Bill, we have some questions from all over the globe that come to the website, also from

Facebook. This one says, Dear Dr Craig, I've read you talk about the mistake of treating

nothing as a thing instead of not anything.

I've also read how you talk about Leibniz and how there is something rather than nothing.

And I looked up where Leibniz said this he says that he says what you say

But then right after he says nothing is simpler and easier than something is Leibniz making the same mistake of treating

nothing as something rather than not anything which you say is a problem? If he

does this count against his point? Thank you for your time. That's

Torin. I've puzzled myself about Leibniz's statement, Torin. It does sound like the mistake of treating nothing as a thing in saying

that it's simpler than something.

And yet it's hard to believe that someone that is the logical genius that Leibniz could be making such a fundamental mistake.

And so I wonder if we might interpret him in the following way.

Perhaps he's saying the hypothesis that nothing exists

is a simpler hypothesis than the hypothesis that something exists.

And the reason for that is that the hypothesis that something exists

comprises an infinity of other hypotheses.

Rabbits exist.

Mountains exist, planets exist, hay exists, and so on and so forth, whereas nothing exists is a simple

hypothesis that has nothing to it. So perhaps in that sense, Leibniz is saying that the hypothesis

that nothing exists is simpler than the hypothesis that something exists because the latter is

infinitely complex. That's a possibility.

This next question from Sweden.

...