Larry Sanger

Right.

And certainly like the conglomeration doesn't seem necessary.

It seems like extremely interestingly, you know, well, on the one hand, very, very ordered, rationally ordered.

But on the other hand, it's a mess.

I mean, there's a lot of detail in all of science, you know.

Yeah, so the idea is if there has to be an explanation of the bird flying by the window...

which we often think.

I mean, basically, we don't believe, so this is the principle of sufficient reason, right?

We don't believe that things happen for no reason at all.

Like if there were a puppy were to just pop into existence on the table right now, we would ask, how did it get there?

Why did that happen?

And it would be a sensible question.

So if we can ask that about anything contingent, then we can ask that about the universe as a whole.

And when we ask such questions, what we are asking is to give an explanation in terms of something that is necessary, right?

So the reason why we're satisfied by explanations of the bird flying by in terms of like facts about that species and nesting patterns and food and so forth is there are these broad covering laws, which in themselves are taken to be sort of laws of nature.

Right.

And therefore, they have a certain kind of necessity to them.

And yet they don't.

Exactly.

So if we want to say that...