The Appeal to Order and Intelligent Agency

[Debater Slayer]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

 

[exchemist]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

I think your reference to "the laws of the universe" gives the game away, though. Do you accept there are such things? If you do, you agree there is objective order, surely?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think your reference to "the laws of the universe" gives the game away, though. Do you accept there are such things? If you do, you agree there is objective order, surely?

I accept that there are physical and logical laws, yes. To not accept that would be an utter denial of established scientific and logical facts.

However, whether these laws constitute a "perfect" or otherwise optimal order is a different story. I have no reference against which I can judge this universe's setup as such, and I couldn't have even existed if I hadn't evolved in accordance with the physical laws of our universe. Even the concept of "order" itself is arguably relative, and the most common reference we have is our limited perception.

 

[danieldemol]

I think your reference to "the laws of the universe" gives the game away, though. Do you accept there are such things? If you do, you agree there is objective order, surely?

This seems like a subtle shifting of the goal posts, the OP isn't arguing against there being order in the universe, rather against the knowledge of certainty that the universe is *perfectly* ordered.

There is a difference between being ordered and being perfectly ordered.

In my opinion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I accept that there are physical and logical laws, yes. To not accept that would be an utter denial of established scientific and logical facts.

However, whether these laws constitute a "perfect" or otherwise optimal order is a different story. I have no reference against which I can judge this universe's setup as such, and I couldn't have even existed if I hadn't evolved in accordance with the physical laws of our universe. Even the concept of "order" itself is arguably relative, and the most common reference we have is our limited perception.

This seems like a subtle shifting of the goal posts, the OP isn't arguing against there being order in the universe, rather against the knowledge of certainty that the universe is *perfectly* ordered.

There is a difference between being ordered and being perfectly ordered.

In my opinion.

Surely if this is the form existence took, instead of any other form or just nonexistence, then that means existence as it is is the perfect order, as it is exactly how it's supposed to be.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Surely if this is the form existence took, instead of any other form or just nonexistence, then that means existence as it is is the perfect order, as it is exactly how it's supposed to be.

Is perfection the way things are, or is it the way they ought to be according to a specific set of criteria? If the latter, then I don't see how existence merely being the way it is implies it is the perfect order.

 

[danieldemol]

Surely if this is the form existence took, instead of any other form or just nonexistence, then that means existence as it is is the perfect order, as it is exactly how it's supposed to be.

So if I take a poop on my floor that's how its supposed to be because that's how it turned out? That's your idea of perfection?

What if existence takes multiple forms, could one form be more perfect than another?

How do we know whether or not there are other universes with other forms which may or may not be more perfect?

In my opinion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is perfection the way things are, or is it the way they ought to be according to a specific set of criteria? If the latter, then I don't see how existence merely being the way it is implies it is the perfect order.

There being no other way existence could have formed, than how it did, it met the only criteria.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So if I take a poop on my floor that's how its supposed to be because that's how it turned out? That's your idea of perfection?

What if existence takes multiple forms, could one form be more perfect than another?

How do we know whether or not there are other universes with other forms which may or may not be more perfect?

In my opinion.

It depends on if you agree with hard determinism. If you consider that all matter and energy is reacting in accordance to all universal, physical, and mathematical laws that govern it, then there is only one way they could've reacted (and their reaction is what shapes the universe)

 

[danieldemol]

It depends on if you agree with hard determinism. If you consider that all matter and energy is reacting in accordance to all universal, physical, and mathematical laws that govern it, then there is only one way they could've reacted (and their reaction is what shapes the universe)

Those laws may be a statistical occurrence which might muddy that line of thought.

In my opinion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Those laws may be a statistical occurrence which might muddy that line of thought.

In my opinion.

What do you mean by that?

 

[danieldemol]

There being no other way existence could have formed, than how it did, it met the only criteria.

I think the question even if we assume hard determinism is still left open as to whether the only criteria is an intelligent criteria.

The microbes in my gut do not have brains as a source of intelligence yet if they were toxic then the only criteria for diarrhoea would have been met even though that criteria was not sourced in intelligence.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

What do you mean by that?

I mean that because such things as radioactive decay and so on are random it is conceivably possible that if we were to re-wind time and let the universe play out again it may have formed differently (or not at all).

