Nothing = Nothing

On October 19 at CC we discussed the beginning of our universe and why it is logical and probable that God exist and this God created the universe.  Here is the argument I presented:

Is it more reasonable to believe that:

nothing can produce something

Or is it more reasonable to believe that:

something produced something

Now when I use the term "nothing"  I mean absolutely nothing. No atoms or anything we currently have knowledge of or have no knowledge of.

I say it is improbable that something (The Universe) was produced by absolutely nothing.

Now an argument was raised that we see randomness in the universe, so it is possible the world randomly came into existence.  There are 2 problems with this argument:

1. The randomness we are observing is with things that already exist.  There is no possibility of randomness occurring with absolutely nothing since nothing exist.
2. If the Universe is random, scientific observance is impossible.  Scientific theory is based on repeatable, predictable events or effects, but if the Universe is random no such scientific inquiry is possible and all scientific knowledge is luck.

Therefore something came from something.

NTW and History

NT Wright addresses the problem of history.

First of all there is no pure  objective history.  History is always being reported from a certain point of view. This does not imply we can not know historical events, only that there is a particular reason and particular perspective as to why that time and event in history is being written

NT Wright is applying his same concept of critical realism to history as to how he applies it to literature.

When reading history we must be aware of the author's intent in reporting a historical event, of the surrounding events of the  historical time,  its culture, its religious and political  presuppositions, and to be aware of our own prejudices and subjective points of view. Then logically bring them together into a coherent understanding of the historical event in question.

For NT Wright even the placing of a video camera to record a historical event still has its own subjective value because a individual decided a time, a location, a direction in which to record; therefore  a  videotaped version of an event has some subjective point of view by the person recording and potentially even the individual watching the recording . Some subjectivity is always involved in history but this does not invalidate objective history or our ability to understand and know that certain events took place.

NTPG Christian Origins and the NT. Post 1

I think we should begin at the heart of the intro which will carry us into the first three chapters. In chapter 1 pages 7 - 10, NT gives us four ways in which scholars, and laymen have approached the reading of the scriptures:

1. Pre-critical: forget history and theology, what is God saying to me. This is has been the way many Christians have approached the reading of the text.
2. Historical: a product of the enlightenment which pre-critical readers and those in theology camps have to some degree or a large degree ignored.
3. Theological: asking questions about the nature of God, Jesus, and how the gospels and epistles might interrelate with their theological concepts.
4. Postmodern: not concerned with theology or history, only the personal reading experience. A purely subjective approach to reading Bible.

I think this is a fairly accurate breakdown.  I see how the first 3 can interact and guide us into a deeper understanding of the scriptures. I think postmodernism is too relativistic and subjective.  I am not sure how it contributes to the discussion.  We can get into this in chapter three.  I would like to know everyones thoughts on this breakdown by NT or if you think we need to start elsewhere.