(January 4, 2009 at 2:33 pm)infidel666 Wrote: I really don't see why the apparent order amidst chaos of the universe is indicative of the hand of god. Why is it more likely that we would fall up one minute and down the next without god's intervention? If we take as granted that something can spontaneously exist (as must be the case even if there is a god, since god or his creator or his creator's creator ad infinitim must have spontaneously existed), why is it especially significant that that thing (assuming the universe spontaneously existes) not be governed by a non-harmonius mess of conflicting rules? If anything, it would make more sense that those things that do not co-exist well would cancel one another out. In the alternative, why should we chalk it up to anything more than coincidence? Attribution to god is nothing more than wishful thinking in search of justification.
You mention 'the apparent order' and chalking it up to 'coincidence'. When we consider order such as E = Mc2 , or other mathematical equations that show the law or order in the universe, I find it hard to think of these 'laws' as 'coincidence.' A law implies purpose, intention. It is a constraint. If it is just a coincidence and the universe is comprised by chance in such a way that these 'laws' just happen to be 'out there' then I think that defies logic. If these laws can be 'out there' seeming to hold the universe together, then I see no problem with an ultimate 'law giver'. I don't get bogged down with the 'complexity' problem and infinite regress problem. I do not see it as an obstacle in considering a law giver. It is only a problem when we anthropomorphise the law giver and assume it is like the universe or like us. These laws are what I consider strong 'evidence' of a law giver.
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility"
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein