The universe is proof of god!

[Poppa Popobawa]

Do you believe the universe created itself?

. . .
I just happened to remember that there is a book written by a noted cosmologist on this subject. The book is titled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss that you may want to read if you are really interested in this idea.
. . .

. . .
It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.
. . .

To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", I say that whatever the answer, (YES or NO), belief does not necessarily mean truth.
Even the answer NO tells us nothing about how the universe came to be.
Use of the word created is a loaded word, with the hidden assumption that it was created, (ie. did not arise naturally).
The truth on the matter of universal origins is much more than a belief or an opinion.

Do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Pops.

 

[Opoponax]

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

 

[skepticalbip]

. . .
It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.
. . .

To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", I say that whatever the answer, (YES or NO), belief does not necessarily mean truth.
Even the answer NO tells us nothing about how the universe came to be.
Use of the word created is a loaded word, with the hidden assumption that it was created, (ie. did not arise naturally).
The truth on the matter of universal origins is much more than a belief or an opinion.

Do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Pops.

Admittedly, I didn't have any interest in the book because of the popular audience it was written for (rather than being written for those with a little understanding of cosmology) so I didn't bother to keep up on any criticism of it. I did, however, hear some of the critics. Not surprisingly there were several different groups. The religious community was outraged because it obviated the need for a creator god. Many in the philosophy community were upset over his use of the word "nothing". A few in the science community criticised it for being fairly bland and a rehash of old ideas (but then it was written as pop-sci for those who knew nothing about physics or cosmology). Although I didn't read it, I would think it was probably a much better read than Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" which I did read. I had great hopes that Hawking's book would be a hell of a lot more interesting than it was. I saw "A Brief History of Time" as fairly poor even for a pop-sci book.

ETA:
Perhaps Random Person considers the book to have been discredited because of the visceral reaction it received from the religious community. I suppose any model that explains a universe naturally coming into existence without the need to appeal to "mysterious forces" (a god) will get that reaction.

 

[Learner]

To be fair to Hawkings :He said the universe came about because of ... gravity.

Whereas Kraus said in a talk IIRC : the universe came from nothing - because of the zero or naught, gestering the shape of the letter "O" with his hand.

Despite obvious differences , they both seem fairly equal imo by the well thought out "scientific" explanations above.

(so much has happened on the thread ...I was only away a short while )

 

[Random Person]

. . .
It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.
. . .

To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", I say that whatever the answer, (YES or NO), belief does not necessarily mean truth.
Even the answer NO tells us nothing about how the universe came to be.
Use of the word created is a loaded word, with the hidden assumption that it was created, (ie. did not arise naturally).
The truth on the matter of universal origins is much more than a belief or an opinion.

Do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Pops.

Admittedly, I didn't have any interest in the book because of the popular audience it was written for (rather than being written for those with a little understanding of cosmology) so I didn't bother to keep up on any criticism of it. I did, however, hear some of the critics. Not surprisingly there were several different groups. The religious community was outraged because it obviated the need for a creator god. Many in the philosophy community were upset over his use of the word "nothing". A few in the science community criticised it for being fairly bland and a rehash of old ideas (but then it was written as pop-sci for those who knew nothing about physics or cosmology). Although I didn't read it, I would think it was probably a much better read than Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" which I did read. I had great hopes that Hawking's book would be a hell of a lot more interesting than it was. I saw "A Brief History of Time" as fairly poor even for a pop-sci book.

ETA:
Perhaps Random Person considers the book to have been discredited because of the visceral reaction it received from the religious community.

I read the book. I don't know what the religious communities reaction was.

I was embarrassed for Krauss. I can't imagine how a brilliant physicist could write something so nonsensical. I imagine he didn't get any feedback before publishing. He did afterwards though. LOL

You should read it. You might find a way to dovetail it into your farting goat.

 

[Random Person]

. . .
It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it.
. . .

To: "Do you believe the universe created itself ?", I say that whatever the answer, (YES or NO), belief does not necessarily mean truth.
Even the answer NO tells us nothing about how the universe came to be.
Use of the word created is a loaded word, with the hidden assumption that it was created, (ie. did not arise naturally).
The truth on the matter of universal origins is much more than a belief or an opinion.

Do you have any references, links, citations or quotes to support this: "It's been discredited and even Krauss backs away from it."
I went to look, and couldn't find any.

Pops.

You may be a contender for the "Equivocation of the Month" award.

 

[Random Person]

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

View attachment 16014

Your daughter no doubt.

