Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Loudmouth]

One with an unbelieving heart has rejected what leads to Him.

The mind follows the heart.

With the heart man needs to repent to change his course. Until then it is only forum talk of opposition to your simple question. Opposition talk, rooted not in knowledge supremacy but unbelief.

For some of us, our minds follow the evidence. Have any evidence?

 

[Gracchus]

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist."
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

It would seem that the term "reality" refers not to an abstraction, but rather to that which is in no sense abstract. It is dangerous to sanity to wander into philosophy without a good grounding in mathematics and logic. One might even wander into the la-la land of theology and come out stinking of woo. (In case you didn't notice "la-la land" and "woo" are reified abstractions.

To which you responded:

Void of the Holy Spirit.

Do you mean "the Holy Spirit" is or has been voided? "Void" is the only verb in that sentence, and it seems to be in the imperative mood, but the sentence doesn't seem to make sense. I thought your God was ubiquitous. The Holy Spirit, I am told, is God. So, how could anyone void something of the Holy Spirit, or how can anything be "void of the Holy Spirit"? Can you clarify?

Knowledge puffs up.

Let's see ... Hmm...
"Now, concerning what you wrote about food offered to idols.
It is true, of course, that “all of us have knowledge,” as they say. Such knowledge, however, puffs a person up with pride; but love builds up." --- Good News Translation (GNT), 1 Corinthians 8:1

The author seems to be referring to something someone else has written about eating food that has been offered to pagan temples. I am not sure how that relates to the subject under discussion. Could you clarify, or are you, (and I hesitate to even imply,) making a personal attack charging me with arrogance? It could not be!

The subject under discussion is: "Where did the laws of nature come from?"
My post was about a related topic that arose about the nature of reality. What had your post to do with either?

 

[stevevw]

Really? Which "supporters of evolution" conclude the same things you do? Please be specific.

You've missed the point completely. I am talking about the way supporters of evolution will use today's creatures to infer the pasts creatures genetic makeup.

Which has nothing to do with your wacky ideas about the origins of those traits. Try again.

Once you miss the point then you'll miss it for everything else. Think about it similar genes = similar genetic info to make the proteins that make the features. If the similar genetic info was around very early then what has changed. How can such complex genetic info be around in the early stages of evolution if it takes millions and millions of years to evolve.

Weird - whenever I asked you to explain what this designer was and how it worked you ran away as fast as you could. So what's this hypothesis of yours again? That a mysterious designer did something somehow? That's not exactly going to set the scientific world on fire.

Theres no hypothesis about who the designer is. The only hypothesis is is that life has design and its been around since the beginning of life. One of the supports is that the complexity of life being around from the beginning. But there are many other supports like natural selection not being what evolution claims and that life has the ability to share info. That changes can come from several other processes that are non adaptive as seen in genomics and development biology. The thing is I could tell you anything about a creator or designer and there would be little evidence to show. So what is the point. What has it got to do with proving design in life. I am not running away and am quite happy to debate the possibilities of God or any other agent. But where would that debate end, you tell me.

Even if this referenced claim of yours is true, that still makes normal evolutionary processes a major part of the story. All of these grandiose claims about your research skills would be a lot easier to believe if you could remember what you wrote a few posts up.

No it doesn't and that is what my point is. that is what you and others hold onto because you have a faith in that story as much as you claim believers do in God. HGT is only one part of why random mutations and natural selection are responsible for the creation of life and how they change. I have posted the same papers over and over again and you refuse to even acknowledge them. Its taken 20 odd pages just for you to even consider it may have some relevance.

