Then I take it you'd agree that these claims aren't necessarily true, but only useful, yes? In other words: the universe may or may not adhere to strict universal laws, but conceiving of a cosmos in this way can reap practical benefits.
They are not claims. They are assumptions, which does in fact mean they are not intrinsically true, but only useful. You are however, missing my point. If the universe does not adhere to universal laws (which may change according to other, higher level laws, who knows) then it is impossible to discover truth outside of a single instant, that being the instant you are in. If the fundamental nature of logic wasn't consistent, then logical truth would cease to have meaning as well. Of course, given logic is a definitionary construct, it would take reality itself changing for that to hold. Which means if reality has no "ineligibility", neither does logic itself honestly.
Hardly. We can turn this into a very simple logical proof:
1. Either the universe is ordered, or it isn't.
[Assumption 1: The universe is ordered.]
2. Either the order is permanent or it is fleeting.
3. For the cosmic order to be permanent, it must either be so randomly or because a God exists.
[Assumption 2: God does not exist.]
4. The cosmic order must be random.
5. A "random order," by definition, is fleeting.
C. The cosmic order is fleeting.
This is a rough way to demonstrate that the claims "There is no God" and "The universe is a permanent order (i.e. cosmos)" are mutually incompatible.
How on earth does that follow in a way that doesn't also conclude god has have a god of its own, that has a god of its own, ad infinitum?
be right back.
--
http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/FDpnggy.png