Over an infinite amount of time, our universe, even if it runs out to a Skewes number of years (it won't BTW) still averages out to EXACTLY zero.

So what we perceive as 'something', from a long enough perspective, really is NOTHING.

{took awhile, but that actually is the correct answer}

(October 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 2:58 pm)datc Wrote: I find this unintelligible.

Sorry, what is so special about matter that requires it to be finite?

Just read Craig's book (Crossway Books, 1994), pp. 91-116.

---

Ok, he's got third edition out, so, it's starting p. 111, according to Google Books.

(October 26, 2014 at 5:16 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Sorry, what is so special about matter that requires it to be finite?

Just read Craig's book (Crossway Books, 1994), pp. 91-116.

---

Ok, he's got third edition out, so, it's starting p. 111, according to Google Books.

I urge you to read a book by someone who is actually qualified to have a credible explanation of matter, space, and time.

Craig's opinions on these matters aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

(October 26, 2014 at 5:16 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Sorry, what is so special about matter that requires it to be finite?

Just read Craig's book (Crossway Books, 1994), pp. 91-116.

---

Ok, he's got third edition out, so, it's starting p. 111, according to Google Books.

Fun fact, William Lane Craig is not a scientist.

Fun fact the second: William Lane Craig willfully misinterprets actual science so that it fits with what he wants to be true. There's a debate you can find between him and Sean Carrol, where Craig references a certain theorem (the Borde-Guth-Villenkin theorem, I believe) in support of his argument. Carrol, apparently being very well prepared, proceeds to show a video of Alan Guth, one of the writers of that theorem, who explicitly states on record that what Craig claims about his theorem is not what the theorem actually says.

One would expect that Craig would then admit the error, given that the man who wrote the paper obviously knows more about its contents than some layman.

Instead, Craig brushes him off: "That's just his opinion," was his argument, as if Craig's opinion on Alan Guth's work is more reputable than his own. He then accuses Guth of bias.

In short, why the hell should I care what Craig thinks about anything, when he's already demonstrated his lack of respect for facts?

In regards to the OP:

The question is unanswerable. We do not have an antithetical state of "nothingness" that is comparable to our current state of existence in which to frame an analysis upon. We only have this state of existence, it simply is. It's not even clear if there is a why.

In response to the OP.

Earth isn't everlasting. In about four billion years the sun will die and the earth will be toast.

And to the question of god, if he exists, why did he create such a vast universe, if earth was his only focus? Seems like an awful waste of time and energy.

(October 26, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Chas Wrote: Craig's opinions on these matters aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Craig is a philosopher, so read the philosophical part of argument. Since I'm not a natural scientist, I could neither confirm nor reject his physics-based stuff.

(October 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Chas Wrote: Craig's opinions on these matters aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Craig is a philosopher, so read the philosophical part of argument. Since I'm not a natural scientist, I could neither confirm nor reject his physics-based stuff.

He is a pre-suppositionalist and a dishonest debater. He ignores facts and makes shit up. I would not call him a philosopher, at least not a real one.

(October 26, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Chas Wrote: He is a pre-suppositionalist and a dishonest debater. He ignores facts and makes shit up. I would not call him a philosopher, at least not a real one.

Don't make me beg.

(October 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm)datc Wrote:

(October 26, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Chas Wrote: Craig's opinions on these matters aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Craig is a philosopher, so read the philosophical part of argument. Since I'm not a natural scientist, I could neither confirm nor reject his physics-based stuff.

He's an apologist: read about his "self-authenticating witness of the holy spirit" and then tell me how honest his approach to philosophy is.