Q&A: The Argument from Order
The Argument from Order
Question
Hello Rabbi,
What does the Rabbi think about the arguments from order:
”
1. The argument for a higher power that rules the universe, because otherwise the universe would return to chaos.
At every moment there is regularity in nature, without which the universe would revert to chaos. But there is no rational reason that necessitates the continual operation of the laws of nature; from this it is proven that there is divine governance over the universe even at this very moment, governing the laws and sustaining them, in the sense of “who in His goodness renews each day, continually, the work of creation.” Without His constant supervision, there would be nothing to necessitate the continued existence and regularity in the world, and the universe would simply return to chaos.
2. The argument from the design of the laws of nature.
Since there is logical and mathematical reason in the laws of nature, which testifies to consciousness—the design of the universe. That is, there could have been irrational laws, which would still indicate the existence of a lawgiving force, but not the existence of a conscious lawgiver and planner.
Design naturally points to a designer, just as light points to a source of light.
We see that nature is designed: atoms, molecules, the water cycle, the ozone, oxygen, and more are all extremely complex systems from every mathematical standpoint. The wisdom revealed in nature is a scientific fact that cannot be denied, and this is logical proof that there exists an intelligent Creator who planned all this, because there cannot be wisdom without one who is wise.
I would be happy to hear a critique of these proofs
Answer
- I am not sure of the value of this argument. The question is whether it is possible to legislate a law that persists (that is, to build a mechanism that ensures that it persists) or not. If so, then we are left with the question of who legislated the law, not who preserves its operation.
- The argument from design is a common version of the physico-theological argument (like the argument from complexity). The question is whether we really see design around us, or whether this could be the result of blind evolution. Whoever rejects that will accept both arguments, and whoever accepts it will reject them both.
Discussion on Answer
To legislate a law that persists certainly requires a Creator, but that would be a Creator responsible for the formation of the law, not for its continued persistence. In other words, we are back to the original argument (the argument from laws).
Explanation? Why couldn’t a blind reality make a law that persists—for example, like the laws of nature that we know?
We’re just going around in circles again. Do you agree that an ordinary law requires a lawgiver? If not, then what is there to discuss about the persistence of the law, if there is no agreement about the law itself? And if so, then again, what is there to discuss about its persistence?
I mean, on the assumption that an ordinary law does not require a lawgiver, would a law that persists definitely require a lawgiver?
And I repeat again: what is a law that does not persist? There is no such law. If it does not persist, it is not a law.
I don’t understand what is unclear about what he said.
There is law 1 regarding the matter itself—for example, that two bodies attract one another, even if only for a single moment.
And there is law 2 regarding the very fact that law 1 persists.
He initially asked about 2,
and you answered him about 1.
Then he asked, on the assumption that law 1 could possibly arise randomly, whether law 2 would require a lawgiver, and to that you didn’t answer; rather, you didn’t understand what he was saying.
A momentary law is an especially amusing concept in its emptiness. I’m done.
1. On the assumption that it is indeed possible to legislate a law that persists, would that require a Creator? Or could a “blind” reality do this?
2. Thanks!