In my opinion.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

As someone who understands the beauty of both a checkered floor and a checkered cat, humans have incorrectly used patterns to see things are there that really aren't. A famous example is seeing images in clouds. Obviously what someone "sees" in those clouds is entirely subjective. Two people who can see the same cloud might imagine two different images of it. Have you ever merged two or three images together and "seen" primarily one of the three images, until you "see" something else and it looks like an entirely different image? The brain processes images to recognize patterns and those patterns "deceive" the person by making the person see something that is clearly a picture.

Regarding your original debate, that God exists because laws can be perceived, and your notion that these laws are subjective because of how people perceive art, I would argue that God itself is the art. Some people see God in everything, a design in order, whereas other people can imagine a God that exists due to the order of things. In fact, I can see the beauty in both a checkered cat and a checkered floor, and, I can see how both theists and atheists come to their conclusion, because the God I shape is subjective; both on its existence and whether or not it is God.

I see a blank piece of paper and I see a 2D-representation of a Synverse. Other people see a blank piece of paper and only see the color white. I not only see how things are but how they could exist if they were changed. A blank piece of paper can be written or drawn on, it is a representation of limited change depending on what ink you put on the paper. Most people don't or can't understand that, just as Joe can only understand the cat and Jane can only understand the floor pattern.

There are deeper things to just about anything that can be imagined. As a syntheist I understand that humans are, or will be, the Syntheos of The Omniverse, and The Omniverse will be designed into the primary Synverse, like the largest piece of blank paper that could ever exist, but exist through an infinite amount of dimensions. Some people would look at that and only recognize it as a blank piece of paper. But I know its protentional for change makes it so much more than that.

I believe the thing that changes, the Synverse itself, which can be represented in so many different ways, is God, where as the Syntheos, which I would currently view as humans, in a very limited way, is the shaper of this Synverse. The thing that can and does change is the God, rather than the being who changed it. Because of this I view myself more pantheist than monotheistic, but I also realize that in some ways, the Syntheos is part of the Synverse, and itself has the ability to change just like everything in the Synverse.

But obviously, it's much easier to change a piece of paper than to change the DNA of a person. But with developing technology, CRSPR, among others, we will start to realize that the Syntheos is actually identical to the Synverse, that they are one and the same, and that the creator is the creation and the creation is also the creator. Things have a way of changing in the imagination of one self and others, and we see patterns in other things because they in some way also represent patterns in ourselves.

This is why and how we understand the laws of the Universe. They affect us; they are a part of us; they make us who we are right now. I suspect that Joe would understand a checkered floor and Jane would understand the checkered cat, but not value it as much as the other, because the other thing had no ability to become a part of their own hubris. It's similar to when you listen to a song for the first time. You might like it the first time you listen to it, but if you listen to it a lot and see the band live and listen to it in concert, that song ultimately becomes part of who you are.

We are all the Synverse, consciousness develops the Syntheos in all of us, but we should not deny the fact that the Syntheos is the Synverse at the same time. Body and being is the same thing, like Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism; we are all in some ways the Brahman. I am nondual, see that all energy, regardless of positive or negative, are considerable forces of nature, and that there is ultimately one unified part of nature that we do not currently know or understand.

Being is a body and a body can represent a being; they are one and the same in fact. This is why we see patterns in things that aren't there, because bodies of things can represent beings when they don't. The Syntheos is part of the Synverse because the Synverse is just a larger representation of the Syntheos. This is how things relate to each other. Patterns are valued when they can represent other patterns you already recognize. This is how most art is developed, except for abstract, which is meant to create a new pattern when there isn't one.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I mean that because such things as radioactive decay and so on are random it is conceivably possible that if we were to re-wind time and let the universe play out again it may have formed differently (or not at all).

In my opinion.

But are those things truly random, or are we just not able to measure it yet?

I think the question even if we assume hard determinism is still left open as to whether the only criteria is an intelligent criteria.

The microbes in my gut do not have brains as a source of intelligence yet if they were toxic then the only criteria for diarrhoea would have been met even though that criteria was not sourced in intelligence.

In my opinion.

The information of the universe is written by something, for some reason. Imagine if, in the OP, the checkered floor was the only form the tiles could've taken. That checkered floor would be the perfect image because it is the one and only image that could be.

 

[danieldemol]

But are those things truly random, or are we just not able to measure it yet?

That may be unknown, in which case the OP's criticism of certitude still holds.

The information of the universe is written by something, for some reason.

This is an assertion and may be your belief, but can it be justified?

