I think what we need to keep in mind here is that by nothing, we don't mean 'something'. Its not as though there was a state of nothingness prior to the origin of the universe and the universe popped into being in that state. We mean that the beginning of the universe was not preceded by anything. So to say that the universe came into being out of nothing, is simply to say the universe came into being without a cause. This is obviously logically absurd.
Not really. Nothing is still a circumstance. And circumstance has consequences.
Of course nothing has a consequence...nothing. Nothing means "not anything". But saying 'nothing' is unstable is logically incoherent as nothing by definition (not Krauss') cannot have properties.
No. Not premature at all.
Well, yes it is premature. There is no final answer at this time...the final chapter on this has yet to be written. Speculation, of course, is not premature...pretty much all scientific propositions start out as some kind of speculation...but it is premature to assert that there can be no naturalistic explanation. The point has been...and is...that there may be a logical...and not a theological...solution.
No. How can there be naturalistic explanations of something that is beyond its scope? Again that is logically incoherent. Naturalism deals with things that you can observe/measure. If there is something that you cannot observe/measure then it is beyond naturalism's scope and therefore cannot be explained by naturalism. So saying that naturalism will be able to find such an explanation being its scope is logically baseless optimism. It is like saying that "don't worry, with time, we will figure out how to make a round-square".
You said it yourself: "science is all about detectability / observability / verifiability". So in that case Naturalism is all about detectability /observability /verifiability. If something cannot be detected/observed/verified because they are timeless/space-less/immaterial, then they are beyond naturalistic explanations? Wouldn't you agree?
That's assuming the answer is beyond logic. But, yes, you're right...anything that is non-detectable in any way, shape, or form will be beyond science...but also beyond anyone's capacity to prove its existence. The proposition that a logical solution may be at the heart of the matter has scientifically discernable effects (by definition, because the topic here is existence, which is certainly detectable), and it may well be possible to derive specific predictions from the hypothesis that a logical issue may be operating at the most fundamental level of existence itself.
Okay, so I got from that is that you agree that is not premature to say that naturalism cannot explain things that exist beyond measured/observed reality (the universe). So by definition, Naturalism cannot prove God exists or anything beyond the universe. Now, I do not agree with you saying that if something is beyond our observable/detectable scope, then it does not exist. Something outside of the universe could exist, but we just can't detect it because it is beyond science's scope. So by saying that "the topic here is existence, which is certainly detectable" is wrong. Existence doesn't have to be always detectable by humans.
It very well could exist, but we just don't know it does. Imagine a deep sea fish that is blind and will never have contact with humans. To it, humans do not exist because it cannot detect humans. So if it were to apply its principles of naturalism, it would never be able to determine what exists beyond the ocean. But things DO exist beyond the ocean, it is just not within the naturalistic scope of the deep-sea fish. This analogy is not perfect, but it demonstrates my point.
So here you are assuming that everything has measurable consequences thereby making naturalism true. But not all things have to have measurable consequences, if this is the case, then naturalism holds false.
A bit of a mis-read on your part here...I have not assumed that everything has measurable consequences...but it's entirely possible that a logical issue at the most fundamental level of existence will have measurable consequences, and may resolve some of the "spooky" behavior already observed at the quantum level.
Very sorry for misrepresenting you. I do agree it is possible that at the most fundamental level of existence we could detect certain things that would hint at the existence of what is there beyond the universe. But, my argument was not of this, I was saying that it is no surprise that science did not prove God. That is because it cannot prove God, because God by definition exists outside of detectable reality (beyond naturalistic scope).
As I said earlier, you are assuming that all things can be measured/observed/verified.
No, I never said that, nor do I assume it. But we clearly have a very observable, measureable existence here. And we are observing some interesting things at the quantum level that are not inconsistent with the proposition that "nothing" may have measurable consequences.
Anything that cannot be observed / detected in any way, directly or indirectly, is indistinguishable from things that don't exist at all.
Again very sorry.
But for your second statement, I feel like you have defined the word nothing. "nothing" is not anything, that is my definition. By definition, nothing cannot have properties. If you are deciding to refer to nothing as "the sea of fluctuating energy", then I agree with you, that it does have measurable consequences.
Your third statement is absolutely wrong. Please refer to my deep sea fish analogy. That fish cannot observe humans, it does not mean we don't exist--it means we don't exist in their perception! There are things humans cannot observe, it does not mean they don't exist. So I would disagree, things that cannot be observed by humans are not the same as nonexistent things. But I do agree that they are indistinguishable TO the human perception.
What if something is timeless/space-less/transcendent and cannot be measured/observed/verified...
Well, then, you certainly cannot assert that it exists, can you?
You misunderstood my point. What I was arguing was that naturalism cannot account for everything that exists. It could only account for things that exist in the universe because we could only measure/observe only things that exist in the universe. This is due to the fact that the universe is the beginning of all matter/energy and time, and science deals with just those concepts. Things outside of matter/energy/time cannot be explained by naturalism.
So can you assert they do or don't exist with evidence? Of course not, naturalism can't answer that question.
again, Naturalism cannot answer this question so it cannot be determined as per naturalistic explanation because the nature of the entity is not naturalistic.
If there's no way to detect, measure, observe, corroborate, verify, validate something, then how do you differentiate that from something that doesn't exist?
There are a few ways, like if it must logically exist or if it is the best explanation for existence or if it must exist by necessity etc. The thing is, my argument was, we do not have evidence for God because there can't be evidence for God since God exists outside of observable/measurable reality (universe).
Now what you are getting at is an idealist perspective. You are saying that quantum physics says that nothing exists unless it is measured. I agree with you. But things do exist without being measured by humans...so how could anything exist that we didn't know of, like Dark matter. From this you conclude that a mind--an observer exists (God) who views everything thus makes everything existent --including the deep sea fish, humans and things humans haven't yet discovered. Michio Kaku agrees with this. For example, how could humans exist by what quantum mechanics tells us to the perception of a deep sea fish. The answer is we don't, BUT, we do exist because a mind is observing everything in the universe. To familiarize yourself with this very important concept, I recommend this video which explains it beautifully!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM&feature=c4-overview&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g
^Watching this, I think will be beneficial as it will introduce you to what we make of reality!
