Notes

Whenever you let go of a ball, it drops to the ground. In this way nature is uniform. We naturally ask the question, why does the ball drop to the ground, rather than levitate in mid-air? Notice that in the broadest sense of possibility, i.e. logical possibility, the ball doesn't have to drop to the ground. That is to say, we can conceive without logical contradiction the ball not dropping to the ground and just levitating in mid-air. So why does the ball drop? There are three general answers:

1) The ball could fail to drop (in the sense of logical possibility), but it doesn't fail to drop because a law of nature causes it to drop.

2) The ball could fail to drop (in the sense of logical possibility), but it doesn't, and there is no explanation for this.

3) The ball could fail to drop (in the sense of logical possibility), but it doesn't, and this is because a divine mind wills it to drop.

The problem with (1) is that it makes laws of nature out to be things-in-themselves with causal power. This seems implausible. Rather than pre-scriptions, laws of nature seem more like formal de-scriptions of what nature does. What would a pre-scriptive law of nature with causal power have to be? It couldn't be a physical thing, because a physical thing is precisely what we're explaining by reference to a law of nature. So in (1), a law of nature has to be this independently existing, prescriptive immaterial abstract object with causal power over physical things, which just seems implausible because abstract objects don't have causal power.

The problem with (2) is that it says the uniformity of nature is just a massive coincidence. It says that the ball could fail to drop, but by luck it just happens not to every time. This clearly defies reason and we shouldn't accept it.

Now let's look at (3). This response explains the uniformity of nature as being the result of the willing of a creative divine mind. I understand many will be inclined to balk at this, but if you think about it, what is actually wrong with this response?. Unless you have some a priori defeater for the concept of a disembodied mind, I don't see any logical incoherence in this explanation of the uniformity of nature.

As agents with wills, we already have some experience with the will of agents bringing uniformity to chaos or causing something to behave in a certain way rather than another. For example, the act of will of a musician is an explanation for why the music coming from their instrument is uniformly in keeping with a certain key and tempo. This form of explanation is therefore not alien to us.

So here's a quick and dirty summary. Nature acts uniformly, but it doesn't have to. So uniformity is either caused by immaterial abstract laws of nature, or it's a giant coincidence, or it's the result of the will of a divine mind. The first two explanations are implausible, but the third succeeds where the others fail.

P.S.

I have to go to work right now, but I will be back to respond in about seven hours. Sorry for the hit and run, but I wanted to get this post written while I had time before work.