@Tulasipatti RE: "no law is accidental. It’s made by higher authority."

Wow are you confused. You quite obviously have been baptized one too many times. You should avoid allowing people to hold you under water for extended periods of times as it kills brain cells.

"No law is accidental." Agreed. How did you ever arrive at the conclusion they might be accidental? That's just ignorant. Laws are natural, observable and predictable occurrences.

So what I gather from your inane utterance here is that you believe some authority (I have no idea at all what you mean by "Higher.") has .... um.... created the laws? Do you have any evidence for that?

You admit there is no evidence given anywhere, so how in the hell do you arrive at the conclusion there is a god thing?

So your argument is, "There is no evidence anywhere, so God exists." That's just moronic.

Well, we do agree on one thing ---- "There is no reasoning with fools."

Oh dear. I smell a sock that's escaped from the drawer.

In the meantime, let's take a look at this shall we?

That is what I want to tell you indeed that no law is accidental.

You manifestly don't know what is meant by the words "physical law". A physical law is an observable relationship between entities of interest, that holds universally for those entities. I don't know where you derived the idea that these relationships are "accidental", because no one here postulates this, and the relevant scientists certainly don't postulate this in their peer reviewed papers. Indeed, the reasons why physical laws exist in their observed form, is an active research topic among physicists, in no small part motivated by the fact that several papers exist in the literature, demonstrating that numerous relevant phenomena would remain essentially unchanged even if certain physical constants varied by a wide margin. Indeed, I covered two relevant papers from the literature in some detail here, one of which demonstrated that stellar nucleosynthesis and chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if the weak nuclear force was removed from the universe altogether.

It’s made by higher authority.

Poppycock. There is zero evidence for any "authority" handing down the laws of physics by decree. This is a fantasy that supernaturalists entertain, because they can't be bothered learning about the actual science involved.

Here everybody talk about “evidence”.

There's a good reason for this. Which has much to do with the fact that observational data IS evidence for or against relevant postulates, as scientists have demonstrated time and again. To give an apposite example, my textbook on theoretical mechanics from my undergraduate days, contains an exposition of central forces and the underlying mathematics. The textbook in question is Theory And Problems In Theoretical Mechanics by Murray. R. Spiegel, Schaum's Outline Series, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 07 084357 0.If I turn to page 127, Problem 5.15, that problem is as follows:

Under the influence of a central force at point O, a particle moves in a circuar orbit which passes through O. Find the law of force.

That problem is then presented in full, with a worked solution, yielding the result that the force in question in this problem obeys the law F = k/r^5, where r is the radial distance of the particle from the point O. Now, if someone were to postulate that this law of force applied to gravity, we can test that postulate very easily, by measuring the positions and motions of objects moving under the influence of gravity, and using that data to determine if the paths those objects move along, conform to the specification given in that problem. If those positions and motions produce paths other than the one specified in the problem, then we have evidence that gravity does NOT obey an inverse fifth power law.

Indeed, this is how science works - by testing postulates to see if they are in accord with observational data. Said observational data will falsify many postulates presented, but some postulates will be in accord with said observational data, and those postulates thus in accord, are the postulates that become our physical laws and scientific theories. However, the point to bear in mind here is that scientists will modify those postulates in the light of new data, if that new data tells us those postulates need to be modified, which is precisely the process that occurred when scientists moved on from Newtonian mechanics to General Relativity. Initially, Newtonian mechanics appeared to be extremely successful, and for 250 years, was in accord with observational data. But, it was a victim of its own success. It enabled scientists to develop the means to conduct observations of phenomena that did not behave in a manner described by a Newtonian system.

Along came Einstein, and provided an alternative set of postulates. Postulates that not only explained the behaviour of those new phenomena, but also explained the behaviour of all the previous phenomena thought originally to be Newtonian. In the process, Einstein provided the reason why Newtonian mechanics appeared to be so successful for so long - namely, that the error involved in a Newtonian analysis for everyday entities and interactions, was too small to be measurable at the time. Courtesy of a function known as the Lorentz Gamma Factor, which, for weak gravity fields and velocities much smaller than the speed of light, is extremely close to 1. As a corollary, the error in using Newton's ideas is tiny - it doesn't appear until you can measure relevant quantities to 15 decimal places. When Newton devised his physics, he did so in an era when the fastest form of transport was the horse, and two decimal places of accuracy was considered a significant achievement. Even now, in the 21st century, it takes vast expense and effort to measure that tiny error.

As a corollary, we still teach Newtonian mechanics in school, for two reasons. One, for many real world problems, Newtonian mechanics is a good enough approximation to allow us to achieve constructive ends. You don't need to delve into four-dimensional Minkowskian tensors and 15 decimal places to build a house. Two, Newtonian physics is mathematically simpler, and can be learned by high school students, whilst General Relativity takes you very quickly into the realm of the Ricci calculus, which is intimidating even for students at Ph.D level.

But, for those phenomena involving entities and interactions that require the Ricci calculus, it becomes very quickly apparent that the error involved in using a Newtonian analysis for these is huge. Which is why physicists have moved on to General Relativity to deal with such entities as black holes.

But this brings us to an essential point about science - namely, that science is a DEscriptive enterprise, NOT a PREscriptive enterprise. Science works precisely because it doesn't issue decrees, but instead chooses those postulates that are in agreement with ever larger sets of observational data. The data decides which postulates win.

And that's where supernaturalist assertions fall flat on their face - because there is no data supporting any of them. Indeed, quite a few assertions contained in supernaturalist mythologies are known not merely to be wrong, but absurd and fatuous. Not least because some of them involve physical unreality on a grand scale.

As a corollary, those of us who paid attention in class, regard supernaturalist mythologies as incompetent to answer even elementary questions, let alone important ones. The assertions contained therein are either untestable even in principle, or in the case of the testable assertions, have been tested and found to be wrong. Consequently, the idea that mythology is informative about anything other than the tendency of pre-scientific people to fantasise, is untenable.

But no evidence given enywhere. Just mental speculation.

Wrong.

Here's a clue for you. When even elementary scientific fact destroys mythological assertions wholesale, mythological assertions go in the bin. This has already happened. A classic example of mythological absurdity being the farcical view of genetics contained in Genesis 30: 37-39. Read it and work out for yourself why it's farcical.

God exists or not that is out of your grasp first get to know this material word properly.

The irony here being that many of us have expended effort doing precisely that. See above.

You don’t even have a single meaningful reason in your support, let alone evidence.

Here's an important concept for you to master. When testable natural processes are found to be sufficient to explain a class of entities and interactions of interest, then supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant from that point on. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions, including entities and interactions that the authors of mythologies were incapable of even fantasising about.

There is no reasoning with fools.

How often have we seen this principle demonstrated, whenever supernaturalists try to tell us that reality is wrong and mythology is right?

Oh Boy...

Another Dunning-Kruger case of cosmic magnitude...