Order Does Not Require Intelligence

[Magical Wand]

I believe the idea that one can't imagine a chaotic universe does not prove that it couldn't exist.

Well, actually conceivability is a standard test of metaphysical possibility in contemporary philosophy (for example, if one can't conceive of a squared circle, this is evidence of its impossibility). You can deny the principle, of course, but there are consequences (one being that we have no tools to adjudicate metaphysically possible from impossible).

The thing is that an intelligent God would have no reason to create a chaotic universe.

Oh, really? So now you know what the creator would want to do? It is ironic because when atheists say "God wouldn't create a universe like that.. full of evil", many apologists claim "And how do you know what the incomprehensible creator would want to do?". But surely you comprehend the transcendent (i.e., beyond comprehension) creator, right?

the problem is that there is no reason for an ordered universe without an intelligent creator. Can you think of one?

I sure can. If it is impossible for a chaotic universe to exist, then the sufficient reason for the existence of an ordered universe is its necessity (for something to be necessary, its contrary must be impossible).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Hmm. So, are you convinced Aquinas made a compelling case?

I'm not a philosopher so it would be difficult and time consuming for me to elaborate...

 

[SigurdReginson]

I believe God would still know it was ordered.

That's cool.

Do you think god's order would be the same as human's order? If not, do you think it's possible for man to discover god's intended order?

 

[Shakeel]

“First, it helps to consider whether there is a viable alternative to an ordered universe, presumably a universe with no order, that is, a completely chaotic universe. But while we can talk casually about such a notion, many have argued that the concept of a completely chaotic universe is incoherent. This is because any coherent picture requires kinds to serve as sortals, at minimum, the most basic kinds such as “matter” and “space.” But to have any such kind requires that there are rules, definitions, natures, essences, etc., something that makes it a member of that kind rather than something else and thereby allows us to conceptually distinguish that kind. This is true of even the broadest kinds such as “matter.” A truly chaotic universe would therefore have to be a universe without any kinds, but such a state is inconceivable. A universe could certainly have a different order, perhaps even significantly less order, but it is far from clear that it could have no order at all. The very existence of the universe seems to entail some order, at least enough to have rules governing basic kinds, but once we have an ordered universe, it is not clear that there is anything left to explain...

So he agrees. There is order. There must be order, even. What is the objection?

 

[Magical Wand]

I'm not a philosopher so it would be difficult and time consuming for me to elaborate...

I know the argument; I have the book "Five ways" by Oxford philosopher Anthony Kenny. Aquinas's teleological argument and the argument from degrees of perfection are the worst. The First Way at least makes you deeply reflect (and, indeed, I struggled to find good refutations of it for a long time), but the proof you mention is very weak.

You might ask why I think so (if you're curious at all), but if you don't have time to explain why you may think it is compelling, then I do not have time to explain why it is terrible.

 

[Magical Wand]

So he agrees. There is order. There must be order, even. What is the objection?

Yeah, he agrees. There must be order as long as there is some content in the world. I'll be happy to explain what is the objection.

To say Y (intelligence) is the only logically possible explanation of X (order), means that X couldn't have obtained in any possible world unless Y exists in that world. However, if X obtains in all possible worlds, even if Y doesn't exist in some worlds, then X's obtaining can't be explained by Y. Nevertheless, I can conceive of some world where Y doesn't exist and X does, but no world where X doesn't obtain. Therefore, X isn't explained by Y in some worlds. But if that's the case, the actual world could be that possible world. Consequently, order doesn't need intelligence to obtain in our world.

To sum up: order must obtain even in a world where intelligence doesn't exist to actualize it since it must exist by necessity.

To illustrate the point, suppose I'm walking in a garden and then I say, "Wow, why is my name written on this rock?! The only explanation is that someone wrote it here." However, if it is impossible for my name not to be in that rock (since it is necessary), then I can't say the only way it could be there is if someone wrote it down, for even in a world where nobody existed, the name would still exist there due to its necessity.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I know the argument; I have the book "Five ways" by Oxford philosopher Anthony Kenny. Aquinas's teleological argument and the argument from degrees of perfection are the worst. The First Way at least makes you deeply reflect (and, indeed, I struggled to find good refutations of it for a long time), but the proof you mention is very weak.

You might ask why I think so (if you're curious at all), but if you don't have time to explain why you may think it is compelling, then I not have time to explain why it is terrible.

Fair enough. Maybe I will get to it one day.

 

[Shakeel]

Yeah, he agrees. There must be order as long as there is some content in the world. I'll be happy to explain what is the objection.

To say Y (intelligence) is the only logically possible explanation of X (order), means that X couldn't have obtained in any possible world unless Y exists in that world. However, if X obtains in all possible worlds, even if Y doesn't exist in some worlds, then X's obtaining can't be explained by Y. Nevertheless, I can conceive of some world where Y doesn't exist and X does, but no world where X doesn't obtain. Therefore, X isn't explained by Y in some worlds. But if that's the case, the actual world could be that possible world. Consequently, order doesn't need intelligence to obtain in our world.

To sum up: order must obtain even in a world where intelligence doesn't exist to actualize it since it must exist by necessity.

To illustrate the point, suppose I'm walking in a garden and then I say, "Wow, why is my name written in this rock?! The only explanation is that someone wrote it here." However, if it is impossible for my name not to be in that rock (since it is necessary), then I can't say the only way it could be there is if someone wrote it down, for even in a world where nobody existed, the name would still exist there due to its necessity.

Alright, but order isn't necessary. It is simply unimaginable to not have any. However, the universe has order, but that's because God created it. If God hadn't created it, it isn't that there wouldn't be order - there wouldn't be a universe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe we have to go by what we know unless you wish to ask God about the rest. I would be happy to answer.

