What Is A Law?

[Theland]

How do scientists determine what is a law?
I understand it to mean that if the same process or experiment, repeated over and over again, results in the same outcome, then that is a law.
Afterwards, any suggestion of a different outcome, or different initial conditions, would be recognised as a violation of that law.
Am I correct?

[Peter Pedant]

uncaused cause is Thomas aquinas innit
havent we moved on since 1300 ?

[pixie374]

We haven't moved on since 1 AD.

[Theland]

God simply IS. (I am who I am).
I accept this.
We are part of His creation.
We live in His creation.
All of our scientific investigations are limited to exercise their best expertise within His creation.
No science can investigate anything above and beyond His creation.
That requires a different approach.

[pixie374]

// God simply IS//. Me too. But how... and why?

More than anyone, you tell us there can't be a first uncaused cause- except when you tell us there is. It's baffling...

[Theland]

Pixie @ 17:11 - No, I have always said there was a first Uncaused Cause, that is God.

What I have NOT said is that there cannot have been a first cause that is explicable purely from science.

[Atheist]

Theland; so there can have been a first cause that is explicable from science? (double negatives always confuse me!)

[pixie374]

This part always confuses me!
Theland, are you saying that if science can't explain it yet, then it isn't possible?
Has science explained how god exists?

[pixie374]

Just to ask once more... you say the definition of an uncaused first cause is "god".... if that's the definition, then the Big Bang, say, could also be defined as "god"?

[Old_Geezer]

In which case the whole universe is God.

[Old_Geezer]

I think this seems a reasonable account https://youtu.be/nNK3u8uVG7o

[Peter Pedant]

no please stop
this should not be in science but somewhere called piffle
along with - I know the Little Green Man exists
and how can we help the Little prince service volcanos?

[Peter Pedant]

I dont know what God thinks of this discussion

But if Einstein saw it he wd probably say - "I seenk we had better let the Germans bomb london"

[pixie374]

PP, Jim has answered and got BA, so theland seems happy. The conversation has continued a bit, that's all.

[eve1974]

I’m just glad I learned a new word lol!!!

Abiogenesis

[mibn2cweus]

A 'first cause' is no more explicable than a 'first living organism'. Such boundaries do not necessarily exist. Much of what does exist is an emergent phenomenon, something that only exists, through means and process, once it does. You apparent miscomprehension of causality has led you to invalid conclusions regarding its nature. Causality implies the interrelationship between time and space that arose from within an emergent universe. Causality is a property of (not the creator of) the universe.

[Theland]

MIBs - I disagree. I have never come across a scientist who says cause is a property of an emergent universe.
Carroll, Krause, Hawking, Lennox, Al Khalilli and others have never to my knowledge suggested this.

[mibn2cweus]

Whether or not the validity of my assertions on the nature of time, space and causality correspond to reality has no bearing on who agrees or disagrees with them, any of the aforementioned, you, myself or Einstein. Personal agreement or disagreement do not pave the way to a scientific approach to deriving an understanding of the nature of reality.

[Theland]

OG @ 2207 - I've seen that before. Thank you.
Trouble is, as Ash points out, the theory cannot be replicated in the laboratory, and it all remains largely speculation.

[Theland]

Pixie @21:51 - Science cannot probe God.
All we can ever know about God is what he reveals to us through His Word and through His creation.

[Theland]

Mibs - Would you provide a link to a YouTube lecture or a scientific paper that shares your views.
I must confess that I find them a bit confusing.