God And The Philosopher

When I was an undergrad at UCLA I took a philosophy of religion course (and a course on Leibniz) from a visiting professor.  He was a fascinating man.  A man of many Idiosyncrasies.  He was impeccably dressed and well groomed.  He wore only two or three suits, and all of them a mixture of green and black.  He was one of my favorite professors.  And I can’t remember his name.

He gave several arguments for the existence of God which I am passing on to you.

An argument from design:

Why does nature abide by the laws of nature?

The laws of nature are either 1) exceptionalist regularities or 2) universal generalizations

1.  If the laws of nature are mere cosmic coincidences (and properly thoughts so), then the seemingly lawful patterns hitherto observed are completely coincidental (and properly thought so).

2.  If the seemingly lawful patterns hitherto observed are completely coincidental (and properly thought so), then it is not the case that we ought to expect them to continue.
a.  the chances ought to be 50/50

3.  However, we ought to expect the patterns to continue

therefore,

4.  It is not the case that the laws of nature are cosmic coincidences (and properly thought so)

I will update this post with another of his arguments when time allows.