Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Tremblay contra Craig Meeker , Brent Jun 20, 2004
Francois Tremblay points to several flaws in Craig's Kalam argument. But one is dubious; that nothing can come nothing is a logical truth. That may be in some formal system of mathematics or logic, but the argument isn't about formal systems but rather about physical existence. Can something physical come from physical nothing? We haven't observed that and, as Tremblay notes, conservation of energy is a well established principle of physics. But that doesn't mean that you can't get something from nothing. As a quick perusal of recent cosmogony papers on arXiv.org will show, many theoretical calculations of the total energy of the universe find the value to be zero. The negative potential energy of gravity balances the positive energy of matter. So it may well be that something, in fact everything, came from nothing. All that we see is just "nothing" rearranged.

Brent Meeker
Related Articles: Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise

Title Author Date
Tremblay contra Craig Tremblay, Francois Jun 28, 2004
Your point is well-taken, but I already agree that particles can emerge from an total energy of zero. I am referring to a metaphysical nothing, not just an absence of some specific property. Thank you for your comment.

Francois Tremblay
Related Articles: Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise