274
Question
If a piece of matter violates nature's law, it is not punished because _____.
If a piece of matter violates nature's law, it is not punished because _____.
Open in App
Solution
The correct option is A There is no superior being to enforce the law of nature.
Option B: It's mentioned in the passage, "Laws of nature are not commands but statements of acts. The use of the word "law" in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature."
These statements mean that laws of nature are not rules by which a living being has to abide. Laws of nature are laws of physics, biology and all other sciences, which are studied and deduced by man. They are mere descriptions of the way the world is and the pattern in which the world functions.
If any living or non-living being violates a law of nature, it isn't punished, because there is no 'lawgiver' for laws of nature, as mentioned in the line "This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver". This sentence means that it's a false statement that there is someone or something that gives these laws, which means that there is no superior being that enforces these laws of nature.
This statement is mentioned in option B, hence it's the correct option.
Option A is incorrect because this statement means that laws of nature exist as rules or requirements that one obeys or fulfills and that one is not bound to obey them. But to begin with, these are not 'laws', but our perception of how nature exists: "The use of the word "law" in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature."
Option C is incorrect because it's not mentioned in the passage that the piece of matter 'can not be punished'.
Option D is incorrect because this statement is an addition to the previous one, as mentioned here: "On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly stated." The phrase 'on the contrary' means 'in contrast with'. It does not mean that the piece of matter is not punished because the law has been stated incorrectly.
Option B: It's mentioned in the passage, "Laws of nature are not commands but statements of acts. The use of the word "law" in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature."
These statements mean that laws of nature are not rules by which a living being has to abide. Laws of nature are laws of physics, biology and all other sciences, which are studied and deduced by man. They are mere descriptions of the way the world is and the pattern in which the world functions.
If any living or non-living being violates a law of nature, it isn't punished, because there is no 'lawgiver' for laws of nature, as mentioned in the line "This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a lawgiver". This sentence means that it's a false statement that there is someone or something that gives these laws, which means that there is no superior being that enforces these laws of nature.
This statement is mentioned in option B, hence it's the correct option.
Option A is incorrect because this statement means that laws of nature exist as rules or requirements that one obeys or fulfills and that one is not bound to obey them. But to begin with, these are not 'laws', but our perception of how nature exists: "The use of the word "law" in this context is rather unfortunate. It would be better to speak of uniformities in nature."
Option C is incorrect because it's not mentioned in the passage that the piece of matter 'can not be punished'.
Option D is incorrect because this statement is an addition to the previous one, as mentioned here: "On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly stated." The phrase 'on the contrary' means 'in contrast with'. It does not mean that the piece of matter is not punished because the law has been stated incorrectly.
Suggest Corrections
0
Similar questions
View More
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
Explore more
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
