Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Lawrence Krauss, John Ellis, Don Cupitt

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. 'Quantum Fluctuations' take place is Space and in Time. Before the Big Bang there was no Space and Time. Sean Carrol, Max Tegmark, Briane Greene and Lawrence Krause never explain how something comes from a TRUE NOTHING ( no Space, no Time, no Negative Energy, no Quantum Gravity) except to say that a True Nothing is unstable and will eventually collapse and become 'something'. That begs the question: In a No-Place and a No-When, how does a True Nothing eventually collapse. An incident  happening 'eventually' involves Time. As mentioned - before the big bang there was no Time.
2. The Question
   is Not Existence Rather Than Non Existence
   But Why Non Existence Rather Than Existence Before
   and Existence Rather Than Non Existence After
   Decide Without Deciding Between Possibilities
   Including Eternal & Non Eternal with A Eternally
   Non Eternal Loop Of Existence & Non Existence
3. The simple answer is god if you are willing to accept the answer without evidence.
4. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. You've gotta have something
5. I'm basically skipping everyone and only listening to Krauss. Besides the crap, I dislike their accent lol
6. So nothing is really nothing, nothing is really something!! That doesn't make sense
7. We didn't get the answer to the question and we didn't expect one because it can't be answered scientifically, although it's a good philosophical question.  Prof. Krauss dismissed the question as "stupid" and wanted to turn to the "how"  instead.  He did say that we know the answer to it, but he didn't elaborate. That's his style; when he is cornered he goes off in a tangent and talks about something else, like the "Universe from nothing" which is an utter nonsense. Then he defines "nothing" in three different ways to suit his explanation. He is a terrible debater, he is loud, he cuts off people, interrupts, sometimes incoherent and thinks that his dominance will be a proof of his position.
8. Cupitt is talking over Krauss's head through this whole debate. He should have conceded nothing to Krauss since Krauss did not make a single relevant point.
9. Krauss is such a strident idiot. He can never think outside the physics box.
10. Lawrence Krauss is really anoying
11. Science demands a designer and the Bible explains that part for us.
12. Cupitt is great. Krauss could do with a little less arrogance. String dude is good, too.
13. Instead of trying to figure out something that clearly isn't understandable completely, we as a a human race, need to figure out what to do with the 'time' we have here. There's no point in arguing about nothing, just like those no point in arguing about something. The point is, if this, whatever this is, is real, it's something beyond our knowledge, or we have just lost knowledge of it over time. What's most important is that we just experience life as simply as it was given to us.
14. That Lawrence Krauss is one giant dumbass. If only he wasn't there the conversation might have actually been interesting!
    You can see he has a complex from the way he says 'we physicists' like a million times, trying to hide behind ideas he clearly can't understand.
    And I'm sorry Krauss, but quantum mechanics is not a magic wand which allows you to assume that anything could come from anything. If that is your understanding of it, you are no different than a theist assuming God pulled the universe out of his hat. That is certainly not science.
    Please shut up or pop out of existence! 
15. Only an atheist would say, "'Why' is a stupid question." Seems Lawrence Krauss prefers to start with a conclusion before allowing the question to even be asked.  No, allow the question to be asked first, and then endeavor to answer it genuinely.  Starting with a conclusion ahead of the question is the proven recipe for junk science, and is the signature of "promissory materialism", as some would call it.  
16. reply to Qntkka-where is youre Nobel prise then you fucking retard crackpot
17.  These fools talk about the "emergence' of space and "time", when emergence requires time. If there was a Big Bang, than time existed before the Big Bang, because critical mass requires the presence of time. Time may have changed after the Big Bang, but it existed before the Big Bang. Explosions are not instantaneous. Emergence is not instantaneous.
18. Krauss has gotten a little too famous for his britches, still love the guy!  He has learned that he has entered show business and will need to suffer a few stumbles to return to humility - fact is, all language is imperfect.  And, by the way, nobody has the slightest idea what TIME actually is because our brains can't devise any conceptual models that do not involve stopping everything to talk about it!  Consciousness, [here's the mind blower] does it belong in the debate or doesn't it?   
19. Don't get him up early.. you're asking for trouble.