The laws of universe?

Question

Why are the laws of the universe, mathematics, and science so uniform in design? Why can they not me attributed to a designer? When we discover a new law, is it discovering something that existed previously? Then how was it established?

Answer 1

What do you mean by "Uniform in design"?

Needless to say, there was no "designer" of the universe. That hypothesis doesn't explain anything, and in fact only makes the universe more difficult to explain. If this is meant to be an argument for creationism it misses the mark badly, for these two important reasons among many others:

1 - Where did the designer come from? Saying he was always there answers nothing - if your challenge is meant to point out that scientists can't answer the origin questions, it does you no good to dodge those questions as well.

2 - Where is the evidence that intentional design can produce anything anywhere near as complex as life? All of the evidence around us clearly demonstrates that intentional design is far too limited to produce anything truly complex, and that it is only nonintentional "mindless" processes that produce real complexity.

Answer 2

Read the fine print on your science textbook...

The so called 'Laws of the Universe' are theories, they are generally good theories - they let us predict things well enough to build cars and skyscrapers and optical fibres. But they are just theories:

If someone came up with a revolutionary new theory describing in great detail how gravity works or how light travels that stands up to rigorous experimentation and has less gaps than the current physics model - it would (in theory) be accepted as the new scientific model. Thought the current scientific establishment is very protective of its most important theories, people begin to 'believe' in them.

While it's possible we have things 'almost right' at the moment - there are several inconsistencies in the 'standard model' - without going into detail, we can describe the forces we observe, but there is no 'Unified Theory' to tie them all together.

Even concepts like seconds and yards and numbers are things we define and use to describe our universe, there is no real precedent for these ideas other than what we give them.

Answer 3

The "laws" as you call them are all manmade models, explanations of how things work. Think about Galileos' assertion that the earth was not the center of "the universe" but rather the sun was. It's not as if the center shifted that day - it never budged. Only our perception and interpretation of facts changed.

Unless you were a Christian and then you just dug in your heels and said "no no no no no"

Laws only appear uniform when you see them all written out in english or mathematical equations - in fact both languages have a great deal of flexibility to describe widely variant systems using the same (small) set of symbols - hence everything they describe looks the same (and tastes like chicken).

Answer 4

More and more credible scientists take this view as well, from the theory of Intelligent Design, whose major proponent is Michael Behe. Some of them disagree with Michael Behe, but still hold to the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

Prominent academics and scientists who have gone on record as subscribing to the idea of "an Intelligent Designer" include Phillip E. Johnson, who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley; biochemist Michael J. Behe, author of the book Darwin's Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution; mathematician William A. Dembski; philosopher of logic Alvin Plantinga; physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson; astronomer Allan Sandage; and others too numerous to list. It is quickly becoming accepted in the scientific community to accept the idea of intelligent design. Microbiologists, xenogeologists, etc, etc.

I agree. The precision between the four forces are just too coincidental to be an accident. Intelligent design speaks to a designer.

Make the weak force slightly stronger, and no helium would have been produced; make it slightly weaker and nearly all the hydrogen would have been converted into helium.

THe weak force seems to play a role in supernova explosions, which is a mechanism for producing and distributing matter and the most elements that are used elsewhere by the universe. If they were slightly different (The weak nuclear force) the stars would be incapable of making the elements of which we're all made.

The weak force is millions of times weaker than the nuclear force. It is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If the weak force were much stronger, or much weaker, any forms of life dependent on sunlike stars would be in difficulties.

Some physicists figure the force of electromagnetism to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times that of gravity (10 to the 40th). It might seem a small chagne to that number to add just one more zero (10 to the 41st), yet that would mean that gravity is proportionaly weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: "With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion to get underway;: the sun would not be able to shine"

The New Scientist stated:

"The window of opportunity for a universe in which there is some helium and there are also exploding supernovas is very narrow. Our existence depends on this combination of coincidences, and on the even more dramatic coincidence of nuclear energy levels predicted by astronomer Fred Hoyle. Unlike all previous generations, we know how we come to be here"

More could be said, . . . there is an amazing degree of fine-tuning in these four fundamental forces. If any of them were off by so much as a hair, the universe would have ceased to exist altogether shortly after it's birth, would have ballooned out of control, or would not allow for us to live. All four forces have to exist in the EXACT proportion that they do

Some of the biggest problems with the idea of NOT having a Creator, are mathematical. The odds against something happening without a creator in just one thing, say, the formation of us using the type of amino acids we use, approach 10 to the 115th. But anything past 10 to the 50th is considered to be a mathematical universal impossibility.

Then you put all of the coincidences together? Some of the biggest proponents of Intelligent Design, are mathematicians. They see the mathematical probabilities.

But if they don't hold to their old math, then what is happening? Well, they they just believe there is no creator based on blind faith. Leakey is one of the worst for saying: "Yes, it's mathematically improbable, but it still must have happened that way." That, is blind faith.

Answer 5

Well, you could say it was a god, but then you would just have to ask the same questions about that god. Doesn't a complicated supreame being naturally require a creator? Why is god so uniform in design? You only delayed the questions. You only complicated the situation and you have provided absolutely no evidence to back up that extra step.

Answer 6

That makes too much sense! An ordered and organized God making a Universe that follows set rules and principles! NO that cant possibly be right. Lets just say nothing exploded and made the universe was formed, its more believable that way.

If you cant see the sarcasm dripping of of my response you need help.

Answer 7

Good questions? I do believe that they could be attributed to a designer. I wonder, if we will will ever know anything for sure while we are here.

Answer 8

This proves nothing, laws are laws and trying to insert God into science has not ever worked , (just look at 19th century philosophy). Trying to prove your non factual beliefs with facts is inherently wrong. You cannot prove that God made something just because that thing is there, because that does not prove anything this only brings up "well God made it" this has been the argument since the start of mono-theistic religion.

Answer 9

There is clearly a designer

To say it happened by chance is like seeing a castle on the top of a hill, and saying that a Tornado assembled the castle by picking up material as it moved through the land

Answer 10

"Universal Laws" are not like our laws....They are not ever-changing, amended, enforced....They just are, always were....1+1=2...No one has to tell "1" and "1" to equal "2"....they can do it by themselves....