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)
