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

We know that it has some things that we presently call laws. We don't know if they are or maybe how small you have to get before stuff goes a bit wonky. Quantum Theory has rather messed that idea up. Well, apart from that being gobbledegook, we do know that things can emerge from nothing. Depending on what you mean by nothing of course. Why? Well it's rather the opposite; there's a law that says things will eventually slowly go pouff. But it depends on your definition of "things". So is that ALL science that is not dependable or just the stuff you don't understand (which I suppose may well be all of it.)?Whether you think it dependable or not, you utterly rely on it all day everyday. Did you drive anywhere today? Switch a lightbulb on? Make some toast? Post a pile of nonsense on an internet forum? How about got a COVID jab?

If Eleanor Roosevelt had wings, if the White House was built like the Arc de Triomphe, if Jimmy Carter had not been re-elected to a second term, then god is now dancing on an eternal rainbow with his legions of gay lovers many of which are trying to preach the gospels.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Instead of discussing and engaging with the feedback you've received, you're just ignoring it and restating your ideas in a slightly different way. You're ignoring what Son Goku said about laws emerging from the equations that model our universe. You're ignoring what Stile and others said about the constancy of laws being only what we've observed so far in the tiny portion of the universe observable by us. The evidence we have so far indicates that they are, but you're also ignoring what Son Goku said about not knowing what came before the pea-sized universe. Since you left things out of the "if" portion of your statement, the "then" portion is not necessarily a valid conclusion. What's more, even if the "if" portion were accurate and complete, the then" portion still doesn't seem to be a valid conclusion from it. Since we do not know what preceded the Big Bang, we do not know if it was nothing. Even if it was, you have not explained how a sudden birth implies a sudden death. Why not a slow death, or why not no death at all - you don't say. It's worth mentioning that dark energy hints that the universe will end in a "big rip." No one here is arguing for or against an eternal universe. Current evidence is not conclusive. This is not so different from saying, "Because science doesn't know everything it therefore doesn't know anything."The collection of opinions you're offering is easily shown wrong. Some of them are self-evidently wrong.--Percy

right, tell you what, how about you let me know the next time someone prays themselves into orbit.

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.

Wouldn’t that go for all of us, though? If religios could pray themselves into space then maybe WE could pray THEM into space too?Imagine massive prayer vigils held by atheists in every stadium around the world sending hundreds of millions of the religiously loony into space every day! It would be glorious! The Rapture come true! The cleansing rapture of ALL the religiously encumbered, handicapped, nutzoid would arrive just as the ancients promised! Halleluiah!Baah, I guess that’s not allowed. Mother nature does have her rules.

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.

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.

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.

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. ... or not. In my speculative fantasy it can't. My speculative physics doesn't work that way. You're such a pessimist. 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.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

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?

You're replying to a 4-year-old message. The OT or the NT God? He seemed to change a great deal between the OT and the NT. The OT God was exceptionally capricious, and the NT God was not without his capricious moments. Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory. You could reasonably argue that people of the OT received his justice, less so his love. This is a bald declaration without evidence. This declaration is based upon the prior bald declaration and therefore has no support.--Percy