Imagine if, in the OP, the checkered floor was the only form the tiles could've taken. That checkered floor would be the perfect image because it is the one and only image that could be.

We don't even know if this hypothetical situation applies to the universe, which appears to be part of the critique of the OP.

In my opinion.

 

[crossfire]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

How about imperfect order?
Is there any room for evolution in perfect order?
For instance, if particle of matter and antimatter formed in perfectly balanced amounts, then the universe would be just a soup of radiation from matter and antimatter canceling each other out, and our universe would not have formed as it is.

Can there be any appreciation of beauty with perfect order?
This beautiful universe would have never formed in perfect order. Beauty can be found in imperfections.

 

[sun rise]

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

Theologies that operate in the order/disorder frame of reference have that issue. Order and disorder are in the realm of duality. There's a different perspective possible. To quote from Meher Baba/Bhau Kalchuri's poem "You Alone Exist" part of which goes:

You are man. You are birds.
You are fish and animals,
for You alone exist.

You are bugs and gnats,
You are snakes and scorpions,
You are ants and mosquitoes,
for You alone exist.

You are insects. You are lice.
You are dogs, asses and pigs.
You alone exist.

You are the moon and the stars,
the dawn and the night,
and the sun and also the light.
You alone exist.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

Well, I think we'd have to simmer and reduce these ingredients into a few more questions, before we can start to see the mechanics of the thing a bit easier. Order is the general starch, the binder of whatever else is in the pan. That we can put in at the end. We have to decide on what the hierarchy is on all those things you mention after the word 'order.'

How do you, the perceiver, rank creation? Do you rank the creations of earth more, or less, than your own. How about the laws that seem apparent, and the laws that you seem to make, which set of laws is better? Of all things now mentioned, can you mix and match them? It all gets complicated in a very rapid fashion. Therefore, one may wish to apply simplicity. Or not, maybe they like it complex

On top of all that, does the end product make you 'gasp in awe,' or ignite in you any sense of awe, and how did that happen?

Perfection, what is that even? Is it needed? Maybe, maybe not. It seems me what is needed, is a perceiver, and judge. Humans seem to engage in this duality very naturally.

I don't know much about the backstory, but Julius Caesar and Cleopatra supposedly had a relationship. These were both probably educated people, but from backgrounds with very different religious hierarchies. How did they navigate the sort of puzzle you propose? In a theological or philosophical way, in terms of aesthetic? A blending of two different orders somehow?

How they recognize they both had 'divine heritage,' if the narrative was so aesthetically different between each of them?

 

[Brian2]

A nearly ubiquitous argument in theological and religious debates is that of order, or the notion that because a given observer perceives order in the universe or in how life has evolved, then there must be an intelligent or conscious agent behind the processes that gave rise to the universe or its laws.

However, picture two people, whom we will call Joe and Jane. Joe is an avid fan of mosaic, and this is one of the decorations he admires most:

Besides ceramic mosaic, Joe has never seen any type of tiles or floors in his entire life—no marble, no glass, and no porcelain. No checkered tiles or hardwood floors. To him, the perfect arrangement of tiles can only produce a depiction as that of the cat seen above.

Jane, though, is in love with checkered marble floors. They're not the most colorful, granted (or granite, possibly), but her ideal floor looks like this:

And like Joe, she has never once seen any other type of floor. To her, there's only one perfect way to arrange tiles, and it is the one you see above.

But one day, Joe invites Jane to see the incredible work of art he now has at his house. She asks him to describe it, and he mentions black and white tiles. In her mind, this immediately conjures images of her own favorite, perfectly ordered checkered tiles.

Upon seeing the Siamese cat formed by the black and white mosaic, though, she finds it to be direly chaotic and disorganized. After all, there's only a specific notion of order that tiles can follow, and she already has a preconception of that.

She then shows Joe pictures on her phone of her checkered floor, much to his frowning. He can't fathom how someone could possibly be so untidy and so wasteful as to arrange black and white tiles in a checkered pattern instead of drawing a Siamese cat via the arrangement.

When we think of "order" in the universe and gasp in awe at such, what is our reference against which we judge what is or isn't "order"? Are we comparing life on Earth to our own creations, for example? Or the laws of the universe to our own constitutions and rules?

Who is to say that, instead of the universe really being "perfectly ordered," we just haven't seen any other kind of tile arrangement to which we can compare it?

Christmas can seem chaotic at times.