Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

Quote mining describes the situation when out of context quotes are used to make points the author
did not intend. Just quoting someone out of context is not automatically wrong.

Exactly.

 

[durangodawood]

So, if the laws went away, what would electrons do?

 

[KCfromNC]

What I mean here is that in a non-theistic worldview where materialism is the only explanation for logic, logic is non-consistent with that view.

What specific non-magical explanation for logic are you discussing here? There are any number of non-supernatural philosophies of mathematics with vastly different approaches. I think it is a bit optimistic to think you can dismiss all of them with a single sentence.

Logic is independent of a materialistic worldview (IMHO). Why is before time nonsense?

Because it is an undefined concept with no experience, evidence or models to guide us as to how things might behave. But other than that...

 

[KCfromNC]

Would you agree that "directed" by definition implies intelligence

Not unless you think gravity is intelligent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you! I know I could rely on you.

"Something", in both a general and a special way.
"Something" in general, because non-theists will most likely admit that they don't have the data to make further statements about it.

I guess that would depend on what you think constitutes statements about God.

"Something" especially for me, because I do not think that it is even possible to make any statements about that. I like to call it "primal chaos", but that is just a name for a very weird concept.

Even if it were impossible to make any statements about God, that would not in any way show that God doesn't exist. You have this what you call weird concept that you have labeled "primal chaos" which I would assume you don't know if it is even possible to make any statements about either...right?

Not quantitatively, qualitatively. As I said, the only perfect description/idea of a thing is the thing itself. Pantheism would be the only theistic belief to fit here... and not many Christians are pantheists.

If Christianity is true, the description of God used in the Bible is God describing Himself.

For the reasons I explained above and in earlier posts.

Yes, which to me seems like keeping within a frame work of the worldview that believes a materialistic world is all there is. It doesn't surprise me that you would feel that way either.


"Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction;contingent solely upon one's discretion." That's what I got from dictionary.com - and that's how I used this term.[/Quote]
Ok, thanks for clarifying.

No human design or "creation" can be arbitrary in that sense... we are always subjected to the reality of the existing world. In fact, human design and creation relies on that contingency... we do not need "perfect" descriptions or ideas. We can submit a basic frame, and reality takes care of all the detail work.
For divine design or creation, this framework of existing reality does not exist.

That makes sense in that context.

Oh, but it does! It must! Else there would be only one electron at all. You are just looking at the wrong differences.

I am?

That is not quite correct. Too simplistic, and that is what leads you astray here.
First of all, entropy - the concept that is referred to when talking about "order" and "chaos" is discussions like that - isn't a measurement of disorder. It is quite different, and a lot more complicated than that.
Second, this is not what we know is the natural way. Even if we use this (incorrect) description of "order to chaos", we see opposite effects in nature. Someone else said it here in the thread: fridges wouldn't work if order to chaos was all there was. Why, we wouldn't work if that was all there was to "the natural way".
Third, I am referring to a mathematical concept of chaos / randomness and order here. Stochastically you can show that in every set that is truly random / chaotic, there must be subsets that are ordered. The question left is the size of the initial set.
And if we start of with an infinite set, it is a mathematical given that there exist subsets of the size of the universe.

Ok, I would agree that there is a underlying order to all the universe and it makes more sense and is more consistent with the Christian worldview. There is no real reason for any underlying order either for the laws the universe is governed by nor the laws of logic that we are in a purely materialistic worldview in my opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not unless you think gravity is intelligent.

Why would gravity have to have intelligence if the universe is directed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Please quote me saying things "CAN'T" happen.

Are you saying that natural processes could produce physical laws?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What specific non-magical explanation for logic are you discussing here? There are any number of non-supernatural philosophies of mathematics with vastly different approaches. I think it is a bit optimistic to think you can dismiss all of them with a single sentence.

1. Why do you equate God with "magic"?
2. Mathematics are not the same as the laws of logic.
3. I don't dismiss them with a single sentence, I make that statement based on knowledge, experience and a grasp on the problems of a purely materialistic view.

Because it is an undefined concept with no experience, evidence or models to guide us as to how things might behave. But other than that...

Time didn't exist then it did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, if the laws went away, what would electrons do?

You mean if the universe wasn't designed in the way in which it was?

 

[Freodin]

I guess that would depend on what you think constitutes statements about God.

You were just now discussing God as Father. That is a statement about God, isn't it?

Even if it were impossible to make any statements about God, that would not in any way show that God doesn't exist.

If it were impossible to make any statement about God... it would show that any statements made about God are wrong.
But Christians - theists in general - don't think that it is impossible to make any statements about God... well, I don't think that!
I was talking about a "something that it is impossible to make any statements about"... I have no idea why you decided to connect that with God.

You have this what you call weird concept that you have labeled "primal chaos" which I would assume you don't know if it is even possible to make any statements about either...right?

Yep, that's what I was talking about. Nothing else.

But there is this little problem: if it is impossible to make any statement about the "basis of existence", and you can make statements about God... then God cannot be the "basis of existence".

If Christianity is true, the description of God used in the Bible is God describing Himself.

