The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe, having never before existed, suddenly appeared at the time of the Big Bang, when something exploded, and particles spread outward through space, conforming to the Laws of Physics. Now if the Laws of Physics themselves did not exist before the Big Bang, but came into being along with all matter, how can we trust the Laws of Physics to remain constant? For if the Laws of Physics were not always what they are now, there is no reason for us to be confident that they will always be. And therefore, there is no reason to believe that the universe will not suddenly vanish or change into an elephant. But if there is a Creator who established those Laws, then it makes sense that they should be constant. And it is written of Jesus Christ in the Book of Hebrews in the Bible that He is "upholding all things by the word of his power".Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Hey. I wish there was a category that could cover both. But I guess the topic should go wherever is most appropriate.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Laws of Physics are simply human creations and of course did not exist before humans created them fairly recently.

---

The Laws of Physics would have no power to describe nature unless they reflected, either somewhat or fully, Laws existing in nature. Otherwise scientists would not have created them, for there would be nothing upon which to base them.

quote:

---

There are lots of kids that say "well something can't come from nothing" but the correct answer at this time is "We don't know that." and NOT try to stick some unevidenced favorite fantasy in as an answer.

---

The word nothing implies that nothing can come from it. For if there is no thing, what is the cause of anything? And if a cause is not needed, why should the universe not suddenly vanish without cause? How can we rely on the scientific method to conclude anything about nature, if cause and effect being unnecessary, nature is not constant.

quote:

---

AbE: Also, the idea that constancy might result from acts of some God, particularly the God of the Bible is just silly. The Bible is filled with examples of that God changing her mind or behaving irrationally or changing the rules of nature.

---

So far the God of the Bible has a perfect track record of keeping His promises and fulfilling prophecy. Though God does seem to change His mind in response to the actions of men, He changes it according to His word, which tells us the way that He will deal with us. Hebrews says, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and forever."

It really doesn't make a difference if science doesn't claim to have definition of absolute laws that govern the universe.The universe does behave in a very specific way, at least at the quantum level, and this must be consistent seeing our universe behaves in a consistent manner from the micro-level all the way to the macro-level. Therefore the universe has specific behaviors, and therefore, even though science hasn't discovered the exact Laws of the universe, the universe does abide by certain Laws. Therefore, it must have been made by a faithful God, one who upheld it for thousands of years. For if the universe had formed from nothing, having nothing to cause it, there is nothing to prevent it from vanishing without a cause.Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.

If the universe has laws, if these laws are constant, if that constancy is an eternal one, then by no means from nothing can it suddenly emerge, and not into nothing at any time disappear. For the laws of the cosmos, as they do permit a sudden dawn of all things, must also permit a sudden end of all things. For there is no law saying all things must remain for eternity.Thererefore science is not a dependable thing.Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.

Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.

Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.

Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Guido, if there's one thing the Bible makes absolutely crystal clear, it's that the existence of God does not guarantee the absence of breaches of the laws of nature. On the contrary, the book is full of God making donkeys talk and making the sun stand still in the sky and raising the dead and turning water into wine. (Not to mention the supporting cast of wizards and witches and saints and magi with their various magical powers.)

​

The Bible teaches us that there is a being who can, and who does violate the laws of nature, and who has motivations so inscrutable as to appear to us merely capricious: a being who can do anything and might. If you want to worry about the universe turning into an elephant, worry about him doing it. Certainly you cannot claim that the existence of an entity who can and does perform miracles would act as a guarantee that miracles will not take place.

---

The God of the Bible -- He is a righteous and immutable God, who does not act according to caprice, but according to His nature and character, making decisions which bring Him glory, fulfill His plan, and benefit His creatures, in line with His justice, and in line with His love. Also, this God, having promised promises, cannot but act in accordance with fulfilling them, seeing He also binds Himself to His word. Therefore there is no possibility that God in caprice would violate nature's Laws.

quote:

---

Which is why the world came to an end in the 2nd Century BC (Daniel). And the 1st Century AD (the Gospels

---

quote:

---

Romans 1:1-7:

​

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

​

2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

​

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

​

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

​

5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

​

6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

​

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Leviticus tells us that God will always do what he says he will do. Jeremiah says that God can and does change his mind.

---

Where does it say that in Leviticus?Edited by Gospel Preacher, : No reason given.

quote:

---

We don't.
Well, not absolutely, anyway.

​

We trust them to remain constant because every time we get information suggesting if they were constant or not... that information suggests that, yes, they were constant.

​

As long as that information stays that way, we will continue to trust such information.

​

As soon as any information says otherwise, we will be become very, very interested in the how's and why's.

---

How do you know the laws of physics are the same as what they were yesterday?

quote:

---

A very good start.
And the start of all scientists.

​

Now, let's look at what we can to see if they ever changed or not.
Everything we look at suggests that they never change.

​

So, although the possibility of the Laws of Physics changing suggests we should not be confident in them never changing... the fact that we can verify that the Laws of Physics have never changed, and that we have no information that suggests otherwise... that is a good reason to assume that they'll never change.

​

At least for now.

---

How do you know the laws of physics never changed?

quote:

---

Actually, if there is a Creator who established those Laws, this widens the possibility that such Laws may change.
Without a Creator... who would be able to change them?

---

It depends on what kind of Creator we're talking about.

quote:

---

Maybe. But that sounds a lot like Atlas. I don't believe in Atlas or Jesus Christ, because all the information we have doesn't seem to back them up, only a very small specific subset. I'd have to ignore too much in order to accept them as truth. However, all the information we have does seem to back up the idea of the constant Laws of Physics.

