How Can We Have Laws of Science Without Design?

[JimBowie1958]

YOU were the one who determined energy came from another universe, not me, I merely pointed out that even with YOUR assumption that does not prove energy was created, YOUR own word was "TRANSFERRED."

It could have come from another universe, but it might have simply appeared from nothing by a divine act of power. lol

My point is that even in naturalistic terms, from our perspective in this universe, a transfer of energy to our universe from outside it would APPEAR as a creation of energy, not a transfer.

It would really help you to respond if you would first READ the posts. But a rational discussion is not your goal here, quite plainly; you are being a troll.



lol, you don't keep up much, do you? While outside universes are not proven fact, there is evidence for them.

Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist



Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map | Mail Online


Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space.com


Lol, here is three different sources, maybe one of them will be OKed by your libtard thought managers and you can see the point....but probably not.

Again, if energy appeared from nothing by a devine act of power, you are violating the FLoT, something you said a providential act "NEVER" does, so you are contradicting yourself again. BTW, YOU capitalized "NEVER" when YOU made the claim!

Lol, you are hilarious. Again, we don't know how the energy got here, but a PROVIDENTIAL transfer of energy to our universe would not be a miracle or a violation of LoTD, the latter of which doesn't cover miracles anyway, lol. So it is just a knee slapper to see you libtards claim it does.

I also pointed out that to an observer in this universe a transfer of such energy would appear to be a creation of energy, and also that the LoTD obsiously do not apply to the first moments of the universe being created from the perspective of one in this universe.

lol, but go ahead and tangle all that up again and tell me how I said that the energy from Pluto got transferred to Mickey Mouse and this disproves that Bullwinkle could have ever existed! roflmao

To refresh your memory:

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

As far as the multiverse, I am well aware of the theories, which are still unproven though evidence appears to be mounting, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt that another universe transferred energy to our universe, and shot down your assumption that existing energy in another universe transferred to ours equals the creation of energy.

It does not equal the creation of energy but would appear as the creation of energy.

Since science can only examine things from the perspective of THIS universe it cannot distinguish or prove otherwise.

It doesn't matter how many universes exist, an energy TRANSFER is not a CREATION of energy, but merely a decrease in one place and an equal increase in another

So, if that other place is within the Being of the Creator that would also not violate the LoTD either, right?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, in science the LAWS are observed, not designed.

Yes, WE discover them, obviously, but the cognitive quality of the universe that allows it to be described by human concepts is proof of pre-existing concepts of the universe and that implies design.

Each and EVERY system of law in existence is designed, show me one that isn't.

We do not know how they came to be, and design is most certainly not the only option. It's a bad argument. A non starter. Frivolous.

Lol, in your biased opinion, a bias so strong you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.

The Universe! Dope. The LAWS have no proof of design simply because they exist, what is this toddler logic?

Moron, you cannot use the matter under contention as an example of your claim, dumbass.

It is not proven that our universe's concepts are not designed, but you merely claim them to be so and now want to use them as an example of your contention?

Take a critical thinking class some time; it might actually help you.

 

[orogenicman]

lol, OK; the Big Bang.

You're going to have to present a better line of evidence than a five word sentence. The Big Bang theory says that at t=0 the universe consisted of a point of infinite energy density. It says nothing about that energy originating from elsewhere.[/quote]

Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

Prior to t=0? lol If time (one of the four dimensions of our universe) began at the big bang, there can be no time <t=0. You can't have time before time IN OUR UNIVERSE.

lol, if the universe did not exist then how could the energy to create it NOT have come from elsewhere?

The big bang theory only states the initial conditions of the universe. It says nothing about what, if anything, existed before. Now, it may be that the initial conditions started out as a bubble of infinite energy within some other universe, but we don't know that. What we do know is that our current universe is a close system and has been closed since the big bang. And closed systems cannot have energy transfers (or created or destroyed) from outside the system or to another system. They start with a finite amount of energy, and that energy, over time, converts to matter as the temperature of the system asymptotically approaches absolute zero.

What line of evidence leads to your uncertainty?

The Big Bang.

The big bang does not say what you apparently think it says.

 

[JimBowie1958]

you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.

Obviously based on what measure? See, my first post was correct and ya didn't even know it. Dumb dumb.

Lol, do you realize how stupid you are looking?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're going to have to present a better line of evidence than a five word sentence. The Big Bang theory says that at t=0 the universe consisted of a point of infinite energy density. It says nothing about that energy originating from elsewhere.

Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

You are wrong right out of the gate. At T=0 there was no space/time. There was energy however. Space/time began at the Big Bang, not energy.

Prove it.

