If God doesn’t exist, and all that exists are natural laws in a brute sense, it seems that the number of possible configurations of the world are tiny compared to the number of possible configurations if god exists.

If god exists, he could create a universe completely hospitable to life, completely lethal to life, a universe full of fairies, demons, goblins, or any of an infinite number of other beings and objects that you can think of. Planets could be squares instead of circles, the moon could be made of cheese, and we could all be born 70 feet tall or have minds that don’t need brains, etc etc. The possibilities seem endless.

If god doesn’t exist, then reality seems constrained by whatever laws happen to exist. In other words, the probability of a particular configuration being constrained by natural laws seems very high given no god, but very low given god. God wouldn’t need to set up laws in the first place.

It is interesting that this kind of argument can essentially reverse many of the contemporary arguments for theism. For example, a common theistic argument is that if certain parameters were changed by even a small amount, life would not exist. Because this is very improbable, a designer is a better explanation. However, if a designer existed, he wouldn’t need to fine tune life. He wouldn’t need to spend billions of years of time just to create an earth hospitable to life and then spend another billions of years for life to evolve for humans to exist. Yet given no god, that seems to be the only way for life to arise. But given no constraints by an all powerful God, life could have arisen in any of an infinite number of ways imaginable.

What is this kind of argument called? Is there a notion of this in philosophy?

If God doesn’t exist, and all that exists are natural laws in a brute sense, it seems that the number of possible configurations of the world are tiny compared to the number of possible configurations if god exists.

If god exists, he could create a universe completely hospitable to life, completely lethal to life, a universe full of fairies, demons, goblins, or any of an infinite number of other beings and objects that you can think of. Planets could be squares instead of spheres, the moon could be made of cheese, and we could all be born 70 feet tall or have minds that don’t need brains, etc etc. The possibilities seem endless.

If god doesn’t exist, then reality seems constrained by whatever laws happen to exist. In other words, the probability of a particular configuration being constrained by natural laws seems very high given no god, but very low given god. God wouldn’t need to set up laws in the first place.

It is interesting that this kind of argument can essentially reverse many of the contemporary arguments for theism. For example, a common theistic argument is that if certain parameters were changed by even a small amount, life would not exist. Because this is very improbable, a designer is a better explanation. However, if a designer existed, he wouldn’t need to fine tune life. He wouldn’t need to spend billions of years of time just to create an earth hospitable to life and then spend another billions of years for life to evolve for humans to exist. Yet given no god, that seems to be the only way for life to arise. But given no constraints by an all powerful God, life could have arisen in any of an infinite number of ways imaginable.

What is this kind of argument called? Is there a notion of this in philosophy?

If God doesn’t exist, and all that exists are natural laws in a brute sense, it seems that the number of possible configurations of the world are tiny compared to the number of possible configurations if god exists.

If god exists, he could create a universe completely hospitable to life, completely lethal to life, a universe full of fairies, demons, goblins, or any of an infinite number of other beings and objects that you can think of. Planets could be squares instead of circles, the moon could be made of cheese, and we could all be born 70 feet tall or have minds that don’t need brains, etc etc. The possibilities seem endless.

If god doesn’t exist, then reality seems constrained by whatever laws happen to exist. In other words, the probability of a particular configuration being constrained by natural laws seems very high given no god, but very low given god. God wouldn’t need to set up laws in the first place.

What is this argument called? Is there a notion of this in philosophy?

If God doesn’t exist, and all that exists are natural laws in a brute sense, it seems that the number of possible configurations of the world are tiny compared to the number of possible configurations if god exists.

If god exists, he could create a universe completely hospitable to life, completely lethal to life, a universe full of fairies, demons, goblins, or any of an infinite number of other beings and objects that you can think of. Planets could be squares instead of circles, the moon could be made of cheese, and we could all be born 70 feet tall or have minds that don’t need brains, etc etc. The possibilities seem endless.

If god doesn’t exist, then reality seems constrained by whatever laws happen to exist. In other words, the probability of a particular configuration being constrained by natural laws seems very high given no god, but very low given god. God wouldn’t need to set up laws in the first place.

It is interesting that this kind of argument can essentially reverse many of the contemporary arguments for theism. For example, a common theistic argument is that if certain parameters were changed by even a small amount, life would not exist. Because this is very improbable, a designer is a better explanation. However, if a designer existed, he wouldn’t need to fine tune life. He wouldn’t need to spend billions of years of time just to create an earth hospitable to life and then spend another billions of years for life to evolve for humans to exist. Yet given no god, that seems to be the only way for life to arise. But given no constraints by an all powerful God, life could have arisen in any of an infinite number of ways imaginable.

What is this kind of argument called? Is there a notion of this in philosophy?