This post is based mostly on Krauss's comments in the interview by Rogan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDhHK8nk_V0
It is a lengthy interview with too much to comment on in one post so I will make my comments in numerous posts with references to the time in the video so interested readers can quickly find that spot.
1.
Before i get to the universe from nothing tale by Krauss, I'd like to note that Krauss is a higher level thinker compared to Dawkins. Krauss stated, "I use the word belief all the time but I try not to OK...." (Min 55+) and "if you really want to think of rational inquiry of course we all have beliefs which means we have preconceptions....". That insight, namely, "we all have belief's which means we all have preconceptions" Is a sign of a higher quality thinker. I don't recall Dawkins making such a quality statement. Apparently Dawkins, and many of his followers are oblivious to preconceptions or beliefs. (Additional terms for beliefs and preconceptions are presupposition, pre-scientific beliefs, assumptions, premise and the like.
2.
One preconception of atheists is simply stating disbelief in God. Its a metaphysical unfalsifiable perspective. For example, disbelief in a Creator God implies that the only thing that exists is nature. In turn that implies that if nature had a beginning, it had a natural beginning. That too is a metaphysical belief or preconception. Alternatively, if nature didn't have a beginning, the implication of atheism is that it always existed.
3.
Burden of proof: Atheists apparently make a big deal over the burden of proof. But Krauss, to his credit, clearly states he can't prove his origin of the universe tale. yet, apparently, he believes it. Nothing wrong with that. Now, does he have the burden of proof for some stance that is already clearly unprovable? There is a serious problem with the atheist "burden of proof" concept. If something is already unprovalbe, it makes no sense to demand proof. it is simply a belief, a preconception, a presupposition, a pre-scientific belief. Same thing with theism: if it is unproveable it is ridiculous to demand proof.
4.
Preconceptions and evidence. Atheists seem to be obsessed with "evidence". But what comes before "evidence" is your/our preconceptions. We all think and see from within a set of personal preconceptions. Our personal preconceptions define the parameters of what we think and see. For example, a person with atheist preconceptions will not see God nor see evidence for God be cause they have already assumed God does not exist. it doesn't make sense to claim there is no evidence for God after one already assumes God does not exist.
5.
Given Krauss's (atheist) preconceptions his only options concerning the origin of Nature is a) it always existed, or b) it created itself from nothing. Apparently, based on the title of his book:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=how+the+universe+came+from+nothing+Krauss...
he subjectively picks the universe created itself from nothing. I suppose if he picked 'it always existed' he'd have trouble explaining the big bang, the apparent beginning of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago.
6.
Krauss's origin tale is this: prior to the big bang, prior to nature and space-time existing there was nothing. But nothing was really something, namely, quantum fluctuations. Then, this nothing which is really something burped and the universe popped into existence. (video reference - 2:11+) Is this falsifiable? No. Is it verifiable in any way. No. Does Krauss say he can prove it? No. he said he can't prove it. so what is it? It a part of his assumptions, his preconceptions, his presuppositions, his pre-scientific beliefs. Its part of the conceptual framework from which he thinks and sees. That assumed conceptual framework defines the parameters of what he will think and see.
7.
His origin tale, his science fiction yarn, has some problems. How does he get that nothing is something? And why does he declare that nothing is something? I got some help from a six year old arithmetic whiz. I asked her what is zero? She said its nothing. How many ones are in zero, I asked. None, she said. How many twos in zero? None silly, zero is nothing. So, according to her, you can't get something from nothing. So the universe can't come from nothing. Krauss's origin statement is then missing a word, namely, abracadabra. His statement should go like this: nothing is really abracadabra something. Obviously magical thinking. Then, abracadabra, the something that is nothing burped and abracadabra the universe popped into existence. This si-fi yarn is a Leprechaun in Krauss's basement that he apparently insists is plausible, and apparently believes in. But I don't find it anymore credible than some ancient origin myth. so what made him create this myth? Otherwise, he said, you might need a deity. Clearly, he created an atheist origin myth for philosophical purposes.
I have more comments on various topics made in the video, but they will come in later posts, other wise this already long post will be unmanageable.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Apollo: First Addressing the Question: What makes you think the Universe came from nothing? Do you have any evidence for that at all? (Okay, lets see what other silly stuff you have to say.) Oh... before I move on.... Atheists do not have a shared opinion on how the universe was created. There is no "Atheist" position. (Just thought I would share that as well.) Okay..... on to more silly stuff.
1. Yes, we all have beliefs? Some are not held strongly and others are "Justified True Beliefs." (A belief that would be earth shattering if it were proved to be true. "The Earth is actually flat," for example.") What's your point?