Consider the difference. Even if the description of God used in the Bible is a true description... is it a perfect description? Is the description in the Bible all that there is to God... is he nothing more, nothing else?

Yes, which to me seems like keeping within a frame work of the worldview that believes a materialistic world is all there is. It doesn't surprise me that you would feel that way either.

Considering that there is no consistent non-materialistic worldview, and considering that is seems to be impossible for the critics of "materialism" to do their criticism without they themselves using a materialistic worldview... I'd say the odds are on the materialistic side.

That makes sense in that context.

So, if that makes sense, how about the argument I made using that term and definition?
I repeat:

Ok, I have to phrase that differently: there wouldn't need to be any relations. If laws can be arbitrary - can be decreed by fiat alone, without the need for reference to something "real", relations are unnecessary. Cars can drive on the left side or on the right side. And they do. There is no necessary relation between "right side" and "drive here!".
Things like the sum of angles in a triangle on the other hand... they are in a necessary relation. If you have a closed plane polygon with three sides, you will have three angles, and these angles will come to pi radians. Always. Anything else is impossible. There is no leeway for divine fiat.

I am?

Seems obvious to me.
Basically, every distinction we humans make is also based on language. Classification, categorization, abstraction. "A rose" is an abstraction. "This rose" and "that rose", referring to existing objects, would not be. "This rose" and "that rose" would always refer to two distinct objects. Even if the roses were completely identical, they would still not be the same flower, would they?

Ok, I would agree that there is a underlying order to all the universe and it makes more sense and is more consistent with the Christian worldview.

Hm, strange... I didn't say anything about an underlying order. So I do not know what you assume to agree with.
But as for "an underlying order to all the universe"... yes, I think it is possible to make such a view consistent with Christianity. But I don't think such a view is consistent with Christian theology nor Christian cosmological philosophy.

There is no real reason for any underlying order either for the laws the universe is governed by nor the laws of logic that we are in a purely materialistic worldview in my opinion.

Well, I don't assume a reason nor an underlying order for either the laws of the universe nor logic... and I don't assume such exactly because it doesn't make sense neither in a "purely materialistic worldview" nor in a theistic worldview.

 

[durangodawood]

You mean if the universe wasn't designed in the way in which it was?

I mean if the laws went away but the stuff remained.

 

[SkyWriting]

Would you agree that "directed" by definition implies intelligence, as a directed process would be something "directed" toward a certain goal?

In a heavy rain birds, planes, & insects are all directed downward
toward the lowest point allowed by earth. Wind can direct all things upward.
No intelligence is implied.

 

[SkyWriting]

If Christianity is true, the description of God used in the Bible is God describing Himself.

Consider the difference. Even if the description of God used in the Bible is a true description... is it a perfect description? Is the description in the Bible all that there is to God... is he nothing more, nothing else?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's
... invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why would gravity have to have intelligence if the universe is directed?

Who said it did. I was just pointing out that gravity directs the paths of objects without anyone claiming that there's intelligence involved. Or are you advocating for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling here?

 

[KCfromNC]

1. Why do you equate God with "magic"?

Because that's what the supernatural is.

2. Mathematics are not the same as the laws of logic.

There's a lot of similarities. Both are man made languages with various made up rules. Those rules can be applied to determine how well certain combinations of symbols from the languages are or are not allowed given the rules that we've made up. And the rules we've happened to make up for both tend to help us in communicating details of various types of problems here in reality.

3. I don't dismiss them with a single sentence, I make that statement based on knowledge, experience and a grasp on the problems of a purely materialistic view.

You know what would be more convincing than telling us that there is some sort of connection? Showing us.

Time didn't exist then it did.

How do you get a before - after relationship without time existing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn't out of context and was showing that the Old Testament refers to God as Father which you claimed was not the case. [/qoute]

No, I claimed that your idea of "God the Father" did not exist for the Jews. And then you quoted out of context and made an equivocation error.

How so?

You don't know what an equivocation error is? You saw the word "father" and thought it mean the same as your use of the word "father". That was an error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said it did. I was just pointing out that gravity directs the paths of objects without anyone claiming that there's intelligence involved. Or are you advocating for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling here?

The Pastafarians have an observation that supports the concept of Intelligent Falling. As the population of people in the world has gone up so has their height. That resulted from the FSM's ability to keep people on the Earth taxed. When there were fewer people he would press down on them more frequently resulting in shorter people. It makes us much sense as many Christian arguments.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Pastafarians have an observation that supports the concept of Intelligent Falling. As the population of people in the world has gone up so has their height. That resulted from the FSM's ability to keep people on the Earth taxed. When there were fewer people he would press down on them more frequently resulting in shorter people.

While I'm not totally convinced, I see no reason why schools shouldn't be forced to teach the controversy.

 

[[serious]]

I mean if the laws went away but the stuff remained.

If the stuff remained, wouldn't that be natural laws like the strong force continuing to function?

 

[Loudmouth]

If the stuff remained, wouldn't that be natural laws like the strong force continuing to function?

It would. The natural laws determine the stability of atomic nuclei. Without those laws, nuclei would spontaneously decay, or spontaneously fuse, with unknown energies.