Definition of Scientific Law?

[Renegnicat]

When we come down to considering the validity or accuracy of scientific theories, often the concept of the "laws of physics" comes up. At the same time, theists might claim, as they have in the past, that god operates outside the laws of physics. I think that this phrase only came into the parlance because of a misunderstanding of what a scientific law is.

For example, scientific theories attempt to explain phenomena that can be measured or witnessed in some way in the world. But an actual "law of physics", I'm inclined to think is simply an observation of the consistency of our observations in certain scenarios.

For example, when we consider the law of gravity as a "law of physics", we're not saying that there is some cosmic book somewhere where it is written that objects attract to one another perior. Rather, we are saying that in the broadest possible set of circumstances, we have always observed that objects consistently do this/that.

God may or may not be able to affect things so that the expected outcome doesn't happen. However, it's important to note that any god that is capable of doing anything at all, would have a consistency of observable phenomena associated with him. It doesn't matter if we might not understand a god's reasons for doing some particular action, because according to what is considered a law, even god would be consistent in his being. In fact, according to theists, god is perfectly consistent, or then he wouldn't be god.

In other words, because of an ambiguity of the definition of a scientific law, theists have misunderstood and claimed that god can exist outside natural laws. This, naturally, contradicts their claim of consistency in god's reasons for action, and thus, their claim that god has any sort of plan for the universe. In short, a god that does not obey any kind of scientific law, could not be a god that has any sort of plan for the universe or it's inhabitants. And who would want to worship that?!  

[Ultima22689]

Oh wow, sweet post!

[Renegnicat]

Thank you.  

[Reginus]

However, it's important to note that any god that is capable of doing anything at all, would have a consistency of observable phenomena associated with him.

Meh, what percentage of people in the U.S. have "felt the holy spirit"?

As for the problem of evil, there's an apologetic app for that  

[venomfangx]

It is still a vexing question to consider what was there before the big bang; these questions cannot be answered as we simply do not know.  Was the big bang caused by something?  Once again we do not know.  However, at that point the laws of physics were laid down with the constants that govern the Universe.  I think we can safely say that most of the laws of nature will be modified as we come to a better understanding of how the cosmos works.  This can only be done with scientific method and not some creationist babble about a God doing this.
yours
Ð'еномФангЖ

[SSY]

However, it's important to note that any god that is capable of doing anything at all, would have a consistency of observable phenomena associated with him.

Meh, what percentage of people in the U.S. have "felt the holy spirit"?

As for the problem of evil, there's an apologetic app for that  

Less than the number of Hindus who have felt Ganesha's holy trunk? Is that the right answer? Please fill us in.

[Renegnicat]

Ahem, both of you are missing the point. If it is true that people have felt consistent observable phenomena that can be attributed to god, then he can not exist outside the laws of physics. As Physics = The study of how things work, and Law of Physics = An observation of consistent phenomena.

Unless you want to really get desperate and claim that god is not a thing, then there is no way you can say that god exists "outside the laws of physics". Laws of physics are not spacially restricted. They are present wherever there is ANYTHING.

[venomfangx]

The laws of physics break down in quantum singularities, which is what the big bang appears to be.  None of us can state what we do not know.
yours
Ð'еномФангЖ

[iNow]

The laws of physics break down in quantum singularities, which is what the big bang appears to be.

No, not quite.  Our current models break down in those frames... the maths (in the context of relativity) result in infinities.  This has nothing to do with "laws of physics breaking down," and everything to do with the model not applying in all frames.  New models, however, are being put forward... such as with loop quantum gravity.  What I take issue with is your terming the model itself as a law.  It's not.  A law is something like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or the law of conservation of energy, etc...  and those stay the same even in the face of "quantum singularities."

What the "big bang appears to be" is an artifact of the current math... a call to action to improve our formulas... our description of nature.


