John Paul
This is a presumption on the part of both Kepler and Galileo.What connection is evident between Mathematics and God that allows us to assume this to be the case?This is no more than opinion on the part of Kepler and Galileo.
One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."
We do not have a firm grasp on the little we do know how do you go from there to the general statement that there
is "one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."? Even if there was this does not mean God was responsible. In any universe there must some level of order imposed by the interaction of different forces.There would be basic principles of some extent no matter what.
Add to that there isn't anything in physics, chemistry or biology that shows non-living matter can become a living organism
I am glad you brought this up as we are having a discussion in another topic dealing with this very point. Consider this.It is not necessary for life to arise from non-life since this position is likely just a bias on the part of we humans as conscious entities. If instead of looking for a border between life/non-life we observe that on the march through time we have atoms with varying properties combining to produce multiple new properties that are not present in the individual elements.
As the new compounds are bathed by different forces and interact with other new compounds there arise new properties and each of these again have totally new properties.Now here is the key.All of the phenomena of "life" can be shown to be a consequence of simple laws that govern the interaction of atoms.Complexity is easily shown to evolve from just a few key restrictions on what would otherwise be chaos.
Life is an illusion. We are just a step up the ladder of complexity. We,too,are bound by the laws of the universe.That we are conscious,thinking,reflecting, biological entities does not make us special just different.
"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."
™ Version 4.2