Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

[Dante Writer]

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

All theories of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism and Intelligent Design must follow the laws of science.

Those science laws and where they came from and why they exist must be part of any science discussion.

1- The science laws we have are just what we have discovered.

2- Man did not create the laws but must follow them.

3- Science laws seem to apply to the entire universe not just to earth.

4- Without the laws of science we would have chaos or what?

5- Did the laws start with the big bang or was the big bang a result of the laws?

6- Are laws a form of intelligence or the result of intelligent design or just a happy coincidence?

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

 

[metis]

All elements have reactions of one type or another with some other elements, and this pecking order we tend to call "the laws of physics". But, according to what we now know about quantum mechanics, that pecking order may different from one universe to another and even within the same universe.

To put it another way, they exist and there simply is no indication that some deity/deities made them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

They're all natural.

If they didn't exist, they would be some other laws, and if they didn't exist either, nothing would exist. Nothing can't exist. Something must exist, therefore, they exist necessarily.

All theories of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism and Intelligent Design must follow the laws of science.

Those science laws and were they came from and why they exist must be part of any science discussion.

1- The science laws we have are just what we have discovered.

2- Man did not create the laws but must follow them.

3- Science laws seem to apply to the entire universe not just to earth.

4- Without the laws of science we would have chaos or what?

Agree so far.

5- Did the laws start with the big bang or was the big bang a result of the laws?

Perhaps the laws we know of started with the big bang. Perhaps laws of "nature" is something that's flexible in the grander scheme of things. I wouldn't know. But if they were created to be, then it must necessarily be that the laws can be different or even not exist at all. Put it this way, if God had to create the laws of nature, then they didn't exist before he did, meaning things/being can exist without them (like God). But on the other hand, if they're just as natural and innate to God as they're to us, then we could ask? Where did the laws of nature come from for God? The answer would perhaps be, they're part of God's nature. The laws of nature is equal to God's nature, which means that God and Nature has a very strong relationship.

6- Are laws a form of intelligence or the result of intelligent design or just a happy coincidence?

If they were created, then they could've been created different and the creator doesn't need them to exist. So why are they even necessary then?

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

From Nature and Existence as such. They're innate to existence and reality.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

All theories of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism and Intelligent Design must follow the laws of science.

Those science laws and were they came from and why they exist must be part of any science discussion.

1- The science laws we have are just what we have discovered.

2- Man did not create the laws but must follow them.

3- Science laws seem to apply to the entire universe not just to earth.

4- Without the laws of science we would have chaos or what?

5- Did the laws start with the big bang or was the big bang a result of the laws?

6- Are laws a form of intelligence or the result of intelligent design or just a happy coincidence?

Where do Science Laws come from and Why do they Exist at all?

Depending upon the law it may be unknown. However the direction of this conversation seems to be the "created or not" argument. If it is then it is fully upon the person bringing that connection to defend it. Until a link is made there is no link.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All theories of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism and Intelligent Design must follow the laws of science.

That statement is remarkably dumb on multiple levels.

(I'm beginning to detect a trend ...)​

 

[George-ananda]

Nothing can't exist.

Why do you say that?

 

[Ouroboros]

Why do you say that?

Because to exist is to be something. Nothing is to not exist.

If everything came from nothing, then God was nothing. How can nothing be intelligent? Intelligence is something, not nothing. God would have to be something/someone, not nothing.

But if it wasn't God, then it still was something, and not nothing, since nothing would continue to be nothing, and what we see as something is all just nothing.

 

[Sapiens]

Because to exist is to be something. Nothing is to not exist.

If everything came from nothing, then God was nothing. How can nothing be intelligent? Intelligence is something, not nothing. God would have to be something/someone, not nothing.

But if it wasn't God, then it still was something, and not nothing, since nothing would continue to be nothing, and what we see as something is all just nothing.

It is a matter of vantage point and perspective.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is a matter of vantage point and perspective.

There's no vantage point or perspective in a nothing.

Anyway, it can be debated if nothing can exist or not, I gave my views and opinions on the matter.

 

[Sapiens]

Permit me, please, an example. When new niche space is created and it is, as yet, unoccupied, there is "nothing" there. Similarly, if you take all the books of a shelf, there is "noting" left there. Vantage point and perspective, vantage point and perspective.

 

[Dante Writer]

All elements have reactions of one type or another with some other elements, and this pecking order we tend to call "the laws of physics". But, according to what we now know about quantum mechanics, that pecking order may different from one universe to another and even within the same universe.

