How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[Delta4Embassy]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

Important to remember that life in the universe exists simply because the way this 'verse works by way of the sciences allows it. If the sciences worked slightly different we probably wouldn't exist. So our existence isn't an indication of conscious will so much as simply the result of favorable conditions. Other 'verses may well be lifeless since their physics will function slightly differently, but that some verses have life, and others don't doesn't mean anything beyond if physical laws allow life, life will exist, if it doesn't it wont.

 

[Montrovant]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

What you are saying here is that if there is a particular way things work, if there is any sort of order, that is inherently by design.

I see no reason to reach such a conclusion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.

So when was the last time Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict or Pope Francis called for the killing of anyone?

Hell, they don't even agree with the death penalty any more, much less killing in the Name of God.

Your view of the church seems to be a collage of the medieval and modern evangelicalism.

The Catholic Church's refusal to allow contraception has resulted in hundreds of thousands of STD deaths in Africa alone, particularly from AIDS. Worldwide, it could well be in the millions.

Lol, that's pretty fucking thin.

These STDers are catholic enough to not use a condom, but not catholic enough t o keep their fucking pants zipped up?

That's lame even for you, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

What you are saying here is that if there is a particular way things work, if there is any sort of order, that is inherently by design.

I see no reason to reach such a conclusion.

But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

Important to remember that life in the universe exists simply because the way this 'verse works by way of the sciences allows it. If the sciences worked slightly different we probably wouldn't exist. So our existence isn't an indication of conscious will so much as simply the result of favorable conditions. Other 'verses may well be lifeless since their physics will function slightly differently, but that some verses have life, and others don't doesn't mean anything beyond if physical laws allow life, life will exist, if it doesn't it wont.

Lets look at this from three perspectives; 1) why this sort of extreme 'luckiness', 2) why does non life-giving phenomena require observation? 3) does the lucky hand really answer the question of plausibility?

1) There is no reason that life should have to depend on the fine tuning that we have. There are literally hundreds of features to our universe, solar system and chemical behavior that if any *one* of them are significantly different life on Earth is GONE.

Why not a far more adapted universe where all this fine tuning is not necessary then? If we are the lucky living why do we have to be so lucky? If there are several hundred easier ways for life to be in a universe, why aren't we more likely talking about it from one of them?

2) QM is full of phenomena that requires an observer to happen. Why? Not only does it seem plain the Universe is fine tuned for us but it needs us too. More just lucky bullshit to pile on top of our heaping steaming pile of lucky bullshit?

Puhleeze.

3) Suppose we sit down at a black jack table and on the first hand the dealer deals himself a black jack. Then the next hand the same thing happens, then again, and again.

How many hands would you sit through watching this guy take your money before you reach the obvious conclusion; the dealer is cheating? How many times till you are so certain you just get up and look for a fair table?

I would leave after the fourth or fifth one, but I am a bit of a skeptic.

With the fine tuning we see, we have the equivalent of a black jack dealer that deals himself hundreds of black jack hands in a row. But you would think that still plausible enough that you would continue to sit and play at that cheating bastards table?

I cant believe that you would be either that gullible or foolish.

Same goes for the fine tuning of our universe. The deck is stacked for life and that is plain enough for anyone with common sense that doesn't have an ideological axe to grind.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have no problem with there being a Diety, or lack of a Diety. What I have a problem with is the concept that some people can speak for this Diety. Usually to the death of those they dislike.

I also have an extreme dislike to the perversion of religion. Like those that kill in the name of Christ.

Being an agnostic, that is, I really have no idea if there is a Diety or not, I simply measure someones religion or ideology on how well it agrees with the reality of the universe. Thus far, I would have to say that I see the basics of the Native American ideas concerning a Diety, or Great Spirit, as closer to something I could accept than the major religions coming out of the Near East.

So when was the last time Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict or Pope Francis called for the killing of anyone?

Hell, they don't even agree with the death penalty any more, much less killing in the Name of God.

Your view of the church seems to be a collage of the medieval and modern evangelicalism.

Good question................when DID the last Pope call for the killing of anyone?

I present to you the Inquisition, or if you prefer, the Crusades.

Next?

Wow, gotta go back for a thousand years to find a case?

lol, and compare that to the record of secular governments and Christianity looks pretty damned good.

 

[Montrovant]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

What you are saying here is that if there is a particular way things work, if there is any sort of order, that is inherently by design.

