I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you have never read a single letter of Kepler’s correspondence. Am I right? He constantly thanks God for his findings and his epistemology explicitly relies on God creating the most elegant and simple of possible universal configurations (without this he wouldn’t know what kind of geometric shapes to look for in the astronomical tables). In the Harmony of the Worlds (the book which contains Kepler’s Third Law), he traces out the implications of the ratios between the maximum and minimum angular speeds of the planets to show that at the time of creation, the planets were in perfect harmony and so sung “in perfect concord” (just as God would have it).
Modern astronomers would probably be embarrassed that such an explicitly religious book (one about music no less) was so important to the history of astronomy, but the fact remains that Kepler’s supernatural beliefs informed his theories to a considerable degree.
P.S. I’m not religious, so don’t bother asking me to defend any specific religion.
And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn’t “merely motivational”. It is a premise taken from Kepler’s theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler’s theology) has actual informational content and it not “merely motivational”. He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now).
Why wouldn’t reality be understandable and investigatable? Only in the field of religion do we get the message that reality is not something to be understood.
You find very little religious text from main stream religions that advocate killing non-believers. You might find instances in the stories where non-believers are killed but that is about it.
God created Eden and told Adam and Eve they could live there as long as they obeyed his rules. They didn’t obey his rules so he kicked them out and they had to fend for themselves. That is about as libertarian as it gets.
I did, God in all major religions that I have some knowledge lets you freely decide to choose God or not. Every other decision is less important than that.
Do you think the universe has a duty to be understandable to human minds? Why should it? Kepler believed it should because God made it that way. Have you never heard of skepticism? There have been many (nonreligious) people who believe that knowledge of reality is impossible.
I never claimed it was impressive, merely that one of your statements was false (and it is, as I have shown).
There’s nothing illogical about believing that the universe has a creator, a first cause. In fact, it would be entirely illogical to deny such a position. Things do not create themselves; they are created. There are only two consistent positions: (a) theism and (b) global skepticism. All other positions are merely cop outs. Many of the enlightened thinkers rejected religion because they refused to accept anything on pure faith. They attempted to “stand on their own two feet” by replacing faith with science. Unfortunately, science has been unable to answer such questions; in fact, it has only revealed how peculiar the nature of the universe really is. Also, every branch of science accepts certain premises entirely on faith (which yield correct conclusions). Even math is forced to accept certain things on pure faith (zero factorial, for example).
The mere fact that he got it right does make it so that he was informed by his religion. The idea that our brains are evolved to understand the universe because it’s beneficial to understand the universe is entirely different than the idea that the universe was made so that our brains could understand it. One of those is true, and the other is not. If you pick the wrong one, you are not informed based on that decision, even if some of the same conclusions can be reached.
Our brains did not create order in the universe. You’re putting the carriage in front of the horse. So again, why is there order in the universe to begin with (why is reason even useful)? Some say that this is a nonsensical question. But scientists ask such questions every single day. Newton’s investigation into gravity was perfectly reasonable. Most people will tell you that there is order in the universe because there is order in the universe (post hoc ergo propter hoc), and others, the global skeptics, will tell you that there isn’t order in the universe (nihilists).
How is atheism or deism logically inconsistent? Both can recognize a first cause or creator consistently. Further, why would one assume that the “first cause” of the universe was an infinitely powerful, infinitely complex being whose will can be known through the “divine revelations” of primitive people who had virtually no understanding of how the universe actually operated? (The positions of theists)
There might be universes where logic isn’t useful. By the anthropic principle, we are in the universe where reason is useful.
It is a nonsense question. It’s like asking what the color of a C chord is.
Also without humans, can you really say there is order? I mean, what does order even mean if not “the universe acts in a way that we have found a way to live in”. The universe is out of order for the Nebulites who would have lived if space folded every second. But space doesn’t fold every second, and so they don’t exist.
First, when I say God, I’m referring to the creator of the universe. You can call it Bob if you like. Next, you’re right about deism (logically consistent), but atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe, its order, or whatever (not that it cant answer this right now, but that it can never answer it).
Since the first cause created all else, including the order and constancy we perceive in the universe, it seems perfectly reasonable to assign it such traits. It’s hard to imagine a fallible creator of the universe, who can exist beyond space-time. The belief that it’s an active influence over the universe is precisely that, a belief.
There is only one universe, by definition. But even then, you can not logically deduce the existence of another universe. It’s pure speculation.
Why there’s order in the universe, and how does a system, comprised only of contingent objects, come into existence, are not nonsensical questions. Newton’s inquiry into gravitational orbits was perfectly reasonable. Lacking a satisfactory answer for a question does not give you the right to automatically dismiss it. An honest answer is, “I don’t know.” But, instead, you choose to simply end the conversation for ideological reasons.
Adding up a series of contingent objects yields a series of contingent objects. Contingent objects do not create themselves, by definition. So the question remains: how does a system, which is comprised of only contingent objects, first come into existence? Well, you can say that it (a) either created itself, (b) it was created, or (c) it is this way because it is this way. (A) is a reductio, and (c) is fallacy. Furthermore, science has revealed that the universe is finite; it had a beginning.
And you can’t dismiss the idea of multiple universes. Or at the very least if you insist that universe doesn’t have multiple definitions, a part of the universe which doesn’t have any use for logic. It too is pure speculation.
Order has no meaning without us. What is order without some goal behind it. Like I said, the universe is out of order for those beings which might exist if the universe acted differently. If the universe didn’t have the strong force, but some other force, we might not exist, and the universe would be in chaos to us. Other particles might exist and show different properties, and if we were suddenly transported there, we’d disintegrate or deform or something. But the beings who did live there would be fine, because they have the ability to function in that universe. It would be ordered to them. So order is subjective, not objective. Thus the question “why does the universe have order?” doesn’t mean anything.
Well as far as we know, the very base that makes up this universe is not contingent. We know that mass and energy has never been observed to have been created or destroyed, just converted from one to the other. So as far as we know, there was never a beginning to those particles. They just always have been. Much like the theorized deity. You can’t logically say that it’s possible Deity can have existed forever, but not the particles that make up this universe.