Activity

No you cannot. You cannot explain “how the laws of nature came to exist” by relying on “concepts discovered by science”.

That does sound like a circular argument when you put it that way, and circular arguments are fallacious. Also, you can’t keep saying “well because” infinitely, you run out of explanations or out of time. But really science is a set of axioms, but even axioms don’t prove anything if they are just assertions. Which is why scientific axioms are either testable, or properly basic, or they state that they are axioms and open to change as needed. In all cases, they can be shown to be the most effective way to determine what’s true. What you are trying to do Sherlock is say that reason can’t prove reason, but you are using reason to make your case. If reason wasn’t a basic law of nature, then you couldn’t do that. You would just say, blibble finger crump, and in the next second, A would not equal A anymore and I couldn’t argue with you. But we have reason, we have laws that are consistent throughout time and space, and when we found they varied by tiny amounts, we figured out time is relative and there’s this quantum chaos, and we know those still don’t explain everything. What have you offered that improves on that?