GK: I am grateful David for your honesty. It seems to me that you mean no malice when you state something. And are seeking some answers that are tricky to communicate in the forum format. Good bye. Till we meet again that is.-You are truly a gentleman. Thank you for the time you have given us. We appreciate your views.

ROMANSH (to David): Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does
> Is this not an argument from incredulity?
> Wiki
> and
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
> 
> dhw: The "incredulity" argument is most frequently used in a derogatory way by atheists (the link example is typical) who don't realize they are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes of course the design argument goes together with disbelief in the ability of chance to create the complexities of life and consciousness. And by the same token, when a theist points out that humans have failed to explain, let alone replicate any of these complexities, which suggests that they have been designed by an intelligence even greater than that of humans, the atheist will express his incredulity at the very idea of such a creative, non-human mind. And the incredulous atheist will probably not even realize that if he does succeed in explaining and replicating all these complexities, and duly collects his Nobel Prize, he will only have demonstrated that it requires immense intelligence to do so. Nobody knows the truth. So what is the "incredulity" argument meant to prove?-Yes, the complexity is what makes chance so incredible. As dhw so aptly points out, it is a simple dichotomy of chance vs. design. And simply put, logic tells us the more complexity is found the less chance for chance.


> Romansh: So for you ... God is the underlying force/mechanism/energy that is behind all quantum events?
> 
> Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does
> 
> Is this not an argument from incredulity?-In a sense it is, but the other consideration is the only other alternative is chance, and the impossibly enormous odds of that succeeding to produce our reality directs me to the need for an intelligence. The multiverse, unproveable hysteria strenghtens my view, as it is a theoretical answer to get around the problem chance presents.

When we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with a quantum event? [For a quantum scientist]
> 
> Fair enough-So for you ... God is the underlying force/mechanism/energy that is behind all quantum events?-Your general argument for god is that you cannot see how a universe unfolds as it does-Is this not an argument from incredulity?-Wiki
and
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

All I am proposing, and I can't imagine what is in Krause's mind,-> Romansh: Fair enough-> > is that there has never been a true nothing, that some sort of energy must be eternal, because it is impossible to get something from a true nothing. Since the universe has a complex interactive zoo of quantum particles, an intelligence put that together to work to form a universe which supports life. I'm simply working backward from what we know. I think his definition does not take this view into account, because his thinking is that he must maintain an atheist position. By starting with a quantum potentiality, he can use it to perturb his way to this universe, making it all chance, no teleology. My view is I cannot conceive of the result of sentient humans as a chance phenomenon.
> 
> Romansh: So when we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with god? [For you]
> 
> When we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with a quantum event? [For a quantum scientist]-Fair enough

All I am proposing, and I can't imagine what is in Krause's mind,
Fair enough
> is that there has never been a true nothing, that some sort of energy must be eternal, because it is impossible to get something from a true nothing. Since the universe has a complex interactive zoo of quantum particles, an intelligence put that together to work to form a universe which supports life. I'm simply working backward from what we know. I think his definition does not take this view into account, because his thinking is that he must maintain an atheist position. By starting with a quantum potentiality, he can use it to perturb his way to this universe, making it all chance, no teleology. My view is I cannot conceive of the result of sentient humans as a chance phenomenon.-So when we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with god? [For you]-When we strip away all of a materialist something we are left with a quantum event? [For a quantum scientist]


> Romansh: So you don't believe in some absolute nothing and neither does Krause?
> 
> He defines nothing as some quantum phenomena and you define it as god.-All I am proposing, and I can't imagine what is in Krause's mind, is that there has never been a true nothing, that some sort of energy must be eternal, because it is impossible to get something from a true nothing. Since the universe has a complex interactive zoo of quantum particles, an intelligence put that together to work to form a universe which supports life. I'm simply working backward from what we know. I think his definition does not take this view into account, because his thinking is that he must maintain an atheist position. By starting with a quantum potentiality, he can use it to perturb his way to this universe, making it all chance, no teleology. My view is I cannot conceive of the result of sentient humans as a chance phenomenon.

