| Allfreedom99 said: If nothing established the laws of physics then how would they even be laws in the first place? there has to be a catalyst for a law to exist, or else the law would not be able to materialize on its own as a reality. |
What? Why has there a catalyst to exist? It makes no sense it all? You BELIEVE that there is a catalyst, and that may or may not be so. But to claim there MUST be a catalyst has nothing to do with logic.
The laws of nature need not to be materialized. If they materialized, after which laws worked the universe before that moment? And where came that laws from?
| Allfreedom99 said: And you say why isn't the laws just naturally part of the universe? Well then how did the universe get its code to form the way it has in the order that it displays? You say it was physical laws that have always existed. But if all you have are just laws with nothing to materialize then all you have are just laws in a dark void with no purpose, therefore the laws are mute with a lack of any effects. To get what we have today you need laws and something that can materialize. |
Why need the laws of nature a purpose? That is completely illogical. Some of us may hope there is a sense in the existence, but hope is no proper proof, that there is a sense. Also the laws itself probably can establish something. Go into the details of quantum physics.
| Allfreedom99 said: Laws establish order. Order cannot be created by itself if no intelligent influence exits, or else all you have is void. |
One of the most important laws of nature is, that the order of the world reduces (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics ). So your statement that laws establish order is flawed. Also you state, that order cannot be created without intelligent influence. And that assumption is based in what?
Get me right here: I don't want to attack religions. But you state, that the existance and the working of our world show, that an intelligent influence exists. But to support your claim, you make one unproofed assumption after another. I do not claim, that there is no such intelligent force, but I say your arguments do not proof the existence of one.
