GOD EXISTS: THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER

When it comes right down to it, there are only two metaphysical accounts for the universe and our presence within it.  The first is that God created the universe.  The second is that nature is fundamental.  The first account, theism, explains the existence, order, and purpose of the universe.  The second account, naturalism, takes the existence of the universe and its primary order as axiomatic and denies any purpose to it.  The theist attempts to answer why our world came to be, whereas the naturalist objects to the validity of the question.

However, for that objection to have merit, the naturalist must have a basis for it.  It is not enough for the naturalist to declare that the existence of the universe is a brute fact.  The theist does not dispute that it exists.  An unadorned assertion that it does, period, is a proclamation of ignorance as to why it does.  Ignorance permits the naturalist to be agnostic as to theism, but offers no basis for invalidating it.  So he must go further.  Regarding the existence of the universe, he must go to where the dispute lies with the theist.  What is fundamental to the universe?  God or nature?  What comes first, mind or matter?  In other words, is the universe created, a work of intelligence?  Or are the undirected matter and mechanisms of nature the foundation of the universe?

By arguing that nature, not God, is fundamental to the existence of the universe, the naturalist begins to raise a legitimate objection to the validity of the question the theist wants to answer:  Why does the universe exist?  To wit, if nature is fundamental to the universe, and nature by definition is undirected and purposeless, then the question of why the universe exists is meaningless.  And so, the naturalist dispenses with the need to explain either the existence or the purpose of the universe.  But that still leaves him on the hook to explain the order of the universe.  If he doesn’t, then he cannot close the door on the theist’s contention that the existence of the universe requires an explanation and that explanation entails a purpose for the universe.  Thus, the naturalist’s objection to the validity of theist’s question of “why” would fail absent a hypothesis for order.

To say that the universe has order is to say that it is not a cauldron of unstructured chaos like the quantum flux.  Matter is organized into atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, and organisms like us.  Of course, the naturalist can point to the discoveries of science to describe the order exhibited by these things.  Physics, chemistry, and biology describe their structure and their interactions – i.e., causality.  Indeed, we have boiled this knowledge down to laws of nature to mathematically describe the uniformity of causality.  Yet none of this addresses the primary order of the universe.  How is it that nature gives rise to the order that makes laws of nature possible in the first place?  It cannot be yet another law of nature, because that begs the question by presuming order.  While the naturalist can consign primary order to brute fact, that at best – as discussed above – permits him to be an agnostic.  It does not provide a basis to object to the validity of the question that the theist seeks to answer.

It would appear that the naturalist has a serious problem if nature cannot explain order.  But is the failure of nature to explain the primary order of the universe epistemological or metaphysical?  Do we fail to understand how nature gives rise to order because of our ignorance, whether passing or permanent?  Or do we fail to understand because nature cannot, in fact, give rise to order?  If it is the former, then belief in naturalism is not unreasonable, but it is not possible to refute theism as unreasonable.  If it is the latter, can we know that?  If we can, then naturalism is refuted.  To examine this further, we need to take a closer look at how the universe is ordered.

The universe has order because of the sameness of the properties of its basic building blocks, sub-atomic particles.  Although these particles come in different classes, particles of the same class have identical properties.  Furthermore, without regard to their class, these particles have the same properties of interaction; for example, two particles may not have identical masses, but the effect of their masses when they interact will be proportionately the same.  In this way, we can speak of the sameness of the properties of all sub-atomic particles in the universe.  Upon this primary order the universe has been built.

It might be said that this sameness of sub-atomic particles can be attributed to the laws of physics.  However, that puts the cart before the horse.  These particles are not the same because of the laws of physics.  We have laws of physics because these particles are the same.  In other words, the sameness of sub-atomic particles is a metaphysical fact.  In contrast, the laws of physics describing their sameness are epistemological constructs we use to reduce that sameness to a method of knowledge, usually mathematics.  This is akin to the difference between:  [1] An apple and a stop sign both having the property of red color (a metaphysical fact), and [2] abstracting from particular instances of red color a concept of redness (an epistemological construct).  The former exists as discrete and particular physical instantiations and the latter as mental generalizations of those instantiations.

So we are faced with a marvel:  The trillions upon trillions upon trillions of sub-atomic particles in the universe all having the same properties.  Because no law of nature can account for this extraordinary sameness, we are left with two possibilities for the existence of this primary order in the universe.  It was either accident or intention.  While the naturalist can claim it was an accident, the coincidence of this sameness is so improbable as to be impossible.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to look to an intentional act having caused this sameness in each and every sub-atomic particle of the universe.  If so, that would be an act of God in the creation of the universe.  Just as a manufacturer makes every widget coming out of his factory the same, God made the individual building blocks of the universe the same.  He did so by imposing form, His principle of organization, upon the prime matter of the universe to create each and every sub-atomic particle, thus providing the universe with its primary order.

Because we know that this primary order exists, we can know God exists.  If God did not exist, then we would have to explain the order of the universe either in terms of a law of nature or as an accident.  Because a law of nature presumes order, it explains nothing.  Because an accident that all of the countless sub-atomic particles of the universe have the same properties is nigh impossible, it is profoundly deficient as an explanation even if it does not logically close out nature as fundamental to the universe.  For these reasons, we can reasonably conclude God exists because order exists.

[Note:  Click here for an extended discussion I have had with Regi Firehammer, The Automonist, and his comrades on this subject. - 5/31/07]