David: I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how.
> > > 
> > > So?
> > Romansh: When we are talking about true nothings and other metaphysical nonsense, then my opinion, Krause's, yours or those of your favourite philosophers then they are all equally valid or nonsense [take your pick]
> > 
> > If we are talking about a quantum nothing ... I am sorry I will take Krause's over yours anyday.
> 
> Krause's quantum nothing is something. I've agreed to that. It is Krause's suggestion that it is really nothing that is nonsense.-So you don't believe in some absolute nothing and neither does Krause?-He defines nothing as some quantum phenomena and you define it as god.

David: I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how.
> > 
> > So?
> Romansh: When we are talking about true nothings and other metaphysical nonsense, then my opinion, Krause's, yours or those of your favourite philosophers then they are all equally valid or nonsense [take your pick]
> 
> If we are talking about a quantum nothing ... I am sorry I will take Krause's over yours anyday.-Krause's quantum nothing is something. I've agreed to that. It is Krause's suggestion that it is really nothing that is nonsense.

David: I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how.
> 
> So?
When we are talking about true nothings and other metaphysical nonsense, then my opinion, Krause's, yours or those of your favourite philosophers then they are all equally valid or nonsense [take your pick]-If we are talking about a quantum nothing ... I am sorry I will take Krause's over yours anyday.

GK: I think forum discussions will never be enough at the dept you guys seem to go. When I sit with people at a table, we draw lots of diagrams, clarify, and laugh.-Do your discussions really clarify, or just entertain? I'm not being crtical, but I'd like to point that we are really trying to reach some truths. Please try with us.


> Romansh: But similarly ... my view of god is as valid as yours, GKs or DHWs.-Of course it is. So?
> 
> Romansh:And this takes me to the question (Simon Blackburn's) I mentioned before ... Why is nothing our default state?-I've said there was always something. We cannot get our universe from a true nothing. Unless you can demonsrate how.-Let me add my philosophers opinions:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/pale_small_sill057841.html-Feser is one of my favorite guys: He always makes sense for me:-http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing

I know Krauss' position and he has been laughed at by a number of philosophers. He thinks getting a universe from a quantum perturbation in a virtual quantum vacuum is something from nothing. A spacetime quantum vacuum with things poppng in and out of our existence is not nothing. Nothing is an absolute void, which I believe has never existed. There has always been something to answer Leibniz' question.-Ahh 
There are philosophers who are knowledgeable about nothing that laugh at Kraus.-OK that is a definite play on words.-But similarly ... my view of god is as valid as yours, GKs or DHWs.-The mistake philosophers make is they entertain metaphysical concepts ... like the nothing that (your) philosophers laugh at. My philosophers would take Kraus's idea with interest.-And this takes me to the question (Simon Blackburn's) I mentioned before ... Why is nothing our default state?-Nothing is an absolute void
Ignoring the play on words that is available to me ... a valiant attempt, but a fail in my opinion.

dhw: And is it really so illogical to assume that a designing intelligence is unlikely to let its designing intelligence do absolutely nothing for eternity until 13.7 billion years ago? -No, I have said in some recednt entry that we may have this energy/mind (God) producing one universe after another.
> 
> dhw: Either way, I don't see how you can classify the production of a universe as anything but an event, in which case ... even though humans were not around ... the same criteria would apply. If your God was not a total non-entity, it is perfectly feasible according to your own arguments that there may have been events and time before earthtime.-Of course, I agree. But not time in our sense of following time by seeing subsequent events.

David: I don't know where you are. Even in quantum theory, you don't get something from nothing.
> 
> Romansh:Describe nothing to me.
> 
> http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1203-I know Krauss' position and he has been laughed at by a number of philosophers. He thinks getting a universe from a quantum perturbation in a virtual quantum vacuum is something from nothing. A spacetime quantum vacuum with things poppng in and out of our existence is not nothing. Nothing is an absolute void, which I believe has never existed. There has always been something to answer Leibniz' question.

David It depends on the definition of nothing. You cannot get something from a true nothing.
> > 
> > Romansh: David, that might be true if we interpret our existence in a seventeenth century interpretation of physics or an even older theology.
> 
> I don't know where you are. Even in quantum theory, you don't get something from nothing.-Describe nothing to me.-http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1203