Craig asks: > Which is a better explanation of why there is > something rather than nothing: > a) something appears out of nowhere/nothing > or > b) something always existed?
Krimel answers: > How about? > c) Mu Ham sputters: This is the fallback position of the nihilist. If something can't be explained in terms of experience, it's not worth bothering about. [Krimel] Actually, it suggests that when presented with options but no possibility of resolving them we should suspend judgment or unask the question. [Ham] Krimel sees no distinction between potentiality and probability. He's an active participant in a philosophy forum, yet he doesn't find the primary source of reality a compelling issue. [Krimel] I do not think you have made a distinction between potentiality and probability. What I don't find compelling or even sensible are your arguments in which conclusions flow from phantom premises. Marsha described her difficulty in reading your book. Frankly, I can't make it through your online term paper where you make unsubstantiated proclamations and then say therefore... But then, as I have said, I have this allergy... [Ham] I have been working on this dilemma for half a century and consider it the fundamental issue in philosophy. [Krimel] There is a difference between having 50 years of experience and having had one year of experience 50 times. There is no point in addressing the rest of your comments other than to point out to anyone else reading this, that they illustrate my point wonderfully. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
