.

You don't think there's a tiny possibility that he was being facetious? This is the internet, you must remember.




Well, I posit that no one actually believes the earth is supported by turtles, however many. Besides, even if that was just a metaphor for infinite regress, that still would not be a separate thing to theism/atheism. So he was obviously being as facetious as if he were to answer "Jedi".




Krauss didn't answer that, remember? According to your own statement in your previous post: "His definition of "nothing" is "something.""




Guesswork and conjecture. Practically nothing.



The singularity is as far back as we are able to trace. If you follow some tracks that go into the sea, you obviously cannot follow them farther because the animal doesn't leave tracks in the sea. So the beach is as far as we can trace it. That doesn't mean we conclude it started its existence from nothing just there, at the beach, nor have we ever suggested as much. It's just that we have come as far as we are able to go. It does NOT mean we have come as far as the animal went.



Hey, if the box fits.



Exactly. So if you reject atheism, you are a theist. By default.



You claim that the universe is a creation, that it was created by a god - yes, a god, because you came to this conclusion from finding it impossible that no gods exist. You reject atheism, remember?



Yes, indeed. And where have I posited that such a thing exists? Not being ABLE to explain something is not, and never has been, the same as that something BEING unexplainable. The tides went unexplained for a long time by science before we knew about gravitational pull. Saying "I don't know the explanation" does not mean "This CAN't be explained". It just means "I don't know". You can't say science is wrong just because it doesn't have all the answers NOW.[/quote]

I bolded the turtle part.  It is a metaphor, and has long been a joke between me and another atheist, someone not on this board.

I don't argue any of this because you other guys are too smart, and half the time I can't figure out who said what to whom, and I have no strong feelings about how things came into being, I am content in the 'not knowing'. I am more concerned with the effect religion has in the here and now.

So, carry on without me! I believe this thread is back on track.

No, he doesn’t! When Lawrence Krauss is talking about “nothing”, he’s speaking about quantum states which still have properties. There’s a difference between “nothing” as used by cosmologists, and how it’s used in philosophy. It does not refer to the absence of everything. So it would be a mischaracterization of Krauss’s argument to apply his usage to “philosophical nothing”.

Even if you take away all matter and all energy so that there is only empty space…the laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. A quantum mechanical system in its lowest energy state might look a lot like nothing, even from a mathematical perspective, but there would still be minute particles and energy bouncing around in there.

However, it should also be noted that Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing” has been panned by other physicists specifically for making this mistake, which is at best misleading to laymen readers, and at worst equivocating with the term nothing. So when I say “no, he doesn’t”, I’m being charitable and assuming he’s not intentionally trying to mislead people, but making an artistic choice to be clever with his use of words.

David Albert, who is both a physicist and a philosopher was much less charitable to Krauss in his assessment, largely for ignoring the philosophical problem of “nothing”, and for being too dismissive of religion. Krauss is an atheist looking to destroy religion, while Albert is more open-minded to it! Krauss’s book does not actually describe where the fundamental properties came from, nor does it assert they once never existed. Which means that he’s not actually answering the question “why is there something rather than nothing” from a philosophical standpoint.

The universe (as it appears to us) may have just popped into existence, but there was still something before what we observe existing now. And we cannot investigate this something because of the Planck problem. There’s no way we can conclude whether it was “random” or “inevitable”. Random (as far as scientists use the term) simply means beyond our ability to predict. It does not mean “by accident” or “for no reason” as it does colloquially. In short, there’s no reason to believe that there was ever “nothing”, and so Krauss does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. He explains why there is matter and energy (and more specifically why there is less antimatter and anti energy) in the universe as we observe it.

This. Even if Krauss is right in the context of physics, on which I am in no position to comment, Krauss has debated creationists before - by claiming "from nothing", he is giving them ammunition. "See? You DO believe the universe was created from nothing!" Maybe he's trying to appropriate the concept from creationists, sort of like Bernie Sanders is freely using the term "socialism", but I am not convinced that's an entirely good idea.

Yeah, I’m not sure that’s the best analogy. I mean, I consider myself a socialist and my views sharply align with Bernie Sanders.

Yes I am, but you guys talk at a level way over my poor old head. I am more able to comprehend sciency stuff about medicine, so that's where I am comfortable.  But the origin of the universe? That's a tough one. Maybe one day science will have an answer on that.

I just wish religion had less of an influence on human behavior, because it is faith-based, not fact-based. And that faith component has caused more wars and bloodshed than can be imagined. When I snapped out of my "warm fuzzy" feeling about Christianity, that's when I started seeing the cruelty that one faith imposes on another.

Not to worry, still agnostic atheist!

Why not?

True - when I first came here I saw religion as the cause, now I see it as more of a symptom of the nature of man, a sort of tribalism, fear of 'other', which benefited us back in our hunter/gatherer stage. I am going on a search - will be back- for a favorite quote along those lines.

Edit: Okay, I found it, took a bit of doing, but a quote from a very science-based guy on a TV show from here in the US, talking to a minister who asks him if he believes in a separate living evil...

"Socialism" is used synonymously with Marxism and Leninism, which is why it is best avoided. By saying you want socialism, you are giving ammunition to conservatives who say you want Marxism.