If there was no Space-Time, then how could it have been *IN* our universe, idjit?

 

[G.T.]

Yes, WE discover them, obviously, but the cognitive quality of the universe that allows it to be described by human concepts is proof of pre-existing concepts of the universe and that implies design.

Each and EVERY system of law in existence is designed, show me one that isn't.


Lol, in your biased opinion, a bias so strong you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.

The Universe! Dope. The LAWS have no proof of design simply because they exist, what is this toddler logic?

Moron, you cannot use the matter under contention as an example of your claim, dumbass.

It is not proven that our universe's concepts are not designed, but you merely claim them to be so and now want to use them as an example of your contention?

Take a critical thinking class some time; it might actually help you.

No, dope -

I didn't claim the universe's laws are not designed.

I claimed that there's not proof they are designed, as your pinheaded self tries to proclaim using faulty logic. Try and keep up ya partisan jackass.

 

[G.T.]

you cannot admit that a system of laws is obviously designed.

Obviously based on what measure? See, my first post was correct and ya didn't even know it. Dumb dumb.

Lol, do you realize how stupid you are looking?

irony!

 

[JimBowie1958]

You're going to have to present a better line of evidence than a five word sentence. The Big Bang theory says that at t=0 the universe consisted of a point of infinite energy density. It says nothing about that energy originating from elsewhere.

Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

Prior to t=0? lol If time (one of the four dimensions of our universe) began at the big bang, there can be no time <t=0. You can't have time before time IN OUR UNIVERSE.

GENIUS! lol, that is how I KNOW it was not in our universe and came from outside of it.

What line of evidence leads to your uncertainty?

The Big Bang.

The big bang does not say what you apparently think it says.

No, it says what I think it means, but you have this mind block that prevents you from admitting rather simple things like, 'if this universe did not exist prior to t=0, then the energy that created it came from outside of it.'

Good luck in addressing that malady!

roflmao

 

[orogenicman]

Lol, prior to t=0 there was no universe, so it must have come from elsewhere and we don't need science to show us that once it has been proven that the universe did not exist prior to t=0.

Prior to t=0? lol If time (one of the four dimensions of our universe) began at the big bang, there can be no time <t=0. You can't have time before time IN OUR UNIVERSE.

GENIUS! lol, that is how I KNOW it was not in our universe and came from outside of it.

So you are telling me that you know what the best minds on the planet don't even KNOW. lol That's funny.

The Big Bang.

The big bang does not say what you apparently think it says.

No, it says what I think it means, but you have this mind block that prevents you from admitting rather simple things like, 'if this universe did not exist prior to t=0, then the energy that created it came from outside of it.'

Good luck in addressing that malady!

roflmao

If god created the universe, who or what created god?

Here is your problem. You assume that causality existed before the universe came into being. Causality requires time, which didn't not exist in this universe at or before t=0. Indeed, to talk about time or causality before t=0 is meaningless.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Obviously based on what measure? See, my first post was correct and ya didn't even know it. Dumb dumb.

Lol, do you realize how stupid you are looking?

irony!

lol, you continue onward.

But context for lurkers.

I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Eat shit, stupid fuck.

 

[G.T.]

Lol, do you realize how stupid you are looking?

irony!

lol, you continue onward.

But context for lurkers.

I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Eat shit, stupid fuck.

You CANT assert this you stupid fuck

 

[JimBowie1958]

Prior to t=0? lol If time (one of the four dimensions of our universe) began at the big bang, there can be no time <t=0. You can't have time before time IN OUR UNIVERSE.

GENIUS! lol, that is how I KNOW it was not in our universe and came from outside of it.

So you are telling me that you know what the best minds on the planet don't even KNOW. lol That's funny.

Bullshhit, the best minds have known it for millennia.

The Big Bang.

The big bang does not say what you apparently think it says.

No, it says what I think it means, but you have this mind block that prevents you from admitting rather simple things like, 'if this universe did not exist prior to t=0, then the energy that created it came from outside of it.'

Good luck in addressing that malady!

roflmao

If god created the universe, who or what created god?

Lol, retreating to using smilies now? lolol

What God is a red herring. There is only one Creator, and which concept of the Creator best describes Him is irrelevant to our question regarding the system of natural laws and their obvious design.

But you, you cant even get your attributions straight in a message board post!

 

[G.T.]

God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Universe! Dope. The LAWS have no proof of design simply because they exist, what is this toddler logic?

Moron, you cannot use the matter under contention as an example of your claim, dumbass.

It is not proven that our universe's concepts are not designed, but you merely claim them to be so and now want to use them as an example of your contention?

Take a critical thinking class some time; it might actually help you.

