[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

Craig --


 [Ham, previously]:
> I'm looking for logical validation of a principle ("Nothing comes from
> nothing") that is just as true to the empiricist as it is to the 
> philosopher.

[Craig]:
> But if it really is an EMPIRICAL principle, then it doesn't have (nor do
> you want it to have) a LOGICAL validation.  What gets validated
> logically are INFERENCES (i.e., connections between statements or
> between premises & conclusions.)  The only single statements that logic
> deals with are tautologies & self-contradictions.  No respectable logic
> book will treat "Nothing comes from nothing" as a tautology.  If it did
> then that tautology will be worthless as an empirical statement.

We have no empirical knowledge of what led to the origin of the universe, 
and since the "big bang" theory presupposes energy in flux prior to its 
creation, it is erroneous to call it the beginning of existence.  I have no 
problem with your description of logic's function.  But 'ex nihilo nihil 
fit' is neither a tautology nor a self-contradicition.  It is a valid 
principle (premise), the contradiction of which is fallacious.  The logic of 
this principle can be demonstrated by the following syllogism:

    A.  Nothing comes from nothing.
    B.  The universe is not nothing.
    C.  Hence, the universe did not come from nothing.

[Ham, previously]:
> The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be
> created nor destroyed; therefore the sum of all the energies in a system
> is a constant. Does this mean that if we look long enough, we'll find a
> system that violates this law?

[Craig]:
> No, but it does mean that if we don't find the sum of all the energies
> in a system is a constant, we'll keep looking.

That's because the laws of Science are open to contradiction, as are all 
"true" principles.  However, I do not expect to see the principle "nothing 
comes from nothing" disputed by the scientific community anytime soon.
Do you?

--Ham