Can the laws of physics bring something into existence?

[Brian37]

I hate opening this can of worms because theists always go "you used the word created, so therefore everything has a creator" or " You used the word Law so everything has to have a lawgiver".

Idiots don't understand those words have completely different meanings in science having nothing to do withe magic men with magic wands.

Yes, "laws" in science are not like laws government passes. "Laws" in science are a description of long term observations that DESCRIBE a consistency of repeated observation.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Whenever you describe something, you also imply something: that there's a reason for the behavior or property you're describing-- and, quite often, it's understood that the ultimate reason hasn't been discovered "yet." So when you talk about the rule of gravity, which is a fairly simple description of the behavior of massive objects at a distance, there's always the understanding: things don't just move-- there is something about the things, or the universe, or both, which allows their movement and necessitates it. We just don't understand what it is.

Nor is it unfair or nonsensical to conflate the mathematical description with that part of reality which underlies it-- whatever that might be. The words "law of gravity," therefore, can be equally taken to refer to the mathematical description of gravity as to the underlying aspect of reality which causes things to move.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Huh? Where did I claim scientific descriptions are taken at face value? I never said that. Nothing about science should ever be taken at face value. It is precisely because science says to repeatedly test and falsify and get peer review that we have our modern knowledge.

Saying that new data may build upon our current understanding is not the same as clinging to bad claims or bad data. I am saying an "open mind" does not require us to let our brains fall out.

There still are scientific reasons we call things "laws".