I now return you to your regularly scheduled program wasting time talking about [strike:o0z4pmtw]the tooth fairy[/strike:o0z4pmtw]   [strike:o0z4pmtw]the easter bunny[/strike:o0z4pmtw]   [strike:o0z4pmtw]Zeus[/strike:o0z4pmtw]   [strike:o0z4pmtw]Thor[/strike:o0z4pmtw] whether or not god is outside of time and space.    

[venomfangx]

Models of course are not laws and modern models cannot cope with the complexities of quantum physics.  Richard Feynmen concluded that as well.
What you call Laws I call theories, and the theories do break down with events found to be inexplicable.

those stay the same even in the face of "quantum singularities

I would like you to provide concrete evidence or even mathematical evidence that what you have said in that quote is correct.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program wasting time talking about the tooth fairy   the easter bunny   Zeus   Thor whether or not god is outside of time and space.

You do not know me so you cannot assume an ad hominem attack of this nature which is also against this forums rules.  If you wish to believe in God, the Tooth Fairy or Santa or Zeus is your affair.  I no where said that God is outside of space-time or that God even exists, and this has somehow become a strawman.  The topic is the definition of scientific law: I will use the defintion postulated by Sir Karl Popper the scientific philosopher who helped formulate the rules of scientific methodology.

Scientists start with a current scientific theory and use the usual methods of deductive reasoning to derive specific conclusions, of which some are "predictions".   Strictly deductive reasoning is "truth preserving", that is, it is such that if one starts out with "true" premises, one can only deduce "true" conclusions.   Starting with a "theory" and deducing "predictions" can be stated in the form of a premise:

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.

Popper shows that we cannot prove that a theory is true, but we can certainly show that a prediction is false.  If the scientist tests one of these predictions and finds out that it is not true, he uses good 'ole modus tolens to conclude that the theory cannot be true.

If the theory is true, then the prediction is true.
The prediction is not true.
Therefore, the theory is not true.

http://www.xenodochy.org/article/popper.html
Oh we use this methodology everyday; it is called the hypothesis and the null hypothesis.  To suggest that a single theory explains everything is delusional.
Even Newtons Laws of Motion are open to scrutiny in the light of relativity: great for our slow world but don't quite work at relativistic velocities.

Seems logical to me.
yours
Ð'еномФангЖ

[Renegnicat]

The laws of physics break down in quantum singularities, which is what the big bang appears to be.  None of us can state what we do not know.
yours
Ð'еномФангЖ

*ahem*

That is because we can not observe that our observations are consistent in a quantum singularity. Doesn't mean that the laws of physics break down, as in, "not obeyed", it means that we simply can not observe consistency. Which makes sense, because even though we can't observe consistency in a singularity, we've never actually observed a singularity, either.

[iNow]

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program wasting time talking about [strike:17e7ywm5]the tooth fairy[/strike:17e7ywm5]   [strike:17e7ywm5]the easter bunny[/strike:17e7ywm5]   [strike:17e7ywm5]Zeus[/strike:17e7ywm5]   [strike:17e7ywm5]Thor[/strike:17e7ywm5] whether or not god is outside of time and space.

You do not know me so you cannot assume an ad hominem attack of this nature which is also against this forums rules.  If you wish to believe in God, the Tooth Fairy or Santa or Zeus is your affair.  I no where said that God is outside of space-time or that God even exists, and this has somehow become a strawman.  

That comment was in response to the first paragraph of the first post of this thread.  It was not an ad hominem, it was not a strawman, and it was not any other sort of fallacy, as it had absolutely nothing to do with your post.  It also had nothing to do with my own (lack of) beliefs.  So... Chill out there a bit, cowboy, as you're looking a bit silly right now.  

[venomfangx]

Chill out there a bit, cowboy,

A serious mistake I am not a cowboy I am a clown.  
yours
Ð'еномФангЖ

[Renegnicat]

I sense a discrepancy between the smiley and your avatar...