I did write "aesthetic." Apologies, I was a bit bleary from lack of sleep. I'm honestly not sure which word I meant, but let me rephrase that line:
"In a technical sort of way, it is 'by magic.' "

I'd hesitate to use "power." "Forces" seems like a better term.
"Demonic" and "angelic" both fall under "supernatural power/forces"; further, neither one has yet been empirically demonstrated to actually exist. Natural forces, on the other hand, have.

I think atheists usually know more about religions than the average religious person.

A rational person would say, yes you sort of live on after death since the atoms that make you "live on" just as they've been "living on" since they were created in exploding stars millions, possibly billions of years ago. What did any of us feel before we existed as human beings? Not a darn thing. I'm sure your atoms will not go to waste once you have lived your life. Where some superstitious people might find these simple facts insulting, I find it beautiful.

What they mean is that some quality of the universe is eternal, meaning there is always something, some ground and set of laws from which a singularity or singularities can arise.

That's why I wrote above, "When guys like Hawking talk about the universe creating itself from nothing, they are equivocating."

I can appreciate that Kevin. They are not talking about the philosopher's nothing. My point is that they are very clear about what they mean by nothing.

Whereas Spitzer equivocates. He points to scientific models and suggests that they are pointing to the philosopher's nothing. This is deliberately misleading.

What do you mean by "purely aesthetic sense"? Doesn't aesthetic refer to beauty?

If you want a "technically accurate" word to describe how *anything* happens, you could use the word "power" but you still need a qualifier: natural power, preternatural power, demonic power, angelic power, or supernatural power.

Susan, I am against equivocation in any context that misleads people.

The context we begin with is philosophy, metaphysical nothing, and the axiom that "nothing can come from nothing." Then Hawking and Krauss come along and tell us they will show us how the universe can bring itself about from nothing. What they mean is that some quality of the universe is eternal, meaning there is always something, some ground and set of laws from which a singularity or singularities can arise. Hawking said that as long as there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself.

That's why I wrote above, "When guys like Hawking talk about the universe creating itself from nothing, they are equivocating."

You would like to put book titles aside.

I'm not arguing for or against the wisdom of provocative book titles. You have claimed that "guys like Hawkins are equivocating". Can you give me an example of a guy like Hawkins pretending they mean absolute nothing when they discuss "nothing"? Can you show me in Krauss's book where he does this?

On the other hand, Spitzer is happy to list models in cosmology and claim they mean "absolute nothing". I can't find the link you gave me (a long time back) but that's exactly what he did. If you would care to link it again, I'm fairly certain that I could show you exactly where he does that. I'm fairly certain I showed you already but you didn't respond to it.

You seem to have a problem with equivocation in the title of a book even if there is no equivocation in the book, but are perfectly OK with equivocation in apologetics.

You would like to put book titles aside. Yet Krauss' book title is "A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing." This is provocatively philosophical language.

When Spitzer speaks of nothing, he means absolutely nothing. When Krauss and Hawking speak of nothing, they mean something. Spitzer means the nothing from which nothing can arise. Krauss and Hawking mean a something from which something can arise.

When guys like Hawking talk about the universe creating itself from nothing, they are equivocating.

Physicists are usually good enough to define their terms. To go to great lengths to do so, as a matter of fact, when they are trying to explain complicated models that require the language of math to truly understand.

When apologists like Spitzer use the "nothing" of physicists, they are happy to turn it into metaphysical nothing without explaining why or showing their work.

I thought we'd been through this, Kevin. Spitzer and Craig (e.g.) love to say the "nothing" of physics means the metaphysical nothing and from nothing, nothing comes. Pure equivocation as far as I can tell.

Physicists, when forced to put things in terms for laypeople, use "nothing" to describe the "nothing" that physics has explored for a very long time now, the nothing that most of us take for granted.

Apologists like to equivocate that with the "nothing" from their arguments and then accuse physicists of equivocation.

Book titles and cherry-picked quotes aside.

So, what does Spitzer mean by nothing when he argues from physics? How is it even remotely related to Hawking's "nothing"?

I've asked you this a few times and you still haven't responded.

If you have not heard of the term "scientism" you have come late to the discussion and need to catch up.