Black holes

Ok, what is your specialization if I may ask?
And also regarding the wonders of creation - some of the laws do have an explanation, don't they? Let's say like natural selection, which is something that gradually evolved into more and more complicated laws according to what was gradually created

You can know, but it probably won't tell you anything: quantum phenomena in the solid state (mesoscopic systems).
I don't know what an explanation of the laws of nature means. In terms of what would you like to explain them? In terms of more fundamental laws? These are the laws and that's it. Natural selection does not develop the laws of nature. On the contrary, it operates within them. The creatures develop, not the laws.

It really doesn't say too much…
So what are you actually saying that the laws themselves are simply defined and we as humans try to describe and understand them, but don't you think there is something justified, let's say on the part of atheists who say that there is no reason to assume that someone created, coded them in such a different way and right now we have to remain in a state of not knowing until we understand (or don't understand) as if in my opinion it is very logical that there is someone who created or designed and so on, in my opinion this is a completely rational position because you conclude based on what you know and see but on the other hand there is also room for what they say that you don't have to “choose” in this option and they prefer to remain in the position of what can be tested, tested and understood and what will not remain as a question until if we manage to understand and there is really no reason to behave or draw conclusions that change an entire lifestyle just because it seems logical to me, there is a difference between it being possible and logical and believing in it and even more so to behave according to it which is even stronger than just believing that maybe someone created

I said there is no explanation for the laws of nature. These are facts because that is how it is. Unless there is a law that is not fundamental but derived from another law, but the fundamental laws of nature do not and cannot have an explanation.
The atheists' question is a different question, unrelated to the previous one. This is what is called the "God of the Gaps". At the end of the column that just appeared a few hours ago (on Popper and Rabbi Akiva) I explained why their claim is incorrect. This is a fundamental gap that is not supposed to be closed, and therefore we cannot wait and assume that it will be closed in the future.

Yes, I am familiar with the concept (the god of gaps) but in my opinion the main argument is that if we don't know then we don't know and we shouldn't assume or propose another solution if it is not well demonstrated.
They also don't assume that it might be closed in the future, even if things are not understood in the future their argument is still valid because no satisfactory alternative explanation has yet been presented, for them it is that we don't know how or if these laws were created (maybe they are eternal) that shouldn't give you the option to put God behind them because there is no explanation, much more is needed besides just no explanation, this is my argument

According to this fascinating way of thinking, nothing can be proven by negation. Even if you have proven that X is not true, you might also know that “not X” is not true? If explanation B is better than A’ this does not mean that B should be accepted. Maybe A is true? From here on, all science and philosophy can be closed.
For example, if you found that two bodies with mass attract each other, you might know that two other bodies will not attract each other? Just as the principle of causality cannot be established in general, so the law of gravity cannot be established in general.
I already have a wealth of experience with atheistic evasions, more or less elegant, when they meet logical arguments. This is the path of every religious sect. Apologetics is a candle to its feet, and no argument will confuse it. What's most beautiful is that they accuse believers of religious fanaticism and closed-mindedness (not always unjustly, of course). Good luck to us.

Your way of thinking is no less fascinating, but you are making a fool of yourself because the logic they offer is not - "If explanation B is better than A", that does not mean that B should be accepted. For the sake of the matter, there are explanations and descriptions of the force of gravity, so great, we accept it. It is good enough even though we do not understand everything about it. In contrast, God's explanation, in their opinion, is not enough because not much can be said about it. There is no consistent method. It cannot be measured, examined, and has no effect (does not intervene in the world). It is very different from the force of gravity, which we do not see, but we can examine, describe, define, and see its effect on the world. It is even possible to use it in different ways for different purposes. So there is room for acceptance.
God, according to the claim and definitions they have set, does not meet the criteria for accepting it as an explanation.
And you know what - they also claim something stronger - not only is it not enough to accept it, but even if they accept it, it creates more questions, think about it - another world, another dimension, a whole system, language, so to speak, you have to stop because you are moving from the stage of explanations to the stage of imagination, and I don't think they are big fans of the field...

I'm really not playing a straw man. My argument is that there is something that created all this goodness (= the world). The alternative is that there is none. The first option is not an explanation but a conclusion. I didn't come to explain anything, but rather it is a conclusion from the fact that something complex exists here and a complex thing did not come into being by itself. The alternative they choose is that there is no explanation and also not to draw the conclusion. This is exactly the move I described above.
But it seems to me that the positions have been clarified and everyone will choose.