gravity

I am relativity new on the board and was wondering if there have been any threads on the subject of gravity.?My question is, are there any theories as to How Gravity come into existence?Was there some evolutionary sequence?Did it just come into existence with the Big Bang?Is it natural or metaphysical?Would appreciate any input from informed people on this board.

My question is, are there any theories as to How Gravity came into existence?Sorry for the typo in OP. My question goes to the beginning of gravity. I cannot find any accepted theories as to how gravity came into existence.
Most say it is a natural phenomenon but give no scientific support for that position.Have been reading Gerald Schroeder and he leaves me with the impression gravity is metaphysical in origin.

If BBT is not origin of everything, we do know that gravity exists.So there should be some explanation as to how gravity came into existence. Or at least some theories. If not it may well be that gravity is metaphysical as Schroeder suggests.I guess I am looking for some studies or opinions based on scientific evidence why Schroeder may be wrong.

Thanks for the sources.

Good point. I assume we have no idea at this time. This leads me to the point where we may have to acknowledge that we may never know. That in fact these are metaphysical.

In "The Hidden Face of God", Schroeder talks about the energy/ matter relationship, the quantum wave functions show that all matter is energy and all energy is information .
That all activities comply with the universal forces, for example the four forces gravity, the strong and weak forces and the electromagnetic force are in effect, as is all the universe so wonder filled that everything is not "natural" but comes from the metaphysical.As examples he talks about the Pauli exclusion principal that forbids 2 electrons in an atom or molecule from occupying an exactly equivalent energy state, and if that were not true the electrons orbiting around the nucleus would fall to the lowest level and in effect there would be no possibility of chemilcal reactions.He goes on about the extraordinary unity of the energy forces that it is not natural but metaphysica.

I hope your considering Scott Oswer's backgournd and the site he reprsents that states it "promotes a naturalistic worldview." You should be alert for some bias in his review.

That part of the OP was poorly worded. My intent was to ask is the cause of the phenomenon natural or metaphysical.

Not real impressed with Oser or Shanks in re specific errors in Schroeder's science. Of course it appears that Oser feels that since only 20% of physicists are theists then Schroeder must be wrong.
Or the fact he agrees Dyson is an authority but, one can always find another authority who disagrees with him.I was a trial lawyer in med mal and products liability and we always had experts with opinions basically opposite of each other.The jury decided who was right or wrong.Kind of a I disagree with his philosophy so he is wrong type review.

I mean it's origin.

Whatever floats your boat.

metaphysical adjective \-ˈfi-zi-kəl\
Definition of METAPHYSICAL
1: of or relating to metaphysics 2a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural In the discpline of Philosphy you are correct, however I think it is being used in Schroeders book as per the definition, ie supernatural. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

But don't lay people have the responsibility to read what qualifed experts opinions are and then make a rationale decision as to who is correct? Many important decisions are made by people other than scientists and hopefully the decisions are well thought out. I as a person who believes in the God of the Roman Catholic church take umbage when a scientists writes in a review that only 20% of physicists are theists. What revelance does that have to a scientific issue?

You assume that Oser is correct in his assertions as to some of Schroeders logic and "errors in physics facts."That is not necessarily the case. Most of the physics facts asserts as errors are not black or white or accepted by all physicists.In re his criticisms of logic he asserts that Schroeder's logic is flawed. An example is the "predate time" issue. Oser argues that if time starts with the BB how can you speak of anything predating it.
Well is you belive in a God who is supernatural and omnipotent, than that God exists prior to any natural event such as time.So Oser, in my opinion does not make a good case in his criticisms as he assumes anyone who does not believe as he does in wrong.

Time exists at the earliest point in time by your definition. by human definition. Oser's point is reasonable only if you believe there is no other option than naturalism. Naturalism necessitates there is no supernatual being. If there is a supernatural being beyond time as we know it, then it is obvious that a supernatural being that created this universe, was before the time of this universe. "I AM" means God was before there was you, before our universe, before anything we can ever try to learn.