the two things you describe here. People move around bits of already existing stuff in accordance with rules they can't break; God makes all the stuff out of nothing and creates all the rules. I'm sure you can find some way to make these analogous, but no one would ever think to start the argument from design here-- it's just something you make up later to hold it together.