Wasteful Intelligent Design

No it wasn't. It may have been what you meant to ask, but you didn't.Since you ask, the (fundamental) laws exist because there are only a finite number of varieties of (common, at least) fundamental particles. Higher-order laws again are the result of limited variety in nature.Saying that "laws of nature exist" is really just a (misleading) reification of this fact.But I'm keen to learn your explanation. Does it involve magic?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Bolder-dash asks: Bolder-dash is correct that no one has tried to explain why scientific laws exist in our universe, but that could be because that wasn't what he originally asked in Message 22: This can, of course, be interpreted in two ways. Is Bolder-dash asking the "why" of the belief that our universe has laws? That's what I think people thought he was asking.But he could instead have been asking the "why" of our universe having laws, and I think that's what he was actually getting at in this updated phrasing: Please, no replies to this message.

How can they not exist? Matter and energy has to interact somehow. The point being made is that there is not a deeper meaning in life that is intrinsic to the universe.

I can't remember what the name for the philosophical principle is but there is a position that simply states,"since we can ask the question "why do we exist" we can assume that there are the correct properties in place to allow us to exist"If someone can tell me what that's called and fix my wording that'd be super, but the same can be said of the laws of physics"why are there scientific laws? Because if there weren't you wouldn't be able to ask the question"(I'm really butchering this sentiment so I am sorry for that)

Sounds like the weak anthropic principle."Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld."
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

Thank u sir that is exactly what I was grasping at

Percy is wrong, and so are you. There is no way to interpret the following as asking why laws exist: My attempt at wording your question:"What's hard to understand is your (GrimSqueaker) answer to why laws exist."But then why is it inevitable that GrimSqueaker even needs an answer to such a question? I'm guessing that most atheists are not looking for the deeper meaning of life. I'm no atheist, but I don't give that question much thought either.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So this is the powerful intellect of EvC forum:I just get done having having an exchange with grimsqueaker talking about the existence of laws and order, I asked him if he thought that physical laws are the result of purposelessness. he says he can't see anything that can't be explained by laws and chance.So I say to him, "Yes, I get that you can't see anything that can't be explained by laws and chance." BUT "What's hard to understand is why you think there are laws." In other words, YES, there are laws, But WHY???And all of you deep thinking geniuses claim I didn't ask him why laws exist.(And Dr. A says it has to do with science. And Grim gives him a big thumbs up, haha)"Gee, how could he possibly have been asking why do laws exist? I just can't get it. "What a menagerie of dunces.

You didn't. You asked him why he thinks laws exist.It's not our fault that you can't express yourself clearly.Now that you've had a second run at it, you've got an answer to what you apparently meant to ask. You could maybe stop whining now?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The laws and general goldielocks nature of our reality is because the only observable realities are the ones which fit within the general scientific goldielocksnessness (oh yeah that's a word)Life, the universe and everything in it is violent, chaotic and utterly beautiful - to reduce it all to the whim of some alien enity is illogical and kinda depressing - truly the only answer is 42

Oh waa, waa, waa. Geez, what a great big baby you are. Is that all you do is whine? "Oh, how could I understand what you wrote, it was so unclear. You asked why does he think there are laws. I can't be expected to understand that, its not fair..I want my mommy, waaaa!"How does you wife put up with you incessant crying? Does she have to buy you a big pair of adult diapers?But I do agree, you can't be blamed if you can't understand simple English, you are just a series of chemical blunders afterall; purposeless, incapable of defining a standard for morality which coincides with a random meaningless existence, and only as smart as the carbon-filled mutations which flutter aimlessly through your skin filled bag of accidents. There hardly exists in there room for intrepid thought. Its really not your fault you need everything explained to you 3 times, with capitals, and minimal syllables. Fortunately you won't be insulted because you won't understand what I have written.

This is not helpful. Please desist.

And then you guys wonder why you can't get published in the mainstream scientific journals.