Dump the Metaphysics — How About Methodological Regularism?

[John_Dalton]

@dga471

Of course, if by “hypothesis” you mean an explanation that can include a philosophical concept of any kind then yes, God could be a hypothesis. There are philosophical arguments for the existence of God, or the nature of God. But that’s not how I’ve read Carroll in his other works so far.

I’m using hypothesis informally. “God exists” is a hypothesis, as is “God created the universe”, for example. That’s the feeling I got from the brief quote. I haven’t read anything by Carroll beyond that, so I won’t say more!

@Guy_Coe

The entire cosmos, its laws, regularities, orderliness, mass density, and anthropic character is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, given the number of coordinated variables needed in the values of physics for a “just right” universe.

How likely is a God that could create all those things?

@jongarvey

That leads us directly and necessarily to our definition of “naturalism” simpliciter as “the position that nature is independent of divine influence,” and hence “nature” itself must be defined as “that which God does not influence, or from which he is absent.”

Why restrict this to “God”? That’s just one possible supernatural entity among many. It doesn’t make much sense to say “the natural is anything but the supernatural” however. I might say “whatever exists in reality”.