Panentheism and Brute Facts

[Esquilax]

This puts me in mind of the (probably apocryphal) exchange between Napoleon and Laplace. When the emperor asked the astronomer/mathematician why his recent work on the solar system contained no mention of God, Laplace answered, 'I had no need of that hypothesis.'

It strikes me that adding God to the admittedly thorny problem of explaining the interworking of brute facts adds - quite literally - nothing. If the sensible world does indeed lie within a larger reality, what is accomplished by labeling that reality 'God'? Why is the term 'informing principle' more useful than the term 'physical laws'?

Boru

Nailed it. That's what gets to me about these kinds of discussions; the theist involved will always scoff at how unjustified the atheist's universe is, and then they'll turn around and present god which A: they can't justify and B: is nothing more than "this is the thing that does the things that I can't account for."

It's a panacea, nothing more.