What are the Laws of Nature?
This article text is part of our book: “Academic Proof of the Creator Visual/Interactive Book (New Perspectives from the Treatise of Nature)” Click Here for Book Page
We find out that, although laws of nature is a concept that does not have a material substance, it serves the purpose of expressing how the matter acts.
As their name suggests, they are laws, principles showing how a decision given on a specific issue shall be implemented. What kind of thing is a law?
It is something abstract. Does it have a concrete existence? No. How is its existence known? With its works and results. It makes itself known when it is applied. When you say, “The Court implemented the death sentence, executed it” the law comes to the fore. It shows itself with the execution of the decision.
For the execution of a law, a lawmaker that is, willpower, is necessary, otherwise, laws do not have the capacity to be implemented on their own. Laws of nature are also abstract concepts, which show their effect over the matter/objects, but which lack external and concrete existence. Famous laws of nature are nothing more than that. In other words, they are just empty concepts. In essence, laws of nature are names given to the principles of the action/movement of the matter/object, which act/move continuously in a certain orderly way, which can be determined due to this order in their actions/movements. It could be claimed if the matter/objects did not move orderly; no discipline of science would ever be established.
Intermediary note: In fact, in the sub-atomic world, due to the uncertainty principle, it is not even determined where electron is located. Matter acts in a complete chaos and uncertainty. This is how the situation is in the micro-universe. Then, how there is an orderly and decisive structure of the matter in the macro universe, that is, the material world that we can see with our eyes? Who can explain this, for Allah’s sake? In the following sections, we will provide very striking findings on this issue.
In a situation where the matter acts disorderly, how will you find rules and put them into a book? What then will you call as science? Everything that we call science and whatever we have in the name of science, is the knowledge accumulated as a result of the orderly movement/acting of the matter and it is a reflection of the regularity of the universe. If the matter did not act orderly, would we have anything called science? Of course we would not,
As you see, although the law of nature is a concept which does not have a material body, it just serves to express how the matter/objects act, move. What we intend to say is this: trying to explain the movement/action of the matter just by the laws of nature only resembles the following example:
Just how much far away from being intelligent and scientific is trying to explain (the creation/flight) of a passenger plane, which is designed by an expert engineer and produced by a big factory, just with the air’s lifting power, with law of thermodynamics, with electric power or with coming together of the parts of the plane, and even going further and claiming that the plane is self-created, not taking into account the engineer and the factory at all, not mentioning their names and leaving them out of any explanation in this regard. We think it is a thousand times more unintelligent and unscientific than this example to explain the mechanism of birds, which have a far more advanced flight system, comprising thousands of species, hundreds of millions of members with laws of nature.
Just like it is impossible for a plane to build itself (presumably, there is no one claiming for the opposite). In a similar way, the matter /objects in the universe resemble the parts of a plane. The parts of the plane cannot be produced and they cannot function without the knowledge and the will of an engineer and the power of a factory. In fact, everybody accepts and nobody denies that this plane is made by using these parts.
But we say this: “My Friend, for God’s sake! May Allah give you a heart! These parts cannot say this “Let’s come together and form/create a plane!”
Is this so difficult to understand? What is unscientific about expressing this fact?
We say that the universe is also wisely designed and built, and that the creator of the matter and the living things inside it cannot be the universe itself.
With this thinking, the causes are never denied. Is it science or the, causes, the nature or the creator?
There is no need to make a choice between them, there are no dichotomies. In fact, they all function/work together!
You can’t think of a plane as something separate from the laws of thermodynamics.
The point against which we make our objection is this: why the engineer of that plane is not taken into account. This is all that we care about.
Here, it is concluded by reason that all these causes, and the object of design and great art are made by someone who has the characteristics and the qualities to create them.