Anyone PLEASE HELP! Can someone please explain to me how a LAW, a physical law, not a law of man's making,

Question

evolve into existence from nothing? I mean, for instance, the laws of gravity! To me, the existence of a law is proof there's a "lawgiver". I can not imagine a law evolving into existence! I'm not talking about the mental gymnastics in the usual line of reasoning about the unproven hypothesis of the evolution of "matter". Please keep sarcastic remarks to yourself. I'm asking a serious, logical question.
I know that "laws" as applied to science are attempts to understand the universe. What I'm asking is how did the laws being described "evolve"? How did the way gravity, light, etc., etc. acts "evolve"?

Answer 1

We call them laws but really that is a misnomer. They are things we have observed to be true though experimentation and record keeping. For example, if I throw an object in the air if falls down again. Hence the law, what goes up must come down. These 'laws' did not evolve. They have always been. It is the way the universe works. Which is not to say it can't change, but if it does or did, then we would be able to eventaully understand the process by which the change occurred and describe that as a set of laws as well.

Answer 2

A man once said to me, to explain God you must be bigger then God. To explain the laws of creation, we have to be bigger then those laws. All we can do is recognise that they are laws and that they work. There is no one that can honestly answer this question except God. We didn't make those laws. All we can do is explain how they seem to us. But let me ask you, how often have your eyes been deceived by an optical illusion? How often have you though one thing was so only to find that another was so? The truth is, all we can do is know that these are laws and that God created them. We cannot understand the intricacies of how they were created. The answers are not given to that. God hasn't told us. The reason, he knows that if he did, we would get so bogged down in the details we would forget the author of those laws. Also, because he knows how vain man is, that man would try to take control of the process of creating the laws and use it to change things. None of the details on the 'how' of creation have ever been gicen to man. Bad enough that man is poking his nose into the DNA stuff and all those other 'secrets' of God. Bad enough that man learned to split the atom. And what has man done with this knowledge? Build bombs, cause havoc. Irradiate areas of the planet God gave us. What will we do when we know cthe secrets of Genetics? What people are already trying to do, alter the way living things work. Make different planets that obey mens will. Try to be as God. So, why do you think God hasn't told us?
And do you really think he's going to tell us?

Answer 3

Laws are all of mans making, especially in physics, which I assume is what you mean by physical. These laws are our attempts to make sense out of the great and terrible world. Over the course of time some of our earlier ideas were found to be wrong. Right and wrong is a strange concept in natural laws because they are only descriptions, not commands. They do not dictate what the world is. If they do not fit or a better description is found then they get replaced, but not easily. There is always resistance to new ideas. This weeds out many weak ideas that are no improvement and offer no advantage over the old law or theory if you will. The two main criteria for advance of a new law is that it makes useful predictions of behaviour of the real world, and it is if possible simpler than the old way. It helps if it can be tested in such a way as to produce a correct prediction while the old law produces a false prediction.I tried to keep it short.

Answer 4

I don't see how they evolved at all. As for lawgiver, are you talking about Newton or a deity?

They are, as far as we can tell, a constant. Without these laws being constant then we would have no basis for reality. We do have theories reguarding a posible begining of the universe. But they have no implications on deity. Unless said deity claimes it happened in a way that contridicts these laws.

Since others above question Modern Synthesis I am adding this.
Modern Synthesis has changed since the early 1700's. Yes, way before Darwin was arround. As is the same with all theories/laws in science it has been added to when people make new discovries. Even today it does not effect a belief in deity unless said deity claims it happened difrently. Most Christians do not have a problem with evolution.

Answer 5

I appreciate Jim's attempt to skirt the question. But the question asker is correct. Scientists call them laws, laws of physics and so forth. They are not grown out of pure observation but the inability to argue against that which is absolutely true that makes it a law. A law in science is always true which is why evolution has so many problems. Evolutionists are constantly changing a flawed theory to try an fit it into known scientific fact. The problem with that is that they can't do that. Only Creation science hormonizes with known scientific fact because the fact of the matter is, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Answer 6

We don't know. It's likely that they have always existed. If you can say that god has always existed, why can't you say that the laws of physics have always existed? The latter assumes much less because we KNOW for a fact that gravity and light exists, we don't know that god exists. We don't fully understand gravity and light, there are many unanswered questions.

Answer 7

If Albert Einstein was alive and explained those natural phenomena to the best of his ability, you would be lost after the first sentence.

So, why do you pretend you have the intellect to understand what geniuses have been struggling to understand and explain for thousands of years?

"God did it" is not an explanation, it is an excuse.


