On the argument from Intelligibility

Another interesting passage from, The Family Tree, by Sheri S. Tepper:

"Isn't your world merely a story told by Ghoti to amuse himself?"
This was said in a purposefully nasty way, as though to provoke Izzy. Though Sahir was sometimes hospitable, at other times he seemed to relish being unpleasant to Prince Izakar, for some reason I did not understand.
Izzy refused to take offense. "The bishops would not use that phraseology, though in essence you are correct. Personally, however, I've never accepted the doctrine. If a God is all imagining, as Ghoti is said to be, then why should he wish to imagine a place in which beauty and squalor are so inextricably mixed? If I were inventing a world for my pleasure, I would cover the trash bins and fence off the midden. In fact, I would probably make both trash bins and middens unnecessary. On the other hand, if the world is real, then one understands the necessity for squalor. One understands that though Ghoti, or some other god, may have created it, it is not an arbitrary fabrication but is susceptible to those inexorable natural laws which demand an up for every down."
Prince Sahir said idly, "What natural laws? Wouldn't the creator manufacture those as well?"
"I prefer to think of them as intrinsic to time and space," said Izzy in his most serious voice. "In this universe, one and one always make two. Not two and a half. Not three. But two. In this universe, things fall... ah, down. Not up. Not sideways."
"You mean this world?" I asked, confused by all this talk of universes.
"Of course," said Izzy hastily. "That's what I mean. This is the nature of the stuff of which the . . . world is made."
I persisted, attempting to understand. "But if the deity had made the world of other stuff, then other things might happen."
"Possibly, but they would be consistent other things. As, for example, things would buoyantly fall up, and one and one would always, synergistically, make two and three-quarters. However a world is made, or whatever it is made of, each world must be consistent to its own laws. This, to my mind, is the main difficulty with Bubblism. The world is supposedly created only in the mind of Ghoti, where, presumably, anything may be imagined, but in fact, anything is not; only some things are, those which are consistent. One and one, do, in fact, always make two."
"Ghoti may have made up the laws first, as children make up the rules to games they play," I argued. "Allowing exceptions for himself, of course."
"Possible, but trifling if true. I prefer to think the laws are a consequence of materiality, which may itself be a consequence of the nature of space and time. An immaterial universe ... ah, world . . . might have no laws. This one does, however, which leads me back to the point I made at first. This is not a story. Because it is not a story, it is unlikely to contain only honorable persons, and it is therefore entirely possible we will encounter at least a few unpleasant ones who will attempt to do away with us for any reason or for no reason other than a customary dislike of creatures other than themselves."

I have always had a great respect for the argument from intelligibility. I am terribly pleased to see it so elegantly expressed, here. I fell under the sway of this famous agrument while reading Bernard Lonergan, who uses it to great effect in his theological epistemology. I'm sure his arguments rest on Aristotle, Aquinas, Scotus, Suarez and all those other guys, but still a very compelling and vigorous line of reasoning. Lonergan asserts that an intelligible universe begs the question of the existence of God.
Maybe this god is not just any god, but a god who is the very ground of intelligibility, dependability, trustworthyness; a god of compassion, mercy, love? The Father of Our Lord, Jesus Christ?
Perhaps, like St. Anselm, I may have leapt too far, too soon in the argument. Perhaps not.
I was especially struck by Izzy's line, "This is not a story." No, this is real life. We can hope, trust that God is good. But, we live in a real world of light and darkness, of consequence. It is our responsibility to discern the consequences of our thoughts and the deeds and mis-deeds those thoughts make possible.