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
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. — TheMadFool
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
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
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
So, is human-made order a higher degree or a lesser degree? — Michael
It then seems that the difference isn't a matter of degree but a matter of origin. — Michael
I don't see how it follows that less complex placements (say rocks placed haphazardly) can indicate (necessarily or not) a divine origin. — Michael
The laws of nature don't imply a creator. They're just basically descriptions of regularities present in nature. — Sapientia
And obviously we can't pursue an endless chain of background reasons. We don't have the time for that — Terrapin Station
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
Good point. An infinite task does deflate our zeal. — TheMadFool
That begs the question ''how do you know life's meaning is subjective, or objective?'' — TheMadFool
Well, what does it imply then? — TheMadFool
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
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
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
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
Nothing worth mentioning that I can think of right now. — Sapientia
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 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
The situation is tricky because man-made order is a subset of the laws of nature. — TheMadFool
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
Dude, you're just making stuff up now. — Srap Tasmaner
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
That means you're still open to possibilities. I think we're on the same page here. — TheMadFool
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
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 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
The refutations of the design argument are aimed at the God of scripture. — TheMadFool
''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
It is only so as you describe, if you consider Consciousness something different from the Universe. — oranssi
I can't give you any proof or valid argument to defend my position. I guess it is a matter of believing. — oranssi
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
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
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
many of which a lot of people would find ridiculous or unthinkable. Russell's teapot comes to mind. — Sapientia
That the PSR has been useful is not that it's true — Sapientia
100% certainty, proof, categorically ruling out, and suchlike, is not needed to rightly reject the argument from design for being a bad argument, — Sapientia
It's a simple matter of logic — Terrapin Station
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
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
If my argument is bad then everyone's making a mistake... — TheMadFool
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. — Terrapin Station
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
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
...namely the hardest type. I am not one of them — Sapientia
Sorry, but your argument is bad because it's fallacious, as has been shown multiple times. — Sapientia
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
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.