But lets consider HGT on its own for a minute. If 95% of all creatures alive and that have ever lived are micro organisms and micro organisms have a massive ability for HGT doesn't that tel you that most of life has the ability to transfer genes for one another. That the very small 5% branch or even twigs for more complex creatures is only a small bit of that life. But even so the science says things like 50% of human genes may have been subject to HGT. Other creatures maybe more or maybe less. But there is significant HGT. The science is still out and they are making more discoveries all the time about HGT and symbiosis. Microorganisms can transfer genetic info into more complex life. You may dismiss it but I dont think you do based on the evidence. You do because you dont want to know about the science because its there.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26836/

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity. So what caused that complexity of evolution didn't. As I have mentioned before there is evidence for genetic complexity being on par with today's levels. Ancient creatures are just as complex in their own way. They are just different creatures because it was a different time. But that difference isn't simple to complex. It makes sense in the light of genomics as mentioned above in that complexity has always been there and thats why there is no tendency towards complexity.

Look, I know it is hard to keep track of your claims when you're just throwing stuff out there and hoping something sticks, but try to keep up.

yeah its like playing dodge ball with you.

It was your reference. If you doubt it, why did you bring it up in the first place?

That's the danger of quote-mining from the introductions of papers you don't read and understand.

Theres no quote mining here. I spend time reading them. If I get it wrong then thats different. But its ironic that you cite a quote saying that evolution was at work in the Cambrian period as proof and then state I cant infer that genetic info was complex back then at the same time. One the one hand you infer with evolution and then disallow me to use the same reasoning and logic. Well maybe one thing can come out of it thats its all inferring and nothing is proven so that puts evolution back to the drawing board.

I'd be shocked if you could find a reference which backs up your claims that "the Cambrian explosion has many different species happening suddenly at the same time showing many lines of decent with no trace of where they came from let alone even a single line or a few lines of decent." I guess you could surprise me by actually posting one, but it looks like it is easier to make claims than actually back them up.

The main evolutionary sites say it all the time. Think about it. They claim that nearly every Phylum came about during the Cambrian period and some say that other creatures just as complex and therefore deserved the rank of Phylum came and and then disappeared. So a phylum is a taxonomic rank below kingdom and above class. There are around 55 Phylum today and we know there are millions of species that make up those phylum below that. We know from what evolution says about Darwin's tree of life and that it is a bit like a tree with a trunk that goes back and represents the universal common ancestor. The tree slowly branches out until we have the millions of species today which would have many smaller branches and tiny twigs representing all the many species each tracing back to the 55 phylum.

So if the Cambrian period had most of today's major Phylum and even more phylum then today then there must have been many branches that represented those phylum which will stem off into class, order, family, genus and species. So that makes a lot of separate and different creatures that will be distantly related genetically all pooping into existence at the same time.

Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

 

[Derek Meyer]

Y

The main evolutionary sites say it all the time. Think about it. They claim that nearly every Phylum came about during the Cambrian period and some say that other creatures just as complex and therefore deserved the rank of Phylum came and and then disappeared. So a phylum is a taxonomic rank below kingdom and above class.

So, you're saying that a human is the same as an elephant is the same as a crocodile because they all belong to the same Phylum? Even though reptiles appeared after the Cambrian and mammals appeared after the reptiles?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I dont think they "got there" or "came from" anywhere. There's matter/energy, and thats it for the naturalistic universe. (There may also be a supernatural realm, but I dont know.)
The idea of "rules" is just a convenience for us.

Are you really content with that answer? You don't wonder why the speed of light is what it is, or Planck's constant is what it is etc.?

I understand the laws of nature are descriptive not prescriptive. That doesn't make them any less mysterious.

What a terribly lazy answer to just say that's the way it is.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It's possible there is no alternative. The 'laws' are the only consistent way that things can be.

So your answer is: Well that's the only way things can be.

How on earth is that a satisfying answer?

 

[VirOptimus]

So your answer is: Well that's the only way things can be.

How on earth is that a satisfying answer?

And how is "therefore god" a satisfying answer?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

This is like asking if the fact that 1+1=2 came about from un-directed, random materialistic processes? Or did it that law require a lawgiver?

To compare basic addition with Planck's constant, the speed of light, Rydberg's constant, is beyond belief. How can anyone who has a liking for science be satisfied with such.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And how is "therefore god" a satisfying answer?

