Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Walter]

Thank you for youropinion on how the laws exist.

I would like to hear more about how the professor thinks they exist.

you are welcome however it is NOT my OPINION

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is trivially true. Since the laws of physics govern the nature of time and space, it seems obvious to me that time and space are dependent on the laws of physics.

Now. Back to this god of yours. How do you explain its existence.

Yes but are you still that the Laws depend on Time and space since it is IN time and space we are observing them?

If you now say that they have an existence which is not dependent on time and space then to argue that the laws can but nothing else can is i'm afraid one mother and father of a special plead.

[Walter]

Yes but are you still that the Laws depend on Time and space since it is IN time and space we are observing them?

If you now say that they have an existence which is not dependent on time and space then to argue that the laws can but nothing else can is i'm afraid one mother and father of a special plead.

oh! c'mon in english please

[Walt Zingmatilder]

oh! c'mon in english please

Are you still of the opinion that the laws exist because they are observed in time and space. Or do you now agree with the prof that there existence is not dependent on time and space?

[Gordon]

Are you still of the opinion that the laws exist because they are observed in time and space. Or do you now agree with the prof that there existence is not dependent on time and space?

Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?

Well I don't disagree with that and probably take part of that as read. The professor, though, has made the suggestion that the existence of the laws does not depend, not only on our observation of them but does not depend on time and space themselves!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?

That's the phenomenon that exist independently of human observation but the laws are human constructs. Do I have that right?

[Walter]

Well I don't disagree with that and probably take part of that as read. The professor, though, has made the suggestion that the existence of the laws does not depend, not only on our observation of them but does not depend on time and space themselves!

how many straws have you got left Vlad?

Listen, I don't want to to destroy you or make you feel like a fool ,which is quite easy to do . I don't want you to feel bad about  your crazy logic or your misunderstanding of reality   especially in these stressful times so I'm going to stop my attack on you but only if you agree to learn some science and rid yourself of unevidenced nonsense you call religion

what do you say old chap?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

how many straws have you got left Vlad?

Listen, I don't want to to destroy you or make you feel like a fool ,which is quite easy to do . I don't want you to feel bad about  your crazy logic or your misunderstanding of reality   especially in these stressful times so I'm going to stop my attack on you but only if you agree to learn some science and rid yourself of unevidenced nonsense you call religion

what do you say old chap?

I know quite a bit about science thank you but as I've said I have no interest here in the phenomena, just the notion that the Laws of physics have some existence independent of time and space.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is is not more the case to say, Vlad, that the natural phenomena described by these laws, which are just humans articulating the principles involved, exist independently of being observed by humans - and existed before there were any humans to do any observing?

Indeed - there is little doubt that fundamental physical laws exist before there were humans observing them.

How do we know - well by good luck (and the limit to the speed of light) we can observe things which happened millions of years before humans arose on earth. All our observations of things happening in the distant reaches of the universe involve events which happened well before humans existed and still they comply with those self same fundamental laws of physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed - there is little doubt that fundamental physical laws exist before there were humans observing them.

Sorry to spoil it but Gordon was saying the phenomena governed by the laws were existent prior to human observation and the laws themselves are just human descriptions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry to spoil it but Gordon was saying the phenomena governed by the laws were existent prior to human observation and the laws themselves are human constructs.

How we describe those laws are certainly human constructs but the fundamental principles are not - they exist outside of the need for human observations and definition and existed way before human existence.

The collapse of a star into a black hole in a distant part of our galaxy, that we might be able to observe now, happened way before humans existed. And although the star and black hole will, obviously, not decisive the physical laws in the way humans do they are still governed by those fundamental physical principles that we humans describe in terms of physical laws.

[Walter]

I know quite a bit about science thank you but as I've said I have no interest here in the phenomena, just the notion that the Laws of physics have some existence independent of time and space.

so you are looking for confirmation your god exists ? from the prof?
?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so you are looking for confirmation your god exists ? from the prof?
?

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.

[Walter]

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.

have you taken some reality pills or something ?

[splashscuba]

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space

They're just laws of physics. They describe how we expect things work. They are refined or discarded when more accurate laws match the observations.

let alone God.

Which one?

[Sebastian Toe]

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.

Do you know where they "sit" in relation to those?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.

Not really - it has been pretty well universally accepted for a long while within the physics community that neither space nor time are fixed and unchanging, but are relative concepts determined by fundamental principles of physics. This was recognised as long ago as Newton for space, and more recently for time.

You know maybe some famous physicist might want to wrote a book about it aimed at the general public - maybe he could call it something snappy ... like 'A brief history of time'.

[jeremyp]

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.

Why does he need to demonstrate that the laws of physics “sit above” God? You might as well be concerned about whether they sit above the Great Green Arkelseizure.

Let’s demonstrate God exists before trying to find her place in reality, shall we.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why does he need to demonstrate that the laws of physics “sit above” God? You might as well be concerned about whether they sit above the Great Green Arkelseizure.

Let’s demonstrate God exists before trying to find her place in reality, shall we.

Emphatically not. Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first, then try to establish what the necessity in the universe is and whether the laws of nature really sit above physics by methodological naturalism....Go on chaps that should be easy. Instead though we get treated as per today to some half arsed shuffle between the laws of nature and the phenomena they describe.

[Sebastian Toe]

Emphatically not. Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first, then try to establish what the necessity in the universe is and whether the laws of nature really sit above physics by methodological naturalism....Go on chaps that should be easy.

If it is as easy as you say why don't you do it?
Save everyone else expending energy.

[jeremyp]

Emphatically not.

Why? Because you know you can't.

Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first

No, let's not. These are just big words that you are using to obfuscate the fact that you have nothing.

[Stranger]

Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first...

Why? Who do you think believes in philosophical naturalism? You don't need to believe that the material world is definitely all there there is in order to observe that we currently have no reason to take concepts like gods at all seriously.

...then try to establish what the necessity in the universe is and whether the laws of nature really sit above physics by methodological naturalism....

Why do you think people need a complete philosophy of everything? What's wrong with admitting that we don't know? The laws of physics or nature are, in practical terms anyway, observed regularities in the way the universe behaves. Could they have been different if the universe was different or are they somehow more fundamental? Haven't got a clue.

[Outrider]

I think the prof is going to have his work cut out demonstrating that the laws sit above time and space let alone God.

Time and space are defined by the laws (or, at least, by the phenomena that we describe using the laws) - without those constraints on activity time and space would not exist as they currently do.  Therefore, time and space are dependent upon those laws.

Rather confusingly, however, we've no capacity to know if those laws came into existence at the same time, in which case they're both dependent on some extra-universal ruleset.

None of which, in any way, justifies asserting that there's a 'god' in the equation to need to stratify.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? Who do you think believes in philosophical naturalism? You don't need to believe that the material world is definitely all there there is in order to observe that we currently have no reason to take concepts like gods at all seriously.

Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.