if Nothing is Nothing then why a God?

It's just a matter of lazy thinking, which creationists are notorious for. For some reason, they insist that everything that exists must have a cause, yet God is somehow exempt from this logic. Of course, I'm ignoring creationists who flat out do not believe in logic. Nasty tool of the devil.

That was a perfect example of creationists being lazy thinkers. They use God as an explanation to avoid those difficult philosophical questions, and above all, believe because it feels good. Talk about intellectual bankruptcy.

Yes, Kant trashed the silly ontolgical argument on the grounds that it treated existence as a property of objects. Even without that objection, the argument is so poor that I kant understand how anyone could find it convincing.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 07-27-2003]

Aside from the outdated argument for morality, he came up with some decent arguments, namely the contingency, the prime mover, etc. The problem is, for each argument he arbitrarily posits God as an explanation. For example, he argues for the existence of something non-contingent, otherwise if everything had the ability to fail to exist, there would be nothing in existence. The logic is sound (almost) but all it does is argue for something, anything non contingent, and there is nothing to suggest that must be a God.So in light of that, I don't see anything all that convncing about his arguments.

There is some confusion regarding a universe created from nothing. The vacuum is not nothing, as it is just the ground state of the field(s). Often there is talk that the entire universe, including all of spacetime, was created as a fluctuation in nothing. This to is not the existential nothing, as the pre big bang void refered to is a state where spacetime does not exist, but the laws of physics do. So in that sense, the question would only be changed to, "why are there laws of physics instead of nothing?".