THE NATURAL LAW ARGUMENT
Prof. Russell made the distinction between human laws, which can [arbitrarily] command people to behave in certain ways, and natural laws, which are simply descriptions of how things do in fact behave.
Russell then asks the question, “Why did God issue the natural laws in existence, and no others?”
The clause, ‘and no others’ sounds fishy*.
He proceeds to gives two answers:
1. If you say that he [God] did it simply for his own good pleasure**,
and without reason, there is now something, which is not subject to law,
and so your train of natural law is interrupted.
2. If you say, he had a reason to create the best universe, then God himself
is subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.
With these answers, Bertrand Russell condemns God if he does [have a reason],
and condemns God if he doesn’t [have a reason]. Russell’s first question above
therefore seems to imply that Russell has ‘an axe to grind’.
Nevertheless, whatever natural laws an omnipotent God decided upon (for whatever reason),
that is how Nature will work. Our experiments cannot take us beyond this boundary.
But, according to Russell, the train of natural law is interrupted.
In answer, So what? God transcends natural law.
Russell errs by assuming that the Creator is bound to the train of natural law.
* For example, What other laws should God have chosen?
What laws would Russell have chosen, and why?
How would Russell’s laws have made the world better?
** The Bible acknowledges that God created mankind for his pleasure (see Rev. 4:11).