Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm saying there's no specific evidence for them.
We've already been over that.
If I misunderstand you, explain the statement I quoted. What is this "natural way" that you referred to? And why do we make observations that contradict it?
Just the flu. Nothing serious.
No specific evidence? There is tons of evidence. Laws of nature all stay mathematically consistent and constant. If not we would know nothing about the universe at all. We do need them for without them, we can't know anything or determine anything.
The perfect image of the universe according to Christianity is in God's mind. The laws of nature are not made of matter but of mind.
The natural behavior of elements within the universe, what observations do we make that contradict it?
Yuck...glad it is nothing serious.
That would be what I said: Pantheism. The distinction between "matter" or "mind" is irrelevant... especially for one who claims to hold to a non-materialist worldview.
You claimed that the "natural way" is order to chaos. But this is not what we observe. We do observe examples of chaos to order. Now theists usually claim that this is an example of God's will or God's laws at work.
What example do you cite of chaos to order?
I would agree for the laws of logic, because logic itself is a thing of the mind.
Just a basic example, already mentioned here twice. (Once even by me in a response to you.
): A fridge.
Considering they are not matter, they don't need matter as much as they affect the matter. Yes, it needs to exist to be affected but the non-material laws themselves are not dependent on the matter.
But how would we know?
I don't remember that being mentioned by you to me or anyone else. However, a fridge is not a natural element.Just a basic example, already mentioned here twice. (Once even by me in a response to you.
Everything you say there^^^ could just as well apply to the way matter and energy behave (as opposed to pointing at some metaphysical 'law' apart from actual stuff)
"Natural laws" are consistent observations. They are descriptions of what is observed. If there is no matter, or no energy, then there is nothing to observe, no observation and, consequently, no "natural law".
To quote a poster that should be well-known to you: "But how would we know?"
Logic. In fact, we have solved that question already, in a post about roses a little back.
Yeah, details like that can get lost in conversations like this one. No worries.
Fridges are supernatural?
Because its easy for it to produce nebulae. So it doesn't need precise conditions as much as it would for life.
Not really then why dont we see intelligent life all over the universe like nebulae. It seems the conditions for nebulae are common and happen all over the place. But they are rare and just right for life in one place.
If there was one nebulae in one place in the universe and one black hole in another place in the universe and they were not existent in any other location because the conditions were not suitable for them then you could say they were rare and fine tuned to exist. So you could say that having nebulae and black holes does need special conditions in the scheme of things but they are more common because they exist in many places. But life needs extra special conditions because you can only find it in one place.
Fine tuned means the opposite. It means that the universe has certain conditions that are all geared towards a rare outcome and not a common one. That means those conditions are not everywhere but only in one place. The universe itself is fine tuned to exist. Then life itself is fine tuned to exist within that universe in a certain place. That narrows down everything to a very fine tuned existence.
What I am noticing here is that you have an aversion to the term law in relationship to the principles and universal behavior of elements in the universe. You don't seem to see the universal, immutable and constant behavior of said matter and energy which has been determined through millions of experiments and never shown to be invalid. Gravity would still be gravity and still behave the way it does whether or not we were here to observe and describe it.
In short, if there were no universe, there would be no observers, and no natural law. If there was matter, energy, space and time and no observer there would still be natural laws."Natural laws" are consistent observations. They are descriptions of what is observed. If there is no matter, or no energy, then there is nothing to observe, no observation and, consequently, no "natural law".
Think of it this way: "Water flows downhill" is an observation, so consistently true, so repeatedly testable, only philosophers would deny that it is a fact. If there were no water, one might intuit that it would flow down hill, but there would be no way to test that intuition. The "natural laws" are how matter and energy behave. There is no behavior, can be no behavior, without the substance.
I have no problem with the idea that matter behaves consistently,
Touche'.To quote a poster that should be well-known to you: "But how would we know?"
All you did was make a claim. You haven't done anything to back it up.
This is where worldview has much to do with how we look at the universal laws that matter, energy, space and time obey or are governed by. I find it much more consistent to conclude that the laws which are non-physical dictates working on physical elements are products of a Logical, mathematical mind of God opposed to the view that no such mind exists and the laws either are just descriptions of observations (which they are, but would be there whether we observe them or not).I just don't agree that it solves that question.
Good.
Not that I am aware of.
This was the first comment I've made on the subject.
Does our description of them alter in any way the way they work? If we were not here to observe and describe them, would that mean they didn't exist?
No more circular than to claim that the natural laws behave the way they behave because we observe them behaving that way.
If we could validate a model which shows how these values come about and a probability for their values we would not be having this discussion. However, we are at a stand still at the moment as there has not been a theory of everything that provides that model.
