Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haven" data-source="post: 137214" data-attributes="member: 5537">Lennox’s argument leans heavily on the notion that “nothing” means a total absence of anything — metaphysically and physically. But in modern physics, “nothing” often refers to a quantum vacuum or a pre-spacetime state governed by laws. When physicists like Lawrence Krauss talk about a universe from “nothing,” they usually mean a ground state with no matter or classical space-time, but still describable by quantum fields or mathematical structure.So when Lennox sets up the premise:he’s blending scientific models with metaphysical speculation and calling it "standard philosophical reasoning." That’s a conflation. It’s not that his reasoning is irrational; it’s that it presents a false dichotomy: either absolute nothing, or God. This omits a range of naturalistic models under active investigation.You also claim Lennox is merely making a “fair inference.” But let’s be precise. Lennox infers a supernatural cause not from evidence, but from an absence of confirmed naturalistic explanations. This is classic God-of-the-gaps reasoning: “Science hasn’t explained X (yet), therefore it’s reasonable to infer God.” That’s not philosophically invalid, but it’s logically tenuous. Lack of explanation is not evidence for a particular explanation — especially not one that introduces a being with infinite properties (uncaused, necessary, timeless, etc.) without any independent justification.Dismissing models like quantum fluctuations, eternal inflation, or the multiverse as “evidence-less fantasies” is misleading. These models are not myths; they’re grounded in mathematics and consistent with parts of quantum field theory and general relativity. They are speculative, yes — but so is any metaphysical claim about what preceded the Big Bang. The difference is that scientific models are testable in principle and often evolve in light of data. Theistic metaphysics, on the other hand, is immune to falsification.You note that infinite regress is seen as problematic and thus propose a necessary, uncaused cause — God. But this is where the philosophical debate really lies. Why must the necessary being be a personal deity, as Lennox suggests? Why not a timeless quantum field? Or a self-existing set of physical laws? If we accept that something must be necessary and uncaused, we don’t automatically land on the Christian God. That’s a leap — and it’s one Lennox often smuggles into the discussion without defending rigorously.</blockquote>

Name

Verification: Does Doxxie know his real father.

Latest Threads

How Dangerous is Israel?
- Started by Anderson
- Today at 4:04 AM
- Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
- Started by Anderson
- Yesterday at 3:29 PM
- Replies: 76
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
- Started by Jay Homer Simpson
- Yesterday at 12:30 PM
- Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
- Started by BelfastRatepayer
- Saturday at 12:59 PM
- Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
RTE and Virgin - 2 Cheeks of the same.....
- Started by Anderson
- Friday at 3:46 AM
- Replies: 11
Nationalist Politics

Popular Threads

Ukraine.
- Started by Declan
- Feb 21, 2022
- Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
- Started by jpc
- Nov 7, 2022
- Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
- Started by Anderson
- Feb 26, 2023
- Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
- Started by Charlene
- Sep 14, 2021
- Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
- Started by Declan
- Dec 30, 2024
- Replies: 2K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
- Started by Anderson
- Jul 29, 2022
- Replies: 2K
Climate Change