Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Subduction Zone]

God is the first Cause.

That is merely an unsupported claim. One could just as easily say that Allah was the first cause, or Brahma or Buddha (though Buddhists don't have that belief). Or that there was no "first cause" at all. All that can really be said is that we don't know yet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...but what we do know is: "Rose" is a human classification.
However, an electron does have to behave in a certain way universally all the time everywhere.

Because a lawgiver told it so?[/QUOTE]
A lawgiver designed the laws and the laws are the way it is set up...so in a way yes.

 

[quatona]

What? You do realize that as we have looked back to the earliest moments of our universe that it has been shown that there was no matter, energy, space or time...right?

Yes, and I am always amazed how easily the phrase "before time" rolls off some people´s tongues.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is merely an unsupported claim. One could just as easily say that Allah was the first cause, or Brahma or Buddha (though Buddhists don't have that belief). Or that there was no "first cause" at all. All that can really be said is that we don't know yet.

Anyone can say anything at all, that is true. However, the like you said Buddhists don't have that belief and we can show how The Old Testament existed with its creation narrative prior to the Islamic one. There is support for the claim, you might not find it convincing but there is support.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, and I am always amazed how easily the phrase "before time" rolls off some people´s tongues.

Ok...

 

[quatona]

Because a lawgiver told it so?

A lawgiver designed the laws and the laws are the way it is set up...so in a way yes.[/QUOTE]
The fact that roses are so obedient to their lawmaker is extremely fortunate.
Imagine a rose that appears just like a coliflower - we wouldn´t even notice it was a rose.

 

[quatona]

Ok...

One could almost assume that they think it´s a meaningful phrase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone can say anything at all, that is true. However, the like you said Buddhists don't have that belief and we can show how The Old Testament existed with its creation narrative prior to the Islamic one. There is support for the claim, you might not find it convincing but there is support.

So what if the Christian Bible is older than the Koran. Age should not matter. The writings of the Hindus are even older. Are you saying that gives them more credence that you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So what if the Christian Bible is older than the Koran. Age should not matter. The writings of the Hindus are even older. Are you saying that gives them more credence that you.

No, but we were talking about Allah and in the Koran authority is given to the "Book" which is the Old Testament and confirms that the Old Testament was the authority as well as being written prior to the Koran.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One could almost assume that they think it´s a meaningful phrase.

So you determine what is meaningful and what is not...that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A lawgiver designed the laws and the laws are the way it is set up...so in a way yes.

The fact that roses are so obedient to their lawmaker is extremely fortunate.
Imagine a rose that appears just like a coliflower - we wouldn´t even notice it was a rose.[/QUOTE]
Both are in existence due to the laws of physics.

 

[quatona]

So you determine what is meaningful and what is not...that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.

It´s more like logic determines what is a meaningful phrase and what isn´t.

 

[quatona]

Both are in existence due to the laws of physics.

I admit that the way I put it my point wasn´t easy to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but we were talking about Allah and in the Koran authority is given to the "Book" which is the Old Testament and confirms that the Old Testament was the authority as well as being written prior to the Koran.

You still lose since Christians have changed what "God" is. A Jew's view of God is different from a Christians and guess what, their books are older. The age argument is a losing one for Christians. You need to find a better one that that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You still lose since Christians have changed what "God" is. A Jew's view of God is different from a Christians and guess what, their books are older. The age argument is a losing one for Christians. You need to find a better one that that.

The Christian God is the Jew's God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I admit that the way I put it my point wasn´t easy to understand.

I'm glad to know that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It´s more like logic determines what is a meaningful phrase and what isn´t.

I would agree. The fact that we don't agree is not about logic but about worldview, IMHO.

 

[quatona]

I would agree. The fact that we don't agree is not about logic but about worldview, IMHO.

This is only a matter of logic.
Your worldview has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn´t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Christian God is the Jew's God.

Don't be silly. There is not even one "Christian God". There are on the order of 40,000 Christian sects that all worship a God that is different from those of other sects. Both the Jewish version and the Muslim version are very different from the Christian versions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is only a matter of logic.
Your worldview has nothing to do with it, or at least shouldn´t.

I disagree. In fact, in a purely materialistic worldview, logic is inconsistent and has nothing to ground it.