Do you think all laws require a lawmaker?

Question

The entire universe, from atoms to galaxies, is governed by definite physical laws. There are laws for governing heat, light, sound and gravity, for example. As physicist Stephen W. Hawking said: “The more we examine the universe, we find it is not arbitrary at all but obeys certain well-defined laws that operate in different areas. It seems very reasonable to suppose that there may be some unifying principles, so that all laws are part of some bigger law.”

Rocket expert Wernher von Braun went a step further when he stated: “The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody.” Scientists who want a rocket to orbit the earth, or the moon, must work in harmony with such universal laws if they are to be successful.

When we think of laws, we acknowledge that they came from a lawmaking entity.

Such brilliantly conceived laws surely bear witness to a supremely intelligent lawmaker.

Answer 1

It never ceases to amaze me of all the wacko,s on R/S. We have as it were some very smart people and then a whole boat load of wacko,s.

I agree with you, and faith has nothing to do with it, it comes down to common sence but that is no longer common any more is it? Keep up the faith and a little while longer that great lawmaker will reveal himself as he say,s in Ezekiel, The nations will have to know that i am Jehovah. Agape!

Answer 2

The trend in science is that after a new scientific law is discovered, someone discovers a new simpler scientific law which unifies the first law with the other laws which we already knew.



Based on this, it seems that there is really only a few (maybe even one) simple laws that control that actions of everything we see.



That is precisely the opposite of what you are claiming.



Religions don't believe in emergent phenomena where simple rules lead to more complex ones. They believe all complexity comes from an infinitely complex God.



That idea is completely backwards and has been repeatedly proven so by science.

Answer 3

Personally I think some of the laws are pretty daft.



For instance, if you move towards a source of light, the light hits you at the same speed as if you are stationary or moving away from it.



Two similar objects falling will hit the ground at the same time, even if there is a huge difference in mass.



Don't sound very intelligent to me!



Besides, haven't you heard of unwritten laws? Laws which just seem to exist. At a basic level, there are certain "laws of the playground" which everyone instinctively abides by, without there ever having been a council of school kids.

Answer 4

That's a wonderful testimony. I agree 101 percent with Stephen Hawking. And such words from the mouth of a Physicist makes

the wonder even more wonderful.



Yes, I don't think, I am sure that all laws require a Lawmaker. That's a testimony in favour of God's existence. Atheists should ponder and reconsider.

Answer 5

You are nearly correct in your final statement, except for the fact that you should have used the word, Lawmakers. I can assure you that there are more than one , I know because I have been approached by them and given a complete account of what happened to the planet Mars just a couple of million years ago. Watch for my book soon to be published, Do the mysteries of mars prove the existence of god. I have been informed as to how much water was on mars, and also what happened to the water and even where the water is now. These are just some of the mysteries that scientists today have not solved. To test peoples imagination I think I will put that question on Yahoo answers and see what response we get. Watch out for it.

Answer 6

Yes. Something/someone has to have set the limits of all things that exist. Everything has to start from something. Call or name the source whatever you want but it has to start from someone/thing that gave it it's limitations. Energy has to come from somewhere. Agree that it compressed and heated up and expanded with great force, but it had to come from somewhere before it compressed. It has to have a boundry and then at the boundry there has to be another set of rules to keep the present set in check, etc.,etc.,etc.. That questions the law of a judge and judgement by a singularity upon such an insignifigant spot in a vast universe ( and in the opinion of many now, multiple universes) holding us to a moral standard that has no significance to the rest of existance upon which must rest their reasonings to have boundries on any beings. How can 1-100 years of an infinity matter to any being that has been here for an infinity ? If indeed multiple universes or just one, the very fact of keeping everything in check and following the laws needed to preserve the existance of what has been set into motion itself should keep any being extremely too busy to watch and see if I get married before I have sex or if I stay with this same person or if I tell you a lie!!!!!

Answer 7

Argument from design -- worthless.

You're applying the concept of human law to the way the universe works -- we just call the way it works "law" when we find something that seems irrevocable to us. It's just a term used so we biologically evolved creatures with our limited brain power can try to understand.



There's no evidence of any kind that even Hawking's "bigger law" is a supremely intelligent anything. It's just the way things are. And as the anthropic principle clearly shows, if things weren't that way you wouldn't be here to be making unsupportable assumptions about them :)



Peace.

Answer 8

There is no reason to assume that the physical laws are made by a "lawmaker", nor is there any evidence that a lawmaker is required in order to have the "laws" exist.

Answer 9

The 'laws' in question are observations of science, not rules with penalties for non-obedience. It defines how the universe operates, but they do not force the universe to obey them.

You cannot compare them with man's laws, or for that matter, God's laws.

If God does exist, He would exist under similar 'laws' to those of the universe. That does not mean someone is forcing God to behave that way, it is simply describing the behavior.

No, the universe does not need your 'lawmaker' to exist.

Answer 10

Not necessarily. Laws such as the Laws of Physics are not true, set in stone laws. they are merely the way we have come to undertsand how the universe see3ms to work. We could be slightly wrong in many or all of these "laws" purely because they only work in the dimensiuon in which we perceive them. Don't forget that such "laws" were conceived by men and are therefore fallable.

Answer 11

their is a diffrance between natural law and artificial law. Nature of course works on certain unifying laws, for if it didn't than nature wouldn't work. This dose NOT prove the existence of a god.

Answer 12

Who made the law that said all laws required a lawmaker?

Answer 13

I disagree. Self-organization is evident in nature.



This is nothing more than an expansion on the design theory. Instead of using a hurricane blowing through a junkyard, youve switched to NATURAL laws in an attempt to convince me that they must have a lawmaker. You have been unsuccessful, but thanks for playing!

Answer 14

when you consider that's the function of the judicial branch. easily lawmakers might desire to be confident they experience rules are constitutional earlier surpassed, yet in some cases it gets ignored till the courts can study it later.

Answer 15

Even though we cannot see him, our creator Jehovah has made all the 'invisible' laws that dictate light, darkness, heat and seasons. So the answer to your question is - Yes. It does not happen by chance.

Answer 16

No. The laws of physics are quite likely arbitrary and vary universe to universe.

Answer 17

"Such brilliantly conceived laws surely bear witness to a supremely intelligent lawmaker."



Did you know that in Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor? Or in Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset. Or in Hartford, Conn., it is unlawful to cross a street while walking on your hands.

Answer 18

The Flying Spaghetti Monster neither confirms nor denies installing some cosmic laws while making the universe. He probably doesn't remember Himself, as He was very very drunk.

Answer 19

depends on what u mean.



laws that we can choose to obey yes.... (social law)

- i can chose to go over the speed limit.

laws that we have no choice, no... (natural laws)

- i cant choose to jump off a cliff and fly instead of fall.

Answer 20

NO. Your idiocy makes my brain bleed:(