Q&A: Is the physico-theological argument basically a variation of the cosmological argument?
Is the physico-theological argument basically a variation of the cosmological argument?
Question
I watched your debate with Aviv Franco on Head-to-Head. You started with the physico-theological discussion and ended with a kind of cosmological argument, just applied to the four basic laws of physics. Can one say that the argument from complexity is really a question about the contingency of the four simple laws of physics? If so, then it no longer depends on complexity, and it is much more similar to the cosmological argument… Or did I miss the point?
Answer
You missed the point. The argument from the laws is physico-theological, not cosmological. It is based on the fact that the laws are sophisticated and special, not on their mere existence.
Discussion on Answer
Beyond that, you spoke about the low entropy in our universe as proof that it is complex. But if the low entropy arises from the four laws of physics, it follows that we really need to measure the entropy of the laws themselves, if such a thing even exists, in order to argue that they are complex, regardless of the entropy of the universe after 14 billion years of operating according to those laws.
The four fundamental forces: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93
The complexity of the laws is measured through their outcomes.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Which laws are we talking about? You mentioned the four basic laws of physics there, but I couldn’t find such a definition online.