William Lane Craig Nothing Analysis

In Refuting William Lane Craig, they made a good point of how in the past before we know what caused things like lightning or wind, we would just simply say it was God, also with horrific events it was the mystery of the way God works. But today we have many scientists working on many different hypotheses to figure out more and more on how everything in existence works, thus leaving God more out of any equation of why things do what they do or why they are here. Wouldn’t God want us to not question his existence and to be able to prove to us? Also, why would he make it so that we can explain everything but him?

William Craig has no scientific training or background in the same that would be necessary to explain all that there is in the creation

He is, however a philosopher. His primary focus is a theory, not tangible fact. The author questions the way “nothing” is defined in the initial article. “Nothing”, defined by William Craig is “not anything”, it is not even the virtual elements that appear into being, and it is not even the possible prospective for their existence. Accordingly, is it the empty space they pop into existence out of, when William Craig defines nothing, he means actually nothing.

Without a clear meaning it means nothing. Even with no scientific background William Craig questions where the laws of quantum mechanics supposedly came from. It leads one to question his ability to understand them in detail. William Craig finds no other interpretation of the finitude of matter and its properties, then to theorize the existence of a being that exists timeless. Craig does not pose a rebuttal against quantum mechanics because he cannot explain how it came to be. Also he is unable to explain the reasoning behind the existence of his deity, God. It comes into question how then how can surmise that it is truth. The author then explains that William Craig is philosophical in