3. RE: "One preconception of atheists is simply stating disbelief in God." Disbelief can only occur after an assertion. Disbelief is a response to an assertion. You assert that there is a god and I respond, "I do not believe you." If there is no assertion there is no reason not to believe. If the assertion is convincing and not fallacious, you can get all the atheists to believe. There is nothing at all foundation about not believing in God or gods. Prove your assertion and we will all believe. How hard can that be??
RE: "Disbelief in a Creator God implies that the only thing that exists is nature." It implies no such thing. If there is something beyond nature, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. We know nature exists. It is demonstrable. Do you have any such evidence at all for anything at all outside of nature? Please share!
RE: Implication, implication, implication...... are you going to actually say anything? The fact that you can not see around your implications is not my problem. Your Black and White fallacious view of the universe is not shared by me.
3. "But Krauss, to his credit, clearly states he can't prove his origin of the universe tale." HELLO!! No one can! It's not just Krauss. NO ONE KNOWS HOW OR IF THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING. That's what we are looking for. That is one of the reasons for building the Hadron Collider. Krauss is not special in this.
RE: "There is a serious problem with the atheist "burden of proof" concept."
THERE IS NO ATHEIST BURDEN OF PROOF CONCEPT. Making such an assertion is utterly and completely moronic..... You do not understand BOP.
http://www.finedictionary.com/burden%20of%20proof.html
RE: "Same thing with theism: if it is unproveable it is ridiculous to demand proof." WRONG! Theism makes assertions about reality. It makes assertions about truth. Finally, It makes assertions that it is truth and true. At no point do theists assert their beliefs or perceptions are not real or true. They specifically assert their beliefs are provable and thus can be challenged.
5. Already addressed above. NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING IF IN FACT IT CAME INTO BEING. Not even Krauss or your silly theist assertions.
---------------------
1. "Krauss's origin tale is this: prior to the big bang, prior to nature and space-time existing there was nothing." NO! You have understood nothing Krauss has said. You do not understand what "Nothing" means. You have confounded the mathematical concept with Krauss's concept about which he is perfectly clear.
THIS JUST GETS SILLY ----- You have comprehended NOTHING of Krauss. NOthing. Then you came bounding in here to display your bare ignorance in front of the world. I can only feel sorry for you.
@Apollo....oh, you are off to a good start!
“I'd like to note that Krauss is a higher level thinker compared to Dawkins.”
What the fuck does this statement even mean? Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Krauss is theoretical physics/cosmology ...
Which is the “higher” thinker, a dentist or a doctor?
@ Whitefire13
He is just attempting to define a hierarchy within atheism. As if there is a leadership.
It doesn't work that way Apollo, we don't have a Pope or Bishops.
@ Apollo
I am not going to watch a 2 1/2 hour video. Please be more specific, offer time stamps.
Unlike organized religion, atheism has no dogma, no rules, and no leadership. Lawrence Krauss may be a very smart and well-educated man, but if he advances a proposition, he has to prove it with the same standards of evidence I would request of you.
But if this is an attempt to prove your god by disproving the position of an atheist, you are doing something wrong.
If you desire to convince me of your god, please provide evidence.
Do not forget Krauss's position, as explained in his book "A Universe from Nothing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
"we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."
@Apollo ...” I got some help from a six year old arithmetic whiz. I asked her what is zero? She said its nothing. How many ones are in zero, I asked. None, she said. How many twos in zero? None silly, zero is nothing. So, according to her, you can't get something from nothing. So the universe can't come from nothing. ”
This explains soooo much! I often wondered where you got your info! Why not google search “zero” and “nothing” - but then again, why bother right when you got a 6 year old.
Edited to add: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y7gAzTMdMA
Short history video on the number zero
@ Whitefire13
That is why I do not agree with Krauss, on asserting that the beginning and end is nothing. Personally I lean towards a much larger cosmos where this known universe is just a little bubble and as best we assume, it has existed forever.
This is something you need to learn Apollo. Just because one well known atheist makes a statement, other atheists do not have to accept his proposition without evidence.
The bottom line is that we know with great confidence what this universe was immediately after the beginning of the rapid expansion. But no one, NO ONE knows what went on before.
@RE: Nothing - Krauss's nothing is not "Mathmatical Nothing." It it not "Philosophical Nothing." It is the "Nothing of Empty Space that IS NO LONGER NOTHING AS WE ONCE UNDERSTOOD IT." Why is this difficult to grasp. WE HAVE NO EXAMPLE OF ANYTHING CALLED NOTHING ANYWHERE.
David wrote, "The bottom line is that we know with great confidence what this universe was immediately after the beginning of the rapid expansion. But no one, NO ONE knows what went on before."
I agree.
By the way, if you look in item #6, you will find a time video reference 2:11, hour 2 minute 11 onward.
@Apollo “
I agree.
By the way, if you look in item #6, you will find a time video reference 2:11, hour 2 minute 11 onward.
