Why wouldn't the laws of physics come from an intelligent mind?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

With that said, your arguments are made to appeal to skepticism and incredulity rather than measuring any form of deliberate footprint...

Do you know why Stephen Meyer entitled one of his books "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design"?

His arguments and those in my previous comment are based on inductive reasoning, not skepticism nor incredulity. And it is exactly the "footprint" that was being discussed, note especially the paragraph entitled "An Orderly Beginning" and the admissions of George Greenstein, Fred Hoyle and the conclusion of Isaac Newton (which was based on inductive reasoning, unlike what charlatans like Neil deGrasse Tyson have to say about that conclusion by induction, conveniently leaving out the justification or reasons for that conclusion) in the next paragraph.

Coming back to:

Newsweek suggested that there was, as it were, a “Tuner” of the universe, observing: “Take but degree away (see above, the one quadrillionth of 1 percent margin for error), . . . and what follows is not just discord but eternal entropy and ice. So, what—who?—was the great Tuner?”

Astrophysicist Alan Lightman acknowledged that scientists “find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.” He added that “any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem”—why the universe has not become chaotic.

Why Disinclined to Believe

Would you agree that “a highly ordered condition” points to an Organizer? Most would. But those professing atheism are not inclined to accept this. Why? Because of faith!

It is exactly this “highly ordered condition” (causing the expansion of the universe not to be too fast or too slow to avoid the earlier mentioned obstacles to the formation of stars, life on earth, etc.) that is the footprint of (points to) an Organizer or “Tuner” that you deny based on your blind faith in philosophical naturalism and the accompanying mantra that Greenstein also appealed to, “God is not an explanation.” You see, common sense and sound reasoning (conclusions based on inductive reasoning) aren't allowed when one is trying to adhere to their pseudoscientific religious orthodoxy. So an explanation and cause that actually fits all the facts is brushed aside* as being an explanation based on a nonsensical biased mantra and a strong desire to believe that “God is not an explanation.” (no matter how well it fits and causally explains the observable facts) *: without considering the evidence (I think there's a better term than "brushed aside" for this type of dismissal but I couldn't remember, I was thinking about "summarily dismissed", but apparently that term is used for dismissal of employees without a notice)

The same thing is happening concerning the origin of life. Between brackets below is my reminder in light of what I mentioned above (as is the *, cause I can't put that in between brackets):

...
Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator* attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [*: the conclusion by induction based on the observable fact that life is made up of machinery and technology, the cause for the emergence of machinery and technology is a well-established fact, observed many times, unlike the powers of creation, design and engineering attirbuted to mindless molecules and natural forces, which has never been observed nor even properly simulated, in fact the natural forces affecting mindless molecules operate in the opposite direction, as this article will now get into...]

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.*

[Footnotes]

Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.

DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!

...

Source: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

I didn't include all the footnotes, just the first 2. This is part of a series of articles in the Awake! magazine of Novermber 2011 called “Is Belief in a Creator Reasonable?” The preceding pages are:

The Most Important Question of All
Consider the Evidence

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator* attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [*: the conclusion by induction based on the observable fact that life is made up of machinery and technology, the cause for the emergence of machinery and technology is a well-established fact, observed many times, unlike the powers of creation, design and engineering attirbuted to mindless molecules and natural forces, which has never been observed nor even properly simulated, in fact the natural forces affecting mindless molecules operate in the opposite direction, as this article will now get into...]

I have some editing issues because I'm out of space, but I should have put the bolded part differently, something like:

"unlike mindless molecules and natural forces having the powers of creation, design and engineering (as attributed by some), which has never been observed nor even properly simulated, ..."

I was trying to stick too much to the syntax of the sentence from the article. Now it reads as if people attributing the powers of creation, design and engineering to mindless molecules and natural forces have never been observed, which is obviously not what I meant.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