I see no reason to reach such a conclusion.

But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.

Except that your circular logic prevents such a thing, as you simply assume that any system of rules is inherently designed. So, if I point out certain physical laws of the universe, you say it must have been designed. You don't give any basis upon which to draw that conclusion, you simply assert it is true and go from there.

Let me put it another way. The only designed systems of law that can be proven to exist are human created. Can you show me a non-human system of laws that you can prove to be designed, or are you anthropomorphizing reality?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What you are saying here is that if there is a particular way things work, if there is any sort of order, that is inherently by design.

I see no reason to reach such a conclusion.

But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.

Except that your circular logic prevents such a thing, as you simply assume that any system of rules is inherently designed. So, if I point out certain physical laws of the universe, you say it must have been designed. You don't give any basis upon which to draw that conclusion, you simply assert it is true and go from there.

Let me put it another way. The only designed systems of law that can be proven to exist are human created. Can you show me a non-human system of laws that you can prove to be designed, or are you anthropomorphizing reality?

When we make up 'laws' of science, we are in fact anthropomorphizing reality, dude. We are stating the behavior of the universe in human cognitive terms, and to assume that we can do that is a huge leap of faith in the order/design of the universe viewed as unwarranted until Christianity said that the universe reflected the mind of God and that He laid down laws governing its behavior.

And you say that pointing out that the presence of a system of laws is circular logic? That isn't even an argument, just a statement of fact, so how the hell can it be a tautology?

Pointing out that dogs are canines is not circular logic either, for example.

Laws have a law writer, and are inherently designed in EVERY case.

But according to you, natural laws are not, they are the sole exception.

Why? Show me a law that no one wrote.

 

[orogenicman]

But then again, that is not what I said.

If we are discovering entire systems of complex 'laws' that accurately model the behavior of the universe then we have order by definition as any system of laws is a system of *conceptual* order and thus design.

If you think it is not show me a system of laws that are not designed by anyone.

Except that your circular logic prevents such a thing, as you simply assume that any system of rules is inherently designed. So, if I point out certain physical laws of the universe, you say it must have been designed. You don't give any basis upon which to draw that conclusion, you simply assert it is true and go from there.

Let me put it another way. The only designed systems of law that can be proven to exist are human created. Can you show me a non-human system of laws that you can prove to be designed, or are you anthropomorphizing reality?

When we make up 'laws' of science, we are in fact anthropomorphizing reality, dude. We are stating the behavior of the universe in human cognitive terms, and to assume that we can do that is a huge leap of faith in the order/design of the universe viewed as unwarranted until Christianity said that the universe reflected the mind of God and that He laid down laws governing its behavior.

And you say that pointing out that the presence of a system of laws is circular logic? That isn't even an argument, just a statement of fact, so how the hell can it be a tautology?

Pointing out that dogs are canines is not circular logic either, for example.

Laws have a law writer, and are inherently designed in EVERY case.

But according to you, natural laws are not, they are the sole exception.

Why? Show me a law that no one wrote.

People don't make up the laws of nature. They only discover them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Except that your circular logic prevents such a thing, as you simply assume that any system of rules is inherently designed. So, if I point out certain physical laws of the universe, you say it must have been designed. You don't give any basis upon which to draw that conclusion, you simply assert it is true and go from there.

Let me put it another way. The only designed systems of law that can be proven to exist are human created. Can you show me a non-human system of laws that you can prove to be designed, or are you anthropomorphizing reality?

When we make up 'laws' of science, we are in fact anthropomorphizing reality, dude. We are stating the behavior of the universe in human cognitive terms, and to assume that we can do that is a huge leap of faith in the order/design of the universe viewed as unwarranted until Christianity said that the universe reflected the mind of God and that He laid down laws governing its behavior.

And you say that pointing out that the presence of a system of laws is circular logic? That isn't even an argument, just a statement of fact, so how the hell can it be a tautology?

Pointing out that dogs are canines is not circular logic either, for example.

Laws have a law writer, and are inherently designed in EVERY case.

But according to you, natural laws are not, they are the sole exception.

Why? Show me a law that no one wrote.

People don't make up the laws of nature. They only discover them.

So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Now how does that happen? No laws exist without an author, so how did the conceptualizations come to exist?

And what I am saying is that when we describe the behavior of nature in specific concepts with words, we are actually putting our own understanding of these behaviors into concepts. We never perfectly understand them, so we are not describing true behavior of the universe but only our understanding of it. And yes, WE make that up.