---

You either have faith in God's word or you have faith in something else.

The Bible keeps saying, "Thus saith the Lord, " "...God... hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son." "...the word of the Lord came unto...

quote:

---

Paul Steinhardt said that most physicists would bet against Dark Energy tearing the universe apart (though it seems set on doing just that).

​

He said that the Dark Energy could decay into something else.

​

That would make it a field and not a force (or constant) since a force that comes through a particle is then a "field".

​

Alan Guth said that there was a inflaton particle associated with the early rapid expansion and seemed to be saying that the early inflation was perhaps the same Dark Energy force (or "field") but acting on a particle.

​

The late 1990s discovery of Dark Energy caused the Cosmos book (written by Carl Sagan in 1988 who died in 1996) to have an asterisk note (in a past humus edition) which said that Dark Energy falsifies the idea of a universe that might collapse in on itself.

​

The DVD series by Sagan didn't know of Dark Energy but he presented the possibility of a universe that keeps on expanding against the other (defunct?) possibility of a universe that stops expanding and then is pulled back to a singularity by the force of gravity.

---

What I mean is: If the universe, with all its laws, had a beginning without a cause, then at any time those laws can be breached with no cause.

quote:

---

But you don't know. Nobody does.

​

If you can speculate a beginning then I can speculate that physics will not be breached in any way you so desperately seem to need for your argument.

​

You can sillyjism any speculations you so desire into any gods you want. And I can do the same to get rid of them.

---

Sorry. I wasn't thinking.If the universe had a beginning, it had a cause, but this cause is not subject to the laws of nature, for the laws of nature are bound to the place of this universe. Therefore whatever caused the cosmos, might also cause its destruction, and we don't know when that destruction will be. For the cause of the universe is unobservable, and therefore unpredictable.

quote:

---

Says who?

​

I know of nothing that restricts our physics to only our side of creation. Just ask Kip Thorne about the physics of wormholes that transcend our universe.

​

And even in a multiverse the speculation is that a universe COULD (note: not would) have different physics. There is nothing in these scenarios keeping the physics we all know and love from being propagated across other universes.

---

Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it.Our physical laws can transcend only as far as there is a space to contain it; beyond that space, the laws of physics are absent. That space either had a beginning, or possess eternal existence. This is obvious from the fact that, the Laws of Physics applies to what is physical. What is not physical is not governed by physical laws, even as non-physical realities, such as mathematical and logical laws, limit all natural physical behavior.

quote:

---

... or not. In my speculative fantasy it can't. My speculative physics doesn't work that way. You're such a pessimist.

---

I believe in a loving God; you believe in a cold universe. I believe in eternal life; you believe in everlasting oblivion.

quote:

---

That's right. Nobody knows, which means your conclusions, based on your observations of nothing but speculative (and faulty) what-ifs, are not supported and are not allowed.

---

If nobody knows if the cosmos might suddenly change into an elephant, then nobody can depend on science to tell them the truth of things, because nobody knows. And therefore, there is faith, not in God, but in empiricism, among all scientific atheists.

quote:

---

That's an odd conclusion. One of the central characteristics of science is that it IS dependable. We throw out the bits that don't work - like alchemy, astrology and young-earth creationism. If science wasn't dependable, we couldn't get to the moon and back; we couldn't generate power from nuclear fission; we couldn't even have cars powered by exploding hydrocarbons.
Science does work.

​

So your conclusion is obviously wrong, like concluding that bumblebees can't fly.

​

There must be some flaw in your logic. Maybe all your if if if if ifs aren't true?

---

Is not science dependable, in so far as it is done properly, because it draws right conclusions concerning the physical world, which, for some reason, continues from the beginning and still continues, according the the Laws that govern it? But, by what power, or by what governor, do these laws subsist? Is it not God, who said that Jesus is "upholding all things by the word of his power." If it is not God, then by what or under what does the universe subsist, in which or in whom you can trust? And if you trust in it, then you trust not in science anymore, but have faith in that thing or being which causes the universe to move. And if nothing causes the universe to move, but the universe moves itself, then you trust in the universe, and have faith in it. Without trust their is no certainty. And without certainty there is no knowledge. For knowledge is certainty of truth. Therefore, to know the truth of the world, is to trust in something that upholds the world. And therefore, without trust in that true thing or being that does it, there is not knowledge of the truth of the world. So, your knowledge depends on faith, whether it is faith in the true or the untrue.So in what or in whom is your faith? In the God of the Bible, or in the universe? Without that faith, you have no confidence that the world has ever existed.Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

Edited by Christian777, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And you probably think that if a particle pair like a positron and an electron flitted into existence that there must have been a cause. But there was no cause. They're appearance as virtual particles is just a quantum fluctuation of the sort that happen everywhere throughout space and time, as far as we know, and could be any equal/opposite particle pair.

---

The virtual particles do that, because something caused them to appear. They did not pop into reality of their own accord. They cannot come into reality of their own accord, without before hand existing. Nothing can act that does not exist. To begin to exist is to act.

quote:

---

This is an odd way of saying it, if you mean what I think you do. The way I would say it is that we have not as of this writing observed natural physical laws being one way in one time/place, and another way in a different time/place.

---

You have even observed the core of mars.

quote:

---

Since we don't know what, if anything, caused the cosmos, I suppose it's not impossible that the same thing that caused it could also destroy it. One idea for the end of the universe that many cosmologists are willing to consider as a possibility is that dark energy could cause the demise in a "big rip," but no one's yet thought of a role for dark energy in the creation of the universe.

---

The truth is, you don't know. You have faith.