The conclusion of a Creator (who knows what he's doing) for the machinery and technology that makes up life is based on the well-established and observed fact regarding what causes machinery and technology to come into existence. It is therefore a product of inductive reasoning. If one wants to deny this conclusion by arguing or implying that the evidence does not point towards this conclusion (i.e. that the evidence in question, the machinery and technology that makes up life, is not a footprint of an engineer/creator by the sheer fact that it is machinery and technology, having automatic logical consequences for their origin), one needs to come up with something better than exceedingly far-fetched speculative storylines about how (Mother) nature suppposedly accomplished this feat without foresight, a corresponding level of intelligence and technological know-how or even the will to make such remarkable reproducing machinery and technology operating and perpetuating life on autopilot according to and regulated/guided by a specific code (which by the way is neither accurately described as "self-assembly" nor "self-replication"). As Newton put it:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” (or worse, exceedingly far-fetched speculative storylines that only sound plausible in the ears of biased beholders for that matter, backed up by the agnostic jokercard that says: 'We don't know yet', but apparently nature did it anyway, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards; or just: 'nuh-uh, that's not evidence for a Creator, nor is it based on inductive reasoning, but based on your skepticism and reluctance to believe' these exceedingly far-fetched speculative storylines for which we have no observable evidence, hence the feigned ignorance* regarding the origin of the machinery and technology that makes up life and the details as to how nature supposedly accomplished this feat of engineering without the earlier mentioned logical requirements concerning foresight, intelligence, technological know-how and will, to name a few of the crucial requirements for the causal process of engineering that mindless molecules and natural forces, i.e. nature, doesn't have. *: as expressed with the phrase 'we don't know'; talk about an argument from feigned selective ignorance, you know what causes machinery and technology to come into existence as well as I do, so no need to pretend 'we don't know' just because we don't know how to fit in philosophical naturalism, i.e. 'nature did it'*, based on observable evidence because there is none; *: 'nature found a way to evolve a ...', fill in any biomolecular machine or system of machinery, sometimes "nature" is swapped out with the name of an organism, as if the organism is finding engineering solutions that it isn't even looking for)

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator* attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [*: the conclusion by induction based on the observable fact that life is made up of machinery and technology, ...]

In case that footnote or side point that I added isn't clear:

the purposeful intervention of a Creator = the conclusion by induction based on the observable fact that life is made up of machinery and technology

So that part of the footnote should be read as a sidenote right where the * is (didn't want to cram it in there cause I didn't want to distract from the rest of the sentence from the article). Cause then the sentence would be more like:

In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator [(deny) the conclusion by induction based on the observable fact that life is made up of machinery and technology*] attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [*: the cause for the emergence of machinery and technology is a well-established fact, observed many times, unlike mindless molecules and natural forces having the powers of creation, design and engineering (as attributed by some), which has never been observed nor even properly simulated, in fact the natural forces affecting mindless molecules operate in the opposite direction, as this article will now get into...]

I don't think that helps very much, I think I want to say too much in one go. I probably also don't need to add "(deny)" to show what I'm describing as being denied, that was just something I now added to show that I was giving an alternative description of the conclusion concerning "the purposeful intervention of a Creator" in light of what I've been saying about inductive reasoning, that conclusion being based on inductive reasoning, the additional remarks between brackets at the end are in light of what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about using "established facts to draw a general conclusion." The cause for machinery and technology to begin to exist (emerge if you want to use a similar neutral verb that is still open to the 'spontaneous emergence by chance' rather than 'creation' option) is a well-established fact with logical consequences or minimal requirements that cannot be met by chance, nature, mindless molecules or natural forces (concerning foresight, intelligence, technological know-how, will, etc.).

It also didn't happen "by necessity" as if the forces of nature operate in that direction, towards the emergence of machinery and technology, as if it's "inevitable", a word Jeremy England likes to use. There was a thread about that in this subforum using the word "inevitable". Since they operate, or affect molecules in the opposite direction, or as James Tour puts it: “Molecules don’t care about life.” They “don’t evolve. They don’t move toward life.” “Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve towards life. Never.” Or any type of machinery, systems of machinery or technology for that matter, i.e. you can swap out “life” with that description and the same statement applies. Just a reminder what life is made up of and what type of evidence is required for those who want to believe molecules did, often presumably because it's "inevitable" because of the way the forces of nature operate, the same argument used for the origin of the universe, as if it was "by chance and necessity".

I think even neoholographic is under the impression that the laws of nature are as such, or the forces of nature operate as such, that the emergence of our Earth and the life upon it, is inevitable and a natural consequence of the way the forces of nature are or operate. The only disagreement he seems to have with materialists is regarding the question 'why they are that way and have that inevitable endresult', not realizing that that is not the effect they have on molecules. So the part in the paragraph about "An Orderly Beginning" was as much for him as for the fans of philosophical naturalism, it is not the inevitable endresult if it was exclusively guided by the forces of nature (entropy or orderly things like machines breaking down, is the inevitable endresult if left to chance and the forces of nature and if there were no intelligent purposeful intervention or fine-tuning, or you get the type of effects described by Newsweek if the Big Bang or expansion of the universe was not finely tuned the way it is to avoid the pitfalls and obstacles that would prevent the formation of Earth and the life upon it described by Newsweek; remember, the rate of expansion of the universe, or the force of the Big Bang is not determined by the forces of nature, but by the cause of the Big Bang. It can get confusing because of those who attribute the Big Bang to natural forces such as Stephen Hawking does by attributing the creation of the universe to the force of gravity, in a way, using that as the main causal factor for the Big Bang as well, depending on how one interprets what he says exactly). Intelligent purposeful intervention is required for the origin of machinery and technology (as it is for what Stephen Hawking described as "The Grand Design", requiring the process of designing, or in other words, intelligent purposeful intervention by at least 1 designer with the earlier mentioned attributes, some of which corrrespond with the design in question, such as the level of technological know-how, intelligence and knowledge; pardon the redundancy, the knowledge mentioned there is obviously related to the technological know-how I mentioned, I just didn't mention knowledge seperately before yet as one of the logical requirements or required attributes for producing a design by means of the process/causal mechanism we call "designing", regardless of people like Stephen Hawking suggesting these attributes are not required by claiming the universe created itself without these attributes and abandoning common sense, conveniently ignoring well-established facts and inductive reasoning in the process, favoring wishful thinking and fantasy and formulating a just-so or maybe-so story that only sounds plausible in the ears of biased beholders; and talking in contradictions to boot).

