Guido Arbia writes:
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.
When the orbit of Mercury violated Newton's Laws of Gravity we threw out Newton's Laws of Gravity, not the orbit of Mercury.
In the end, laws are human models that attempt to describe how nature works. The things that appear to stay constant are turned into laws while the things that don't stay constant are not turned into laws. For example, the ambient temperature for any location on Earth is not constant so we don't describe it as a law. If there were no constants then we wouldn't have any laws, and we probably wouldn't exist to begin with.
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.
We use the scientific method because it appears to work. If there were no constants then the scientific method wouldn't work and we wouldn't be able to make such stunningly accurate predictions as it relates to new experiments.
So far the God of the Bible has a perfect track record of keeping His promises and fulfilling prophecy.
Except for all those promises that he hasn't kept, such as Jesus fulfilling all of the messianic prophecies and coming back like he promised.
™ Version 4.2
