Joe N says (of Paul Davies): > So, if you can emotionally get past his comparison of science to religion, the question remains: Are the laws of nature explainable in some way, or must we just take them as an unexplainable given?
R Hansen answers: >Cool, ignoring all of that other stuff he said, the answer to the question is ?No?, at least not scientifically. <snip> Otherwise known as the Hansen principle of Just Is.:)
So, there is no explaining them, they just are?
That sounds a lot like one of the names for the Jewish God (WP): I Am that I Am (??????? ?????? ???????, ?ehyeh ?a?er ?ehyeh [?eh?je ?a??er ?eh?je]) is a common English translation (JPS among others) of the response God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:14. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be", with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition.
We could also compare it to the opening of John's Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1).
Its certainly not too far-fetched to see close affinity between this use of logos and eternal, universal law. The usual modern term "law" itself, may be the poorer choice, in fact, if one got down to particulars.
One of the very sad facts of the perennial atheist/science/religion debates is the atheist side is generally attacking some ridiculously simplistic strawman of religious conceptions of God.