[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[Ham Priday]

Craig --

[Ham]:
> Coming into existence is the problem for philosophy, not
> what happens to a particle.

[Craig]:
> But is coming into existence something that happens to a particle?

Well, unless a particle is a figment of your mind, it must come into 
existence.  If it exists in your mind, then you must have come into 
existence in order to possess a mind.  In either case, whatever exists has 
to be, and being (at least in the finite sense that we experience it) cannot 
arise from nothing.  That's the logic of 'ex nihilo, nihil fit".

 [Craig]:
> I don't see it as a matter of logic, much less anything irrefutable,
> Latin notwithstanding.

[Ham]:
> So, where does your positive particle come from?

[Craig]:
> Where, indeed?  That's the question that needs to be investigated.
> We say that a statue is created from a lump of clay or that two bosons
> collide to create an electron-positron pair.  But what if you have 
> something
> that you can't find what it was created from?  Will you take that as a
> counter-example or will you insist that there must be a source as yet
> undiscovered (& on what basis)?

I don't understand the point of this line of questioning.  I'm asking where 
existence comes from.  What is your "counter-example"?  A lump of clay?  Two 
bosons?  Everything in existence comes into being at some point in time.  If 
it all starts with a Big Bang, something had to produce the bang.  (I hope 
you're not going to tell me that Quality created it.)

--Ham