BTW, what you call "laws" are "theories" and are subject to alternative explanations as new theories are developed. "God did it' does not provide for or allow any additional explanation.

Answer 8

Look up the unified field theory. The laws you refer to are just desriptions of the way matter and energy interact with itself and space. The real question would be how does anything exist at all, and why this particular set of things (in an infinitude of possibilities). But don't you have the same problem when it comes to the origins of god? I mean, you say god created the universe, but who created god? Is it less logical to say that the universe has always existed (with this set of laws) than to say god always existed? Obviously, something has always existed (since something can never come from nothing) but how can we determine the best candidate for that thing that has always existed? Why that thing?

A theory:

If you go to the edge of the universe and then go ten feet further, what would you find? Nothing? Would you smack right into a big wall of nothing? Would you come out the other side of the universe like in the game pac-man? (There are actually some physicist who believe the last scenerio is a possiblity. History will prove them to be the fools they are). The universe is expanding, but what is it expanding INTO? The reason these questions confuse some people is because of some ambiguities in the term 'universe'. Does the word refer to the collection of matter that is ever expanding outward from the big bang, or does it refer to the space that this matter is expanding into? From this point forward, let it refer to the SPACE the collection of matter (galaxies, etc) is expanding into. Now, we know that the collection of MATTER does not go on infinitely, for we can see the edge, and further, we know it is expanding from a single point of origin that exploded some such and such billions of years ago. But what about space itself? Is that infinite? Is there an edge to space? If there is an edge, what is on the other side? Some would say that the answer to this is that there is nothing at the edge of space, but consider: in the physical universe it would be absolutely impossible for nothing and something to co-exist. Imagine this scenerio: the only thing that exists at all is a pencil. This pencil floats in a sea of nothingness. The problem with such a scenerio is that nothing has no dimensions or properties at all. It is nothing. No space. But a pencil occupies space, it has dimension, so how could it be contained by nothing? How could a pencil be inside of nothing? Therefore, the proof that nothing doesn't exist is evident by the fact that anything exists. By extension, this would also prove that space is infinite, for were space to have an edge we would find ourselves in the absurd situation where nothing contains something (the universe, space and matter). So, is there an edge to space? Is our universe in a bubble of space inside of infinite nothingness. Does 1 + 1 = 3?

Premise: the fact that anything exists at all is proof that something has always existed, and that at no point has nothing ever been the state of existence. From the previous argument we can see that nothing and something can not co-exist in the physical universe, and that therefore space is infinite. But we should also establish that it is a logical absurdity to believe that there was ever a state of nothingness and that something was somehow created from nothing. So, to restate: Something can never come from nothing, therefore, something has always existed; and, nothing has never existed. If nothing does not exist, then something is infinite.

Keeping the above arguments in mind, examine the statement 'something has always existed' based on the premise that something can not come from nothing. We also know that since nothing and something can not co-exist that this something is infinite. Being infinite, this thing would also have to be singular (there could not be multiple infinite things). Presumably, this infinite, singular thing is the substance from which all other things are derived. The label this 'thing' that is the foundation of all other things has been given by primative cultures is 'god'. But here let me propose an alternative: is there anything else that fits the bill for this necesary foundation of all things? So far we know this thing must be infinite, and in being infinite must be singular. Since this thing exists of its own accord and is singular it would not be made up of other things, but would be elemental and unable to be broken down any further. Sounds exotic, this thing - this proto substance that is the very fabric of reality! What else but god could fit such a bill! Actually, there is one thing, and it is all about and within you. The best candidate for our proto substance is...drumroll, please......space! Consider: space is singular (there is only one space) and infinite (it goes on forever in all directions) and can not be broken down any further (it is not made of smaller parts). What better foundation for reality? Would it be more logical then to say the most complex being imaginable has always existed (god) or that the least complicated 'thing' in the universe (space) has always existed? If this is correct science will discover that all matter is energy interacting with itself, and that all energy is space interacting with itself. Essentially, that would mean that everything is composed of "patterns of space". String theory already plays with the idea of vibrating space as the substance of all matter, and other (as of yet unnamed) theories posit the existence of space "whirlpools" that form sub-atomic particles.

If this is correct then space has always existed, all things are composed of space, and the 'laws' you described are simply the properties of space (descriptions of how space interacts with itself).

Answer 9

Law, and order as well. The natural world seems to be moving towards a symmetrical chaos. Entropy is one of those laws by the way. It's the order that our minds crave.

Answer 10

Numerous events are explained by Quantum Mechanics in the sense that they are subsumed under laws that show these events are to be expected with a precise degree of expectation.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/natural.html