What Is A Law?

[Theland]

How do scientists determine what is a law?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?

[Theland]

Pixie - How indeed?
If energy/matter and space/time all came into existence from nothing, what was the cause?

[Neveracrossword]

Thanks again, Theland. I'm relieved that you've been alerted to the error in your definition of 'a law' - that flaw, followed by the 'violation' means your stated natural curiosity, genuine interest etc were perhaps poorly expressed.

[pixie374]

I thought you had the answer to that, theland? Are you not sure either?

[Theland]

Never - thanks. I'm always ready to learn. Yes it was poorly expressed.

Pixie - Do you agree that there must have been something that caused all of this?
Or did it all just happen by itself, as some scientists claim?

[Peter Pedant]

I am not sure if a discussion that

god's law of foo-ing has been unproven by event X - which we all agree occurred and so it isnt a law anymore....
(foo that for a game of soldiers - yes?)

is a useful way to spend an evening, Mamas URL on science has quite a good longish discussion

Kuhns Structure of Scientifc Revolutions is still the current best read on the subject of how one theory displaces another
( paradigm shift)

I liked " oh Herr Planck, how did you persuade all those old professors about quantum theory?"
Planck - they died

but you are never going to get - "and I tell you verily that the Good Lord slew and struck down all the doubters of Plancks theory - and I say to you they will be fodder for pigs and sundry base animals! So saith the Lord ma God!" ( yes?)

[archibaldy]

// God can't violate laws he made? Can He?
As for common sense, life from inert chemicals? //

I don’t know, is God subject to scientific laws or not? If not then it’s outside science. If so then God should be able to be described in terms of science and then it’s feasible to include them both in the same sentence.

We are definitely alive and made from inert chemicals yes.

Re common sense I was thinking more about bringing people back to life, water into wine that sort of thing.

[Peter Pedant]

// Or did it all just happen by itself, as some scientists claim?//

nope that is not a law - laws arent about that

oh - - well what about the Law about where Jupiter came from?
nope there isnt a "Jupiter comes from Y law"
Laws arent about that

well what IS the law about abiogenesis
Nothing - no law - this isnt the subject of laws

[Peter Pedant]

// I don’t know, is God subject to scientific laws or not?//
I do
when God isnt or does nt ( do scientific laws)
then it is supernatural

and there is a law that you should exhaust natural causes before appeals to "o it must be supernatural then"

[Peter Pedant]

// We are definitely alive and made from inert chemicals yes.//

o god do you realise they were arguing about this in 1850?
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury is 60% water

was the his grace 60% water AND some vital force?

alive or dead he looked just about the same xc he didnt breathe

and yes boys and girls latest ! they decided there was no vital force and here we are on a monday night 170 y later .....

[pixie374]

Theland, I don't care what scientists claim... I don't follow anyone else. Clearly, something "caused it" as life hasn't always been here.

To me, inert chemicals reacting, is far far more likely, than a supernatural god, who came from nowhere... creating life from nowhere. How on earth would that happen?
Can I just ask again please,- what do you consider as "living"?

[Theland]

Living? Hmmm. I guess that is both a scientific and a philosophical question, and to try and answer it, all you have is little old me, proud owner of a certificate in woodwork for making me mum a teapot stand.
But, my Neanderthal definition, provisional of course, and open to revision, is sympathetic to life being, at its most basic, ''reactive to stimuli.''

[pixie374]

Plants are alive, and react to little. They have no sentience. Are they the same as animals? Do animals go to heaven?

[pixie374]

//Abiogenesis insists it adherents, is a natural process, from a naturalistic worldview.
Creation, of course, is not.//

What is it then? Supernatural?

[mibn2cweus]

If everything that exists requires creation, what then created the creator? And if this alleged creator created itself or simply exists without the need of a creator, than why can't everything else?

Your 'Law of Creation' violates itself.

[Theland]

Because we know from our experience that nothing creates itself.
That is just unfounded speculation.

Pixie - plants do react to stimuli and communicate with each other.
That is a fact. (Ask Prince Charles!)

[pixie374]

I know they do to a degree, theland. They have no sentience though and are still alive.
It is you yourself who claims everything has a cause.... but you bottle out on what caused a god?

[pixie374]

Actually, some living things clone themselves... so they do create themselves.

[Theland]

The very definition of God is the Uncaused Cause.
No Pixie, I do not bottle out.
I would much rather say, '' I don't know, yet.''

[Peter Pedant]

no come on -- - back to biogenesis

pasteur laid it to rest to everyone's satisfaction in 1850 and any resurrection can be described as temporary or doomed

[pixie374]

Sorry for the words, if they seemed rude, theland. If "god" is the definition for an uncaused cause.... that could be the same word for abiogenesis, then? I thought you believed it was an eternal kind of presence?