No
By definition isn’t a physical law a description of an underlying phenomenon?
to one yes
This is the philosophy forum by the way. Your explanations are theological at best and assertions at worst.
Yes. We are talking about the laws of physics. For example, Atoms have particular ways of behaving, and we understand from observing its behaviour that there are particular consistent “rules” or “laws” that are attributable to the nature of atoms.
Why God?
Why would that be a problem?
It would seem that a causal explanation for physical laws, while desirable, is not necessary. Some one can, based on observations, come up with a description on how something behaves without coming up with a description on how it works. It’s not often that we distinguish between how something works and how it behaves. For the sake of clarity let’s take a watch as an example. Given a watch and a limited amount of time observing one might find that a battery powered mechanical watch, a watch with a wind up know, and a watch with a self winding mechanism all behave identically over a short observation time even though their inner workings are different.
That depends on the context in which a question is asked. Scientifically speaking there is no need for an explanation if by science we are in the business of empirically **describing **physical events and their behaviour. However, that in no way means that a thing does not need an explanation if it does not fall within the scientific context of an explanation. When science no-longer has the epistemological authority to explain existence, all that can mean is that the scientific method is not suitable for answering a particular kind of question. This alone, as I have pointed out, is not a rational basis to stop asking why a thing exists as it does. A thing still needs an explanation if it fails to explain its own existence in reference to itself. This is true of physical laws.
Because God created them? Why not God? So intelligent beings came into existence from random events that didn’t require any wisdom or knowledge to perform, without ANY thought of how things were to begin and end. I would rather keep my age old religious beliefs then swap them with any modern-science explanation of how things came to be, unless it complies with the premise that is based on God creating the world by his word. That is all we need to know to live.
Assuming you are interested in giving a sound philosophical explanation as to why physical laws exist, I must point out to you that you have merely asserted that it is God who made it simply because you find the alternative undesirable or difficult to accept. While I am not necessarily against pragmatic solutions, I would like a philosophical argument as to why you think God made it.
lets start with something simpler and work our way to God
how can a physical event happen without underlying physical laws?
Not so a sure about this. I think a naturalist would ask “Can we truly say that an event is necessary without it necessarily “existing” .” Is it rational to say that something can be both “intended” to be necessary and be necessary at the same time?
True, if it is reasonable to say that a thing is intended to be necessary…
I don’t understand. Can’t a thing simply be existentially necessary? Wouldn’t your argument be problematic for anybody who wants to say that God is necessary and therefore does not need a cause? Given your argument, It seems that a Naturalist could say that the necessity of God requires an explanation.
Yes. I agree. Why does there have to be gravity indeed.