Laws of nature vs God

Are the laws of nature absolute? If so then they could fullfill the need for the first cause or prime mover or whatever. If the laws of nature are absolute then god does not exit. So I ask you all are they? Anyone know anything about this?

 

The laws of nature are not absolute - they are merely constructs based on our most reasonable evidence - such as the law that states nothing travels faster than light
If one istance is found that discredits that law it ceases to be a law

 

thats if an instance is found....

 

You’re talking about the laws that humans have written and interpreted as our best guess as to how nature works.



I believe all energy in the universe conforms to an absolute fixed set of properties or laws. The problem is that humans only understand a small fraction of what’s going on. These laws that modern science uses are interpretations and constantly evolving as we learn more. Just because we only understand 0.1% today and 0.11% tomorrow does not mean that 100% does not exist.

 

The only absolute is that something exists.
This can never be refuted.

There is not one shred of evidence to say the 'laws of nature' in our
universe are absolute.

Occam

 

^^ as both atheist and agnostics use the same argument agianst most mainstream religion.....

the religious type use a re worded clone of the same statement to justify whats being refuted........

but were all logical people here eh?.....id have to say they arnt....

 

I don’t see how they could not be absolute. If 20 Billion years from now the entire universe collapsed into another dimension, it would still be a result of a fixed set of properties that exist for energy, matter and gravity. Just because we don’t understand the vast majority of what’s going on doesn’t mean it’s not absolute. And if scientists were around to witness such an event they would add this to their known list of properties.



Modern technology is built on the premise that electrons and magnetism always produce the same predictable results. We have home computers with CPU’s running 300 picosecond clock cycles with millions of 90 nanometer wide traces. We could not build such things if the atomic structures that the matter in this universe was built on did not have stable and predictable properties. We have a Sun that’s been in a controlled nuclear explosion state for around 20 Billion years, we look billions of light years across the span of the universe and see the same stars and galaxy structures repeated millions of times over. Where is there any poof that the “laws of Nature” are not absolute other than inside a humans imagination?

 

There is no way for any scientist to prove that the same laws that govern the planet Earth are illigitimate a billion light years from here, but all evidence suggests it's universal.

But if the laws are absolute, that does not disprove God. If anything, it could be used as evidence of God's creation of the universe on equal terms. Physics and God can go hand in hand, claiming that absolute laws of nature is a end all proof to the non-existance of God is the logic of a, well, a 15 year old.

 

Physics and god cannot go together. Physics, a branch of science, is concerned only with the physical and disprovable. According to most beliefs, at least the ones I am aware of, god(s) are not physical. Therefore, they are incompatible.

On the other hand, god is concerned only with whatever he/she/it wants. I'm saying that for argument's sake rather than as an exclamation that god is real.

 

Peanut butter is concerned with peanuts, and Jelly is concerned with fruit, therefore, by your logic, they must be incompatible.

Just because two concepts concern different topics does not mean they are incompatible or contradictive. There is nothing contradictive with a higher being creating the laws of physics.

 

Albert Einstein was a brilliant man, but he was only human, we all have weaknesses and conflicting thoughts and internal struggles. Chances are Einstein was afflicted with the “religious” gene like most other people. I know people who score genius levels on IQ tests and barely have enough common sense to make good basic judgment decisions about basic daily things. On top of that, none of those quotes really have anything to do with the subject at hand except for the dice one which can be taken as supporting the idea of absolute natural laws. God is not going to interfere (roll the dice) with the state of the universe.

 

A little off. It doesn't mean God doesn't interfere, it means God doesn't take chances witht he universe; it's inclusive.

 

The way I see it, the more I study and devot myself to science the more I realize there has to be a God or something. Something has to push the first domino and to me it takes even more faith to beleive that despite our best scientific thought we still can't find any possible way that something can come from nothing.

 

There is no 'first cause' in infinity, which comes from itself. 'God' belongs to history.

 

Interesting, Cornball. Studying science (qp) had just the opposite affect on me. The more I studied the more I come to realize there was no God (in the religious sense). But then I did realize that in the conceptual sense God, as a conceptual label was everything, not just some isolated entity separated from everything else around. This was almost 30 years before I started studying Buddhism. Now, I come to realize that God doesn't even exist in either the religious or conceptual sense, except to those who wish a God, or gods to exist because they cannot, or will not accept responsibility for their own actions whether good or evil.

HTML:

 

Relaxx

So, your conceptual horizons must be occams.?
Occam thinks not.
By what authority of 'knowing' do you propose your statement.?
Occam can see the observed universe as a very small part of reality.

An analogy
One 'block' in a city a thousand miles across.
There are no absolutes but one. reality exists.
Rules are a temporal as universes.

And they come and go as do may flies.

Occam

 

Exactly

Occam

 

Exactly

Occam

 

Wouldn't that depend on the higher being in question?

I think beings of any kind are bound to create 'with' the laws of physics, assuming infinity.