Quote:You're missing some crucial points. If physics is going to redefine nothing to actually be something, then it's an obvious equivocation fallacy to say that physics shows that the universe came from "nothing" when an apologist asks why anything exists. The apologist is obviously using "nothing" in a way the physicist isn't. This is why people like Krauss are totally full of shit on this topic.
You're misunderstanding Craig. He's saying it's a logical contradiction to say something can come from nothing (at least without a cause) because "nothing" has no properties, which means it has no potentiality for creation.
Interesting take.
For me its entirely the opposite. Its WCL that's full of it. Whilst he says you can't get something from nothing he claims God made the universe from nothing which is the ex-nihilo creation with an efficient cause (AKA Magic).
One of the biggest problems of QM is that our logic fails. This doesn't mean QM is wrong merely that our logic is more dependent on conditions than might have been obvious. In a scenario where time itself may not exist our brains can't make sense of it.
This logic failure is not only true of QM. Give me the logic of time going more slowly with speed. How does time know how fast I am going?
That defining nothing is proving a lot more difficult that we had imagined is hardly the fault of the physicists. Not all that long ago everyone would have agreed that nothing meant no thing. Are fields things? Is energy a thing? Are fundamental rules a thing? A vacuum used to be nothing and that contains much of the above and then some.
What it appears that the physicists are really saying is that true nothing (whatever that is) cannot exist. That it therefore appears to be "unstable." That particles and sub-particles are continuously popping in and out of existence.
The last part, if true, immediately gives you something from nothing.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
