The problem with prayer.

[Cyberman]

We don't know enough about any initial conditions of the Universe to conclude that a quantum vacuum at that point isn't nothing

That’s a silly statement.

Well not really, because we literally don't have that information to the standard whereby models can be made with any confidence. We may never be able to, given that all laws of physics necessarily break down at the point of initiation. I'm expecting and hoping Alex will jump on me with regards to this, since he is far more specialised in this area, however I'm not completely unlearned myself.

In this context, nothing means the absence of all existence as such. In contrast to this, the quantum vacuum is nothing in relationship to what does exist, kinda like holes.

Right, but it seems we're talking past each other. Essentially what's happening is we're looking at an impassable mountain and you're saying there must be a river on the other side, because there's one on this side. Whereas I'm saying that we just don't know enough about the landscape beyond the mountain, even that there is one.

You're the one proposing these laws came from a god - make your case.

I proposed no such thing. I showed that physical laws are not brute facts.

They kind of are, until they encounter insanely extreme conditions, such as inside black holes or the birth of the Universe. But let's cut to the chase: where do you suppose these laws came from? And what supports your supposition?

If there are absolutes, primitives, and/or fundamentals, then at some point those who wonder must accept some things as brute facts. The issue at hand is this: has the chain of explanations gone as deeply as possible? The Principle of Sufficient Reason only applies until it doesn’t. As a general rule, atheists stop too early and send boys to do the tasks of men. They take some things as brute facts, like quantum vacuum, even though those things do not satisfy the criteria for fundamentals.

And superintelligent beings with literally zero external evidence for their very existence do? [satisfy the criteria for a fundamental]

I’ve heard the ‘zero evidence’ bromide so many times I put the evidence in my signature. But in answer to your question, yes, the God of Classical Theism adequately satisfies the criteria of a fundamental: fully in act, efficacious, necessary, non-contingent, simple, etc.

Great, so you have a conclusion defined to supply a testable explanation. Now follow it through - investigate whether it accurately follows observation. Imagine how many murders would be attributed to Smurfs if detectives simply stopped after the first part.

The conclusion that reality existed before time began.

Scripture says nothing about whether reality existed before time.

GC said it did and that this could be discerned from scripture; I'm simply trying to follow his line.