Monday, December 6, 2010

L 5.29

On p. 90, Loftus takes a stab a answering the most fundamental question that non-theists are unable to answer; why there is something rather than nothing. He continues that “David Ramsay Steele questions why nonexistence is the default view”. In response, nonexistence isn’t the default view. The method is to put the two options on the table, nothing at all or the existence of something (namely this universe), and ask why one is the case as opposed to the other.

Loftus adds Stenger’s comment that “only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained.” What Stenger doesn’t explain is how someone could substantiate such a statement. How does anyone know that nothingness would require God’s constant action? God doesn’t have to create anything which would seem to suggest that nothingness could easily be perpetuated if God so desired. Why does nothingness have to be maintained? What would be required to maintain nothingness, if anything at all? Stenger continues that “The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God”. This conclusion rests on the assumption that nothingness requires divine intervention. As was just stated, there is no way for someone to substantiate the assumption. Therefore, the conclusion rests on a foundation of aether. Loftus also makes the comment on p. 91 that nothingness is unstable. It’s perplexing how that could be because it’s nothing. There is nothing for instability to reside in or rest upon. There is nothing to be unstable.

No comments: