Have any of you heard this debate between Greg Bahnsen (Reformed Christian) and Gordon Stein (Atheist)? You will enjoy this (put aside your views of Calvinism).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iEUanJbsw&feature=PlayList&p=75F2FF36C0ECC4A2&index=0&playnext=1
It is very interesting in that Bahnsen argues for the TAG Transcendental Argument for God and just blows Stein in the weeds. B's argument is that a naturalistic world view cannot account for abstract invariant entities such as the laws of logic (necessarily true propositions).
Stein contended that matter obeys the laws of nature (grand laws of the universe versus moral laws) simply because this obedience is inherent in the nature of matter (Stein aparently holds to a Regularity view of law which states that the logical priority goes from event to law - laws get their truth value from the events that 'subsume' them). For example: an electron follows a path around the nucleus and never varies "too much" off course to maintain its orbit simply because it's the way it matter or the electron behaves and will continue to do so based on past experience. Stein also said that laws of logic are simply by convention. How does Stein know anything about the intrinsic constitution of matter to make this declaration?
B on the other hand said that science cannot rely on induction on all levels to assume that electrons will always behave this way and therefore there must be laws that these electrons are subsumed - these laws are ultimately grounded by God who made them. Hence, Steins Regularity view relies on induction; BUT how can on justify reliance on induction?
If you listen to the debate - Stein performed very poorly and contradicted himself, and could offer no better explanation than "matter just acts in ways that are law like because it is inherent to its nature". Laws of logic and ethics are of convention…
Now I personally believe that B's Necessitarian views of natural law which states that matter is subsumed under law and gets its truth from the law...does not preclude free will. I believe that the issue of the uniformity of nature is the real threat to free will; which is a separate issue from the Necessitarian view or Regularity view of law. In other words: we can be subject to the laws of gravity et al, but we would still be hard pressed under this view to identify laws that govern our moral choices; even if we had the ability to do so, granted the degree of regularity in the universe, it is still in our power to make choose either A or ~A, B, C,... A Deterministic view with a relatively low degree of uniformity would allow for a free moral agent to be subject to numerous physical laws; however, there would exist a multitude of consequential choices that the agent can make of his own volition. Of course a Hard-Determinist view would entail a high degree of uniformity which would demand that the agent have one and only one choice that he can make when confronted with an antecedent event. If find this view extremely hard to defend. So if one believes in a ostensible law of cause and effect, even though we moral agents are faced with a predicate cause, we still have several options that are within our free will to choose. I hold to more of a Regularity view of law albeit grounded in God's providence. By the way, the over simplified metaphysical proposition of the "law of causality" is a relic from the past and it cannot be verified.
My question to anyone who cares to answer is this: if there are necessary laws of logic and nature; could you justify them in a way that would be more compelling than simply saying "this law like behavior is inherent in matter" Additionally, how could someone justify that laws of logic or math are merely conventional when we see the universal application of them, we see the abundance of truth that they lead us to; and in our minds we may say they are conventional but in practice expect them to be a universal standard that everyone submits to. I think necesary truths are not true on pain of definition or by convention but are true because there are more possible worlds that they are true in viz. all possible worlds. For example (P v Q) may be true in 3,000 possible worlds where as (P v~P) is true in more possible worlds viz. all possible worlds. So this necessary truth is not merely true by convention but in application. Remember Aristotle said that even a dog understands disjunctive syllogism - do animals have a convention by which they reason or do these abstract entities exist?
Is B's answer that they reflect the thinking of God any better than Steins? I know I raised several issues here and overlooked a plethora of details...If you hold to a Necessitarian view of law, and are not a Christian - what is this "mystical" relationship between the law and the event or matter that is governed by the law? Stein would say that to ground the laws logic in axioms or even possible worlds - anything other than God is like a man who has his feet firmly planted in mid-air.
Any thoughts? Not looking for a debate or argument, just some views natural or physical law and some of the issues of the debate?