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

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.

Paul Davies: The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe.

The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause.  

The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book 2:
“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”
“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.”
“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”
“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”
“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”
“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”

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 Wed May 17, 2017 5:59 am; edited 10 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

Admin


Admin
My name is Marco Biagini and I am a Ph. D. in Solid State Physics;
I would like to invite you in the site:

http://xoomer.alice.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html

where I analyse in detail the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledge about brain and matter.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contradictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
Basically, science has proved that the so-called emergent properties are nothing but arbitrary classifications of some successions of elementary physical processes; in other words, they are only abstract concepts used to describe in an approximated way the real processes.
Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any concepts or classifications, the materialist attempts to explain consciousness as an emergent property
are absolutely inconsistent from a logical point of view.
No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.

The problem of the existence of the soul is strictly connected to the one of God's existence, as I explain in the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions”, where you can find the answer to many other typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.

An independent argument to prove directly the existence of God is the following.
Science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics; the universe cannot exist independently from such equations, which determine the events and the properties of such events (including the probability for the event to occur, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics). However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person conceiving such a concept. Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and intelligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
Someone claims that the present laws of physics cannot be considered exact because we do not have a unique theory unifying general relativity with electroweak and strong interactions. First of all, it must be stressed that it is not necessary at all that such theory must exist; God could have conceived the universe both according to a unified theory and according to some disjointed theories. Anyway, a well-known property of mathematical equations is the possibility to find approximate equations able to reproduce with great accuracy the results of the exact equation in a given range of values. This is the reason why classical mechanics (which represents the approximation) can replace quantum mechanics (which represents the exact theory) in the study of many macroscopic processes. So, independently from the fact that we choose to consider the present laws of physics as exact or approximate, the systematic accuracy of their predictions proves that the state of the universe is determined by specific mathematical equations. In fact, if natural processes were not determined by any mathematical equations, there would be no reason to expect to be able to predict the natural processes (neither a limited number of them), through some mathematical equations.

Someone objects that the mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man. Someone else claims that math is only the language used to describe the universe. This objections however do not stand since the laws of physics are intrinsically abstract mathematical concepts, and when we ask them to describe which "natural principles" should really rule the universe and be represented by the equations of physics (for example the Schroedinger or the Dirac equations), they remain speachless. Their incapacity to describe concretely the laws of physics is a direct consequence of the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws of physics. Actually, they use the term "natural principles" (or equivalent expressions) but these are vague and completely indefinite concepts: they are not true concepts, but only empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. Besides, the objective result is that natural phenomena occur according to some specific mathematical equations; this result can be explained without any need to introduce vague and obscure concepts of "natural principles". The most simple and direct explanation is that nature is ruled by some specific mathematical equations. The "natural principles" are then a concept as empty and meaningless as superfluous.


Someone claims that the equations of physics are not the cause of the natural processes, but they are only the result of our analysis of experimental data; in other words, they are only the way we have ordered and summarized, in a mathematical language, the observed processes.
In this case, however, every new experimental data would require a new analysis and a revision of our equations. Such objection is then clearly denied by the predictive capability of the equations of physics.
In a non-mahematically structured universe we should have the following situation:
through the analysis of experimental data we could find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. However, every new experiment would give us some new data which do not fit our equations, so that we should revise our equations. There is no reason to expect that a new experiment should give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (the probability is calculated as the quotient of the favorable outcomes and the possible outcomes, and since the possible outcomes are infinite, this quotient is zero). We have found however the opposite situation, i.e. the sistematic confirmation of the predictions of the equations of physics.
Consider that the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered last century, through the analysis of some simple atoms; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions of other molecules and systems, and no revisions of the equations have been necessary.
Since last century, we have been observing a systematic confirmation of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials.
It then correct to say that the probabilty that the universe is not intrinsecally ruled through mathematical equations is zero.

Someone considers the equations of physics as a description of the universe, like a map is a description of a territory. Also this kind of argument fails if we consider the predictive power of the laws of physics: the map in fact cannot predict the changes occuring in a territory, since the map is only a graphic description of the surveys made till now. Tha map can give us no new information beyond those used by the person who made the map itself; on the contrary, the laws of physics can give us new information about experiments which have not been made yet. The map must be revised at every change occurred in the territory, and this is what should happen if the laws of physics were a sort of map of the universe, built upon our experimental data. Every new experiment would change our set of data, and a revision of our equations would become necessary.
Somebody claims that the universe is ruled by chance, because of the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics.
This is clearly false. In fact for every experiment, infinite possible probability distributions exist, and matter sistematically follows the probability distribution predicted by the equations of physics.
It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics and the predictive power of such laws, without admitting that the state of the universe must necessarily be determined by some specific mathematical equations. The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator. Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science, since the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe, implies the existence of a personal God.

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