/lit/ - Literature

>>16833039
>But laws are something that humans make.
Things that we make based on our observations of patterns in the world which do exist and are identifiable. These things DO exist, and are constant. Otherwise, science would be defeated because there are unpredictable, random patterns that are only at times constant.

>The presupposition would be that intelligence is behind reality
I am not arguing that there is an intelligence based on science's circularity, that justification comes from evidence of the supernatural. Science's circularity only entails something transcendental thus far.

> If intelligence is not behind reality then the so-called laws of the universe are really just a mysterious thing called the universe
But the laws of nature are understandable, and we can inquire into their nature further. This leads to circularity. It cannot be done with a transcendental being such as God; the only way to salvage the laws of nature from circularity is to end the infinite regression of proofs with some "transcendental proof" that humans cannot comprehend or reduce.

>They probably tend to believe that human intelligence is some strange thing in the universe rather than part of it
Of course, but human intelligence is what comprehends the universe.

>of course most people who believe in a God, especially Westerners, see him as a mind
You can view Him as whatever you want, but ultimately the important aspect of God is the explanatory power and some sort of communion or relationship.

Of course, God, rather than being something entirely alien to us, could just be an archetype for everything here on earth that is conducive to life and full of life (as opposed to being vitiated and corrupt). A transcendental archetype for logic, for order, etcetera that we can only not understand because we are fallen beings with a corrupted logic, order, and so on. But that's just an aside, not relevant to the discussion.

Had a strange attraction to the alium on the cover