[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[Krimel]

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.