How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not missing the point. I think you may be, though.

While the universe may well have been designed, the fact that it functions in the way it does is not objective evidence of design.

Your argument is that only complete and utter chaos can exist without some form of intelligent design; that any kind of order or regularity must be the result of conscious decision. That is not an objective, provable truth.

Whether one believes in a designer for the universe or not, the fact of the universe's existence does not provide any answers to that argument one way or another.

Lol, now you gotta put words in my mouth and beat a straw man?

No, my argument is not that the universe has order therefore it is designed and that you respond to that claim I never made is why I say you are not comprehending my argument.

What I am saying is that science is based on the assumption that the behavior of the universe can be accurately described using human cognitive terms we call laws. And the fact that it has so far been proven to be so accurately described proves by definition that it is designed as all cognitive thought is the product of a mind, and these laws exist independent of human observation.

If the universe is describable with a system of cognitive rules, then the universe is designed as all systems of such COGNITIVE rules are the product of design.

lol, now go ahead and respond real quick without reading my post so I can point out how you got it wrong again!

roflmao

Go back to your OP. You said, "all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.". The only way for no system of laws to exist is for there to be total chaos; therefore, since you say all systems of laws are designed, only with chaos is there a lack of design.

And you can prove that there is no possibility for apparent order without design?

Your assertion that we either have a universe governed by concepts that can be put into human cognitive form or we have CHAOS is a false dichotomy unless you can provide some proof for that assertion.

And that sounds better than what you're saying now, which seems to be that because humanity has been able to describe the observable physical universe, it must have been designed. The cognitive thought that you are harping on about is that of humans. We are the ones trying to understand and describe the universe as we see it. That we do so is evidence only of our ability to do so, not of a design to that universe.

Lol, even Oro agreed that the cognitive 'laws' that science is discovering existed PRIOR to discovery by human beings. Yes, we are writing our understanding of how the universe in the form of cognitive rules, and that we can do so as completely and accurately as modern science is able to do this shows that the universe is guided by unwritten laws.

And for that you need a Law Giver, and you have obvious evidence of design.

The universe appears to work in certain ways. We, as a species, have used the term laws to describe certain aspects of it. That some things seem to work the same way all the time is not indicative of design.

Not all cases of order are systematic, but so much of it is that it is no longer doubted that our universe is totally compatible human cognitive laws.

And said system of laws is the basic definition of what design is and does.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Providential intervention would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

That you didn't understand the response shows your ignorance regarding the concept of providence.

It is even more stupid the more you repeat it!

Ed, don't be such a buffoon.

Providence acts through normal natural laws, hence by definition God intervening via providential means is NEVER a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Providential intervention does not violate natural laws.

That's rich!
Supernatural violation of natural law does not violate natural law.

Supernatural intervention does not require miraculous intervention, ignoramus.

If you knew a damned thing about the religion you run your pie hole about you would realize what I said to be true.

Instead you just have to keep laughing like an ape and hurling your shit into the wind, only to get it blown back on you, dumbass.

 

[edthecynic]

Providential intervention would not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

That you didn't understand the response shows your ignorance regarding the concept of providence.

It is even more stupid the more you repeat it!

Ed, don't be such a buffoon.

Providence acts through normal natural laws, hence by definition God intervening via providential means is NEVER a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

lol

Supernatural creation from nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[RosieS]

Providential intervention does not violate natural laws.

That's rich!
Supernatural violation of natural law does not violate natural law.

Supernatural intervention does not require miraculous intervention, ignoramus.

If you knew a damned thing about the religion you run your pie hole about you would realize what I said to be true.

Instead you just have to keep laughing like an ape and hurling your shit into the wind, only to get it blown back on you, dumbass.

If you knew anything about science you would not be showing your ass so often.

All natural laws are mathematical.

Mathematics does not require some hidden, invisible "Mathematics Giver"

Math does not require a God overlay.

It is not God that is, was and always will be, it is the giver of the laws of this universe (and perhaps others): mathematics.

Being ignorant of the language of science makes you make up nonsense.

No God required. God did not invent mathematics and mathematics did not invent any God.

The Big Bang happened exponentially and geometrically, not religiously.

Regards from Rosie

 

[orogenicman]

Not all life!

Ultraviolet lighting is integral for the growth and maintenance of many reptile and amphibian species. In fact, in many home terrariums, many diseases seen by veterinarians are attributed to ultraviolet lighting deficiencies!

In the vast bulk of the universe, it is. There may be life elsewhere in the universe (I'd be shocked if there weren't). But the life we know of doesn't even comprise a speck of sand in all the sands on the Earth compared to the vastness of the universe where life cannot exist.

UV-B radiation is dangerous to all life on Earth, even reptiles and amphibians. But the really bad stuff, cosmic rays and gamma rays permeates the vacuum of space, and is deadly. In all the universe, life is most likely the exception, NOT the rule.

Not so.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snpyCKYvvg8#t=402[/ame]

Your video is talking abut cosmic rays striking the Earth environment. That is a vastly different issue than the vastness of the outer space environment, which is what we were discussing.

Health threat from cosmic rays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life on the Earth's surface is protected from galactic cosmic rays by a number of factors:

1. The Earth's atmosphere is opaque to primary cosmic rays with energies below about 1 gigaelectron volt (GeV), so only secondary radiation can reach the surface. The secondary radiation is also attenuated by absorption in the atmosphere, as well as by radioactive decay in flight of some particles, such as muons. Particles entering from a direction close to the horizon are especially attenuated. The world's population receives an average of 0.4 millisieverts (mSv) of cosmic radiation annually (separate from other sources of radiation exposure like inhaled radon) due to atmospheric shielding. At 12 km altitude, above most of the atmosphere's protection, radiation as an annual rate rises to 20 mSv at the equator to 50–120 mSv at the poles, varying between solar maximum and minimum conditions[7][8][9]
2. Except for the very highest energy galactic cosmic rays, the radius of gyration in the Earth's magnetic field is small enough to ensure that they are deflected away from Earth. Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen radiation belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11] See the implications of the Van Allen belts for space travel for more information.
3. The interplanetary magnetic field, embedded in the solar wind, also deflects cosmic rays. As a result, cosmic ray fluxes within the heliopause are inversely correlated with the solar cycle.[12]

As a result, the energy input of GCRs to the atmosphere is negligible – about 10−9 of solar radiation – roughly the same as starlight.[13]

Whereas:

On 31 May 2013, NASA scientists reported that a possible manned mission to Mars[3] may involve a great radiation risk based on the amount of energetic particle radiation detected by the radiation assessment detector (RAD) on the Mars Science Laboratory while traveling from the Earth to Mars in 2011–2012.[15][16][17]

Clearly the environment outside of Earth's protective shield is very hazardous.

 

[orogenicman]

Did anyone ever consider the possibility that the reason that the Universe, with it's vacuum and deadly radiation is there for a purpose of keeping things safe?

I mean................you don't put your most deadly poison (or as someone further up the thread stated sewer pipes) next to your most viable form of life (or as someone further up the thread stated place to eat).

You'd really like to have a barrier between them, so that there is no cross contamination.

Maybe the reason there is a vacuum and deadly radiation is so that there can't be any cross contamination between life forms.

I mean....................if we bring our war like society to other planets, who do you think will survive?

Especially if they're peaceful.

Or maybe the reason why there is vacuum in space is completely unrelated to the reason there is deadly radiation, and neither are there for our protection. Outer space is a vacuum because gravity there is weak and so gases are rarified. The deadly radiation exists because the universe is full of stars (fusing hydrogen into helium), neutron stars, magnetars, black holes, pulsars, etc., and because there are at least 10 supernovae every day somewhere in the universe.

 

[orogenicman]

And abortion pushing libtards appreciate it even less, apparently.

That was a poor response, even coming from you.

But nonetheless totally true. Libtards are not fit to survive as they demographically destroy themselves. I don't know a single libtard couple with more than one kid and most have no kids at all. There have been studies showing that libtards have well below the replacement level of offspring.

There was nothing poor about my response other than you have a natural discomfort with Truth, apparently.

Your bigoted ranting aside, are you suggesting some sort of "final solution" for us "libtards"? Dare I say it?












Hitler would be proud of you.

 

[orogenicman]

http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-not-necessary-big-bang-occurred-173400105.html

JimBowie1958 does not know better than Stephen Hawking.

Besides, Intelligent Design was found in the Dover decision to be merely a fraudulent attempt to insert creationism into public school science classes.

Zero for two there, Jimbo.

Regards from Rosie

Lol, appeals top authority to stifle discussion, typical fascist there for ya.

BTW, Hawking is not an authority on the philosophy of science, he is an astrophysicist.

And the courts have gotten plenty of things wrong, like the Dred Scott decision.

So those aren't even authorities, dear.

Slippery slope, pal. Using your flawed logic, innocent people have been convicted of murder, therefore all who have been convicted of murder are innocent.

 

[Montrovant]

Lol, now you gotta put words in my mouth and beat a straw man?

No, my argument is not that the universe has order therefore it is designed and that you respond to that claim I never made is why I say you are not comprehending my argument.

What I am saying is that science is based on the assumption that the behavior of the universe can be accurately described using human cognitive terms we call laws. And the fact that it has so far been proven to be so accurately described proves by definition that it is designed as all cognitive thought is the product of a mind, and these laws exist independent of human observation.

If the universe is describable with a system of cognitive rules, then the universe is designed as all systems of such COGNITIVE rules are the product of design.

lol, now go ahead and respond real quick without reading my post so I can point out how you got it wrong again!

roflmao

Go back to your OP. You said, "all systems of laws are ordered and designed by their very nature.". The only way for no system of laws to exist is for there to be total chaos; therefore, since you say all systems of laws are designed, only with chaos is there a lack of design.

And you can prove that there is no possibility for apparent order without design?

Your assertion that we either have a universe governed by concepts that can be put into human cognitive form or we have CHAOS is a false dichotomy unless you can provide some proof for that assertion.

And that sounds better than what you're saying now, which seems to be that because humanity has been able to describe the observable physical universe, it must have been designed. The cognitive thought that you are harping on about is that of humans. We are the ones trying to understand and describe the universe as we see it. That we do so is evidence only of our ability to do so, not of a design to that universe.

Lol, even Oro agreed that the cognitive 'laws' that science is discovering existed PRIOR to discovery by human beings. Yes, we are writing our understanding of how the universe in the form of cognitive rules, and that we can do so as completely and accurately as modern science is able to do this shows that the universe is guided by unwritten laws.

And for that you need a Law Giver, and you have obvious evidence of design.

The universe appears to work in certain ways. We, as a species, have used the term laws to describe certain aspects of it. That some things seem to work the same way all the time is not indicative of design.

Not all cases of order are systematic, but so much of it is that it is no longer doubted that our universe is totally compatible human cognitive laws.

And said system of laws is the basic definition of what design is and does.

My assertion is that a universe without any sort of laws or order controlling it is chaos. Whether or not humanity can observe and understand any or all of those laws is irrelevant to that fact.

Unless you are claiming that humanity knows and understands all of the rules by which the universe runs, then we do not know if all of the laws governing the universe can be described in human cognitive form. Put much more simply, we probably don't know everything yet. We likely never will know everything. So the fact that we think we know at least some of how the universe runs doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

Why does humanity's current level of understanding have to mean the universe was designed? Is there some reason we could not understand a universe which occurred through natural means or that has always existed? Is humanity only capable of understanding things which were designed, and what evidence do you have that is the case?

Once again you are hung up on labels. Don't call them laws, call them principles. Then there is no need for a law giver as you said. That's a ridiculous claim. The word law in regards to the physics of the universe does not mean what you seem to think it does. It is not the same as a human law of governance. Or, if it is, we have no objective evidence to show that is the case.

Your argument seems to boil down to pointing at the universe and saying, "See? This exists, therefore it must have been designed!".

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is even more stupid the more you repeat it!

Ed, don't be such a buffoon.

Providence acts through normal natural laws, hence by definition God intervening via providential means is NEVER a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

lol

Supernatural creation from nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Not if it is a providential event via the Big Bang, then no, it is not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's rich!
Supernatural violation of natural law does not violate natural law.

Supernatural intervention does not require miraculous intervention, ignoramus.

If you knew a damned thing about the religion you run your pie hole about you would realize what I said to be true.

Instead you just have to keep laughing like an ape and hurling your shit into the wind, only to get it blown back on you, dumbass.

If you knew anything about science you would not be showing your ass so often.

All natural laws are mathematical.

Mathematics does not require some hidden, invisible "Mathematics Giver"

Math does not require a God overlay.

It is not God that is, was and always will be, it is the giver of the laws of this universe (and perhaps others): mathematics.

Being ignorant of the language of science makes you make up nonsense.

No God required. God did not invent mathematics and mathematics did not invent any God.

The Big Bang happened exponentially and geometrically, not religiously.

Regards from Rosie

What a bunch of blah, blah, blah. Have you ever heard of 'unwarranted assertion'?

In logical terms they are rotting eggs and you just laid half a dozen of them, moron.

And even if you shift from using natural 'laws' to using natural 'mathematics' you still have the same problem, Einstein. Mathematical equations are cognitive expressions and they are evidence of order and entire systems of mathematical expressions demonstrate design.

Good grief, you jump all in here and start barking orders like you are somebody.

Eat shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That was a poor response, even coming from you.

But nonetheless totally true. Libtards are not fit to survive as they demographically destroy themselves. I don't know a single libtard couple with more than one kid and most have no kids at all. There have been studies showing that libtards have well below the replacement level of offspring.

There was nothing poor about my response other than you have a natural discomfort with Truth, apparently.

Your bigoted ranting aside, are you suggesting some sort of "final solution" for us "libtards"? Dare I say it?

Hitler would be proud of you.

Lol, yo uare more stupid than I thought.
Did I ever mention anyone doing anything to libtards other than yourselves?

If you are concerned about the demographic fate of your fellow libtards then maybe you should get off your ass and go talk to them, idiot.

But there is no group of people on this earth that has killed more of their own babies, run from more marriages and failed to prepare for their own future than USA libtards.

You are building your own damnation on this Earth; don't blame me for telling you ahead of time, chicken shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-not-necessary-big-bang-occurred-173400105.html

JimBowie1958 does not know better than Stephen Hawking.

Besides, Intelligent Design was found in the Dover decision to be merely a fraudulent attempt to insert creationism into public school science classes.

Zero for two there, Jimbo.

Regards from Rosie

Lol, appeals top authority to stifle discussion, typical fascist there for ya.

BTW, Hawking is not an authority on the philosophy of science, he is an astrophysicist.

And the courts have gotten plenty of things wrong, like the Dred Scott decision.

So those aren't even authorities, dear.

Slippery slope, pal. Using your flawed logic, innocent people have been convicted of murder, therefore all who have been convicted of murder are innocent.

I stated nothing of the sort, you stupid monkey. roflmao.

I said these two references are not authoritative, which is a far cry from saying I have claimed that 'some of group A are not B, therefore all A are not B'

Like I said before, you would do well to actually read the posts you respond to.

stupid ass.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed, don't be such a buffoon.

Providence acts through normal natural laws, hence by definition God intervening via providential means is NEVER a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

lol

Supernatural creation from nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Not if it is a providential event via the Big Bang, then no, it is not.

Energy went bang in the Big Bang. Energy is not nothing! No God needed. No providential event needed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Supernatural creation from nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Not if it is a providential event via the Big Bang, then no, it is not.

Energy went bang in the Big Bang. Energy is not nothing! No God needed. No providential event needed.

Yeah, it just happened. What theologians in Christendom have been saying for two millennia just happened to have been true, and what atheists theorized (Steady State Theory) was wrong just so happens.

Yeah, right. The energy just came out of no where; that makes total sense.

You don't understand half the things I post to you, misread half of the rest and still sit there all so smug and certain that God had nothing to do with it because science cant prove He did.

Well science cannot prove He did not either.

Either we are just lucky as hell things all fell into place or God guided events.

Your choice, but you live with the choice in so many ways I doubt you ever considered.

 

[edthecynic]

Not if it is a providential event via the Big Bang, then no, it is not.

Energy went bang in the Big Bang. Energy is not nothing! No God needed. No providential event needed.

Yeah, it just happened. What theologians in Christendom have been saying for two millennia just happened to have been true, and what atheists theorized (Steady State Theory) was wrong just so happens.

Yeah, right. The energy just came out of no where; that makes total sense.

You don't understand half the things I post to you, misread half of the rest and still sit there all so smug and certain that God had nothing to do with it because science cant prove He did.

Well science cannot prove He did not either.

Either we are just lucky as hell things all fell into place or God guided events.

Your choice, but you live with the choice in so many ways I doubt you ever considered.

You are violating the First Law of Thermodynamics again as well as deliberately misrepresenting science. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change. Energy does not come or go from nowhere. Energy IS!

 

[RosieS]

Supernatural intervention does not require miraculous intervention, ignoramus.

If you knew a damned thing about the religion you run your pie hole about you would realize what I said to be true.

Instead you just have to keep laughing like an ape and hurling your shit into the wind, only to get it blown back on you, dumbass.

If you knew anything about science you would not be showing your ass so often.

All natural laws are mathematical.

Mathematics does not require some hidden, invisible "Mathematics Giver"

Math does not require a God overlay.

It is not God that is, was and always will be, it is the giver of the laws of this universe (and perhaps others): mathematics.

Being ignorant of the language of science makes you make up nonsense.

No God required. God did not invent mathematics and mathematics did not invent any God.

The Big Bang happened exponentially and geometrically, not religiously.

Regards from Rosie

What a bunch of blah, blah, blah. Have you ever heard of 'unwarranted assertion'?

In logical terms they are rotting eggs and you just laid half a dozen of them, moron.

And even if you shift from using natural 'laws' to using natural 'mathematics' you still have the same problem, Einstein. Mathematical equations are cognitive expressions and they are evidence of order and entire systems of mathematical expressions demonstrate design.

Good grief, you jump all in here and start barking orders like you are somebody.

Eat shit.

Mathematical equations are not cognitive expressions. Mathematics exist outside of, and independent of, human brains.

I bet you think white settlers 'discovered' America, too. Because no one could exist beyond white men knowing of them.

What a shithead you are proving yourself to be.

Regards from Rosie

 

[JimBowie1958]

Energy went bang in the Big Bang. Energy is not nothing! No God needed. No providential event needed.

Yeah, it just happened. What theologians in Christendom have been saying for two millennia just happened to have been true, and what atheists theorized (Steady State Theory) was wrong just so happens.

Yeah, right. The energy just came out of no where; that makes total sense.

You don't understand half the things I post to you, misread half of the rest and still sit there all so smug and certain that God had nothing to do with it because science cant prove He did.

Well science cannot prove He did not either.

Either we are just lucky as hell things all fell into place or God guided events.

Your choice, but you live with the choice in so many ways I doubt you ever considered.

You are violating the First Law of Thermodynamics again as well as deliberately misrepresenting science. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change. Energy does not come or go from nowhere. Energy IS!

And yet with the Big Bang massive amounts of energy and mass simply popped into being, from where or how we don't know.

But you are certain that whatever and however it came about it absolutely had nothing to do with God! lol

Whatever caused the massive energy explosion that created our universe, dude, it is not covered under the laws of thermodynamics WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. This by necessity has to involve the transfer of energy to what became our universe.

The laws of thermodynamics are not written to cover such events and so do not apply, I would think. For all energy exchanges and transformations within our universe, sure, but the people that wrote the laws of thermodynamics did not contemplate the transfer of energy from one universe to another.

So yes, we have a net gain in energy in our universe, but it left another or was generated in some other fashion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mathematical equations are not cognitive expressions.

And you show what an ignorant wretch you are. Mathematical expressions are in fact cognitive expressions.

Mathematics exist outside of, and independent of, human brains.

Yes, they do.

I bet you think white settlers 'discovered' America, too. Because no one could exist beyond white men knowing of them.

What does that have to do with Mathematics?

Lol, you libtards have to bring your racism into every discussion, roflmao.

What a shithead you are proving yourself to be.

Regards from Rosie

Rosie, you are a moron/

But please keep posting your bullshit; you are hilarious.