Notice I said nothing about law implying a law giver. The rationale for mind is not based upon laws in the prescriptive sense. Yet there is a law like regularity in what is described as the behavior of the universe. Skeptics will argue that laws are not prescriptive but merely descriptive of how the universe works. What they describe, however, seems rather law-like. It really makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does and yet never violates it. It just happens to be very law-like but that's a total accident, one you can run a roller coaster by. Gravity always works.
In the comments of a different post, the one on Hartshorne's modal argument
Please do not do the laws need a law giver argument. It only shows you do not understand what laws are in science. As I said before:He doesn't read what I say. This raises a question, since avoiding the law giver idea doesn't work it doesn't matter what I say he wont read it, why otarguefraom laws to law giver?
The reason for disputing the term "law," is because physical law are not really laws. They are not passed by any governing body. They are called laws because when Issac Newton and others came up with the idea of natural law they assumed they were established by God. Thus they are God given God is the law maker. But that would be a circular reason to argue this and the use that to prove God exists. But is there another approach?
What we call laws are not laws and according to atheist bromide (natural laws are just descriptions of the way the universe works) we can call them "tendencies." Tendencies imply a tendency maker? Well we can infer a reason that's why scientists try to explain how things work.That is why we have science, to explain how it works.
Term tendency isn't strong enough because there is no option. Things don't just tend to fall toward the center of mass, they have to. There are no exceptions given normal conditions.Weather we go with law or find some other term is ot the issue. The issue is that efficiency and regularity that never fails implies planning and planning requires a mind,We don't have to call it law but does seem to be the product of mind.
13 comments:
Joe: What we call laws are not laws and according to atheist bromide (natural laws are just descriptions of the way the universe works) we can call them "tendencies." Tendencies imply a tendency maker? Well we can infer a reason that's why scientists try to explain how things work.That is why we have science, to explain how it works.
Atheists call them "laws" but have the brains to realise they are fundamentally different to man-made laws.
Joe: It really makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does and yet never violates it.
Why does it make no sense? This is the crux of your argument, but appears to be an unsupported assertion, quoted from another post.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: What we call laws are not laws and according to atheist bromide (natural laws are just descriptions of the way the universe works) we can call them "tendencies." Tendencies imply a tendency maker? Well we can infer a reason that's why scientists try to explain how things work.That is why we have science, to explain how it works.
Pix: Atheists call them "laws" but have the brains to realise they are fundamentally different to man-made laws.
fair enough
Joe: It really makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does and yet never violates it.
Why does it make no sense? This is the crux of your argument, but appears to be an unsupported assertion, quoted from another post.
It's clearly supported by common observation. show me the physical law that is violated?
Joe: It's clearly supported by common observation.
What "common observation" shows it makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does?
Joe: show me the physical law that is violated?
Why? I am not disputing that. I am disputing why it makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does.
Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: It's clearly supported by common observation.
What "common observation" shows it makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does?
common observation: things fall down and not up, nothing ever falls up. Why? That's the issue. you can't tell me.
Joe: show me the physical law that is violated?
Why? I am not disputing that. I am disputing why it makes no sense to say this is merely what the universe does.
It doesn't explain it,
Ah, so it is just an argument from ignorance.
We do not know, therefore it must be God.
Pix
Pix, your argument, on the other hand, looks to me like, We don't know, but it isn't God.
I am happy to concede it could be an intelligent agency, which might be God. i am arguing for "We do not know".
Pix
We don't know aka the safe position.
what is this we business? I'm pretty sure I know. well I don't know much. One thing I learned in PhD work the I went to school the less I knew.
Pix = we don't know (the safe position)
Me = I', pretty sure (the foolhardy position)
that should say the More I went to school the less I knew.
Joe: Me = I', pretty sure (the foolhardy position)
Agreed.
Pix
agreement at last
;-)
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...The issue is that efficiency and regularity that never fails implies planning and planning requires a mind, We don't have to call it law but does seem to be the product of mind.
That the consistency of observed reality implies planning is purely a product of viewing the universe through the lens of human thought. It really doesn't imply anything.
I think that tendency to down play human experience is a false kind of objectivity that is really not objective and is ideological. The order and regularity is not imposed. It's clearly the case that the universe acts in certain ways that are consistent and predictable. Otherwise science is not possible.
Post a Comment