There's a difference between the ontological reality of abstract concepts and their practical application in formal reasoning. You don't have to be a Platonist to understand why "I've never observed 'nothing,' therefore I cannot talk about it" is a poor train of thought. Again, think of the perfect circle.
QuoteThe arbiter here is observation, and observation should inform our views, and so "nothing" should be empirically based, and we never observe the kind of nothing that Craig imagines.This is simply a package of assertions. Why is empirical observation the "arbiter" for metaphysical questions? Why should we define "nothing" as something?
The arbiter here is observation, and observation should inform our views, and so "nothing" should be empirically based, and we never observe the kind of nothing that Craig imagines.
QuoteYou seem to be saying that we can't trust our senses because they evolved. Let's say that we are all just dancing to our DNA. How does it follow that we therefore can't know/discover what is true?One could discover truth on this view. Nevertheless there is no real way to rationally affirm what one believes is the truth, so any real correlation between a claim and the actual truth of matters would be purely coincidental.
You seem to be saying that we can't trust our senses because they evolved. Let's say that we are all just dancing to our DNA. How does it follow that we therefore can't know/discover what is true?
All right, but so what? How does this go anywhere to show we can know what is true, on this view?
But that just already assumes we can know what is true, and that's the assumption I am challenging. On this evolution view being purported, we believe/ we get what's essentially given to us by evolution. Evolution, as I understand it, selects for survival value, not necessarily truth value. If this then, we can't possibly rationally affirm the truth value of something, because at bottom, evolution has selected some particular belief for us to have so we can survive, not because it was true. Truth would just be a happy coincidence we'd never truly know about.
But see the salient point here is that you are presuming all this as true, only because evolution has dictated these beliefs (of alleged "truth") to you. Any affirmation of what you believe things "are," is just an excrescence of biological evolution, not something you have rationally considered and worked through.
but it may be impossible for absolutely nothing to exist.
Science is not complete...it may well be that an element of logic becomes necessary for science to have a comprehensive explanation...but to say these are unanswerable through an entirely naturalistic explanation is, at this point, premature.
But this logical dilemma has absolutely measureable consequences...and science can observe the consequences without necessarily being able to observe, or at this point even propose, the actual thing that is causing those consequences.
So...I wouldn't say that a naturalistic viewpoint has no answer to these questions...but that the answer has not yet been clearly determined.
But we clearly have a very observable, measureable existence here. And we are observing some interesting things at the quantum level that are not inconsistent with the proposition that "nothing" may have measurable consequences.