"A Universe From Nothing" - Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. He sounds stupid. Once its in existence, how can it go out of existence? Nothing can't turn around can be something. Why can't they just say its nothing? They feeding people crap that's more like magic. Yall really believe something can pop in and out of existence? Thats not science.
2. His words in the last couple minutes make me wonder: What if there if we're in a similar predicament? What if our model of the universe is just as wrong? Perhaps the universe is only expanding in our particular region of the universe somehow, and time really is infinite.
   
   Just a thought to keep me up at night, I guess.
   
   Also, I just realized that the anthropic principle is basically the ultimate rebuttal to the teleological argument.
3. Brilliant, 1st time i have watched this one, i'm sure it won't be the last!
   Well done, keep em rolling. Now all we need is for people to wake up!
4. Nothing certainly fills the empty heads if these jokers.
   
   The empty headed love them too.
5. I have a question about this ''nothing'' that Lawrence Krauss is explaining and I would be really grateful if someone helped me understand this better. Sorry for my English.
   So, ''Nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can't see them''.
   How can something pop in and out of existence if there is no space to begin with? In order for matter to exist there must be space for it. We must assume that before the Big Bang there was no space,time and matter and that all three of them must have came to existence at the same time because none of them can exist without the other. Does that mean that every time something pops into existence that the laws of space are created only for a brief second and then when it disappears the laws cease to exist? Also, if they pop into existence in a time scale so short that means that the laws of time exist which contradicts the assumption that time didn't exist before the Big Bang.
   How does Lawrence Krauss explain how the laws of time,space and matter started? If we agree with Krauss and assume that ''nothing'' isn't really nothing, then that ''nothing'' must have been bound to the laws of time,matter and space because popping in and out of existence in a period of time requires all three laws.
   On the other hand, if we assume that before the Big Bang there was literally nothing so the absence of everything, then that would mean that the laws of time,space and matter started with the Big Bang. We have a problem with this because how can a universe come from literally nothing, or the absence of time,space and matter?
   It could not have been chance because chance is the random selection of an outcome from a set of possibilities. When we have no possibilities because nothing yet exists how can there be a selection of them?
   As for the proton and the empty space, that empty space is still bound to the laws of time,matter and space. The fact that there is space agrees with this but this is not good evidence to support the ''nothing'' from before the Big Bang because there was no space,time and matter before the bang unless I am missing out on something?
6. Because all the stars are fixed, galaxies do not exist.Because galaxies do not exist, and coolection of fixed stars do not tag one another and say:
   " let us hold hand in hand, we are collection of stars, let us move and become a galaxy, let us move away from the bigbangists so that they can say the space itself is expanding, and universe evolves from nothing...."
   No. the stars do not say that and they don't move, stars are not entangled objects, they don't move by pulling one another. That means galaxies do not exist, unless it is inside big bangists minds.
7. I loved his presentation, but I tend to be very skeptical, even of science. He said we live at a special time that allows us to have evidence of the Big Bang, etc., but what if we are missing something else? There's always a missing piece, and he himself admitted that Science knows much less than what it doesn't know. But still much better than religion, for sure.
8. MOHAMMD raped 9 yo girls
9. Big bangists Delusion: At the beginning there was no space and there was not time; there was only small fire ball, the big bang object. WHAT????? How did that tiny big bang object exist if there was no time? Does any thing happen when big bangists want it to happen, even with no time?
10. @2:40 '' the really important stuff in the universe arent the stars and galaxies but the mysterious stuff that you cant see that dominates nature'' (or God, genius)
11. Religion thinks that everything needs to be made like if how houses are built
    But in that respect the phenommenon of growth is stranger than we think at first sight
    If we look at the growth-proces from 1 or 2 cells tot a complete baby
    we notice that it's a seemingly self-propelling process.
    There are no working-crews coming to the house of the pregnant woman every morning
    to manually update and work on the development of the baby.
    I also like to note that this growth process echo's our own development as humans
    from one cell creatures living in the sea to the sophisticated creatures we are now
    and also the first episode of our life happens in the water of the whom!!
    maybe the universe was created by a process that looks like growth
    but is not yet known to us
    ps I think that all supernatural things are in fact just natural things that are not yet known to us
12. I wonder where ill be when that smug expression is wiped from the atheist face and they are smacked with the truth of Gods existence.
13. you can't escape God's judgement.
14. you sorry pathetic sinner,
15. Creation out of nothing
    Creation out of nothing, or creation ex nihilo, is the belief that God created this world out of nothing, ex nihilo being Latin for "from nothing." The Bible is clear that God is the creator of this world (Gen 1:1; Job 38:1-42:6 among many others), but the issue of how he created this world is what is in question. Typically there are two main answers: (1) either God created this world from nothing, or (2) he created this world from pre-existing matter. In the second view God would be the organizer or the one who "ordered the chaos" of this world.
    
    Multimedia
    Creation Out of Nothing (MP3), by William Lane Craig
    Creation as ordering
    The Bible does portray God as ordering his creation. This idea is especially clear in the image of a potter working his clay into an ordered structure (e.g. Isaiah 29:16; Jer 18:1-6). Although not directly associated with creating the world, this does reflect the character of God as bringing order to his creation.
    
