Where did the laws of nature come from?

Why are there laws of physics, and why are they so consistent and precise? Since laws come from lawgivers, they appear to be the product of a mind.

⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔⬇⬇⬇

⬇⬇⬇𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦⬇⬇⬇

⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧⬇⬇⬇

#FineTuning #IntelligentDesign #LawsOfNature

[LoveYourNeighbour.]

(Job 38:33) "Do you understand the laws of the heavens?" The discoveries of modern science, are completely consistent with the view that nature's laws originated from the Mind of God. Great answer Frank!

[samuelhunter]

The physical world changes but the laws that cause that change do not.
Brilliant

[susanbaker]

The laws of nature—like all principles—describe physical reality. So the question is, where did physical reality come from? You can run, but you cannot hide from First Cause.

[poliincredible]

The Bible does not refute science. The Bible makes it clear that there is a natural/physical realm and there is a supernatural/spiritual realm. They can interact but each has its own set of rules/laws. The spiritual supersedes the physical though, that’s one of the reasons we refer to it as supernatural.

[zerocooler]

Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.


What this means is that these laws were not made by a lawgiver, unlike the more commonly understood meaning of laws - rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate conduct. Scientific laws are only laws because we have not yet seen anything violate them. If we did, then that law would no longer be considered a law.

[Scorpion-mydv]

I really enjoyed the Q/A. I thought this was answered very well.

[arashy]

This is a very good argument...Where do the laws of nature/physics come from? Scientists used to think they know how those laws, like gravity, work, but they realized they can't even explain that (the best explanation so far is the existence of a particle that's temporarily called Graviton). But this is bigger....WHERE do these laws come from?

[electricspark]

Atheist: The laws of nature are against you're *"Gawd"*

Christian: *Umm...Christian scientists wrote the laws of nature that you believe in, literally...*

Atheist: BLIND FAITH!?!?! EVIDENCE!?!?! GAWDS NOT REAL!?!?!?

Christian: 🤔

[avafury]

God is the source of life so the answer comes only from him.

[kennycouch]

"DON'T ASK THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS!" 😂 too bad for those people who attacked him. Just goes to show you that they already understand that what they believe makes no sense and that they are simply suppressing the truth (Romans 1).

[telkicelstascal]

the truth is we don't know where the laws came from, sorry but we just don't, it's a fact and by we I mean the human race.

[RamiTamir-udgb]

We are controlled by laws of nature.
There is a general force of nature, and two opposite forces—bestowal and reception—extend from it.
We exist between these forces, and both of these qualities affect us.
Then, the question arises: How do we develop under the influence of these forces? Where do we act? Where are we free? How do we accumulate and correlate these two forces within ourselves? How can we build ourselves out of them?
These are the questions that the wisdom of Kabbalah engages in: how we receive these two forces in an optimal balance, and with their help, shape ourselves so as to resemble the very laws of nature, to arise and reach equivalence of form with the force of bestowal in nature. These very laws gave us the opportunity to control the pace of our progress in accepting them upon ourselves.
That is the point of our freewill.
How could we act if we do not have freewill? Who would we be? Would we just be like robots, always under control?
Until now, we have always been under control. What does it mean?
Nature as if injects a drop of egoism–the desire to enjoy at others’ expense–into us, and then it does so a little more, and a little more again, and we then get the impetus to move toward all kinds of egoistic goals. The more our egoism inflates, the more we become willing to move to increasingly gain at the expense of others. Nature constantly squeezes the syringe into us until it eventually infuses us with the full amount of egoism.
Our era is characterized by the syringe of egoism having become completely injected into us, with no more egoism left to inject. That is why we have nowhere left to run.
Where do we head from here? What do we do?
Moreover, egoism has become global and integral. In the beginning, we felt good because we reached egoistic global connections in the world and thought that everything would be fine. However, when such connections started depending on everyone, we turned out to be nature’s opposite.
At this juncture, we find ourselves with a major dilemma, and we need to work out what we do about it. Where our fully-inflated egoism coupled with our tightening global connections brings us to increasing problems around the world, today we require a new form of connection-enriching education that would have the ability to guide us on how to change our egoistic connections to altruistic ones. That is the key to a shift to a harmonious and peaceful world.

[Johnlanzer]

I asked this to a forum, and I got is an article about the fundamental forces (which I did asked about). But all the article really pointed out is the Interactive Relationship between these forces, and how they are linked. Not once did it provide an explanation on how it came to be.

I refute that this doesn't explain how these forces came to be. All I got to return is vaguely being "Still not God" in response.

[mrgman]

Laws of nature are really just a short hand for laws of natures. That is, things behave they way they do because of their natures - which is intrinsic - not something that supervenes ontop afterwards. Such nature's cannot come from mere matter (or just nature) as that's what we're trying to explain

[Traintoytrain]

Old school, Gazali, Ashari and others already outlined these arguments centuries ago.

[danielfriis]

Man created the laws of nature. Its consistent observations being constructed as laws.

[steveparks]

Where did they come from? The only place they can come from. God. Of course. 🙂☝🏻

[lotus]

I have a friend who I met recently, really lovely person very open describes herself as spiritual and leaning towards Buddhism. She really doesn't like people who kind of tell people what to believe and she doesn't really know anything about Christianity.. how does one open her eyes very gently to at least educate her?..

[MrFossilabgfyth]

The Laws of Nature had to come from somewhere, they could've arisen naturally.
But even so, how do we know God made the universe to set up that way?

[Matthew_Holton]

This is a misuse of the word 'law'. We actually don't know what the real 'laws' of physics are. All we have are approximations. We have models such as General Relativity and The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics, but they fail under certain circumstances so we know that we have a way to go to find what is really going on. Using the word 'law' to imply a lawgiver has no basis in either logic or evidence. Thinking the fact that the laws of physics are consistent means anything is also spurious. imagine what reality would be like if they were not! If physics kept changing then there would be no stars, planets etc just a sea of ever changing particle interactions, a total mess. Also if reality exists then the way it works is obviously going to be consistent. Change implies a reason for change, a causation, but random causation that undermines reality is logically incoherent, such change would undermine and end itself.
We do not know that the actual laws of physics, if we ever discover them will be anything like the relatively neat and symmetric models we use at the moment. maybe reality works according to very messy, complex and arcane laws, we simply do not know.
Appealing to a god is also useless. It explains nothing and abdicates any real attempt to understand reality. It puts you on a level with the caveman who thought a great spirit caused lightning and volcanic eruptions. The honest way to proceed is to assume no explanation until you have evidence for it. Do the hard work of gathering data, building models and testing their predictions. We call this science, but in reality it is just being honest when attempting to understand reality. But it does involve work, maybe that's the problem, do you believe in god because its easy? reassuring? comforting? ..fine, you believe what you want to believe and leave the task of finding out what is really going on those of us who actually want to know