Editor's Blog1 min ago
Who/what made the laws?
42 Answers
If the universe is governed by laws (proven by science), how come we have a problem with believing in a higher authority/intelligence that set those laws into place?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mallymooface. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The existence of an authority/intelligence presupposes that the laws that make such an entity possible were already in place. Intelligence is a product of the potential to observe, think and learn. Where would the properties of intelligence and its product, authority, come into being if not in a universe with the properties already in place that enabled their development?
The horse pulls the cart, unless their both going downhill.
The horse pulls the cart, unless their both going downhill.
Hmm, thats a very good answer mibn2. So when did the laws come into place? Were they always there - stretching back into infinity? Or did they just appear? Did the universe form itself out of those laws, or has the universe always just been around with those laws making up its fabric?? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I really do want to know.
You're not the only one.
This is one of the really big questions. At the moment we really have very little idea.
Some of these "laws" and the fundamental constants in them are so sensitive that if you change them a bit you end up with a universe with no stars, no matter even.
The question then comes how is this universe just right for us. This has lead many people to suppose that this is just one of billions of different Universes all with different laws. We see this one as right for us because we are here. This is called the anthropic principal.
Of course we don't know how these laws came to be so we don't know if they're truely independant.
We know that for example Electricity and magnetism may look different but really they're just different faces of the same coin. This may be the case for the other forces like gravity too.
If there is a 1 in 10 probability of having blue eyes and a 1 in 10 probability of being blond that does not mean that there is a 1 in 100 probability of being blond with blue eyes - because there's a link between the two.
In the same way these laws look different but may actually be linked.
We have scarcely started to understand this question I doubt I'll live to see it answered
This is one of the really big questions. At the moment we really have very little idea.
Some of these "laws" and the fundamental constants in them are so sensitive that if you change them a bit you end up with a universe with no stars, no matter even.
The question then comes how is this universe just right for us. This has lead many people to suppose that this is just one of billions of different Universes all with different laws. We see this one as right for us because we are here. This is called the anthropic principal.
Of course we don't know how these laws came to be so we don't know if they're truely independant.
We know that for example Electricity and magnetism may look different but really they're just different faces of the same coin. This may be the case for the other forces like gravity too.
If there is a 1 in 10 probability of having blue eyes and a 1 in 10 probability of being blond that does not mean that there is a 1 in 100 probability of being blond with blue eyes - because there's a link between the two.
In the same way these laws look different but may actually be linked.
We have scarcely started to understand this question I doubt I'll live to see it answered
I hate to put words in Mib's mouth Theland but I think what he was getting at was "who made God"?
I may say I don't know how the laws came to be, but you'd doubtlessly say God made the laws and you don't know how God came to be.
Someone else might say Sparky the Robot made God and they don't know how Sparkey came to be.
Who's position makes the most sense?
"It's turtles all the way down" again!
I may say I don't know how the laws came to be, but you'd doubtlessly say God made the laws and you don't know how God came to be.
Someone else might say Sparky the Robot made God and they don't know how Sparkey came to be.
Who's position makes the most sense?
"It's turtles all the way down" again!
Scary then to think how fragile the universe is knowing that the only thing that holds it all together are a load of laws that are so dependent and interdependent on each other. I can totally relate to people wanting to find something more solid to cling to - a personality who is so clever he actually holds it all together by making sure every law is in place and working properly. I mean, sometimes we inadvertantly break universal laws, and are so relieved when another law steps in to save us from the consequences of that, aren't we? Some of us would call that the law of God's grace and others would call it the law of probability and coincedence. One just sounds and feels more solid than the other doesn't it?
The laws are descriptions of consistently observed characteristics and behaviors of the universe that appear without exception or contradiction within the current context of our knowledge. As we make new discoveries and add more knowledge the laws as they were previously understood are often fine tuned to integrate them with an improved understanding. Such is the case with Newtonian Physics and Einstein�s Relativity. Laws must always be questioned and never taken for gospel truth without exception. At one time it was assumed that the Earth was the centre of the universe. That has since been shown to be untrue although it did serve as a focal point for an historical understanding. It�s OK to make assumptions as long as they are not made immune from further examination.
I like how you explain things Mib. As you have probably worked out I have a belief in God, but I am always questioning why I believe what I do and I think by asking people what they believe and why they believe it, you keep yourself grounded. Dismissing everyone else's views but your own makes you very blinkered and unteachable, and that is something I don't want to be accused of. I think that we all hold nuggets of truth, but the whole truth??? None of us hold the whole truth. We are all of us on a learning curve to understand our place in the bigger scheme of things, and when you start to examine just how big that scheme we begin to feel very small and overwhelmed. Would you agree with that Mib??
Mally - Sorry to interrupt as you are waiting for an answer from mibs.
The question, "Who created God?" and from there, "... turtles all the way down .... " is irrelevant, as God is His own cause and effect, complete in Himself. There is our beginning. To suggest that God was created means He was the effect of another cause, and so on and so on as Jake said, but that is not the case.
The question, "Who created God?" and from there, "... turtles all the way down .... " is irrelevant, as God is His own cause and effect, complete in Himself. There is our beginning. To suggest that God was created means He was the effect of another cause, and so on and so on as Jake said, but that is not the case.
