subbie writes:
I think that answer presumes a lot.
Yes, it does. I was just trying to give a direct general answer to the heart of his question.
If we assume he's referring specifically to the argument over creationism and evolution, assuming that some deity is responsible for natural laws wouldn't change the argument one whit.
I totally agree that the arguments themselves wouldn't change.
And from there, we have 2 main schools of context that are easily confused:
1. This is what I think taiji2 is thinking about in his mind, and this is the context I answered: The argument was over whether or not God exists, and that 'natural laws' somehow mean that God does not exist (this doesn't actually follow... but, whatever, I still think this is what taiji2 intended).
In this context, the arguments remain the same, but their conclusions (that God does not exist) are wrong.
I agree that this context does not stem from the exact wording that taiji2 used. But I think it's obvious if you follow his stream of thought that this is the context he was trying to get at.
2. This is what I think is actually more mainstream and where the confusion in taiji2's question is stemming from: The arguments about 'natural laws' don't care about God's existence. Therefore, if the laws do actually come from a God, then it doesn't matter... the arguments for the laws remain the same, and their conclusions (that these laws describe our universe and function as we think they do...) remain the same.
This is what you're talking about, and this is where my thoughts actually land as well. But I thought it best to attempt an answer for the context I thought taiji2 was trying for instead of confusing it with this one.
Really, only taiji2 can say what it is he actually meant with his question, though.
My follow up question (asking taiji2 how we should further the discussion) was intended to begin sorting through this confusion.
™ Version 4.2
