> Another naturalistic response to the apparent
> design of nature (v. design -in- nature) is to say that it is not blind
> chance that is responsible for the apparent design (perhaps with an
> infinitely cycling big bang), but blind necessity (if there is no
> cycling). That is, things just couldn't have been otherwise, and so
> there is no need for an explanation, the argument goes. >
You're right, I've also seen this approach.
> One problem with this approach is that it seems arbitrary -- that is,
> why did it have to be this way? There is no logical or mathematical
> necessity to it (i.e., it's not like 2+2=4), so why?? It seems to stop
> asking questions simply because naturalism can no longer provide an answer.
>
> (Of course, the naturalist will counter with, "What explains God, if
> everything requires an explanation?" So the question for the theist is
> this: is there any way to explicate the broadly held intuition that God
> doesn't require an explanation, but nature does? There are a number of
> approaches to this, but I won't go into them in this brief note.) >
I'm interested in hearing the various approaches you have in mind, if
you have the time to write them.
It seems like every metaphysical system requires at least one "necessary"
entity, that is, not contingient upon other things for its existence.
(Pointing this out seems the simplest way to deflect the "Occam's Razor"
attempt to cut God out of the picture, not that it was ever a good
argument to begin with.)
Loren Haarsma