Did I claim it was? Better to say "I don't know" or "That's a good question, maybe one day we'll know" rather than presenting non-answers like "well that's the only way things can be". I was hoping people who liked science would question and explore things more rather than settling for such profoundly useless non-answers.

 

[VirOptimus]

Did I claim it was? Better to say "I don't know" or "That's a good question, maybe one day we'll know" rather than presenting non-answers like "well that's the only way things can be". I was hoping people who liked science would question and explore things more rather than settling for such profoundly useless non-answers.

Well, I think the question isnt a scientific one so its not really one to debate in a scientific forum.

Not that it matters but I also find the question worthless.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Well, I think the question isnt a scientific one so its not really one to debate in a scientific forum.

Not that it matters but I also find the question worthless.

Why do you find the question worthless?

 

[VirOptimus]

Why do you find the question worthless?

Because it presupposes meaning, i.e. metaphysics.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because it presupposes meaning, i.e. metaphysics.

Well we shouldn't be presupposing naturalism and non-meaning either now, should we?

When you just look at the stars, do you not marvel at why things as they are? Why the speed of light is as it is?

As we discover more about the universe, it answers some questions and then opens up a great deal more questions.

We thought we sorted it finding the atom, but now find ourselves in the quantum world which has its own rules. There are never-ending questions and areas of exploration, and the more I learn the more I only find myself more and more amazed at the way things are, and the immense order we find in the universe, from the very small to the very big, and leaves me asking the quite reasonable question of why. To not ask that, I think, seems to presuppose that such a question doesn't matter, and I don't see why it wouldn't matter.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well we shouldn't be presupposing naturalism and non-meaning either now, should we?

When you just look at the stars, do you not marvel at why things as they are? Why the speed of light is as it is?

As we discover more about the universe, it answers some questions and then opens up a great deal more questions.

We thought we sorted it finding the atom, but now find ourselves in the quantum world which has its own rules. There are never-ending questions and areas of exploration, and the more I learn the more I only find myself more and more amazed at the way things are, and the immense order we find in the universe, from the very small to the very big, and leaves me asking the quite reasonable question of why. To not ask that, I think, seems to presuppose that such a question doesn't matter, and I don't see why it wouldn't matter.

Well, I dont. I dont belive in metaphysics so I dont dwell on meaningless questions. That does not in any way impede my love of beatiful things or hunger for knowledge.

 

[Derek Meyer]

So, from all of this, I still want to know why God exists.

What's the reason for the existence of God?

I really like the why questions.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Well we shouldn't be presupposing naturalism and non-meaning either now, should we?

When you just look at the stars, do you not marvel at why things as they are? Why the speed of light is as it is?

As we discover more about the universe, it answers some questions and then opens up a great deal more questions.

We thought we sorted it finding the atom, but now find ourselves in the quantum world which has its own rules. There are never-ending questions and areas of exploration, and the more I learn the more I only find myself more and more amazed at the way things are, and the immense order we find in the universe, from the very small to the very big, and leaves me asking the quite reasonable question of why. To not ask that, I think, seems to presuppose that such a question doesn't matter, and I don't see why it wouldn't matter.

Yes, same with me. Why does God exist?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Well, I dont. I dont belive in metaphysics so I dont dwell on meaningless questions. That does not in any way impede my love of beatiful things or hunger for knowledge.

So the reason the speed of light is the way it is... is because... it just is?

 

[Derek Meyer]

The physical sciences presuppose the existence of physical laws.

Nope. The opposite. The physical sciences describe nature.

You seem to be dishonest about what scientific laws are.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So, from all of this, I still want to know why God exists.

What's the reason for the existence of God?

I really like the why questions.

Yes, same with me. Why does God exist?

I don't know, I just know He does.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Did I claim it was? Better to say "I don't know" or "That's a good question, maybe one day we'll know" rather than presenting non-answers like "well that's the only way things can be". I was hoping people who liked science would question and explore things more rather than settling for such profoundly useless non-answers.

Because, some questions really are worthless. For example, some people can claim that those volcanic ashes at Pompeii were deposited by a global Fluddie. Worthless questions. So, why does God exist?