Natural-law argument


Formal Argument

Premises

P1. There are natural laws which govern the universe

P2. All laws have a law giver

Conclusions

C1. Natural laws have a law giver

C2. That law giver is God

C3. God exists


Natural laws do not exist as matter or energy, but more like ideas, mathematical concepts and numbers. They describe the way the objects in the universe behave. In a way natural laws cannot be incorrect, i.e. objects behave as they behave, we just have wrong ideas about their behavior. For example Newton laws break down when objects reach near light speed levels. But it would incorrect to say that the laws guiding the objects are incorrect - objects always behaved the way they behave in those conditions. It was our understanding of those laws that was incorrect.

It's not known why the universe has laws that it has. Science has explanations how the laws are working, but ultimately not why they are working. So even if God concept is added into the mix, then it doesn't get any clearer why the laws are as they are.


  1. "Natural-law argument". Religions Wiki. Retrieved on 11/12/2020.
Fallacies and problems with argumentation
  • Equivocation

    "Natural law" in P1 means a scientific law of physics, and "law" in P2 means a customary law made by man. The natures of those two concepts are different.

Last updated on 11/12/2020

Links

Join our Community!

See a way to improve the content you see? Want to add a comment or a fresh point of view?

Register here to join our community and start contributing!