 

[orogenicman]

When we make up 'laws' of science, we are in fact anthropomorphizing reality, dude. We are stating the behavior of the universe in human cognitive terms, and to assume that we can do that is a huge leap of faith in the order/design of the universe viewed as unwarranted until Christianity said that the universe reflected the mind of God and that He laid down laws governing its behavior.

And you say that pointing out that the presence of a system of laws is circular logic? That isn't even an argument, just a statement of fact, so how the hell can it be a tautology?

Pointing out that dogs are canines is not circular logic either, for example.

Laws have a law writer, and are inherently designed in EVERY case.

But according to you, natural laws are not, they are the sole exception.

Why? Show me a law that no one wrote.

People don't make up the laws of nature. They only discover them.

So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Absolutely, they do. The universe is not here for us, Jimbo.

 

[editec]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

Terrific example of non sequitur thinking, Jim

The ripples left on the beach sand after every tide are design(ie) as hell and well ordered but there is no sentient being making them happen.

I say this to you as one fellow believer to the other.

There is no logical argument to faith.

Your faith does not need to be defended in science or logic.

Trying to do so is actually a kind of affront to faith itself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

People don't make up the laws of nature. They only discover them.

So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Absolutely, they do.

Well, I agree, but said conceptualizations are by definition the product of a sentient mind.

So what mind made up the laws of the universe?

The universe is not here for us, Jimbo.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We speak of laws of science that are discovered in scientific inquiry.

And yet all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.

So how does anyone that respects science not also recognize the design inherent in said laws?

Terrific example of non sequitur thinking, Jim

The ripples left on the beach sand after every tide are design(ie) as hell and well ordered but there is no sentient being making them happen.

To compare a conceptual system of laws to ripples in the sand is ridiculous.

We are talking about CONCEPTS that are logically linked to each other, not some periodic wave effects not are not concepts.

Concepts necessitate a conceiving mind by definition.

I say this to you as one fellow believer to the other.

There is no logical argument to faith.

Your faith does not need to be defended in science or logic.

Trying to do so is actually a kind of affront to faith itself.

And yes, millions of theologians and philosophers present and past would state that you are wrong.

Faith makes evidence unnecessary but is not opposed to evidence found.

 

[orogenicman]

So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Absolutely, they do.

Well, I agree, but said conceptualizations are by definition the product of a sentient mind.

So what mind made up the laws of the universe?

The universe is not here for us, Jimbo.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is.

The discoveries of the laws of physics are the product of human endeavor. The laws themselves are a product of the big bang, working independently of the human imagination.

And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.

 

[Montrovant]

When we make up 'laws' of science, we are in fact anthropomorphizing reality, dude. We are stating the behavior of the universe in human cognitive terms, and to assume that we can do that is a huge leap of faith in the order/design of the universe viewed as unwarranted until Christianity said that the universe reflected the mind of God and that He laid down laws governing its behavior.

And you say that pointing out that the presence of a system of laws is circular logic? That isn't even an argument, just a statement of fact, so how the hell can it be a tautology?

Pointing out that dogs are canines is not circular logic either, for example.

Laws have a law writer, and are inherently designed in EVERY case.

But according to you, natural laws are not, they are the sole exception.

Why? Show me a law that no one wrote.

People don't make up the laws of nature. They only discover them.

So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Now how does that happen? No laws exist without an author, so how did the conceptualizations come to exist?

And what I am saying is that when we describe the behavior of nature in specific concepts with words, we are actually putting our own understanding of these behaviors into concepts. We never perfectly understand them, so we are not describing true behavior of the universe but only our understanding of it. And yes, WE make that up.

The laws of physics are not the same as the laws humanity writes to govern itself.

Unless you want to get into a Schrodinger's cat type of discussion, our descriptions of our observations as laws does not effect the existence of what we observed. So the things we observe exist independent of us, and humanity creates the conceptualizations of those things.

So we come up not with the laws of the universe, but with our descriptions of those laws.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Absolutely, they do.

Well, I agree, but said conceptualizations are by definition the product of a sentient mind.

So what mind made up the laws of the universe?

The universe is not here for us, Jimbo.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is.

The discoveries of the laws of physics are the product of human endeavor. The laws themselves are a product of the big bang, working independently of the human imagination.

How does the Big Bang produce concepts that exist independent of human observation? You keep ducking that question.

