[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

 [Micah]
> We have evidence of A - the universe exists.
> We have absolutely no evidence of B - [nothingness] exists.

 [Ham]:
> From a conceptual viewpoint, you must first determine
> what it is that "exists".

[Craig]:
> What is this "determining what it is that 'exists'" which
> must preceed evidence of what exists?

Evidence is meaningless without a concept of the truth it is assumed to 
support.  It is only an indicator, like an arrow pointing to something else. 
You can collect all the evidence in the world and not prove a thing. 
Existence is what we call any thing and everything that we experience, 
including the gaps or voids (nothingness) that separates them.

[Ham, previously]:
> [Nothingness existing] is self-contradictory by definition.

[Craig]:
> Suppose the universe consists of an equal number of + & -
> particles.  One by one they collide & annilate each other.
> Can our language guarantee that the last + particle cannot
> collide with that last - particle?

Language is not a guarantee of anything.  It is the tool of communication, 
useful for expressing ideas and concepts.  But it is not the idea or concept 
itself.  I fear this is not understood by many here.

[dmb]:
> Why couldn't the universe come into existence from something
> other than the universe?

[Ham, previously]:
> ... it happens to be the creation hypothesis I constructed for Essence.

[Craig]:
> But what evidence could you have for this "something
> other than the universe"?

A metaphysical hypothesis is not based on physical evidence.  If it were, it 
wouldn't be a hypothesis but an empirical fact.  That's why we have 
philosophers like Pirsig and Priday offering concepts that can't be "proved" 
in the scientific sense.

--Ham