So then what’s your point? Your self-delusion of god is not known? That’s what we’ve been saying. Also, has the 6 year old been helping you count? You haven’t numbered any point “ #6”
@Whitefire Re: "...has the 6 year old been helping you count? You haven’t numbered any point “ #6”
Actually, it is likely Apollo did that on his own. Pretty sure the six year old would have caught that.
@ Apollo
The "nothing" that is being discussed in this thread is not relevant to zero.
If you attain zero in any region in space, you still have something.
David wrote,
"That is why I do not agree with Krauss, on asserting that the beginning and end is nothing. Personally I lean towards a much larger cosmos where this known universe is just a little bubble and as best we assume, it has existed forever.
This is something you need to learn Apollo. Just because one well known atheist makes a statement, other atheists do not have to accept his proposition without evidence."
David,
1. Just to point out the title of the thread specifies "An atheists' ...." which is to specify a particular one, not all. so no need to assume I meant all atheists.
2. I like how you wrote, "...as best we assume..." For those who are wondering what my point is, David nailed it.
Krauss used the terms "belief" and "preconceptions". We all have them he said. He's correct. Assumptions, presuppositions, pre-scientific beliefs, preconceptions....all such items are part of every ones personal conceptual framework and we all think and see from within our own conceptual framework.
So part of your personal conceptual framework is "...as best we assume, it has existed forever." Of course your assumption is unprovable and unfalsifiable. Nothing wrong with that. It seems to be the undeniable state of affairs we all live in.
@ Apollo
"Of course your assumption is unprovable and unfalsifiable."
This is where your ignorance places you with a dunce hat on your head and facing the corner. My proposition that this known universe may be a small bubble in a much larger cosmos is being investigated. Scientists are researching (especially the CMB) with the intent of proving or disproving.
Which is more ethical than your position on your god, where you blatantly state it is unfalsifiable, undetectable, and tastes like fresh mint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne5OvDr_zTs
Your assumption in question is, ""...as best we assume, it has existed forever." Was not spoken about in the video you referenced. She didn't talk about "it has existed for ever" and we can test that.
Apparently, Hawking's multi universe idea relies on string theory as opposed to particle theory. Strings are assumed. No real evidence they exist. Reportedly, most physicists prefer particle theory over string theory.
Even so, the multi-universe idea doesn't substantiate the idea that these universes existed forever.
Your previous post where you stated no one knows anything concerning the pre-big bang state of affairs made more sense.
So at least as valid as your unevidenced and imaginary deity then. Which you claim to be certain about.
That's ok, we will just assume it, like you do about your fictional deity.
Yet you and all the theists who come here claim to know that your imaginary deity from a bronze age fiction "created" everything prior to this using unexplained magic, and you claim to be certain, whilst simultaneously claiming there is no such thing as objective fact, even the objective fact that the world is not flat.
You're either off your tits, or lying your pants into ashes, and at this point I don't know which it is, or which is more embarrassing for you.
"Strings are assumed. No real evidence they exist. Reportedly, most physicists prefer particle theory over string theory."
String theory is not a "thing", it is a mathematical tool that allows physicists to work with crazy concepts. It is just like trigonometry, just a tool.
Particle theory deals with real objects possessing mass, density, or volume.
To paraphrase Yoda, the ignorance is strong in this one.
David ... lol - Don’t forget he get his math questions answered by a 6 yr old.
Whitefire, he knows a little about the subjects, but not enough detail to fully understand them. He likes to use buzzwords expecting them to have an impact. And of course, in an effort to make his arguments carry weight, is attempting to redefine established words.
And just in case it is reading this ...
An atheist lacks a belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, no baggage attached.
I don’t even know what “nothing” is. I imagine nobody does ...
Ohhhh....imagine (Cog just imagination)... this god idea existing out of time/space (this I can’t imagine, just using the language) breaks through! Dies in the process and here is the physical proof of what was once “it’s” existence. OR this god idea is so small - it is the one thing that since it is outside time/space keeps “popping” in and out of the physical reality as being everywhere/everything at once - a constant “movement” ...
Both are unprovable propositions.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again... this is the reality we live in wherein to the best of our human ability we gather evidence to explain nature...to get to as “true” as possible. The expansion of the universe- the age of the universe - evolution - gravity - energy - flat earth (oops) ...evidenced
@Apollo
Why should anyone answer anything you post, when we know you will make endless claims then leave without honestly addressing any of the responses, as you have done time and time again? You never answer our questions, why should we answer yours?
You have repeatedly claimed there is no such thing as an objective fact, I have repeatedly asked you if it is an objective fact that the world is not flat.
You have ignored the question, unsurprisingly, as you know you either have to admit the world might be flat, or admit your claim is nonsense, you are too dishonest to answer.
I see you are still touting argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to reverse the burden of proof as well, but of course are too dishonest to ever acknowledge this.