Lawlessness is rebellion. It's Lucifer. It's Satan. It's man's number.

Humans think they're a law unto themselves. Without law and rules there's chaos. So we make traffic laws and laws that govern air traffic. This comes from an intelligent mind.

There's laws the govern the physical realm and we call them the laws of physics and the constants of nature.

Sadly, humans have so much hubris, they ignore and deny laws that govern the spiritual realm. These Divine Laws come from God.

Again I ask materialist, where did the laws of physics come from?

You had the big bang and when did Newton's Law of Gravitation form?

When and how did Coulomb’s Law Form?

The force between the two electric charges reduces to a quarter of its former value when the distance between them is doubled. The SI unit of electric charge, coulomb, is named after Charles Augustin de Coulomb who established the law.

When did the laws of quantum mechanics form and how?

Superposition, entanglement, non locality, wave particle duality, quantum teleportation?

If you look at it, it's plain to see but not with a carnal mind. A carnal mind is at enmity with God and laws that govern the spiritual realm.

It's spiritual/divine laws -------> laws of quantum mechanics ----------> classical laws

Quantum mechanics isn't weird, they're a closer reflection of the spiritual realm than the classical realm. The spiritual realm, what Paul called the Third Heaven, is non local and immaterial. The classical realm is being stuck deep in Plato's cave. The classical realm has become a reflection of Satan's rebellion in the spiritual realm because of sin and this is why God sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ to save us from sharing the penalty of hell reserved for Satan and the fallen ones.

So humans are satanic when they don't follow Divine Law insituted by God in the spiritual realm. We're material(flesh) and spiritual beings. Our sinful/fallen nature is at odds with God's Laws which are spiritual. Glory to God for Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I pray that men and women everywhere give their lives to Christ and crucify their sinful nature so they can reconcile themselves with God and become spiritually minded. Spiritually minded isn't being spiritual. In our present sinful condition our sinful nature and carnal minds are at enmity with God.

I put it this way. We got A-, B's, C's D' and F's and nobody could get a perfect score on the test. Jesus got the perfect score and no matter what grade you got, you can replace it with the perfect score. The students may ask, "What do we have to do Teacher to get that perfect score?" The Teacher will reply, you can't earn it, it's given to you.

Give your life to Christ!

originally posted by: neoholographic
Lawlessness is rebellion. It's Lucifer. It's Satan. It's man's number.

So the world was utopian prior to christianity?

Might want to let some historians know.

I also find it more than mildly amusing that you think the son of Aurora is the devil. Must have been an issue on that specific copy pasta.

a reply to: neoholographic

The laws of man, are made by man, to govern man. Those laws didn't exist before human civilization because fundamental physics and biology were the law of the land for millions of years. If our entire species were to perish for whatever reason, the world would have no need for any concept of intelligent design.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You keep making these posts without answering the simple question. Where do the laws of physics come from? When did particles decide to be entangled? Was it before or after the big bang? The Cosmological Constant is 10^120 that's a number with 120 decimal places. When did the universe decide on this value?

The point is, laws and rules bring order to chaos. The Bible explains the God brought order to the void and darkness through the Word. I have had no explanations as to where the laws that govern the physical realm come from.

The classical realm is a refection of the spiritual realm. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

It saddens me that so many people will face the penalty of breaking spiritual law that's reserved for Satan and the fallen ones because of sin, when God sent his only begotten Son to the classical realm so we can escape this penalty.

Me wonders if the Serpent of Old, is really the Dinosaurs an Atheism.

a reply to: neoholographic

Why would a god need a number with 121 zeros in it? Seems to be illogical to me. Actually, it seems messy.

Legal and common laws mostly exist to attribute culpability or ownership; they are man-made to satisfy human beings. Natural phenomena are discovered by man and are given numeric or formulaic representations by man so we can understand them. Some of them exist only on Earth. Some only in our solar system or galaxy. Some of them are literally universal (as far as we know).

