But then how, according to the Rabbi’s view, did the laws of nature give the commandments and cause snakes to fly through the air?

The laws of nature are inanimate. How can they be the God of the physico-theological argument? The Rabbi said this is an argument for the existence of a designer, something that thought and planned what it wanted to be in the world and then carried out its plan.

The physico-theological argument does not deal with the question of who gave the commandments, if anyone. It proves that there is something that created the world. After that comes an additional argument from tradition saying that this same fellow also gave commandments.
The conclusion of the first argument can be called “the laws of nature,” but that’s just a name. We are talking about an entity that created the world. The second argument says that it gave commandments. So the giver of the commandments is called “the laws of nature.” Does that bother anyone?

I didn’t understand. Here is what you said in the first installment about God in the physico-theological argument:

“There are several versions of physico-theological arguments, all of which begin from an assumption about the character of the existing universe and prove the existence of whoever is responsible for it. The argument from design starts from the apparently designed character of the universe and proves from that the existence of a designer. The argument from complexity proves the existence of a composer or engineer responsible for the complexity of the world. The argument from fine-tuning proves the existence of an engineer who arranged and continues to arrange the fit between different parts of our universe. All these arguments are similar to one another and have the same logical structure, and so below I usually will not distinguish between them.”

For me, an engineer and a designer is someone capable of sitting and thinking about what he wants to do. That is not the laws of nature, which are inanimate. It is like a person with intellect and thought, but certainly not a person with a body. What do the commandments have to do with it? Already in the physico-theological argument there was intellect and understanding. If not, then what are this planning and engineering???

If the laws of nature are entities that created reality and govern it, then they have intellect and planning. You decided that they are inanimate, but if so, then they are not a solution to the coming-into-being of the world.

I’m having trouble understanding what you mean. Is the physico-theological argument a proof that there is something that created the world, or a proof that there is someone who created the world?

For me, “something” and “someone” are not the same. “Something” is more general; it can be inanimate or thinking. “Someone” is a thinking person, with desires and understanding. Do the laws of nature think, plan, engineer? I’m not a physicist, but I don’t think so. The way I think about God (and I’m definitely not alone), He has intellect and thought and is capable of thinking and planning and engineering. The laws of nature do not.

In plain language that ordinary people like me can understand, does your physico-theological argument show that someone planned or engineered the world? If not, then what is the difference between you and people who deny God? What is the argument about? They probably think like I do, that God is someone wise, with intellect, and certainly not inanimate. So what is the point of talking about the world looking designed, if that design is not design by intellect and understanding? I always thought this was an argument that God thinks and has intellect, so of course there is a difference between what I think and what those who deny God think. In your view, I don’t know whether there is any difference.

I’ll repeat once more. Indeed, this argument proves that there is someone who created the world. If you want to claim that this is the laws of nature, then they are someone. It’s only a change of name.

I understand, thank you very much.