# Uniformity of Nature



## T.A.G. (Dec 17, 2009)

Last thread for a while guys, really 

1.Do you think this is a good argument against a materialistic worldview?

2.I find it interesting that people either say the universe is random it just seems predictable or something of that nature, or they say we are in a predictable universe therefore you cannot have miracles. what do you think about these arguments?

3.Must you have a God for a predictable universe? 

4.if you were giving the argument that the materialistic worldview can not account for the uniformity of nature, how would you go about explaining it.


Thanks, guys

y'all are really helping me out in my philosophy and my ethics class


----------



## bemer (Dec 17, 2009)

Bear in mind that uniformitarianism (or is it uniformatarianism; spelling isn't my strong point) is exactly the argument used by geologists and evolutionists for a very old earth and a long period of evolutionary change. So, the argument can go both ways.


----------



## Skyler (Dec 17, 2009)

I get stuck when I run into the "miracles" part. I'll have to think about it... I might be able to make it work.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 17, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Last thread for a while guys, really
> 
> 1.Do you think this is a good argument against a materialistic worldview?
> 
> ...



1. A materialistic worldview cannot account for non-material things like logic, numbers, emotions, etc., i.e., non-tangible things which we all know exist.

2. The universe is predictable (laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, etc) precisely because there is a creator who maintains this uniformity. As far a miracles go, since miracles are by definition non-natural, they aren't bound by either randomness, materialism, naturalism, science or uniformity. That what makes them a miracle. If they were a natural coincidence or could be explained by science,they wouldn't be miracles.

3.You must have a intelligent, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent power to account for the predictability of the universe. Only God fits the bill.

4. See #1 and #2. Add if randomness were the controlling power, then you could not be sure that one day when you mix sodium and chloride and get table salt that the net day you do the same thing and create nitroglycerine.

But even presuming randomness as a power is kind of a non-sequitor as there would be no rhyme or reason to it as one might assume power had a purpose of sorts. (Devil's advocate- And randomness, being random, could conceivably morph into uniformity).

Hope this helps.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 17, 2009)

Christians can justify the uniformity principle because God is in complete control of everything including the future and He controls all things in a regular pattern.

Atheists think that they can justify the uniformity principle by saying, "We can assume that the future will be like the past because matter has certain inherent properties that causes it to behave in a predictable way." My response is that we have observed what properties matter had in the past and what properties matter has in the present. One has to assume that the uniformity principle is true to order to believe that matter will have those same properties in the future.


----------



## Skyler (Dec 17, 2009)

The only "problem" with this argument is the atheist's counterargument "Well, you can't have any basis for uniformity either, since your God disrupts the uniformity of nature at will! How do you know he won't do it again?"


----------



## T.A.G. (Dec 17, 2009)

cih1355 said:


> Christians can justify the uniformity principle because God is in complete control of everything including the future and He controls all things in a regular pattern.
> 
> Atheists think that they can justify the uniformity principle by saying, "We can assume that the future will be like the past because matter has certain inherent properties that causes it to behave in a predictable way." My response is that we have observed what properties matter had in the past and what properties matter has in the present. One has to assume that the uniformity principle is true to order to believe that matter will have those same properties in the future.


can you explain and go more into the answer to the objection which you have raised?


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 17, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> Last thread for a while guys, really




I'm learning from these threads


----------



## Confessor (Dec 17, 2009)

First, there is a difference between uniformity of nature and uniformitarianism. The latter is more of a historical position, stressing that the earth we have today has come about by slow, gradual processes for a long time. The former is a philosophical position, stressing (at the very root) that causes will retain their efficacy over time. If A-->B was true yesterday, it will be true tomorrow. With respect to science, then, this can mean (e.g.) that if something doesn't occur as it did yesterday, then some causal factor was changed. The fact that truth values continue into the future is the main principle that stands at the foundation of the uniformity of nature.

Second, this is not an argument against materialism _per se_; it is an argument against the view that all knowledge is _a posteriori_ (meaning that all knowledge is gained by experience). The argument goes thusly: the UoN is basically that the future will behave as the past; we cannot observe that the future will behave as the past (as all observations are relegated either to the past or the present); therefore, if all knowledge is _a posteriori_ we could not know UoN. We clearly do know UoN; therefore it is false that all knowledge is _a posteriori_ (which is, basically, crude empiricism). The UoN must be known by some _a priori_ fashion.

