[Avodah] The Nomological Argument

[Micha Berger]

The nomological argument isn't arguing that there must have been a Creator
from that feature of the universe or the other. Or by showing that the
Laws of Nature are so finely tuned to make sentient life possible.

The word "nomological" is from "nomos", meaning "law".

It is asking the question why nature even has any laws to begin with. Why
is there science? Why do like charges repel? Why shouldn't they sometimes
attract? Or repel, but in no predictable way? Or the elliptical orbits
of planets -- why is there a consistent law of gravity?

Turns out the existence of a Designer, i.e. a Personal G-d, could well
be the most probable explanation.

I just came across
https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/nomological-argument-does-god-exist
which I recommend reading if you want more.

G'Shabbos,
-micha


Big Think Edge

The nomological argument for the existence of God

Regularities, which we associate with laws of nature, require an explanation.
Tyler Hildebrand and Thomas Metcalf
03 May, 2021

The nomological argument for the existence of God

     * The nomological argument for the existence of God comes from the
       Greek nomos or "law," because it's based on the laws of nature.
     * There are pragmatic, aesthetic, and moral reasons for regularities
       to exist in nature.
     * The best explanation may be the existence of a personal God rather
       than mindless laws or chance.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Here's a new version of an old argument for the existence of God. It's
   called the "nomological argument," after the Greek nomos or "law,"
   because it's based on laws of nature.
...
   Moreover, these competing theories face a different problem. Positing
   mindless laws of nature with no ultimate explanation just seems to push
   the problem back. Now we have yet another interesting phenomenon to
   explain. Why did the laws that just randomly happened to exist generate
   regularities, which are only a relatively tiny portion of the possible
   set of events? To return to our analogy, it wouldn't be satisfying to
   say that you got five royal flushes in a row because some mindless law
   just happened to guarantee that result. (Why wasn't there a different
   law, one that generated any one of the octillions of other possible
   sequences instead? Just a huge coincidence?) In any case, we say a lot
   more in our [62]journal article about why other explanations, such as
   alternative philosophical accounts of the nature of laws, don't do a
   great job of explaining regularities.

   One might worry that positing God pushes the problem back in exactly
   the same way: What explains the existence of God? Well, everyone has to
   posit something, and we can always ask for an explanation of those
   things. Because positing God is relatively modest, we think it's more
   or less on the same footing as positing anything else -- maybe no
   philosophical theory can really explain its fundamental entities.
...
   Another objection might be that we've just posited a "God of the gaps"
   -- simply positing God ad hoc when there's some gap in our knowledge.
   However, we haven't argued, "We don't know why laws of nature exist,
   and therefore, God did it."...
...
   We'll mention one last objection. Proponents of a multiverse might say
   that regularity isn't surprising, because the probability that at least
   one universe exhibits regularity is high. Some proponents of a
   multiverse are motivated by scientific considerations. However, since
   the relevant scientific theories (inflation, string theory, many-worlds
   interpretations of quantum mechanics) posit underlying regularities
   that generate and maintain the multiverse, we can simply ask what
   explains those regularities....
...
   One last disclaimer: Philosophy can be really hard. We don't claim to
   provide a proof, or even an especially strong argument, for the
   existence of God. Instead, we merely claim that this appeal to God has
   some important explanatory virtues and that, as a result, it deserves
   serious consideration as an explanation of why there are regularities.

   Though modest, this conclusion is noteworthy. As we alluded to above,
   scientific practice requires regularities. By providing a philosophical
   explanation of regularities, we are trying to explain why science is
   possible in the first place. Relatedly, many Early Modern philosophers
   thought that scientific investigation of the natural world allowed us
   insight into the mind of God. If God's relation to the laws of nature
   might be as we've suggested, theists should have a very positive
   attitude towards the sciences. Likewise, those who prefer naturalistic
   or atheistic accounts should at least be open-minded about the
   relationship between science and religion. This is not a new lesson,
   but it provides a further illustration of the fact that, while there
   may be no role for God or other supernatural entities in scientific
   explanations, this does not mean that science itself is necessarily at
   odds with religious belief.