This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
why our universe has laws of physics?
is it possible a law without any lawyer?
who is lawyer of laws of physics?
Stephen Hawking:
"God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
the Bib Bang is based on assuming laws of physics
Topics:
atheism
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Christophe Cop 500+
most scientific answer:
We don't know why we have laws of physics.
more logical answer:
"why" refers to a "reason": the question may be irrelevant, as there doesn't need to be a telos.
grammatical:
"Law" in physics is something else as "law" of a country. A bit confusing, but that's due to language.
So in physics: no need for a law maker
in politics and society: need for a law maker
[next one is of topic, so admin: feel free remove this if you think this has no contributory value]
SR: If you are unable to place your own thoughts (about what you think the answer is) between brackets (i.e. temporarily release the assumption that what you hold to be true as facts), you will have hard times understanding what other people think about it (the questions you ask).
I think you try and ask questions to "prove" we should be Muslim. Let me tell you this: your dogmatic approach has little to no effect when it comes to convincing.
I hope you can understand my point of view. (I admit I hereby failed to ignore you, as I fear you will reply with more questions that in your opinion would need me to conclude to convert to Islam)
Naiem Yeganeh 10+
Laws of physics are not something imposed by someone.
They are our observation of the matter around us. There might be event no laws of physics as such. Laws of physics are our way of describing the world. Indeed, as religion uses the notion of "god" for description of the universe, and they say god is the thing we can't understand. Similarly, scientists describe the universe with the notion of laws of physics, and they say reason for laws of physics are something we yet don't undertand.
To sum up, religion has god, and science has laws of physics. By purpose; Laws of physics = God = Mythes of different cultures = Description for our universe.
The only difference is that there are ways to show laws of physics are real (at least for us as matters in this world), but there is no way to show god or other mythes are real.
Christophe Cop 500+
And concerning physics, the estimates are near 1 (0.9999 likely to be real)
So be careful: uncertainty doesn't mean utter relativism
Naiem Yeganeh 10+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
you mean only scientific ways or all ways including philosophical ways?
Dan Willis
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
Congregate for having the power to say "don't know"
"there doesn't need to be a telos"
This is based on an assumption:
assuming that The death is the finish of life.
This is a very risky assumption and not proved yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://parapsych.org/ sleep and many more facts are still unknown.
""Law" in physics is something else as "law" of a country."
Its clearly correct. Relevance? law of a country was only an example to better understanding the topic.
"So in physics: no need for a law maker"
Yes, what about out of physics? This is not a physics question.
"SR: If you are unable to place your own thoughts"
Sorry, right. OK. I hope TED had such instructions documented.
"I think you try and ask questions to "prove" we should be Muslim."
No. my try is other thing. My try is to people have a true and correct Image of truthful Islam and people understand Islam is different of Muslim. With no care that if they convert or do not convert. I agree your view about my approach. And I am looking for better approaches.
Do not fear. You claimed you are passionate about truth. You should know truth is not cheap and you should pay expensive prices for truth. And first price is leaving prejudice about what you do not know or you are not sure about it. The distance of truth and lie is 4 finger.(between eye and ear).
[if this is off topic here please lets not continue here.]
Christophe Cop 500+
This is based on an assumption:
assuming that The death is the finish of life.]
False
I state that I don't need to assume a telos (or goal)... so I leave out an assumption.
I don't assume anything about what happens after death either... (at least not in this argument).
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
a rational human considers at least possibility of telos.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Pascal%27s_Wager&l=1
"(at least not in this argument)."
so where?
ADDED LATER:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3417/what_happens_after_death.html
Dan Willis