First thoughts ~
"The only constant is change". Time itself is not an independent constant, it is wrapped up within the relationship between measurements of distance and velocity to derive its meaning.
If "in the beginning" the universe lacked measurable spacial qualities then we are in need of developing a more precise measuring stick to probe further back into the "beginning". Perhaps there is no end in this pursuit for the ultimate measuring stick however the ones that have been developed and refined in the past have helped us get this far. I'm all for sticking around to see what new knowledge awaits our discovery.
I find questions such as yours an intriguing way to explore my own understanding and will give them the further thought they deserve as time and paying the price of living to enjoy the essential luxury of thought permits. Thanks for asking.
"The only constant is change". Time itself is not an independent constant, it is wrapped up within the relationship between measurements of distance and velocity to derive its meaning.
If "in the beginning" the universe lacked measurable spacial qualities then we are in need of developing a more precise measuring stick to probe further back into the "beginning". Perhaps there is no end in this pursuit for the ultimate measuring stick however the ones that have been developed and refined in the past have helped us get this far. I'm all for sticking around to see what new knowledge awaits our discovery.
I find questions such as yours an intriguing way to explore my own understanding and will give them the further thought they deserve as time and paying the price of living to enjoy the essential luxury of thought permits. Thanks for asking.
Theoreticians have done a wonderful job of describing the state of the universe to within a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, and as mibs said, further refinements are continous. We can expect, I believe, to gain further knowledge of the state of the universe, to within smaller and smaller time frames of the great event itself. I do not believe, however, that we will ever get to describing the event itself, no matter how close we come to it, and beyond the event is an impossibility, that can only be known through faith. Or if you are secular, speculation.
Size isn�t everything, and neither is intelligence. How you use it is at least equally if not more important �in the scheme of things�.
As far as we know (as unlikely as this may be) we are the most intelligent living organism in the universe. Although I see no reason to believe that the vastness of this universe was created solely for our benefit (and have in fact reached the logical conclusion that it was not purposefully created at all) I do not consider it no small achievement that as rational beings we are among the few (if not the only) beings capable of grasping a rudimentary understanding of the breadth and scope of the universe and our relationship to it and place within it.
The process of discovering and defining what we are gives our lives purpose and meaning. A universe devoid of such beings would be a pointless meaningless waste of space, matter and energy. Learning about and gaining a respect for ourselves as well as the universe we live in establishes an equal partnership in a mutually beneficial relationship between us and the universe to which we give meaning and from which we obtained this potential ability.
Why should the noble process of learning how small we are �in the scheme of things� make us feel any smaller than we are if what we are engaged in is an honest pursuit of the truth? If justice is what we seek should we then not be treated justly? If we acknowledge the responsibility we have to ourselves to live our lives and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions haven�t we earned the right to claim ownership of our own existence and whatever happiness we have been able to achieve? Why should we deny to ourselves what any worthy parent would wish for their child?
As far as we know (as unlikely as this may be) we are the most intelligent living organism in the universe. Although I see no reason to believe that the vastness of this universe was created solely for our benefit (and have in fact reached the logical conclusion that it was not purposefully created at all) I do not consider it no small achievement that as rational beings we are among the few (if not the only) beings capable of grasping a rudimentary understanding of the breadth and scope of the universe and our relationship to it and place within it.
The process of discovering and defining what we are gives our lives purpose and meaning. A universe devoid of such beings would be a pointless meaningless waste of space, matter and energy. Learning about and gaining a respect for ourselves as well as the universe we live in establishes an equal partnership in a mutually beneficial relationship between us and the universe to which we give meaning and from which we obtained this potential ability.
Why should the noble process of learning how small we are �in the scheme of things� make us feel any smaller than we are if what we are engaged in is an honest pursuit of the truth? If justice is what we seek should we then not be treated justly? If we acknowledge the responsibility we have to ourselves to live our lives and take responsibility for the consequences of our actions haven�t we earned the right to claim ownership of our own existence and whatever happiness we have been able to achieve? Why should we deny to ourselves what any worthy parent would wish for their child?
Size is relative. I have learned not to measure myself against an impossible non-human standard and especially not in relation to infinity which is a non-existent quantity to which no other quality can be attributed. The laws of existence place certain limitations on what is possible. Learning what those limitations are is an essential part of realizing our potential. Perfection itself can only be measured against a proposed standard apart from which perfection becomes a meaningless term.
mallymooface, You have raised some tough questions, the answers to which are made that much more rewarding by the effort required to reach them. Most important will be the answers you arrive at on your own based on the growth of your understanding that is limited only by your insistence on knowing about what it is you believe.
mallymooface, You have raised some tough questions, the answers to which are made that much more rewarding by the effort required to reach them. Most important will be the answers you arrive at on your own based on the growth of your understanding that is limited only by your insistence on knowing about what it is you believe.
Mibs - First of all allow me to express my admiration for the way you present your credo, as always, concise and logical, and ethereal to a certain extent, exemplifying what appears to me, to be your opinion on what it is to be fully human.
But I would like to ask you. Is everything, in your opinion, explainable, (or simply awaiting an explanation), or do you accept the existence of mysteries that cannot be explained?
If so, could you give an example or two?
But I would like to ask you. Is everything, in your opinion, explainable, (or simply awaiting an explanation), or do you accept the existence of mysteries that cannot be explained?
If so, could you give an example or two?