And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.

It I s a non sequitur to the discussion so far. You jump to a conclusion and claim it derives from what we observe but it does not and you have not made that case at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

People don't make up the laws of nature. They only discover them.

So you think these 'laws', these conceptualizations of how the universe behaves, exist independently of human observation.

Now how does that happen? No laws exist without an author, so how did the conceptualizations come to exist?

And what I am saying is that when we describe the behavior of nature in specific concepts with words, we are actually putting our own understanding of these behaviors into concepts. We never perfectly understand them, so we are not describing true behavior of the universe but only our understanding of it. And yes, WE make that up.

The laws of physics are not the same as the laws humanity writes to govern itself.

Never said that they were the same, but they do have some close similarities or we would call them something other than 'laws'. These concepts we use to describe the behavior of the universe and call 'laws' exist independently of human observation, i.e. the law of gravity existed prior to being discovered by anyone. This is order, and design by definition.

Unless you want to get into a Schrodinger's cat type of discussion, our descriptions of our observations as laws does not effect the existence of what we observed. So the things we observe exist independent of us, and humanity creates the conceptualizations of those things.

So we come up not with the laws of the universe, but with our descriptions of those laws.

No, but our observations of sub atomic process does change the processes observed many times, and then there is the whole light wave slit experiment paradox where light shows different behavior if observed than if not observed by the human eye..

 

[orogenicman]

Well, I agree, but said conceptualizations are by definition the product of a sentient mind.

So what mind made up the laws of the universe?



Non sequitur.

Sure it is.

The discoveries of the laws of physics are the product of human endeavor. The laws themselves are a product of the big bang, working independently of the human imagination.

How does the Big Bang produce concepts that exist independent of human observation? You keep ducking that question.

Well, for one thing, human beings didn't exist during the big bang, or even for billions of years afterwards. So to suggest that we had a hand in creating the laws of physics is absurd. We didn't create them. We discovered them.

And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.

It I s a non sequitur to the discussion so far. You jump to a conclusion and claim it derives from what we observe but it does not and you have not made that case at all.

It most certainly does derive from what we can observe. The bulk of the universe is utterly hostile to life, being composed of hard vacuum and deadly radiation. The fact that it was here for about 8.5 billion years before we evolved in the African rift valley is also solid evidence that the universe is not here for us. The fact that 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is already extinct indicates that the universe is not finely tuned for us. I could post a huge list of factoids explaining why it is not here for us, but I doubt if it will make any difference to you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The discoveries of the laws of physics are the product of human endeavor. The laws themselves are a product of the big bang, working independently of the human imagination.

How does the Big Bang produce concepts that exist independent of human observation? You keep ducking that question.

Well, for one thing, human beings didn't exist during the big bang, or even for billions of years afterwards. So to suggest that we had a hand in creating the laws of physics is absurd. We didn't create them. We discovered them.

I never said we created the laws of the universe. I am pointing out that these laws you think independent of human observation originated at the Big Bang and laws have law makers, concepts have conceivers. Who conceived these laws?

Why should the universe be governed by principles that are capable of description in human concepts? And how can these laws NOT be design as all systems of laws are designed?

And Jimbo. The fact that the universe is not here for us is a fundamental issue, so it is not a non-sequitur.

It I s a non sequitur to the discussion so far. You jump to a conclusion and claim it derives from what we observe but it does not and you have not made that case at all.

It most certainly does derive from what we can observe. The bulk of the universe is utterly hostile to life, being composed of hard vacuum and deadly radiation. The fact that it was here for about 8.5 billion years before we evolved in the African rift valley is also solid evidence that the universe is not here for us. The fact that 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is already extinct indicates that the universe is not finely tuned for us. I could post a huge list of factoids explaining why it is not here for us, but I doubt if it will make any difference to you.

These are not problems for an eternal and omnipotent Creator for whom power and time are minute costs for Him no matter what scale.

For God to have made a universe a gazillion times bigger or smaller is no different to Him since his power is infinite. There is no more a reason for Him to make the universe any bigger than to make it smaller for human kind.

As long as there might be a reason for Him to do this your case evaporates, and just one suck reason might be His desire to demonstrate to us His power and glory.

Another could be that the way He wanted to do it, the cake wasn't ready for 8.5 billion years and that's no big deal to Him.

In any case, you make an assertion that SCIENCE does not make, dude, non sequitur.