I hadn't heard that Leibniz quote before, and completely agree with him. It seems to exemplify the differences between he and Newton admirably as well.
While I also completely agree with you that we are necessarily compelled to obey the laws of physics, I do not grasp why this is an argument against God. I will confess that my arguments against God are generally not regarding physics, but tend to occur after some excessive optimism regarding whiskey and mortal whims.
Indeed, much of my arguments against the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics is regarding arbitrary whims, and not I alone, but anyone that finds the ontological consistency and consilience of classical physics and all other science both reasonable and necessary.
I have resolved the dilemma regarding Schrodinger's Cat by waiting long enough for the poor thing to starve to death. I know it's dead. Recently I read discussion of a paper that proposed resolving Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in part by measuring the state of particles entangled with particles being considered.
It seems that is mathematically superable, which those fluent is the idiom find compelling.
In a sense, this may confirm a scientific grasp of quantum mechanics must be contrary to any theistic principle, while the Copenhagen School asserts what Einstein called spooky action. I quite agree with Leibniz that arbitrary whims aren't required for my theory to work, and fail to see any reason God would be supposed to have made the universe because of them.
While I may be too dull and simple to be expected to understand rocket scientists, I note that quite recently I have read mathematics called the 'language of God', and I reckon such heady expectations regarding the understandings of scientists is hubris. Math has fatal flaws (or our understanding and use of it) such as it's incapacity to divide by zero. Everything is divided by zero all day, every day, in the real world, and this hardly recommends math as the language of God to me, when expressing that reality in math causes math to become unusable.
This is why I don't find the possibility of things happening in the universe that aren't explicable by our understanding of physics either improbable or disconcerting. We just haven't reckoned those variables in our theories, and the problem is with our understanding of physics, not demonstrable events. Hubris, in other words, decries the existence of God, not physics.
Thanks!
If the creator of the universe is limited by the arbitrary "laws" of His own creation, such circumstance begs the question: is He the creator, or merely another variable? if He is subject to the arbitrary whims of his own creation, then is His creation greater than the creator?
Those who have such unfailing faith in the "laws" of the universe are anti-theistic by boxing God into a set of arbitrary rules of His own creation. Mathematics is not the language of God; mathematics is convenient fiction that helps man model reality into comprehendible packets of information. A supreme being, or even those with superior intellect, would not need to resort to fables, such as mathematics, because such being will be able to perceive the universe as whole without reducing it to compartments, components, and division.
Ah! Thanks for the elucidation. I completely agree about maths.
However, I now understand that you may have missed my central point about why God follows the laws of physics. Given my thesis that no good person (or God) creates laws that don't apply to them, but only others, I contend that God only made physics He would certainly follow, not that somehow constrained Him.
I'm not trying to make an argument that God could, or did, make a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it, but that He would follow the rules He made, because He's not a slimeball overlord/politician, but plays fair.
You are limiting God by attributing human moral sentiment unto Him. Why must God "play fair" by creating laws that binds Himself for the sake of some moral sentiment in his creatures? If God is bound and limited in action by sentiments of his creatures, then He is a slave of His creation and not its master. Do men worship slaves? Are slaves worthy of worship?
From theistic perspective, God is the first and final principle of morality and physical "laws" that constrain mortals. Attributing mortal sentiment unto an infinite being would be erroneous. Do we as men concern ourselves with the pathetic mewling of ants' sentiments and tendencies? Fairness is a human construct that does not exist in natural creation or human reality. That men attribute "fairness" to their creator to limit His actions is hubris itself. Justice is not fairness, and master need not follow the rules for slaves, in order to be just.
There is always so much depth in your comments =)
The first I will address is your continued miscategorization of choosing to act in a given way as some kind of bondage. Being able to act as we choose to is rather freedom.
I posit a God that has freely chosen not only to act as He will, but to potentiate all to do so. In view of the demonstrable contraindicated actions of many, we see that we are not held in some kind of bondage philosophically, but indeed may act within the constraints of physics at our sole option.
I refute your contention that God is His own slave, as silly.
While attributing to anyone my personal morals is indeed erroneous, it is factual that everyone has morals. The particulars of their 'brand' of morals are variable, yet we see that physics is not variable, and my using the physical laws extant to derive the morals of a creator God does not seem unreasonable to me, albeit certain to result in imperfect understanding insofar as my understanding of physics is imperfect, amongst other reasons.
As to ants and men, I commend to you the work of E.O. Wilson, one of the most brilliant biologists that has ever published, and who spent most of his life studying ants.
Fairness is not a human construct at all. Dogs, octopi, even savage cats consider fairness, and to a far greater degree than is strictly profitable in terms of sustenance. Do research the topic, and profit yourself by revealing the limitations mere economic considerations proscribe.
Justice... Ah! that discussion is beyond me presently. I appreciate your stimulations to give it more thought.
Thanks!