To put it another way, they exist and there simply is no indication that some deity/deities made them.

" they exist and there simply is no indication that some deity/deities made them."

Maybe the law is an indication though it may not involve a religious
deity.

Why do elements have different reactions since they all came from the same source?

 

[Ouroboros]

Permit me, please, an example. When new niche space is created and it is, as yet, unoccupied, there is "nothing" there. Similarly, if you take all the books of a shelf, there is "noting" left there. Vantage point and perspective, vantage point and perspective.

Sure. But space is filled with light, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, virtual particles, higgs field and such. So it's nothing only in the sense of not-something-of-specific-things, but not not-something-of-anything.

In the space between the books, there's still air. It's only "no book" kind'a nothing.

So when I say that "nothing" can't exist, I meant it in the perspective of all things. The concept of all things. Matter, energy, quarks, higgs... all that. Nothing. So how does this "nothing" exist if nothing exists? It can't be a thing since it's no-thing, but it still exists. Or put it this way, to exist, is to be a thing of something, in my opinion. But... I could be wrong, perhaps no-things are things as well.

 

[Sapiens]

Sure. But space is filled with light, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, virtual particles, higgs field and such. So it's nothing only in the sense of not-something-of-specific-things, but not not-something-of-anything.

In the space between the books, there's still air. It's only "no book" kind'a nothing.

If you are looking for books then there is "nothing" there, as I said, "vantage point and perspective."

 

[Dante Writer]

Permit me, please, an example. When new niche space is created and it is, as yet, unoccupied, there is "nothing" there. Similarly, if you take all the books of a shelf, there is "noting" left there. Vantage point and perspective, vantage point and perspective.

If you can be respectful I will respond to you!

Saying there was nothing and then there is something does not answer the question as if the laws did not exist nothing would remain nothing.

Evidence from observing the universe shows the laws existed before and are the impetus for the creation of the universe, stars, planets and solar systems. They form as a response to the laws.

 

[Dante Writer]

Depending upon the law it may be unknown. However the direction of this conversation seems to be the "created or not" argument. If it is then it is fully upon the person bringing that connection to defend it. Until a link is made there is no link.

You can answer the question with your own science if you do not want a creation perspective but remember this is a forum for both to discuss their positions.

Don't be afraid to challenge your own beliefs!

 

[George-ananda]

Because to exist is to be something. Nothing is to not exist.

If everything came from nothing, then God was nothing. How can nothing be intelligent? Intelligence is something, not nothing. God would have to be something/someone, not nothing.

But if it wasn't God, then it still was something, and not nothing, since nothing would continue to be nothing, and what we see as something is all just nothing.

I wasn't bringing God into that previous post. I was just questioning why you said 'nothing can't exist'. As in no matter, no energy, no god. I know 'something' does exist because we are here, but why couldn't 'nothing' have existed instead.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you are looking for books then there is "nothing" there, as I said, "vantage point and perspective."

Sure. But I wasn't talking about perspectives within existence, but the perspective of all things. Hence, in the context of things (all-things, some-things, no-things) that I was referring to, the vantage point isn't there. It's either something or nothing, but nothing to exist is, to me at least, contradictory.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You can answer the question with your own science if you do not want a creation perspective but remember this is a forum for both to discuss their positions.

Don't be afraid to challenge your own beliefs!

I think all of our beliefs should be challenged routinely. What is it you would like to challenge specifically? However a lot of the answers to questions are simply unknown.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wasn't bringing God into that previous post. I was just questioning why you said 'nothing can't exist'. As in no matter, no energy, no god. I know 'something' does exist because we are here, but why couldn't 'nothing' have existed instead.

Because the term "no-thing". To exist is to be something, in my opinion. Something exists. Nothing is when it doesn't exist.

Like Sapiens reference to a missing book in the shelf. Is there a book? There's nothing. In other words, there's no book there. So what kind of book is the no-book? It's not. Nothing is like the no-book to things. A something is like an actual book in the shelf. So if the book is missing and there's a nothing, we can't say that this no-thing is a form of a book.

 

[Sapiens]

Sure. But I wasn't talking about perspectives within existence, but the perspective of all things. Hence, in the context of things (all-things, some-things, no-things) that I was referring to, the vantage point isn't there. It's either something or nothing, but nothing to exist is, to me at least, contradictory.

When you eliminate perspective and vantage point you lose the ability to have a ""context" of things, all-things, some-things, and no-things have no meaning.