Q&A: Attributing Order
Attributing Order
Question
Hello, an atheist asked me how I can argue for the existence of God from the inference that every order has an orderer, when I have no ability to define the world as ordered, since I am not familiar with worlds that are not ordered that could serve as a kind of reference point for defining our current world as ordered.
I would be glad to know what you answer to that.
Also, I’d be glad to hear whether you think my answer is correct: I answered that within the world there are circles of entropy, a kind of tendency toward disorder, and on the other hand there are circles of order, so my reference point is internal to the world, and the argument is not, “The world is ordered and therefore there is an orderer,” but rather, “There is order in the world and therefore there is an orderer.” Is that right or not, in your opinion?
Answer
I’m not sure I understood your claim. If you are arguing that there are ordered parts in the world, the second law of thermodynamics does not contradict that. It only says that this is offset by disorder elsewhere, so that the total entropy is preserved (that is, it does not decrease).
But I use entropy only to show that concepts of order are not subjective. They have a well-defined mathematical-physical measure. Therefore, what atheists argue against this proof is incorrect: that order is in the eye of the beholder. Or, in your conversation partner’s wording, that order is a relative matter and we have no reference point. But that is not so. We do have one. Think about rolling a die. Suppose we get 5 a thousand times in a row. Is that an order that points to some factor at work (that is, that it is unlikely to have come out randomly)? Why? What is your measure? After all, there is also a case of a million times, which is much more ordered. There is a case of ten times 5, which is also ordered. So where is the reference point? Notice that if you claim there is no reference point, I will ask whether, in your opinion, if 6 comes up a thousand times in a row, that does not require an explanation. Would you accept the claim that it happened by chance?
On the other hand, I am not claiming that the second law of thermodynamics is a proof of God’s existence, nor that God contradicts it. Scientifically, one can explain the formation of order in the world. Not really explain it, but understand that it does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. That is not an explanation, only a lack of contradiction.
What I do claim is that the complexity that exists in the world (life, for example) is not likely (philosophically, not necessarily scientifically) to have arisen spontaneously. In fact, we also know that it did not arise spontaneously, since the laws of nature are what are responsible for it. If they had been a bit different, none of this would have happened. So the question is: who ‘legislated’ them, because that is what is responsible for the emergence of the complexity of life and of the world.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand the question.
The questioner’s basic assumption is that there is a problem with the argument that every order has an orderer, and that there is no comparison, so he is looking for a comparison. I’m asking: isn’t order something in itself?
There are different levels of order, and the hierarchy is objective (entropy), as I wrote. When the order is high, the chance that it happened on its own is low. There is no sharp line and no binary picture.
Is order a relative thing?