>>54682289we can understand everything that happened back to billionths of a second after the big bang. we model it out, it fits, what doesn't quite fit we make maths to explain, and hope to find proof to corroborate the maths (like the higgs boson). Any time in which the laws of physics would somehow be different would have had to take place in that impossibly small amount of time that we don't understand yet, and it would also mean that the laws themselves are not stable and can change at a whim.
if you were to ask any physicist what was easier to believe: that a God existed and created the universe, complete with the laws that govern it
or
that the laws that govern our universe exist in flux and can randomly change
i think you'll find that, no matter how much they might not believe in a god, that the former makes more sense.
and one of the most agnostic fields in science, coincidentally? physics, particularly quantum physics and those who study the origin of the universe. more than one scientist has gone on record saying that the more you study it, the more it looks intentionally designed, to perfect to be random happenstance. NO, i am NOT saying they are suddenly bible beaters and going to church on sunday, but they are among those most likely to admit that it is a possibility, and one that maybe deserves more respect than it gets.
