"Intelligently designed laws"

One of the claims by a number of thesits these days, including scientific ones, is that the laws of physics must have been intelligently designed. But why is that? The laws of physics are what they are. What about these laws makes them any more likely to be designed than any other set of laws? Why must they have been designed, and why must they have been designed by a tri-omni entity? In fact, I think that the laws of the universe are inconsistent with the existence of a tri-omni entity. If the laws of physics were very different, would these same theists contend that those laws were designed?

I could easily think of changes to these laws that would make the universe run much better. First of all, why have the first law of thermodynamics? Why can't energy be created or destroyed by anyone but God? It would end hunger and energy crises if we could simply create our own energy to sustain ourselves. Instead, organisms must feed off of each other and there are only finite amounts of energy resources that we must compete for. If energy could be created, there would be no need for predation, hunger or wars over resources.

Second, why can't "sin", "good" and "bad" have become physical properties? We don't have any evidence that these have any physical existence except in the brains of human beings. When a tornado rips through a town, it doesn't care who it affects. It doesn't discriminate between good people and bad people. The laws of physics could have designed such that bad actions lead to a build up of sin. That which accumulates more sin would be more likely to suffer "bad" events. "Bad" would also be a physical property. "Bad" would be attracted to "sin" much like how electrons are attracted to protons. If the equilibrium between "good" and "sin" were disrupted, a very high magnitude of "bad" would strike. This would also make judging morality much more objective. There are people out there who think certain actions are perfectly moral whereas others believe they are hideously immoral. Take for example the way Muslims slaughter goats on Eid. If sin were a physical property, there would be no debate on the matter. Bad actions would accumulate sin and that would be it. No debate.

Those are just two ammendments I could think up off the top of my head. Note that these ammendments still allow for free will and the choice to do wrong and all that other good stuff.

[inkadu]

Caption:

Metman07 wrote

"Bad" would be attracted to "sin" much like how electrons are attracted to protons.

What many theists don't realize is that "Laws of Physics" are not actual "laws" or "rules" that something makes up to tell a partical how to act, but more like observations.

Also, another thing. Assume that there was matter, but NO laws of physics, like theists say the world would be without god. Okay... how is that possible? Even if the atoms just bounced around randomly, it would still be a law (observation) that atoms bounce around randomly. Even if atoms didn't move, it would still be a law (observation) that atoms don't move.

Does anyone else see what I'm saying?

[Choobus]

matter could not exist without the laws of physics. What do you think is holding those quarks together? The thing that these anthropic assholes are saying is that if you tweaked the laws just a little atoms would be unstable, or molecules could not form and so on. Then they claim that it is extremely unlikely that the laws exist so finely tuned and therefore goddidit. However, this is a bogus claim. Forone thing, there might be a perfectly good reason why the laws are as they are. IT might not be possible for them to be otherwise. Since we have no clue how the laws were formed (that is, we don't know, and perhaps cannot know, what went down in the initial singularity that gave rise to the big bang we can't say. IT may even be possiblew that a unified field theory (the so-called theory of everything) will be such that things are constrained to be as they are. In any case, anthropic reasoning is entirely devoid of merit, and trying to say that the universe was designed for life and therefore there is a god is total bootstrapping. (And that's not to bringup the fact that the vast majority of the universe is certainly not very comfortable for humans).

[Professor Chaos]

Bullshit, Choobus, the universe was clearly intelligently designed. Stars look pretty. Therefore God exists.

[Choobus]

Professor Chaos wrote

Bullshit, Choobus, the universe was clearly intelligently designed. Stars look pretty. Therefore God exists.

damn, I was hoping nobody would notice that flaw in my argument........

Oh well, PRAISE HIM

Choobus wrote

matter could not exist without the laws of physics. What do you think is holding those quarks together? The thing that these anthropic assholes are saying is that if you tweaked the laws just a little atoms would be unstable, or molecules could not form and so on. Then they claim that it is extremely unlikely that the laws exist so finely tuned and therefore goddidit. However, this is a bogus claim. Forone thing, there might be a perfectly good reason why the laws are as they are. IT might not be possible for them to be otherwise. Since we have no clue how the laws were formed (that is, we don't know, and perhaps cannot know, what went down in the initial singularity that gave rise to the big bang we can't say. IT may even be possiblew that a unified field theory (the so-called theory of everything) will be such that things are constrained to be as they are. In any case, anthropic reasoning is entirely devoid of merit, and trying to say that the universe was designed for life and therefore there is a god is total bootstrapping. (And that's not to bringup the fact that the vast majority of the universe is certainly not very comfortable for humans).

Quarkscrews.

[Choobus]

you must have been the class pranskter at nuclear power school!