Well, first of, I'd have asked "Well, what is a law of physics? Is it an abstration? A mathematical formula? A behaviour?". I wouldn't say that it's contingent too fast, especially if I don't know what they're talking about.

Then you can ask them what it means "the law of physics exist". Ask them "what is matter", and alike.

There's no trap here. Honestly. The best discussion I have had with atheists are when I appear in a blank state, with genuine curiosity for their ideas.

"Atheism" per se is a negative position, and as such, makes little ontological commitment. You have to study and be curious as to what their positive claims are. ;)

(For my own part, I don't believe that physical laws exist at all. I think they're abstractions of powers. ^^)

Last edited by FrenchySkepticalCatholic (4/18/2018 9:22 am)

Well I agree the laws of physics are probably contingent; scientists themselves seem to assume that as they sometimes theorize about how things could be given different laws. So that's one way to go about it. But the main issue, I believe, is that "laws of nature" are just abstractions. What on earth would a "law" be? How can the atheist think the "laws" somehow bring things into existence? The most plausible view, to my mind, of laws of nature would treat them as descriptive. They're not "something" existing over and above objects causing them to act; they're just descriptions of how physical things operate. So it doesn't answer the question.

What we are looking for in thomistic, leibnizian arguments etc. is a *concrete* first cause of things. Concrete here means "causally effective". Abstract objects -- like numbers, "laws", equations -- obviously don't cause anything, certainly not real things at least. But what we need is a first cause that is responsible for the existence of contingent beings, or beings whose essence is distinct from existence, etc. So it cannot be abstract objects like laws of nature -- notice, also, how it wouldn't even make sense to suggest the laws of nature would bring the natural into existence. It already reeks of bootstrapping non-sense.

Notice also that this point is also relevant for an additional argument one can give for the first cause being personal. Because provided you first establish first cause is immaterial, and it cannot be an abstract object, then the only candidate we know of that could fit the bill would be something like an unembodied mind -- which should at least be possible or conceivable, even if it turned out that human minds can't be unembodied, for instance. But then the first cause would be analogous to an unembodied mind, or more like it than anything else.

Last edited by Miguel (4/18/2018 12:27 pm)

The term "law of nature" is terribly misunderstood by a lot of lay people. There seems to be a common misconception that laws of nature somehow pre-exist and are independent from the reality they describe. It's almost as if some self-proclaimed atheists unknowingly subscribe to a form of platonism. I'm guessing they would be hesitant to do so if they hashed out their thought process on laws of nature, considering they're possibly of the materialist bent.