Josh SteinThis is a pretty good summary of empiricist anti-realism about laws, though it is useful to be a bit more circumspect about the disagreement over claims re: the status of laws. e.g. Is p a law if no exceptions have been observed? Or is it a low only if it meets the stronger condition that there actually are no exceptions? (This matters for talking about whether or not claims in some scientific domains, e.g. classical mechanics, count as laws.) This isn't to say that anything you're saying is false here; I think it is all right on the money, but bound to a more general theoretical position that is somewhat controversial... actually more controversial among many atheists who hold a pretty thoroughgoing realist view of laws.
PaulogiaI don't get a vote, but I wish that things like "Moore's Law" wouldn't be given the word law, or that it would be used outside of the purely observational sphere. But my bias is not wanting to give anti-science people more ammunition.
Josh SteinI always try to make the point to people that the conventions around "law" aren't as rigid as folks often suggest. After all, surely no one thinks of Godwin's Law in those terms. I'm sympathetic, as I get cranky about atheist uses of "laws of logic" as though they're not system-relative entities.
Glaucon3:54 "What the Hovinds?!" that could be a YEC exclamation...
Scientifically literate person: "Actually the earth is billions of years old and you need only look at the trees and skies to see this. Maybe instead of trying to force design into these things, you could actually study trees older than you believe the universe is." Young earth creationist: "What the Hovinds?!" lol
6.626x10Pow-34I would like to push back on this one. There is a legitimate question in philosophy as to why the cosmos has predictable order. It's just that apologists don't seam to understand there own argument well engulf to express it. A "law giver" doesn't provide an answer. A god would require the same question to be asked about it. If you answer that question with something like "god doesn't need an explanation" then you can apply this answer to the cosmos as well.