Then, by extension, it could be argued that atheism/evolutionism implies empiricism -- for we cannot have _a priori_ categories if we are hodgepodges of matter -- and therefore the fact that we know the UoN would disprove atheism/evolutionism.


----------



## MMasztal (Dec 17, 2009)

Skyler said:


> The only "problem" with this argument is the atheist's counterargument "Well, you can't have any basis for uniformity either, since your God disrupts the uniformity of nature at will! How do you know he won't do it again?"



I would first ask what he means about "God disrupts the uniformity of nature at will". Does he mean miracles? I'd think so because they do go against nature.

However real miracles are exceedingly rare so I would say this is an example of "the exception that proves the rule" and is a weak argument by the atheist. I'd then ask the atheist provide evidence for this contention. Here's his problem- he can't. He would have to concede: 1) that miracles occur, but this goes counter to their materialist/naturalist worldview; and 2) he would have to concede that a sovereign God exists that caused the miracles. So the atheist is also presenting a straw man argument as well.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 18, 2009)

T.A.G. said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Christians can justify the uniformity principle because God is in complete control of everything including the future and He controls all things in a regular pattern.
> ...



From our past observations of matter, we know that matter has the properties X, Y, and Z. From our present observations of matter, we know that matter has the properties X, Y, and Z. How do you know that matter will have those same properties in the future? How do you know that matter will not lose those properties in the future? The person who claims that matter will have those properties as it did in the past is assuming the uniformity of nature.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 19, 2009)

The Christian worldview of the uniformity of nature by God's maintenance of laws of science, isn't threatened by miracles because miracles according to the Christian worldview are by definition rare events, where God is speaking in a special way by temporarily abandoning the way He normally rules nature.

You need a lot of evidence to believe a miracle has occurred e.g. like God's Word saying it. 

In this respect the Charismatic/Pentecostal view that miracles are/should be happening all the time is unhelpful to Christian apologetics, including the fact that many/most of the miracles they appeal to are counterfeits of one sort or another.

The secular hunmanist/atheist world on the other hand should at best be an unpredictable chaos, conditioned as it is by pure chance.

*Quote from TAG*


> 2.I find it interesting that people either say the universe is random it just seems predictable or something of that nature, or they say we are in a predictable universe therefore you cannot have miracles. what do you think about these arguments?



Right so those that say that science has disproved God, are now having to say that the laws of science don't really exist in order to avoid admitting that there's a God. The reality is that the development od science has given further proof - which wasn't really needed - that there's a God.

Others/or the same people arguing from a different point of view, say that miracles can't happen therefore the God of the Bible isn't true, because scientific laws are absolute, but how do you account for absolute scientific laws in a random chance universe? 

So you've got them on the horns of a dilemma. 

The Christian worldview, on the other hand, can account for both the uniformity of nature, by a Personal Absolute (infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent), Creator and Sustainer of the Universe conditioning all things (van Til called Him the All-conditioner!)

The atheists have an all-conditioner. Pure chance. Literally anything can and should happen, but uniformity of nature is anomalous in a world conditioned by pure chance.

And the Christian worldview can account for miracles, because the All-conditioner sometimes follows other ways of sustaining parts of the universe for His good, wise, just, truthful and rational purposes, and we call these unusual occurrences, miracles.

Hume's argument against miracles has been taken apart many times, and a simple web search should find adequate material on that, which is worth studying closely in connection with this argument for God. 

Miracles are by definition, and by biblical definition, rare and unlikely events. They wouldn't be called signs and wonders in the Bible if they were not.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 20, 2009)

This may have no relevance to the OP, but concerning the nature of words like "randomness" and "uniformity" there is no consensus. If you can define "randomness" in a scientific manner, please tell me because I dont know of any.

Concerning #2; Confessor is right.

If by "randomness" you mean "inexact predictability" we can see that with regard to electrons in quantum physics. In this case, we really can't say that nature is uniform(deterministic) or random (free will). Its both! Our laws will never perfectly describe/predict, even with regard to a priori thought in that case. Its God's prerogative. I think you can draw compatibilistic spin from what John Conway says in his Free Will Theorem. 

