Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Laws of Physics, where did they come from?

Laws of Physics, where did they come from?

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Laws of Physics, where did they come from? on Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:13 am

Admin


Admin
Laws of Physics, where did they come from? 

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from

The physical universe, and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other. Origins make only sense in face of Intelligent Design.

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed . . Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book 2:
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]
“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10]
“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]
“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]
“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]
“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]

The argument of the supervision of order
1. We find in nature many laws like the law of gravitation, the laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Just as in any state, the government or the king makes different laws and supervises their subjects that the laws are carried out, so the laws of nature had to be generated and supervised by some intelligent being.
3. So, for everything that happens according to those laws there has to be a supervisor or controller.
4. Man can create small laws and control limited things in his domain, but nature’s grand laws had to be created by a big brain, an extraordinarily powerful person who can supervise that those laws are carried out.
5. Such an extraordinary, omnipotent person can be only God.
6. Hence, God exists.

The argument of the nature of established laws
1. Physical or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. Law is defined in the following ways:
a. Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
b. Stable. They are unchanged since they were first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws).
c. Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
2. Some of the examples of scientific or nature’s laws are:
a. The law of relativity by Einstein.
b. The four laws of thermodynamics.
c. The laws of conservation of energy.
d. The uncertainty principle etc.
e. Biological laws
i. Life is based on cells.
ii. All life has genes.
iii. All life occurs through biochemistry.
iv. Mendelian inheritance.
f. Conservation Laws.
i. Noether's theorem.
ii. Conservation of mass.
iii. Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum.
iv. Conservation of charge .
3. Einstein said that the laws already exist, man just discovers them.
4. Only an omnipotent, absolute eternal person can give absolute, stable and omnipotent laws for the whole universe.
5. That person all men call God.
6. Hence God exists.


Evidence of Design in Natural Law

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/theisticarg/teleoarg/teleo2.html

One remarkable feature of the natural world is that all of its phenomena obey relatively simple laws. The scientific enterprise exists because man has discovered that wherever he probes nature, he finds laws shaping its operation.

If all natural events have always been lawful, we must presume that the laws came first. How could it be otherwise? How could the whole world of nature have ever precisely obeyed laws that did not yet exist? But where did they exist? A law is simply an idea, and an idea exists only in someone's mind. Since there is no mind in nature, nature itself has no intelligence of the laws which govern it.

Modern science takes it for granted that the universe has always danced to rhythms it cannot hear, but still assigns power of motion to the dancers themselves. How is that possible? The power to make things happen in obedience to universal laws cannot reside in anything ignorant of these laws.

Would it be more reasonable to suppose that this power resides in the laws themselves? Of course not. Ideas have no intrinsic power. They affect events only as they direct the will of a thinking person. Only a thinking person has the power to make things happen. Since natural events were lawful before man ever conceived of natural laws, the thinking person responsible for the orderly operation of the universe must be a higher Being, a Being we know as God.



"Where do the laws of physics come from?' (Guth) pauses: "We are a long way from being able to answer that one." Yes, that would be a very big gap in scientific knowledge! 


http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1172


   Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.
   Law of Gravity.
   Conservation of Mass-Energy.
   Conservation of Momentum.
   Laws of Thermodynamics.
   Electrostatic Laws.
   Invariance of the Speed of Light.
   Modern Physics & Physical Laws.



The questions are:

   What is their origin?
   Can laws come about naturally?
   How did they come about fully balanced to create order instead of chaos?

The laws themselves defy a natural existence and science itself has not even one clue on how to explain them coming into being naturally.So when you use deductive reasoning, cancelling out all that does not fit or will not work, there is only one conclusion left that fits the bill of why the laws exist, and why they work together to make order instead of chaos.

Deny it as naturalist may, their way if thinking cannot explain away a Creator creating the laws that exist and the fact that they create order instead of chaos. That they are put together and tweaked to be in balance like a formula making everything work together to create all that we see. Always ignoring that even one notch off in how one law works with another that total and complete chaos would be the result. And that they cannot even contemplate the first step in an explanation that would fit their world views.


   Applying the scientific method:

When all conclusions fit and point into one direction only, what is science supposed to do? According to the scientific method you are supposed to follow the evidence regardless of where it leads, not ignore it because it leads to where you don;t want to go. But science refusal to follow the conclusions of the only things that make sense here is proof that science is not really about finding truth where ever it may lead, but making everything that exists or is discovered conform to what they have already accepted as truth.

Proof? Evolutionists have already exalted their idea of their theory as being a true proven facts with mountains of empirical evidence. They even went as far as to exalt this theory of theirs to being a Scientific theory. The problem here is that there is really no criteria that the theory had to meet to graduate to this level. Nothing. They cannot give us a 1 ,2 ,3 criteria on what the theory had to do to reach this status or the supposed evidence that took it over the top, and how it would maintain this status. How does one know that evolution still meets the criteria of being a scientific theory when evidence for and against are found all the time? And evidence gets proven wrong or found to be fraud but some how the theory of evolution holds to a criteria that is not even clear or written?

   Is evolution the hero of the atheist movement?

This is what happens when a person becomes a hero unto the people. They exalt him to a status that he may not be worthy of, and make positive claims about him that are not even true just so they can look up to him as their hero. And they will protect their hero and anyone whom disagrees becomes their enemy. This is what has happened to the theory of evolution. It has become the atheist hero in the plot to justify their disbelief in God. And because the idea is their hero it will be treated as such and becomes something the atheist can look up to whether it meets the criteria or not. And it is protected against all whom would dare to disagree, and those whom disagree become the enemy for that very reason. Why do you think atheists who believe in evolution hate all creationists when they have never met them? The hero complex of evolution requires them to do just that.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch01a.htm

1) http://www.icr.org/article/547/256
2. http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god



Last edited by Admin on Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:58 am; edited 6 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Evidence of Design in Natural Law

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/theisticarg/teleoarg/teleo2.html

One remarkable feature of the natural world is that all of its phenomena obey relatively simple laws. The scientific enterprise exists because man has discovered that wherever he probes nature, he finds laws shaping its operation.

If all natural events have always been lawful, we must presume that the laws came first. How could it be otherwise? How could the whole world of nature have ever precisely obeyed laws that did not yet exist? But where did they exist? A law is simply an idea, and an idea exists only in someone's mind. Since there is no mind in nature, nature itself has no intelligence of the laws which govern it.

Modern science takes it for granted that the universe has always danced to rhythms it cannot hear, but still assigns power of motion to the dancers themselves. How is that possible? The power to make things happen in obedience to universal laws cannot reside in anything ignorant of these laws.

Would it be more reasonable to suppose that this power resides in the laws themselves? Of course not. Ideas have no intrinsic power. They affect events only as they direct the will of a thinking person. Only a thinking person has the power to make things happen. Since natural events were lawful before man ever conceived of natural laws, the thinking person responsible for the orderly operation of the universe must be a higher Being, a Being we know as God.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
Taking Science on Faith

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?ref=opinion

Paul Davies

SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,” as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.

Continue reading the main story
Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.

Although scientists have long had an inclination to shrug aside such questions concerning the source of the laws of physics, the mood has now shifted considerably. Part of the reason is the growing acceptance that the emergence of life in the universe, and hence the existence of observers like ourselves, depends rather sensitively on the form of the laws. If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life would almost certainly not exist.

A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our very existence.

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.

And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe.

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum