The laws of nature existed before space and time

[ding]

If something is not impossible there is a definite probability it may happen but that is a far cry from evidence that it did happen.

The CMB is the evidence that it did happen.

e=mc^2, quantum mechanics and paired particle production explain how it happened.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

For the sake of argument, why not? Why can't it be a mechanistic process?

Well mechanistic processes are the province of matter, energy, fields along with laws relating them. Until all those do exist there's no possibility of anything mechanistic happening. We can't use the laws of nature to explain why there are laws of nature.

For the record I don't believe it was a process at all, mechanistic or otherwise.

I agree, it was something beyond our ability comprehend, it can only be conveyed to humans as "In the beginning God created..." that IS the explanation.

 

[ding]

Well mechanistic processes are the province of matter, energy, fields along with laws relating them. Until all those do exist there's no possibility of anything mechanistic happening. We can't use the laws of nature to explain why there are laws of nature.

How do you know that matter, energy, fields along with the laws relating them didn't exist before our universe was created?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How do you know that matter, energy, fields along with the laws relating them didn't exist before our universe was created?

Well I use the term "universe" to mean "all that exists", if laws "already" existed then what gave rise to those "laws"? other laws? it soon degrades into just circular reasoning.

 

[ding]

I agree, it was something beyond our ability comprehend, it can only be conveyed to humans as "In the beginning God created..." that IS the explanation.

I think a more representative statement is in the beginning God willed existence into being. Because that's how I see it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think a more representative statement is in the beginning God willed existence into being. Because that's how I see it.

Yes, I agree God has an innate, non-deterministic "will" only will can explain the existence of the universe.

 

[ding]

Well I use the term "universe" to mean "all that exists", if laws "already" existed then what gave rise to those "laws"?

I'm asking about before our universe existed how do you know there were no other matter, energy, fields, etc that created our universe mechanistically?

 

[ding]

Yes, I agree God has an innate, non-deterministic "will" only will can explain the existence of the universe.

I'm using "will" in the context of I don't think God designed it or had to design it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm using "will" in the context of I don't think God designed it or had to design it.

Perhaps, it's abstruse at best, beyond our current ability to grasp really, maybe one day...

 

[ding]

Perhaps, it's abstruse at best, beyond our current ability to grasp really, maybe one day...

That probably goes without saying. Let's assume that God is beyond energy and matter. That God is like mind or consciousness without form or infinite information. If everything is information, then it would seem to me that our purpose here would be to absorb information through experiencing reality and passing it down. And isn't that what we do? Don't we pass down genetic instructions and knowledge to future generations? Isn't that what it means to be fruitful and multiply?

 

[cnm]

It's almost as if you are saying that since we don't know everything we can never know anything? That's a horrible philosophy.

Almost as horrible as your strawman.

 

[ding]

Well I use the term "universe" to mean "all that exists", if laws "already" existed then what gave rise to those "laws"? other laws? it soon degrades into just circular reasoning.

I wasn't trying to bust your balls. I was leading you through how I worked it out. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal. And for something to be eternal it must be unchanging. This rules out matter and energy because they are not unchanging. So whatever the first cause is it must be beyond matter and energy. Which means it must be no thing.

 

[cnm]

Proof requires evidence.

Only in maths.

 

[ding]

Almost as horrible as your strawman.

I don't have a strawman. I have evidence. Where's your evidence? You have none. I do. I thought you were big on evidence. Aren't you always asking others to prove God exists?

 

[ding]

Only in maths.

Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.

For example the CMB is evidence of a massive paired particle production chain event that proves the universe was created from matter that was not pre-existing.

Another example would be the evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[alang1216]

The CMB is the evidence that it did happen.

e=mc^2, quantum mechanics and paired particle production explain how it happened.

It definitely happened, the question is why did it happen.

 

[cnm]

I don't have a strawman.

It's almost as if you are saying that since we don't know everything we can never know anything? That's a horrible philosophy.

 

[cnm]

I have evidence.

That does not guarantee your explanation of it is the correct one.

 

[Nobody911]

The same laws of nature which describe the creation of space and time also describe the evolution of space and time. Therefore, the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Statement Analysis

The claim that "the laws of nature existed before space and time" is a complex philosophical and scientific question. The truth of this statement can be debated based on different interpretations of physics and metaphysics.

Scientific Perspective

From a scientific standpoint, particularly in cosmology, the prevailing view is that space and time as we understand them began with the Big Bang. This event marks the origin of the universe, including the dimensions of space and time. Consequently, many scientists argue that the laws of nature, as we know them, emerged alongside the universe itself, implying that they did not exist prior to space and time.

However, some theories suggest that the fundamental laws of physics might have a kind of transcendent status, potentially existing independently of the universe. This perspective posits that if these laws are to be considered "real," they must apply universally, including at the moment of the Big Bang. Yet, this remains a topic of debate among physicists and philosophers.

Philosophical Perspective

Philosophically, the question touches on the nature of existence and the relationship between laws and the universe. Some philosophers argue that if laws of nature are indeed universal and not contingent upon the existence of space and time, then they could be said to exist prior to the universe. This view aligns with certain interpretations of eternalism, where time is seen as a dimension that exists independently of events.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the statement can be considered false from a mainstream scientific perspective, as the laws of nature are generally understood to have emerged with the universe itself. However, there are philosophical arguments that could support the idea of these laws existing independently of space and time. Thus, the truth of the statement largely depends on the framework—scientific or philosophical—through which one approaches the question.

Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philosophy of space and time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Evolution Is Not Based on Natural Laws

One of the claims most frequently used by evolutionists for excluding the scientific evidence for creation in public schools and to be denied for publication in scientific journals is that such evidence is not based on natural laws, therefore it cannot be scientific. They claim that evolutionary...

www.icr.org

Are Laws of nature independent of time?

There are certain laws that govern the universe and these laws make up the fundamentals of any physical observation. But were these laws present the way there are now since the beginning of space t...

physics.stackexchange.com

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Laws of Nature, Source Unknown (Published 2007)

Which came first: the order or the universe? And can science ever supply an answer?

www.nytimes.com

Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Scientific law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did the Laws of Science Apply in the Beginning? - Apologetics Press

It is relatively easy for the rational man to disprove the idea that matter can spontaneously generate. Of course, even intuition does not back spontaneous generation. Recall Richard Dawkins’ commentary on the matter: “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of...

apologeticspress.org

 

[ding]

It definitely happened, the question is why did it happen.

That is a philosophical discussion which can only start with was the creation of space and time intentional or happenstance.