That said, its a novel idea, so make sure you cite me.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 20, 2009)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> This may have no relevance to the OP, but concerning the nature of words like "randomness" and "uniformity" there is no consensus. If you can define "randomness" in a scientific manner, please tell me because I dont know of any.
> 
> Concerning #2; Confessor is right.
> 
> ...



But the main Q is are there scientific laws or not. In a random chance universe how can atheists know that the sun will rise tomorrow, that there are various scientific constants?

If he says he doesn't know these things, he is overthrowing science in order to avoid Theism; cutting off his nose to spite his face. If he says he does know them, how does he account for them in a non-Christian Theistic Universe?

We can account for both laws of science and miracles by Christian Theism. The atheist "universe" can account for neither.


----------



## Skyler (Dec 20, 2009)

MMasztal said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > The only "problem" with this argument is the atheist's counterargument "Well, you can't have any basis for uniformity either, since your God disrupts the uniformity of nature at will! How do you know he won't do it again?"
> ...



Yes, he does.



> However real miracles are exceedingly rare so I would say this is an example of "the exception that proves the rule" and is a weak argument by the atheist. I'd then ask the atheist provide evidence for this contention. Here's his problem- he can't. He would have to concede: 1) that miracles occur, but this goes counter to their materialist/naturalist worldview; and 2) he would have to concede that a sovereign God exists that caused the miracles. So the atheist is also presenting a straw man argument as well.



Right, in the same way that we concede for the sake of argument that God doesn't exist and that the universe is materialistic in order to demonstrate that his position is fallacious. It's the same thing we do, I don't think we can criticize him for it.

But yes, you've raised some good points that are definitely problems for the atheist.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Dec 20, 2009)

Richard,

First off, an atheist will not respond to a "random chance universe" unless you define what that means. Define it, and I'll respond like an atheist would.
----------------------------------------------------

My argument anticipates the atheist's response:

-The choice for scientific "laws" or no scientific "laws" is a false choice. We know scientific "laws" in our finitude and sinfulness, not perfect (read:rationalist) categories -even as Christians.
(Hume's critique is too simple.)

-Constants change, have fallen out of style, and been put back into style. We don't put our trust in God because the sun rises everyday, we put our trust in God because the Heavens declare His glory and God has changed our hardened hearts to acknowledge this glory. Miracles declare his Glory and pour forth His speech in a concentrated manner.

-Arguments that don't acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ and God's Word from the outset can only go so far.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 26, 2009)

*Quote from Joy*


> Richard,
> 
> First off, an atheist will not respond to a "random chance universe" unless you define what that means. Define it, and I'll respond like an atheist would.



Well it depends on how well educated the atheist is, anyway, how he'll respond. Or even if he'll understand the argument. Even if he does understand it he may not admit that to you.

I'm talking about a universe that is governed and conditioned at every point by irrational, amoral, contingent impersonalism.

Of course the atheist may respond that he doesn't believe in such a universe but what other universe can he be professing to believe in if he's an atheist. He wants to have his cake and eat it. Reject God while depending upon him for the regularity of the universe.

In an atheist universe, anything could happen. But atheists don't go about expecting anything to happen. They go about like Christians putting their trust in the laws of nature, which depend on God's faithfulness, even absolutising and idolising them sometimes.

If atheists were atheists deep down, they could have no confidence in what for them could only be the so-called "laws" of nature. Their atheism is insincere and inconsistent. They've got "bad faith".

He might come back and say that for practical purposes he has to put his confidence in laws that don't really exist and that he can't live out his philosophy of atheism consistently. But why should there have to be such a fundamental division between theory and practice if we really are living in an atheist universe as he says?

*Quote from Joy*


> -Constants change, have fallen out of style, and been put back into style. We don't put our trust in God because the sun rises everyday, we put our trust in God because the Heavens declare His glory and God has changed our hardened hearts to acknowledge this glory. Miracles declare his Glory and pour forth His speech in a concentrated manner.
> 
> -Arguments that don't acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ and God's Word from the outset can only go so far.



There is a non-salvific faith that all men have in God as Creator, Sustainer, Moral Standard, Logos, because they all know God and need to know God in order to know anything else.

I agree that such conversations should begin with God's Word or quickly lead there, because God's Word accounts for both the atheist and theist worldviews and atheists need to hear the Gospel again, but there is a point of contact with the unbeliever in his knowledge of God.


----------

