The laws of nature and infinite regression

So let me put it a little differently: Why don't we say that the reality described by these laws has always been the way it is?

And again, the argument is not that they legislated on their own, but that reality has always been like this. After all, something has always existed. So why would it be God and not a reality with natural laws?

It doesn't matter at all that it always was. There is still the principle of sufficient reason, according to which reason is required for the very existence of a special thing, not necessarily for its creation. Keep reading.

And isn't God himself special? Doesn't he need a reason for his very existence?

You read part of it and it's too much suspense. Do you want me to fill you in on the rest here? Read it all.

Okay. I'll be back after I read everything.

I read the relevant chapters. After them you talk about the definition of complexity and that is not related to my question.
I understood the idea there that these laws are ingenious and therefore evolution (certainly when there is no randomness in it) only strengthens the physico-theological argument.
But my question is more fundamental. And it is why should we stop the regression with God and not with the forces of nature themselves?
Why not assume that these forces have simply always existed and that is it?

Dear Questioner,

According to science, in the very first moments after the beginning of the Big Bang, the laws of physics changed in the process.
So it is impossible to assume in advance that they have always been the same.

You could say that maybe there were always “some laws today”, which is a slightly more pointed claim.

And yet Miki's argument regarding a simple assumption is completely legitimate, even though it does not have 100% certainty, like everything else. In the end, everyone makes their own choices and decisions.
And like Miki, I am indeed convinced that the patterns of nature also probably indicate a creator.
Certainly, when you see something as amazing as one small and simple cell in the human body, that this entire crazy biochemical mechanism is made possible by the patterns of nature.

You're just taking mine back one step. So the reality that you're writing according to these laws in Wodah is not eternal. But it's still possible that the laws before the big bang are eternal!
What's the reason to stop regression in God and not in these laws?

There is no relevance to changing the laws of nature. They haven't changed either. There are processes of change within the laws. But this whole discussion is irrelevant, because we are talking about the fundamental laws within which everything happens.

I don't know what exactly you are reading, but in the first post I explained things very well. I will address it briefly here. The laws of nature are not applicable. They describe the conduct of the world. Therefore, the question of who enacted them requires an answer. On the other hand, the forces of nature, those that execute these laws, are part of the world. These forces are themselves part of creation. The argument is that at the background of creation there must be an entity that created everything and that itself was not created and does not need a cause (according to Occam's razor, it is likely that it is one and not many. For the epochs of the forces of nature). This entity does deviate from the general law that every complex needs a component because without this deviation we reach infinite regression, and completely giving up the law of causality is not reasonable because intuition says that it is true. Therefore, the lex specialis says that it is better to stick with the law and deviate from it to the minimum required. This is God.
If, for you, the forces of nature are the primary being that does not need a cause, then they are God. The physico-theological argument says nothing about who this being is, only that such a being exists.
And in addition to all this, God is not necessarily complex either. On the contrary, it is accepted in our tradition to think that he is utterly simple.

But why would we prefer that the primary being be something intelligent and willful like God? Rather than prefer that it be inanimate and dead natural forces?

That's a different question. The argument proves the existence of some being. Whether it has will and intention is another discussion. The argument is that if not, then it too would need a creator. Otherwise, it is a machine that mechanically created the laws of the world and is no different in essence from the laws themselves. It too requires an explanation. If it has will and intention, then it provides an explanation for the laws because it willed them and therefore created them.

So if I understood correctly, your argument is this:
1. The world indicates intelligence
2. Evolution shows that within the framework of the laws the world was created, as it were, by itself.
3. The intelligent laws that produce an intelligent world indicate intelligence.
4. There is an intelligent creator with infinite will
5. If there is no creator, then there would be infinite regression, and it makes the most sense to stop the regression with the intelligent than with the dead force that happened to create such a world.

right