If the common source of the natural order and the karmic order is impersonal, we are still in need of some account of how and why it would be such as to produce these two quite different sorts of order in the cosmos. These questions, it would seem, are much more readily answered if we postulate a personal source of both the natural and the moral order—that is to say, a God who desired that there be created persons, and who wished to provide a stable natural order within which they could live and exercise their varied powers.

This is of course a mere sketch of an argument that would require much more space for its full development.

Is this actually a live argument, or just someone showing off in the SEP? Because I don't see the harmony of natural (scientific) and impersonal (karmic) orders is better explained with 'person'. It reads like a rehash of the watchmaker argument, but applied to non-physical processes.

  • "or just someone showing off in the SEP"? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
    – E...
    Feb 2, 2020 at 18:06
  • no, care to explain? @Eliran i'm just suggesting someone -- a respected academic no less -- is shoe horning something -- an opinion -- into there. there are no references, and it's hardly beyond the pale (there's hundreds and hundreds of articles), especially with religion -- and cross culturally too. it's nice to think our betters are infallible in many senses, i guess?
    – user38026
    Feb 2, 2020 at 18:26
  • eh whatever, more garbage flames
    – user38026
    Feb 2, 2020 at 18:30
  • 2
    Perhaps, for the same reason that the watchmaker analogy is appealing? It is no different than the usual move at the end of the cosmological argument. Is that one "live"?
    – Conifold
    Feb 3, 2020 at 7:05


You must log in to answer this question.