Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen?

OK, if the universe works randomly, then where do hard and fast laws come from?  I can understand randomness producing what we interpret as general patterns but not precise laws.  In theory, that should leave room for anomalies.  What I meant was that loose patterns have become interpreted as laws when in fact they are not.

Even randomness itself is a kind of 'law' in that it forms a pattern which can be described according to some sort of mathematical principle.

OK, if the universe works randomly, then where do hard and fast laws come from?  I can understand randomness producing what we interpret as general patterns but not precise laws.  In theory, that should leave room for anomalies.  What I meant was that loose patterns have become interpreted as laws when in fact they are not.

Why do you suppose the universe works randomly? Consider if it worked randomly there would be an expectation you could or parts of you could vanished in a burst of EM radiation at any time. Or anything could including the universe itself. I don't think you have that expectation.
I think "patterns" is not the accurate word. With that in mind let's say that every time we see any particular pattern the pattern never varies. If it never varies the it is defined as a law. There are lots of laws from where nobody knows.

Relevant to what you wrote too. The physical constants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constants

.
I'm a Christian, I don't think the universe works randomly but I am having difficulty understanding a materialistic/atheist perspective that either involves randomness producing laws or doesn't involve randomness as it's primary function.  If there is no conscious organizer, where does the order come from?

Quite a mystery isn't it. Look at it this way. Science pushes away the veil of mystery. So far we've been able to explain this universe without inserting God, gods or a conscious organizer.

Quite a mystery isn't it. Look at it this way. Science pushes away the veil of mystery. So far we've been able to explain this universe without inserting God, gods or a conscious organizer.

Nah, we haven't explained diddly squat.
We have a tiny model which is mostly inadequate, with big holes, pretty inelegant, and which is missing the vast majority of what we estimate is "out there". (Not to mention what falls outside our tentative estimations).

Sure we can be proud of it, and it's better than ever, but let's not get too carried away.

Nah, we haven't explained diddly squat.
We have a tiny model which is mostly inadequate, with big holes, pretty inelegant, and which is missing the vast majority of what we estimate is "out there". (Not to mention what falls outside our tentative estimations).

Sure we can be proud of it, and it's better than ever, but let's not get too carried away.

The irony is apparent when anyone makes such a statement using a sophisticated electronic device. You're not the first or the last to do that.

Quite a mystery isn't it. Look at it this way. Science pushes away the veil of mystery. So far we've been able to explain this universe without inserting God, gods or a conscious organizer.

What? What exactly have we explained in complete detail? 

Ummm. Almost nothing.

Big bang? 
Time?
Gravity?
Why speed of light?
Multiple dimensions?
The nature of matter?
The nature of consciousness?
The extent of the universe?
The nature of life and death?

Yeah, we haven't inserted God,,, but we also have discovered diddly.

I'm not saying God is need to explain anything, but you have GOT to be kidding me...

What? What exactly have we explained in complete detail? 

Ummm. Almost nothing.

Big bang? 
Time?
Gravity?
Why speed of light?
Multiple dimensions?
The nature of matter?
The nature of consciousness?
The extent of the universe?
The nature of life and death?

Yeah, we haven't inserted God,,, but we also have discovered diddly.

I'm not saying God is need to explain anything, but you have GOT to be kidding me...

I never implied there aren't things to discover. I implied we know more than people like you two are acknowledging.

The irony is apparent when anyone makes such a statement using a sophisticated electronic device. You're not the first or the last to do that.

There's no irony Steve.

Science has, and continues, to do an exceptional job while swimming in its lane (e.g., discoveries that fueled the engineering which allows us to communicate via these electronic devices).  This insistence that it can swim in other lanes (e.g., explaining consciousness, explaining why there are natural laws at all, etc.) is not scientific.  Science may,  ultimately, expand its lane to explain some/all of these things, but there is no "science" to base this upon.  Many scientists concede this quite comfortably.

It is striking how dogmatic and faith based folks can sound while insisting they are purely science oriented.

I never implied there aren't things to discover. I implied we know more than people like you two are acknowledging.

Of course you realize that statement is meaningless. Unless I were to recite a list of EVERYTHING we know, you could make that statement.

OK, but less pedantically: most of what we know is how stuff seems to interact.... We know very, very, little about the fundamental nature of anything...  And your statement seems completely oblivious to that fact. And I am assuming intentionally so. Or, maybe not.. ??