This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

Alex, adv. diab.'s Avatar Jump to comment 28 by Alex, adv. diab.

My take on this is that all talk about "was there nothing, nor nothingness which begat somethingness, or was there some non-nothingness... blablabla" is completely meaningless. Most of you in this thread are producing white noise.

I doubt anyone here can define clearly what any of this would mean in the context of physics, and even if you did manage that, it would surely be firmly outside of what can currently be tested by observations. There may be hypothetical mathematical models of what happens when going back in time, which may, with the objects it describes, say something about this question.

I think Krauss does something else here, namely shooting down part of the opposite argument: Theists simply don't get to say anymore that the energy we observe now in the universe according to the Big Bang theory, came from nothing, which is illogical, and therefore God. And why? Because the hypothesis that there is no net energy at all in the universe is well compatible with theory and observations.

Krauss does not really have to claim in detail what science says about absolute nothingness etc (science may simply remain silent about it as long as it has no handle on understanding it), it is enough for him to dismantle the opposite side's unscientific argument by showing that its premises are already false.

Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:08:31 UTC | #850473