    Early church fathers such as Theophilus, Justin Martyr, and Origen actually believed that matter was pre-existent with God. Borrowed from platonic thought, these church fathers believed that God "ordered" this chaotic matter and gave it its shape and form, thus resulting in the creation of the world. As McGrath notes, "[m]atter was already present within the universe, and did not require to be created; it needed to be given a definite shape and structure" (McGrath, Theology, p. 38). There are many problems associated with this view (see below), and this is why by the fourth century most Christian theologians rejected this view.
    
    The battle for creation out of nothing
    The doctrine of creation ex nihilo was mostly developed due to the rising pressure of Gnosticism. This view drew a distinction between the God of the Old Testament, the one they believed had created this world, and the God of the New Testament, the one they believed had redeemed this world. The God of the OT was also regarded as a lesser deity than the God of the NT.
    
    Irenaeus (130-200) responded, arguing not only against the Gnostic teaching of two Gods, but even more against Greek philosophy which taught that matter had pre-existed and that God became the divine architect as he ordered this pre-existent matter. Irenaeus argued that "[t]here was no preexistent matter; everything required to be created out of nothing" (McGrath, p. 38).
    
    Tertullian (160-225) later argued that the world depended on God for its existence. This was in contrast to the Aristotelian view that the world depended on nothing. Both the Aristotelian and the Platonic view were at war with the early Christians, but by the fourth century, "most Christian theologians rejected the Platonist approach, even in the form associated with Origen, and argued for God being the creator of both the spiritual and material worlds" (McGrath, 39).
    
    Colin Gunton, one of the greatest British systematic theologians of the 20th century, writes that "...God is not to be likened, let us say, to a potter who makes a pot from the clay which is to hand; he is, rather, like one who makes both the clay and the pot. This teaching, which baffles understanding and is often rejected because there is no analogy to it in human experience, must be understood as an interpretation and summary of scripture’s witness to God as a whole," (The Christian Faith, p. 17).
    
    Biblical understanding
    The Bible does not explicitly state the term "out of nothing" regarding creation. However, biblical scholars do believe that the totality of Scripture does in fact teach this. Looking at such passages as Genesis 1:1ff, Psalms 33:6, Psalms 148:5, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 11:3 gives a more complete picture of how God created the world. Viewing the entire biblical account has allowed theologians to conclude with this interpretation.
16. Many skeptics or atheists accuse the Bible of being no more than a fairy tale. Is this true? Is the Bible simply a collection of fables without being rooted in the reality of history?
    
    Certainly not! One wonderful aspect of Christianity is that its claims can be verified by information found outside of the Bible. For example, a person who has questions regarding the integrity or accuracy of the Bible has more than 5,000 ancient copies of the Bible to investigate. No other ancient manuscript comes close to having as much material available.
    
    A second line of evidence is found in the early copies of the Bible. Some of the many copies of ancient biblical manuscripts can be found from within a century of their original composition. The earliest fragment of John's Gospel, for example, is dated to about 125, within one generation of the Gospel's time of writing.
    
    What about the cities or events of the Bible? Archaeologists have been able to accurately affirm thousands of the sites, historical references, cities, and other details found in the Bible with amazing accuracy.
    
    Further, a look at the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible offers enormous evidence to support its claims as a divine book. For example, numerous prophecies were fulfilled in the coming of Jesus to earth. He was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), suffered a violent death (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22), was born in Bethlehem of Judea from the tribe of Judah (Micah 5:2), and was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13). These are just a few of many predictions written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.
    
    Finally, the influence of the Bible helps to reveal that it is much more than a fairy tale. The Bible has led to the growth of the world's largest religion, and to the establishment of hospitals, orphanages, schools, universities, and the largest relief organizations in human history. It is a book that has changed individual lives, families, and societies unlike any other. The Bible is the world's most translated and best-selling book, reaching more people in more places than any other literary work. Why? Not because it is a fairy tale, but because its very words are inspired by God. Second Timothy 3:16-17 shares, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
17. Wicked ending line
18. Krauss writes, in the first two pages of chapter 10 ,"Nothing is Unstable," :
    
    1 - Nothing is made of "Empty space is complicated."
    2 - Nothing contains a "boiling brew of virtual particles"
    3 - "strength of the energy [SIC] field has to be huge"
    4 - "Nothing is unstable"
    5 - "follows the rules of quantum mechanics"
    6 - "Never the less, all these phenomena imply that under the right conditions not only nothing can become something, but it is required to."
    
    Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!
    
    Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
    Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
    Nothing has no energy field
    Nothing has no instability
    Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
    Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.
    
    The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself."
19. David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” He reviewed Krauss's book in The New York Times saying, " all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."
    
    Albert is NOT saying, Krauss is wrong about theism, Albert shares Krauss's view on that point. Instead Albert laments the use of subterfuge and name calling in place of arguments against the recalcitrant facts of theism.
20. This is a good lecture, except for his barbs at religion. That's his ego talking and its distracting from otherwise really excellent information. I guess he's showing off for his friend Richard D.