I'd like to ease your burden a little; please don't be sad for me. Your god is not going to punish me for anything.

a reply to: neoholographic

I don't see why I owe you any answers when your glib summary of "The Bible explains the God brought order to the void and darkness through the Word" isn't an explanation at all. If your best answer is that god works in mysterious ways, that's just a fancy way to say your knowledge is no better than what I've already shared with you.

It saddens me that so many people will face the penalty of breaking spiritual law that's reserved for Satan and the fallen ones because of sin, when God sent his only begotten Son to the classical realm so we can escape this penalty.

Spare me your sanctimonious threats and faux spiritual enlightenment. You don't care about astrophysics or photon entanglement, you just want to save your so called soul at any cost because your ego can't stand the idea of mortality. If there was no heaven you wouldn't give a crap about god or intelligent design.

a reply to: neoholographic

As per usual, you're all screwed up. QM applies to anything smaller than Planck's constant. Above Planck's constant, classical mechanics applies. I guess your god knew that Planck would be born and derive the constant in all its glorious detail.

For a brief ACADEMIC description of how and where QM is applied, see this video:
youtu.be...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, your post has nothing to do with the thread and where these laws come from. I keep asking and you keep dodging.

a reply to: Phantom423

What?

Where did I say QM didn't apply at Plank scales? What are you talking about? I even separated QM from the classical realm in qn earlier post. What is your point?

They' are only "laws" insofar as intelligent (human) minds have found certain fundamental characteristics to be, so far, universally true—as far as we can test/observe them.

Doesn't mean they were "made" that way, but that they were found "to be" that way.

Could it be by design? Sure, I guess. By whom?

Then again, harmonic vibrations create patterns; the universe, existence, could be a large "vibration."

Well humans are possibly the smartest (and dumbest) creatures on the planet but they cannot create artificial gravity or anti gravity?

It does. .... "Humans" (the created), just refuse to be humble enough, to admit, that they ain't/aren't, that "intelligent".

They like to "think" or "believe",... that "they",... "DESCOVORED" something!!!!... That was obviously, already there,... before they "descovored" it.

Human beings somehow think they know what intelligence is.
yet they are mostly irrational, and extremely prone to "evil"
as a tiny fraction of the "intelligence" responsible for the universe.
many are way too sure about what is, and is not.
Logically God exist, yet not that many will ever know.
The un enumerable preceding all manifestation transcends even non dualism.
when did the laws that allow the laws of physics begin ? or are they conceptual potential.
"truth" is, and precedes all instances of it.
That living things exhibit intention as their primary characteristic, infers to me that the universe has intention, and that who, or whatever created it more than likely had a large component of intention too.

Religion primarily deals with the flawed intentions of human beings, not really the magnitude of physical reality.
Moral Law emerges which allows Civil law and only then Science to flourish.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

You keep making these posts without answering the simple question. Where do the laws of physics come from?

They are human constructs based on observation of phenomena and repeated experimentation. In science, a Scientific Law is a statement that describes an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true. This means it can be used to make predictions as to how a specific phenomena will behave or occur. A good example of this is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation where we can calculate the effects of gravity. Laws are merely a tool created by man to make predictions.

When did particles decide to be entangled? Was it before or after the big bang?

Since there was only an infinitely dense singularity prior to the Big Bang, particles did not exist until after.

The Cosmological Constant is 10^120 that's a number with 120 decimal places. When did the universe decide on this value?

The universe didn't decide this. Humans on the planet earth decided this based on the mathematics invented by humans.

The point is, laws and rules bring order to chaos. The Bible explains the God brought order to the void and darkness through the Word. I have had no explanations as to where the laws that govern the physical realm come from.

Not being provided with a satisfactory answer on a.conspiracy forum just means that you need to take some graduate level physics courses. It doesn't mean that the only alternative is 'God did it!'

classical realm is a refection of the spiritual realm. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Gobbledygoo

It saddens me that so many people will face the penalty of breaking spiritual law that's reserved for Satan and the fallen ones because of sin, when God sent his only begotten Son to the classical realm so we can escape this penalty.

Pretty arrogant to insist that anyone who doesn't believe in your specific flavor of god is destined for damnation when there are literally thousands of gods and goddesses worshipped across the globe. If your version of god was the all powerful universal truth, why then did it not appear all over the globe instead appearing in an incredibly limited geographic locus?

What saddens me is the arrogance of a drastic minority or drama queens who pretend they give a crap while spewing vitriolic hatred and ignorance towards those who don't share their worldview. It's not really what Christ would appreciate if he were a real, divine creature.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thought you might like to see this. Though you have probably seen it before, but a good picture none the less.



This picture is not a verified picture compared to it's words attached though (by me, so i don't know if the words actually match the picture.. Don't always believe internet pictures just because they have words or quotes attached).

Ever heard of Sacred Geometry?