Replies

He believes that the universe took its beginning from a random fluctuation in a false vacuum: On his view, that is the prima causa of all that there is. But there is no explanation of where the false vacuum came from; i.e., its cause is not accounted for. So in effect he really is ignoring the problem the first cause. But without a first cause, space and time would not exist, as A-G has pointed out; and so there could not even be a false vacuum in which a random fluctuation could occur: space and time are prerequisite.

This reminds me of the argument that is presented against ID/creation. If IDers/creationists can't tell where the Intelligent designer/God came from, then they have nothing valid to say. Yet a naturalist cannot even tell where the universe came from, so ends up being in a similar postiion, yet expects to have others accept what he says as valid and needing no other support but the evidence of the world itself that we see.

If the same standard were applied to both sides of the issue, then there would be the situation where niether point of veiw is valid, or the naturalist would be forced to concede that the IDers/creationists have something after all.

Yet a naturalist cannot even tell where the universe came from, so ends up being in a similar postiion, yet expects to have others accept what he says as valid and needing no other support but the evidence of the world itself that we see.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Great insight, metmom!