Order vs. Randomness

[Minimalist]

There are also atheists who think that the universe is beautiful

Something can be "beautiful" without having been "designed" though.... which is what you were hinting at.

Is this "beautiful?"



Yes.

Do I think some god created it so you could look at it and say "my, how beautiful...I bet "god" did that?"

No.

[StuW]

There are also atheists who think that the universe is beautiful

Something can be "beautiful" without having been "designed" though.... which is what you were hinting at.

Is this "beautiful?"



Yes.

Not if you were on a planet orbiting the star when it went bang!

[Mudhammam]

Even though our earth and our biology, and furthermore the laws of physics making possible those actualities, do seem beautifully ordered, let's keep it in perspective: Our earth is a spec in a spec in a spec in who-knows-how-many-more-specs where nearly everything else is completely random and chaotic. Now if we were to discover that life is a common feature within star systems, that would certainly raise some interesting questions regarding the apparent necessity of order and life in our universe. But just the fact that the Universe operates on an apparent algorithm that sometimes births apparent orderliness does not suggest a divine designer to me.

[Angrboda]

Why did I click on this thread? And why has Rayaan returned to posting arguments. I don't know, and I don't care.

We'll ignore the little fact that a nuclear dynamo called the sun has been pouring buttloads of energy into the local system for billions of years to create that order. What was I thinking. It was either random or designed. How could I have missed that?

(For anybody that cares, the moon had an important part to play in our history, and that was random in a sense.)

[Rayaan]

Something can be "beautiful" without having been "designed" though.... which is what you were hinting at.

Yeah ... but the context of your previous comment (perhaps I interpreted that wrongly) seemed to be focused on just the beauty part, not design. You wrote, "We have, on occasion, had theists show up touting how beautiful the universe is and how everything operates like clockwork." You didn't specifically connect that statement with the word "design" anywhere. And the critical tone of that sentence - as well as your pointing out of the craters on the moon - seemed to me as if you don't agree with that view (i.e. that the universe is beautiful). Hence I may have misunderstood your point of view.

Our earth is a spec in a spec in a spec in who-knows-how-many-more-specs where nearly everything else is completely random and chaotic.

Indeed, the earth is an infinitesimal spec in this universe amongst many, but I disagree that everything else is "completely random."

Complete randomness in nature is not only unproven, but is also impossible at the smallest scales.

Now if we were to discover that life is a common feature within star systems, that would certainly raise some interesting questions regarding the apparent necessity of order and life in our universe.

If life was found to be more common in this universe, then I suppose that would be just more evidence of order. However, my point is that if there exists any amount of order in this universe at all (especially the amount of order that exists in biological systems), then there also must be order at the most fundamental level of reality.

But just the fact that the Universe operates on an apparent algorithm that sometimes births apparent orderliness does not suggest a divine designer to me.

Since orderly systems cannot arise from purely random processes, nor out of nothing, it must come from an underlying pre-existing order. And, in my mind, the concepts "order" and "design" are inseparably fused together with the idea of an intelligent designer because order is an aspect of intelligence, not of randomness.

Even the universe operating on an "algorithm" (as you said) implies that the universe is best described by an underlying order, not randomness.

[Zen Badger]

But according to chaos theory, it is the natural tendency for order to arise from disorder.

If the system you're looking at is isolated and finite. There is no indication that the universe is either.

Since the universe had a finite beginning it has to be finite in size.

But my original point is that order arises from disorder(or less ordered if you like)

As a result of local systems obeying simple rules.

As a consequence the universe has no choice but to get more complicated.

[Assimilate]

Indeed, the earth is an infinitesimal spec in this universe amongst many, but I disagree that everything else is "completely random."

Complete randomness in nature is not only unproven, but is also impossible at the smallest scales.

This is false. Evolution itself works with random variation. If lets say weather changed so dramatically that there was snow on the ground for most of the year, of course over very long periods of time. If a mutation was to occur that caused white fur to develop, such white squirrels would likely then survive. The chances that these squirrels get to survive would be threw a random mutation.

I understand your a theist, and you might reject the notion of evolution, but what you stated is not a fact and there is plenty of evidence to support randomness in nature. Your claim that it is all order is at most a reach to build an argument backwards to support what you would like to believe as your conclusion.

Back to the example if these randomness didn't happen that population of squirrels may have another mutation they pass on that helps them, or die off. Whether they live or die is randomness, just like the extinction of many other species.

[Darkstar]

Is this "beautiful?"



Yes.

Do I think some god created it so you could look at it and say "my, how beautiful...I bet "god" did that?"

No.

Uh...

[Assimilate]

Uh...

lol, and at the other angle you see an upside down cross. \m/

[Rayaan]

This is false. Evolution itself works with random variation. If lets say weather changed so dramatically that there was snow on the ground for most of the year, of course over very long periods of time. If a mutation was to occur that caused white fur to develop, such white squirrels would likely then survive. The chances that these squirrels get to survive would be threw a random mutation.

I know that evolutionary theory involves a lot of randomness, but the randomness is not completely random. Evolution has natural laws acting as a selector, choosing the more advantageous random mutations. Therefore, at bottom, even evolution is not "random" in the true meaning of the word.

I understand your a theist, and you might reject the notion of evolution, but what you stated is not a fact and there is plenty of evidence to support randomness in nature.

No, I don't reject the theory of evolution.

Regarding evidence of randomness in nature, as I've said before, we don't actually know whether or not the "randomness" is truly random. Although they appear to be random, it is not possible to rule out that there is an order lurking behind them which we haven't recognized yet.

Your claim that it is all order is at most a reach to build an argument backwards to support what you would like to believe as your conclusion.

My claim is that the most fundamental aspect of reality cannot be truly random. If reality at bottom was truly random, then the orderly systems and the physical laws that we are surrounded by could have never emerged out of that randomness, let alone self-replicating intelligent beings who are able to learn and identify the patterns around them.

Back to the example if these randomness didn't happen that population of squirrels may have another mutation they pass on that helps them, or die off. Whether they live or die is randomness, just like the extinction of many other species.

See my first comment in this post.