RE: Proof of God
April 24, 2015 at 12:36 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2015 at 12:39 pm by Surgenator.)
(April 24, 2015 at 8:34 am)Mezmo! Wrote:(April 21, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The fifth way is Aquinus trying to sneak intelligence into natural laws. The natural laws are a byproduct of symmetries. For example, translation invariance (this spot over here is no different than that spot over there) -> conservation of momentum. No intelligence is required for the conservation laws to exist.The legal metaphor of natural laws is based on the idea of a law giver.
What the hell is a 'legal' metaphor? What would be an illegal metaphor?
Quote:It is appropriate to ask why such laws consistently hold true.
Because mindless objects do not have a favourite spot. This is what it means to have translation invariance.
Quote:The typical atheist answer is that they just do. The more curious and critical response by believers is that there is a cause for each observable fact. This is known as the principle of sufficient reason.
And the cause of it is the lack of discrimination by inanimate object (Noether's theorem). The cause believer's spout is an argument from ignorance.