Reply to Sheldon,
1. On the matter of objectivity I recall replying to that many times to various people. There is an entire thread on it here -
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-separates-belief...
In that thread it was proposed that of Coke and Pepsi one objectively has more calories than the other. I disagreed and stated my reasons. That calories in Coke/Pepsi is a paradigm for some of the major problems with the notion of "objectivity". I invited all of you to participate in the thread, but apparently you decline to respond.
I take it as a fact that the world is not flat, but I object to the phrase "objective fact" as such things do not exist. Typically advocates of "objectivity" pick and choose an example where the degree of confidence is very high, while over looking examples where the confidence level is low. The sophistry in that tactic is clear. And so, employing sophistry, you pick "is the world not flat".
You have potential Sheldon, if only due to your persistence. The best I can do is encourage you to get out of your comfort zone, and think outside the box. Read things that challenge your perspective in order to enhance and refine your perspective. Did you consider reading Karl Poppers paper on "objectivity"? Did you consider reading his "Logic of Scientific Discovery" ? Interestingly many atheists here have referred to Popper's falsifiability principle But I have no evidence that anyone here has actually read any of his papers and books. Its my understanding that his book and paper are available for free in pdf on the net.
There was a time when I only read what I already believed and I made the mistake in college of openly stating that. One of my teachers, in a more kindly fashion, told me that's pretty stupid. You impress me as someone who only reads what you already believe.
So you're saying it's not an objective fact that the world is not flat? You're saying it is only personal opinion that the world is not flat? Your rhetoric is showing here, by the farcical stance you have been forced to take on this question.
Just one more thing you're wrong about then, a clue would be me taking the time to read your posts.
Sheldon wrote, "Just one more thing you're wrong about then, a clue would be me taking the time to read your posts."
Depends on what you mean by "read". Some people read the words but don't comprehend.
Did you have a title of a book by a logical positivist/empiricist that you have read and agree with? did you consider reading Popper's paper on "Objectivity"? and his book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery? If you did, that would be a clue.
Given the nature of the vapid verbiage you produce endlessly on here I'm not sure there is much to understand. Your pompous egotistical stance though is hilarious given how demonstrably idiotic most of your claims are, and you are churning out known informal logical fallacies like you get a fucking merit badge for each one.
You still didn't offer a single belief you hold without any supporting objective evidence, but that forms no part of your religious beliefs, every time you do this it makes your biased closed minded stance manifestly, as you are clearly giving just this one risible belief a pass from requiring proper evidence.
Try reading this link on the most commonly used fallacies in informal logic.
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies
You have used most of them in your embarrassing rhetoric, and to claim no less than it is mere opinion that the world is not flat or at the centre of the universe. Your all around ignorance would be embarrassing enough, without this pretentious stance you keep affecting for intellectual superiority, that's just hilarious.
As for reading the posts of others, while you were lying about me reading and understanding yours, you ignored mine, so here it is again, and this time try an honest response, not a silly tantrum.
So you're saying it's not an objective fact that the world is not flat? You're saying it is only personal opinion that the world is not flat? Your rhetoric is showing here, by the farcical stance you have been forced to take on this question.
@aharlemtheater
"You impress me as someone who only reads what you already believe."
An individual must determine what standards distinguish truth from falsehood...no?
OK then, what is your belief, in your version of a god, based on?
@ Sheldon
"Why should anyone answer anything you post, when we know you will make endless claims then leave without honestly addressing any of the responses, as you have done time and time again? "
And that is why my interaction with this troll is finished. Unless he first responds with my question on providing evidence for his god. Any sane reasoning I will accept, even better if he honestly admits he has zero.
No it doesn't, you are lying again. Does your disbelief in invisible unicorns imply "that the only thing that exists is nature"?
Another lie, is your disbelief in the claim the earth is flat, just your biased preconception?
The origin of the universe is irrelevant to the fact that there is no objective evidence for any deity, thus your red herring is irrelevant to atheism.
@Apollo
Please answer the questions you ran away from last time.
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/god-delusion?page=10#...
@Apollo is it an objective fact that the world is not flat?
Why does he think murder and rape are wrong or immoral?
I just wonder if Apollo realizes that even if he disproves everything ever said by all atheists, that does not prove a god.
Apollo, can you offer any evidence for a god?
David,
I'm not trying to prove 'a god". I want to know what atheists think proactively, as opposed to just negatively. I already know the essence of what atheists disbelieve. But what are they for? When I state the atheist disbelief in God in the positive I get, 'the only thing that exists is nature'.
Some have reacted strongly to 'the only thing that exists is nature' and seem to deny that is a valid implication of disbelief in God. Hmmmm. Ok. If atheists don't believe that the only thing that exists is nature, what besides nature do they think exists?
Pages