randman writes:
the argument here is not confined to living things, but to the universe as a whole. The universe contains within it order, laws, principles, etc,.....all of which indicate design.
Does that mean that the only way a universe can be 'natural' (i.e. non-designer-made) is if it is a random universe, one without order and no natural laws to speak of? Gravity today, repulsion tomorrow, that sort of thing?
Why can't a universe exist where matter simply does what it does without it being thought up by someone? Let me suppose for a moment that a designer exists and decides to create a universe. There are two principly different ways for the designer to do that: he can either create some matter and leave it at that, or he can also specify some natural laws according to which things behave under diverse circumstances. In the latter case, things will behave in a certain way and we can find out by doing science. But if the designer does not specify the laws, then why could things not behave in law-like ways of their own accord? Ways we could likewise detect by doing science? Isn't there some intrinsic behaviour in the very existence of things? Isn't the existence of a thing in itself a kind of stable and law-like behaviour?
Sorry for off-topicness.
Edited by Parasomnium, : Just saw the great red sign
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2
