Q&A: Why Is It Reasonable That the Laws of Nature Were Written by an Intelligent Entity?
Why Is It Reasonable That the Laws of Nature Were Written by an Intelligent Entity?
Question
Hello Michael,
I understood that one of your proofs for the existence of an intelligent entity that created the universe is basically the watchmaker argument: complex things seem to you to be designed, and although complexity can emerge from simple things, the reason this is possible at all is because, apparently, an intelligent entity legislated the laws of nature that cause this. Therefore, in your view it is more reasonable that an intelligent entity planned this complexity than that the laws of nature are simply a necessary feature of reality. I hope I represented your argument correctly.
My question is: on what basis do you ground the claim that this seems more reasonable to you? Intuition? What does "reasonable" mean here at all? A probability that you cannot quantify? What is the logic of that reasonableness? Can we even rely on intuition as a source of knowledge and for drawing conclusions about the world?
Answer
When you justify something with an argument, at its foundation there are always basic assumptions. Those are not grounded in arguments but in intuitions. So at the base of everything there are intuitions, and if you are not willing to rely on intuitions, then you cannot rely on anything or know anything.
You can search here on the site for a column about what intuition is. I wrote about this in two books: Truth and Unstable, and Two Carts and a Hot-Air Balloon.
Probabilistic claims about the world are also based on intuitions, that is, on reasonableness.