The nomological argument for the existence of God

According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention. 1 Sketch of the Nomological Argument According to the Nomological Argument, a supernatural being provides the best explanation of regularities in nature, such as that planets have elliptical orbits, that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, and that quantum systems evolve in accordance with the Schrödinger equation. Although we can’t provide a full defense in this paper, we will identify the leading competing hypotheses and argue that Divine Voluntarism—the hypothesis that regularities are explained by a supernatural being— beats them when it comes to two most-crucial explanatory virtues. This at least makes a strong prima facie case for preferring Divine Voluntarism to its leading competitors and clarifies how the Nomological Argument is to be defended. * This is the penultimate draft. The official version: http://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12364 1 Divine Voluntarism has received some recent attention (Foster 2004, Swinburne 2006, Collins 2009a, Orr 2019). However, these discussions have been limited in various respects—