When I contemplate the fundamental laws of nature (those presently known): the quantum laws, relativity, and the laws governing the fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force..they seem to possess such profound intelligence and beauty. One question I find myself asking is: How can there be Laws? I could maybe imagine a rock existing on its own...but a Law? And such beautiful laws. How is that possible? I am truly filled with awe and wonder...and, I must say, a feeling of reverence, love, gratitude.
2007-06-13 09:55:23 · 12 answers · asked by ontheroad 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I said "suggest"...I am not trying to "prove" anything..
(I said nothing about life or anything else..I spoke only of the existence of Laws)
and frankly given a choice, I'd much rather be in the company of Einstein than "fourmorebeers" and all the other knee-jerk know-it-alls on here..
2007-06-13 10:15:46 · update #1
jonmcn: Did I say anything about a personal God or any preference for some label or another? I can only imagine that a conversation with Einstein on this topic would prove illuminating and stimulating.
2007-06-14 12:30:57 · update #2
Einstein had almost the exact same beliefs, sense of awe, whatever you wanna call it....
2007-06-13 09:59:10 · answer #1 · answered by mark r 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Law," as used in science, has a very different meaning than it does in a judicial system.
---
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
---
I hope your "reverence, love, gratitude" is for those scientists who have spent their lives discovering, and describing the "laws" of the known universe, and not some mythological entity that explains nothing.
2007-06-13 10:09:12 · answer #2 · answered by YY4Me 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An interesting point of discussion but the existence of natural laws hardly proves the existence of a creator.
Consider this - If the creator created the natural laws then what was there before the creator created them? Nothing? And how could a super being come to existence in a universe of absolutely nothing?
It is a paradox.
2007-06-13 10:02:14 · answer #3 · answered by Alan 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They might seem to posses intelligence to you.
That does not make them intelligent.
Brane theory postulates that there are oodleplexes of universe out there, all with different laws of nature.
If this is correct, why is it surprising that life comes into existence in a universe where life can come into existence?
If there is an intelligence behind the universe. Where did it come from?
2007-06-13 10:04:08 · answer #4 · answered by Simon T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
before each and every thing you're taking evolution as a given premise, which a theist might want to argue is erroneous altogether, or that evolution does no longer necessitate the shortcoming of an preliminary author for our MORTAL existence. A theist might want to assert that, considering that we are finite, we gained't understand infinity and that god isn't sure by the common sense that our finite minds are sure by. certainly, even as one study the common sense on which our math and technology relies upon, a end that such is a competent device for some understanding yet no longer at present adequate for all understanding is very defendable. that's the reason of non secular tries to respond to supersensible inquiries to commence with. inspite of the indisputable fact that, similar to common sense might want to be eurocentric and male dominant, many all and multiple is attentive to the anthropomorphism in faith (as is confirmed when we call god a "he" even as it makes no sense in any respect why god might want to have a want for a sex) and that's negative implications for a way we view our existence in each and every component (such as "guy" as being over and hostile to nature, and so on.)
2016-11-23 18:30:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What fallacy! Men call these laws and as usual, you are looking at things backwards. What is an " intelligent natural law "? An oxymoron?
Why would you rather be in the company of Einstein, who was an avowed pan-theists and abjured a personal god? Ignorance, I would venture.
2007-06-13 10:02:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well you have cherry picked the 'beautiful, intelligent, (whatever that means) laws'. How about entropy and chaos theory.
2007-06-13 14:49:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
re "99% fat free" . . . AMEN!
The entire universe speaks of "intelligent design"
God is SO good!
2007-06-13 11:54:47 · answer #8 · answered by Devoted1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't have to.
There are just some things that our brains can't comprehend, so we strive to explain them in some way.
2007-06-13 09:59:36 · answer #9 · answered by arkansaszippers 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the whole universe speaks of its Creator.
2007-06-13 10:02:37 · answer #10 · answered by 99% fat free 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