![]() ![]() It is of course true by definition that a creation requires a creator (to be a creator is to create a creation, and to be a creation is to be created by a creator). Krauss admits that he is "not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator" (a conviction he states is "at the basis of all of the world’s religions" – although this would come as a surprise to Buddhists who don’t believe in God). That’s like arguing that since its possible to live on less and less food each day it must be possible to live on no food. ![]() Krauss spends most of his book redefining ‘nothing’ in terms of increasingly incorporeal somethings (from ‘empty space’ to reified ‘laws of physics’), as if this justified the conclusion that literal nothingness could be the cause of the cosmos. And what is says is devastating." I agree that what this book says on the subject of why something exists rather than nothing (which isn’t a lot) is devastating, but only to the intellectual credibility of Krauss and his supporters. According to Richard Dawkins: "The title means exactly what it says. Grayling, Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Krauss, has been lauded to the skies by fellow atheists such as A.C. A Universe From Someone – Against Lawrence KraussĪ Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (Free Press, 2012), by cosmologist Lawrence M. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |