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 of nature. This would do away with the elementary fallacy that a law implies a law-giver. If a piece of matter does not obey a law of nature it is not punished. On the contrary, we say that the law has been incorrectly state.

Laws of nature differ from man-made laws because:

A. The former states facts of nature

B. They must be obeyed

C. They are natural

D. Unlike human laws, they are systematic

The author is not happy with the word ‘law’ because:

A. It connotes rigidity and harshness

B. It implies an agency which has made them

C. It does not convey the sense of nature’s uniformity

D. It gives rise to false beliefs

If a piece of matter violates nature’s law, it is not punished because:

A. It is not binding to obey it

B. There is no superior being to enforce the law of nature

C. It cannot be punished

D. It simply means that the facts have not been correctly stated by the law

The laws of nature based on observation are:

A. Conclusive about the nature of the universe

B. True and unfalsifiable

C. Figment of the observer’s imagination

D. Subject to change in the light of new facts