Are you trying to say that the laws of physics have some goal in mind? Are they intelligent in and of themselves?
" I don't know of any un-authored laws"
Stop anthropomorphizing natural occurrences. The 'laws' of nature are human descriptions of natural consistencies. We observe something that occurs the same way every time and can be modeled mathematically so we call them 'laws'.
Some people will do anything, including play semantic games, to make it look like there 'has to be' an intelligent designer.
Not any more than any other laws. No, of course not. But human laws have authors, which is my point. So why when we observe laws in nature do we presume that they have no author? This is contrary to other lived experiences. The presumption should be otherwise.
"I don't know of any un-authored laws"
Stop anthropomorphizing natural occurrences.
I'm not.
The 'laws' of nature are human descriptions of natural consistencies. We observe something that occurs the same way every time and can be modeled mathematically so we call them 'laws'.
Is the "Law of Gravitation" a law or a consistency, that is, is it a statistical probability? My understanding is that the law admits of no exceptions.
Yes. The question is, do we presume that these laws are the result of a law-giver, as are all other laws? Or do we presume otherwise, against all other experience with law?
Some people will do anything, including play semantic games, to make it look like there 'has to be' an intelligent designer.
It is rational to assume that where there is a law there is a law-giver, and where there is design there is a designer. No one's forcing you to take the side of irrationality. You have chosen it freely.
Damn! I'm going to have to start charging.