Laws of Nature, Source Unknown

Post by **_Homer** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:20 pm

Post by **_JC** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:56 am

But it is soon for any Einsteinian to throw in his or her hand. Since cosmologists don’t know how the universe came into being, or even have a convincing theory, they have no way of addressing the conundrum of where the laws of nature come from or whether those laws are unique and inevitable or flaky as a leaf in the wind.

Therein lies the problem with looking to science in order to hypothesize universal origin. Science is limited by nature itself. Philosophy of science is downplayed in that article but only in philosophy are scholars and thinkers allowed to postulate supernatural origens. Instead of saying, "Maybe there's a supernatural cause to the universe" they would rather say, "Let's explore this multiple universe contained in black holes theory again."

Post by **_TK** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:08 am

Assuming that science ultimately could figure out everything, wouldnt it simply ultimately figure out HOW God did it?

TK

Post by **_JC** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:47 pm

I don't think so, TK, because science can only test that which is testable. Nature and natural laws can be observed and tested but, as that article points out, science is completely useless to tell us anything about the "whys." Science, as a whole, will never concede to the notion of a created universe because a) it's outside their realm of study and b) there are major implications associated with such a finding. If there's a creator, then he might place certain demands upon us... and we simply can't have that.

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:01 pm

Then, JC, why is it that my chemistry teacher in grade 12, said, "Scientists tend to believe in God"? Indeed, I've heard that theme over and over during the five decades since.

Post by **_TK** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:36 am

i dont think i asked my question very well. if scientists learn all there is to know (and therefore know that God exists), would they not ultimately simply know how God created the universe (i.e. by what mechanism?). presumably, if scientists had all knowledge they would be able to explain how Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish. even though it was miraculous, it is called this because we simply dont know the mechanism. it is also called this because only God could pull it off. in other words, simply because the mechanism is known does not negate the fact that it is miraculous.

just kind of wondering with my keyboard.

TK

Post by **_JC** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:12 am

Then, JC, why is it that my chemistry teacher in grade 12, said, "Scientists tend to believe in God"? Indeed, I've heard that theme over and over during the five decades since.

I haven't found that to be the case, but you've lived much longer than me so perhaps my own inexperience is coming into play here. The statements I hear coming from the fields of physics, cosmology and biology (specifically) tend to reject arguments from creation. For example, anytime a guy like Michael Behe or Francis Collins talks about design elements in nature, they are ridiculed in the press by mainstream guys like Richard Dawkins. Maybe the naturalists simply get more press, I don't know.