Religious texts coming from other humans? Not that bothered.

 

[Magical Wand]

Alright, but order isn't necessary. It is simply unimaginable to not have any.

I'll simply repeat the response I gave to a similar objection: Actually, conceivability is a standard test of metaphysical possibility in contemporary philosophy (for example, if one can't conceive of a squared circle, this is evidence of its impossibility). You can deny the principle, of course, but there are consequences (one being that we have no tools to adjudicate metaphysically possible from impossible, which means any absurdity becomes possible in your worldview). This principle is massively important to philosophers.

If God hadn't created it, it isn't that there wouldn't be order - there wouldn't be a universe.

Well, now you're changing the topic (from teleological arguments) to cosmological arguments. But I don't care if you are. Cosmological arguments are pretty bad. For example, the Kalam says the universe began to exist and had a cause. The problem is that there is no evidence the universe began to exist. It could well be eternal -- this possibility is compatible with modern science and logic. (Here's a post of mine about the 2nd law of thermodynamics; in the comments of that post I briefly discuss the Big Bang as well).

 

[Twilight Hue]

When asked for the reasons why people believe in God, Intelligent Design proponents say a major one is the fact that the universe has order. This order, according to them, clearly, undeniably and inescapably shows that an intelligent designer was responsible for fashioning the natural world, because order cannot come from disorder/randomness/non-intelligence. Therefore, a designer deity exists.

Some objections to this argument were presented by C. M. Lorkowski in his book "A Survey of the Rational Rejection of Religious Belief" (pp. 81-83). I'll share just two objections, which seem (to me) sufficient to cast doubt on it:

“First, it helps to consider whether there is a viable alternative to an ordered universe, presumably a universe with no order, that is, a completely chaotic universe. But while we can talk casually about such a notion, many have argued that the concept of a completely chaotic universe is incoherent. This is because any coherent picture requires kinds to serve as sortals, at minimum, the most basic kinds such as “matter” and “space.” But to have any such kind requires that there are rules, definitions, natures, essences, etc., something that makes it a member of that kind rather than something else and thereby allows us to conceptually distinguish that kind. This is true of even the broadest kinds such as “matter.” A truly chaotic universe would therefore have to be a universe without any kinds, but such a state is inconceivable. A universe could certainly have a different order, perhaps even significantly less order, but it is far from clear that it could have no order at all. The very existence of the universe seems to entail some order, at least enough to have rules governing basic kinds, but once we have an ordered universe, it is not clear that there is anything left to explain...

A second consideration... is to wonder whether positing a deity actually adds anything to the explanation. Is a necessarily existing divine mind that requires no further explanation for its own ordered existence a better explanation than simply saying that the order of the universe (in the form of the laws) requires no further explanation? [In other words], when considering order in the form of the most basic laws of nature,... [is there a] reason to think that an undesigned designer provides any richer, more intellectually gratifying explanation than the naturalist account[?]"

If you also have some objection to the Order Argument, you're more than welcome to share with us.

It should be noted that the universe is actually not ordered. People mistakenly think that when they come across stability thinking it's order when eventually, such assumed order will dissipate and become a period of chaos and randomness until the next period of stability manifests.

People ignore the dynamics and flux that is continually occurring on a continual basis. In a far future, even our familiar galaxy will someday become unrecognizable and different, or very well may not even be there at all.

It's primarily due that chaos is order , and vice versa, and what we see are the external and internal dynamics of both in play, by which nothing stands truly still and is neither ordered nor chaotic in any true sense of the word.

 

[Earthtank]

Without humans to categorize and label things, those categories and labels wouldn't exist, it seems to me

While I do not wish to get in a back and forth but, statements like this is what leads people to reply with" well where did humans come from?" "How did humans learn this ability?" "Why would humans even do this?" which then most non theists would say something along the lines of evolution then, the theist will reply " where did the first cell or life come from?" and you can see how this will ultimately lead back to the original point of God and intelligent design then back to the whole order thing and where that came from. So I guess what I am trying to ultimately say is that your statement leaves out so much that when it's taken into account, truly shows how (and I say this respectfully) little understanding you have and have taken into that statement. I know the topic wasn't everything I went in to but, that statement is way more loaded than you probably intended.

 

[SigurdReginson]

While I do not wish to get in a back and forth but, statements like this is what leads people to reply with" well where did humans come from?" "How did humans learn this ability?" "Why would humans even do this?" which then most non theists would say something along the lines of evolution then, the theist will reply " where did the first cell or life come from?" and you can see how this will ultimately lead back to the original point of God and intelligent design then back to the whole order thing and where that came from. So I guess what I am trying to ultimately say is that your statement leaves out so much that when it's taken into account, truly shows how (and I say this respectfully) little understanding you have and have taken into that statement. I know the topic wasn't everything I went in to but, that statement is way more loaded than you probably intended.

Wow... You had an entire conversation with me involving no actual participation on my part based entirely on your assumptions of what you think that I think and then assumed my level of understanding.

Im struggling to understand what the point of this post was... Did you want to talk about this or not?

 

[Earthtank]

Wow... You had an entire conversation with me involving no actual participation on my part based entirely on your assumptions of what you think that I think and then assumed my level of understanding.

Pretty awesome, right?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Pretty awesome, right?

Eh... Disconcerting is a word I might use instead.

On second thought, nevermind. I think I'm good on that conversation.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is matter anyway? Is there really something physical?

What about the theory of mental universe?

In esoteric philosophy this theory is known as "the principle of mentalism":

The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental. (Kybalion)
​

Modern science has led to the same conclusion:

The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (James Jeans, Wiki)

What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To this extent, then, modern physics has moved in the direction of philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes. (James Jeans, Wiki)​

​