Nothing (General)

by dhw, Sunday, December 06, 2009, 12:50 (5278 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Stenger claims that the universe "looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." Since we have no other universe, designed or non-designed, to compare it to, I have asked how anyone can possibly know what a universe with or without God is "expected" to look like. The same silly ... in my view ... argument has been applied to life and evolution by other writers. -In response, George has listed DIFFERENT arguments against design. Firstly, let me say yet again that I'm not arguing for design, or indeed for anything, but only against claims like the above, which trivialize the whole debate. Secondly, it's no defence of a silly claim to put forward DIFFERENT arguments that are not silly. George's points are as follows: -1) He quotes Stenger: "The model in which the universe is made of matter and nothing else and had a spontaneous, uncaused, natural origin from a state of chaos equivalent to "nothing" agrees with all the data."
Do we have all the data? ID-ers also claim that their theory "agrees with" the data we have on the origin of the universe/life/evolution. Do terms like "spontaneous" and "uncaused" represent objective scientific conclusions? How is this argument linked to Stenger's knowledge of what a designed/non-designed universe is "expected" to look like? Expected by whom, and according to what criteria? -2) George: "Given purely materialist assumptions we can make deductions from the equations of physics, which lead to our present cosmos."
The equations of physics are derived from our observation of the universe and everything in it. It's therefore scarcely surprising that the equations of physics (as we know them) lead to the present cosmos (as we know it)! But whenever we discover new facts about the cosmos, we have to find different equations. Do we have all the facts? How is this linked to Stenger's knowledge etc.?-3) George: "ID-ers claim the universe shows design, but do not say who the designer was." 
Agreed, but how is this linked to Stenger's knowledge etc.? (Ditto "irreducible complexity".)-4) George: "Creationists claim that the universe was designed by a God, but their ideas of the nature of this god and how it goes about its designs are unclear. Their claims that the universe was created in a perfect state some 6000 years ago have likewise been refuted."
Agreed, but how is this linked to Stenger's knowledge etc.?-I also asked how "nothing" could go bang. 
George: "It seems that this is just a failure of imagination on dhw's part." 
Good to know that one needs a vivid imagination to buttress scientific theories. You quote Stenger: "As a state of the universe, 'something' is more natural than 'nothing'." According to your previous post it was the "universe, or the universe in its primordial state, that went Bang." So if something is more natural than nothing, maybe it was something and not nothing that went bang. This certainly seems more natural to me. And if it was something, creation was not "ex nihilo".