No, dope -

I didn't claim the universe's laws are not designed.

I claimed that there's not proof they are designed, as your pinheaded self tries to proclaim using faulty logic. Try and keep up ya partisan jackass.

lol, shit for brains, you have argued for no design for the whole time, now you move the goal posts to a soft 'there is no proof' bullshit.

EVERY system of laws (not under contention here) shows design, so there is no reason to believe that this universe's laws are not designed.

Secondly there is no definition of design applicable to this situation that does not also include a system of natural laws.

Eat shit troll.

 

[JimBowie1958]

God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow

Lol, comments like that from retarded assholes like you is a high compliment.

Thank you. I dread to ever have fascist pricks like you applaud anything I ever say, and thank God I don't really have to worry about it!

roflmao

 

[orogenicman]

GENIUS! lol, that is how I KNOW it was not in our universe and came from outside of it.

So you are telling me that you know what the best minds on the planet don't even KNOW. lol That's funny.

Bullshhit, the best minds have known it for millennia.

No, it says what I think it means, but you have this mind block that prevents you from admitting rather simple things like, 'if this universe did not exist prior to t=0, then the energy that created it came from outside of it.'

Good luck in addressing that malady!

roflmao

If god created the universe, who or what created god?

Lol, retreating to using smilies now? lolol

What God is a red herring. There is only one Creator, and which concept of the Creator best describes Him is irrelevant to our question regarding the system of natural laws and their obvious design.

But you, you cant even get your attributions straight in a message board post!

You are arguing from the first cause fallacy. If god is a first cause, why can't the universe itself be a "first" cause? In which case, Chocolate:

 

[G.T.]

Moron, you cannot use the matter under contention as an example of your claim, dumbass.

It is not proven that our universe's concepts are not designed, but you merely claim them to be so and now want to use them as an example of your contention?

Take a critical thinking class some time; it might actually help you.

No, dope -

I didn't claim the universe's laws are not designed.

I claimed that there's not proof they are designed, as your pinheaded self tries to proclaim using faulty logic. Try and keep up ya partisan jackass.

lol, shit for brains, you have argued for no design for the whole time, now you move the goal posts to a soft 'there is no proof' bullshit.

EVERY system of laws (not under contention here) shows design, so there is no reason to believe that this universe's laws are not designed.

Secondly there is no definition of design applicable to this situation that does not also include a system of natural laws.

Eat shit troll.

You're comparing human/societal laws to the laws of physics, or what retard?

 

[JimBowie1958]

irony!

lol, you continue onward.

But context for lurkers.

I assert that a system of laws is designed in every case, and so I think this universe obviously designed since we discover that it is well described by a system of laws.

You say that complexities (never introduced by me, so a straw man on your part) do not prove design, which is stupid already.

Then I state that no system of laws is not designed and challenge you to show one that is not designed.

You respond that the laws of the universe are such an example, but that has never been proven.

But you keep replying the same way, not realizing what an idiot you are demonstrating yourself to be.

In fact you carry on like you are proving something!

lolololol.

So I am done with you, and each time you respond I will insert broiler plate as I don't have time to respond to trolls like you.

Eat shit, stupid fuck.

You CANT assert this you stupid fuck

But I *DID* assert it, you stupid shit.

Now prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

 

[G.T.]

God damn this dude is dumber than a sack of dog dungus wow

Lol, comments like that from retarded assholes like you is a high compliment.

Thank you. I dread to ever have fascist pricks like you applaud anything I ever say, and thank God I don't really have to worry about it!

roflmao

When your argument is based on a logical fallacy, it's not hard to call you names and point fingers at you and giggle since you're so pompous about being so stupid.

"All laws show design" is not a fact. Your premise is a silly one.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, dope -

I didn't claim the universe's laws are not designed.

I claimed that there's not proof they are designed, as your pinheaded self tries to proclaim using faulty logic. Try and keep up ya partisan jackass.

lol, shit for brains, you have argued for no design for the whole time, now you move the goal posts to a soft 'there is no proof' bullshit.

EVERY system of laws (not under contention here) shows design, so there is no reason to believe that this universe's laws are not designed.

Secondly there is no definition of design applicable to this situation that does not also include a system of natural laws.

Eat shit troll.

You're comparing human/societal laws to the laws of physics, or what retard?

BOTH are the product of human thought as expressed in human cognition.

There does exist behavior in the universe that can be expressed by human cognitive expression we call laws, and they form a system.

That the universe has this quality is due to DESIGN and in every case this is true. Untill you can show a case where it is proven to be not true you cannot deny it based on evidence.

Idiot.