How something can come from nothing

[Jay520]

GameOver22 said:

Jay520 said:

GameOver22 said:
Well, the argument in the OP is flawed, particularly because we don't talk of laws having existence. Abstract laws and rules, by definition, do not exist, even now. Point being, someone cannot point to law, and say, "There it is. It resides under my dining room table." In other words, a law is not a thing.

An entity doesn't have to be concrete, tangible, or an object for it to exist. It still exists, just not physically. And we do talk about laws in terms of existence. For example, there's a law in the U.S. making murder illegal. However, there is no law stating that breathing is illegal. That law does not exist. There are laws that exist that govern our universe. For example: water freezes when under 32 degrees. This fact or law exists, even if we cannot touch it. Laws/facts describe our universe. And before the universe ever existed, if such a time is possible, then its safe to say there were no laws.

We do not empirically verify laws. We empirically verify the implications of laws, and we use this to infer whether a law is viable. Talking of laws as if they exist is misleading, particularly in conjunction with your argument that something cannot come from nothing. This argument is talking about physical things. I think you would admit there is a fundamental difference between a tree and a law, hence, when we talk of a law existing, we mean something fundamentally different from when we say a phsyical object exists. Your argument is treating both the existence of laws and the existence of things as if they are the same, which they are not. That is my criticism.

In other words, the fact that an object cannot exist in nothingness does not mean that a law cannot exist in nothingness.

True, laws are not physical entities. But would you agree that laws describe physical entities? If so, then you shouldn't you also agree that if there are no physical entities (nothing), then there are also no laws.