A Universe from Nothing Critique by Hugh Ross

In his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, famed astrophysicist Lawrence M. Krauss claims to have shown why the latest physics proves that God is not necessary to explain the universe's existence and features.

[Bluenose]

Ross's "critique" boils down to a god-of-the-gaps argument, not very convincing.

However, it looks like Kraus's book is worth a read.

[LGK]

Bluenose wrote:

Ross's "critique" boils down to a god-of-the-gaps argument, not very convincing.
However, it looks like Kraus's book is worth a read.

There are many versions of Hugh’s argument but here’s the gist. Matter, time & space had a beginning meaning they could not have come from anything material, in time or in space. That which is non-material, timeless & non-spatial is the definition of God.

God-of-the-gaps is ENTIRELY appropriate if God really is in that gap. Otherwise just say God cannot be the answer, not matter what. Effectively denialists do this i.e. No God no matter what the evidence or argument, just no God.

Kraus equivocates on the meaning of nothing & I heard him on UK Premier radio failing to understand the meaning of “Necessary Being.”

[The Dude]

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
There are many versions of Hugh’s argument but here’s the gist.

(ahem)

GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!

LGK wrote:

Matter, time & space had a beginning meaning they could not have come from anything material, in time or in space. That which is non-material, timeless & non-spatial is the definition of God.
God-of-the-gaps is ENTIRELY appropriate if God really is in that gap. Otherwise just say God cannot be the answer, not matter what. Effectively denialists do this i.e. No God no matter what the evidence or argument, just no God.

God of the gaps and evidence are contradictions in terms.

LGK wrote:

Kraus equivocates on the meaning of nothing & I heard him on UK Premier radio failing to understand the meaning of “Necessary Being.”

You make up your own laws on the spot. At least Newton's worked.

But I do think that you were hit on the head.

.

By the way, what's the "code", El?

[blissfully unaware]

sometimes there is no answer, why can't people just leave it at that?? Why claim what God is or is not and try to explain an theory without all the information?? It just seems soo idiotic! If anything I would have to go towards Amit Goswami & the God Particle it claims the same concept mystics have been preaching for years...but really who knows for sure??

[Subduction Zone]

Actually Krauss showed that mathematically the universe could have come from nothing. It is possible for the total energy of the universe to be zero. And if that is the case we only have nothing coming from nothing, it does not violate the law of conservation of energy. The evidence out there shows that our universe has a total energy of zero. Meaning he could be right.

[blissfully unaware]

beauty is also mathematical,idk in order to for nothing to be possible something has to exsist. The observer has to be present..who knows how far the rabbit hole goes?

[The Dude]

http://catnday.com/media/photo/lol_Cat_4696.j...

[nanoanomaly]

There is no such thing as "nothing". Vacuums are not empty.

[Bluenose]

nanoanomaly wrote:

There is no such thing as "nothing". Vacuums are not empty.

You may not realise it, but you are begging the question here. Your statement applies within the universe. What might have existed before the universe began, if that is even a meaningful question, is entirely a horse of a different colour. Nothing may very well be exactly what it was.

[nanoanomaly]

Bluenose wrote:

<quoted text>
You may not realise it, but you are begging the question here. Your statement applies within the universe. What might have existed before the universe began, if that is even a meaningful question, is entirely a horse of a different colour. Nothing may very well be exactly what it was.

So, you're not one of those who thinks it's pointless to speculate about something existing before 14+ billion years ago? Whatever.

[Bluenose]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>So, you're not one of those who thinks it's pointless to speculate about something existing before 14+ billion years ago? Whatever.

Let's put it like this. The word "before" requires time to be meaningful. Time is part of the geometry of the universe. The evidence to date shows that the universe began with the big bang. Therefore there was no "before" from our perspective, given that we are within, part of, the universe. Therefore saying that there was nothing before the big bang is entirely logically consistent with what we know.

I am quite happy to speculate about this scenario, in fact that is all we can do. Maybe there was another universe with its own geometry, its own space-time, I don't know. I am just not sure that such questions any more meaningful than asking what's north of the north pole? We can make the statement, put the words together in the correct grammatical order and so on, but that does not ensure that they refer to anything real.

[Subduction Zone]

nanoanomaly wrote:

There is no such thing as "nothing". Vacuums are not empty.

That was part of Krauss's point. I should have done this long ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[nanoanomaly]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
That was part of Krauss's point. I should have done this long ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

I saw that over a year ago.

[Lil Ticked]

nanoanomaly wrote:

There is no such thing as "nothing". Vacuums are not empty.

Right. For some reason mine is full of cherios

[Lil Ticked]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
That was part of Krauss's point. I should have done this long ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
mines better.

[mindchatter]

nanoanomaly wrote:

There is no such thing as "nothing". Vacuums are not empty.

I agree!