 

[Underseer]

Admittedly, I didn't have any interest in the book because of the popular audience it was written for (rather than being written for those with a little understanding of cosmology) so I didn't bother to keep up on any criticism of it. I did, however, hear some of the critics. Not surprisingly there were several different groups. The religious community was outraged because it obviated the need for a creator god. Many in the philosophy community were upset over his use of the word "nothing". A few in the science community criticised it for being fairly bland and a rehash of old ideas (but then it was written as pop-sci for those who knew nothing about physics or cosmology). Although I didn't read it, I would think it was probably a much better read than Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" which I did read. I had great hopes that Hawking's book would be a hell of a lot more interesting than it was. I saw "A Brief History of Time" as fairly poor even for a pop-sci book.

ETA:
Perhaps Random Person considers the book to have been discredited because of the visceral reaction it received from the religious community.

I read the book. I don't know what the religious communities reaction was.

I was embarrassed for Krauss. I can't imagine how a brilliant physicist could write something so nonsensical. I imagine he didn't get any feedback before publishing. He did afterwards though. LOL

You should read it. You might find a way to dovetail it into your farting goat.

Wow, you're so smart! Why don't you tell us what was wrong with his arguments?

Now that you've established that his arguments are stupid, of course it would be a simple matter for a genius such as yourself to explain what's wrong with his arguments.

 

[Underseer]

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

View attachment 16014

And what did you gain by sinking to his level?

 

[skepticalbip]

Admittedly, I didn't have any interest in the book because of the popular audience it was written for (rather than being written for those with a little understanding of cosmology) so I didn't bother to keep up on any criticism of it. I did, however, hear some of the critics. Not surprisingly there were several different groups. The religious community was outraged because it obviated the need for a creator god. Many in the philosophy community were upset over his use of the word "nothing". A few in the science community criticised it for being fairly bland and a rehash of old ideas (but then it was written as pop-sci for those who knew nothing about physics or cosmology). Although I didn't read it, I would think it was probably a much better read than Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" which I did read. I had great hopes that Hawking's book would be a hell of a lot more interesting than it was. I saw "A Brief History of Time" as fairly poor even for a pop-sci book.

ETA:
Perhaps Random Person considers the book to have been discredited because of the visceral reaction it received from the religious community.

I read the book. I don't know what the religious communities reaction was.

I was embarrassed for Krauss. I can't imagine how a brilliant physicist could write something so nonsensical. I imagine he didn't get any feedback before publishing. He did afterwards though. LOL

You should read it. You might find a way to dovetail it into your farting goat.

Wow, you're so smart! Why don't you tell us what was wrong with his arguments?

Now that you've established that his arguments are stupid, of course it would be a simple matter for a genius such as yourself to explain what's wrong with his arguments.

I bet Random Person has a better model of the universe where the negative energy of gravity is either much greater or much less than the positive energy/mass of the universe. I'm on pins and needles with anticipation for his detailed description of this amazing model.

 

[Random Person]

Has anyone read Krauss' book?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^
I haven't but I have heard several of his lectures describing (in quite a bit of detail) what is in it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem with Krause is that he uses language in a sloppy fashion. He uses the word "nothing" when referring to the false vacuum which is not nothing.

 

[Lion IRC]

Has anyone read Krauss' book?

Yep. It got me banned from a few forums (fora)
www.rational skepticism.org/nontheism/something-from-nothing-dawkins-krauss-t29440.html#p1204424

 

[Random Person]

The problem with Krause is that he uses language in a sloppy fashion. He uses the word "nothing" when referring to the false vacuum which is not nothing.

Exactly. The book's entire theory rests on this premise. We think of "nothing" as "not anything" but not equivocating Krauss.

 

[Random Person]

Has anyone read Krauss' book?

Yep. It got me banned from a few forums (fora)
www.rational skepticism.org/nontheism/something-from-nothing-dawkins-krauss-t29440.html#p1204424

Interesting. It seems their "rational skepticism" only extends to what they aren't rational or skeptical about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Have you considered the possibility that you have lost perspective?

And what did you gain by sinking to his level?

From the looks of it, a stroke. I'd like to participate in this conversation, but clearly it isn't worth the time as neither Lion or Random have shown any interest in a discussion, instead looking to "win" some cheap grammatic points.

 

[Opoponax]

And what did you gain by sinking to his level?

The ignore feature was made for you.

 

[jab]

God doesn't have to 'wait'.
He is in no hurry.

Parasites, predation, germs, viruses?
Just take a step back and imagine yourself to be Darwin/Attenborough/Dawkins.
These are incredible, indespensible beauties of nature.
God doesn't have to apologise for them.

Because God can't, because God doesn't exist. . . .

 

[skepticalbip]

God doesn't have to 'wait'.
He is in no hurry.

Parasites, predation, germs, viruses?
Just take a step back and imagine yourself to be Darwin/Attenborough/Dawkins.
These are incredible, indespensible beauties of nature.
God doesn't have to apologise for them.

Because God can't, because God doesn't exist. . . .

What?

God didn't apologize for them so that proves he exists...