I’m going to jump back on one of my favourite high horses. I’ve previously blogged about Lawrence Krauss and his views on the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”. I’ve just finished his book, and he appeared last night on an Australian TV show called Q&A. It was a good panel discussion, but as usual the show invites too many people and tries to discuss too much so there is always too little time. Krauss’ discussions with John Dickson were quite interesting.
I’ll be discussing the book in more detail in future, but listening to Krauss crystallised in my mind why I believe that science in principle cannot explain why anything exists.
Let me clear about one thing before I start. I say all of this as a professional scientist, as a cosmologist. I am in the same field as Krauss. This is not an antiscience rant. I am commenting on my own field.
Firstly, the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is equivalent to the question “why does anything at all exist?”. However, Krauss et al have decided to creatively redefine nothing (with no mandate from science – more on that in a later post) so that the question becomes more like “why is there a universe rather than a quantum space time foam?”. So I’ll focus on the second formulation, since it is immune to such equivocations.
Here is my argument.
A: The state of physics at any time can be (roughly) summarised by three things.
1. A statement about what the fundamental constituents of physical reality are and what their properties are.
2. A set of mathematical equations describing how these entities change, move, interact and rearrange.
3. A compilation of experimental and observational data.
In short, the stuff, the laws and the data.
B: None of these, and no combination of these, can answer the question “why does anything at all exist?”.
C: Thus physics cannot answer the question “why does anything at all exist?”.
Let’s have a closer look at the premises. I’m echoing here the argument of David Albert in his review of Krauss’ book, which I thoroughly recommend. Albert says,
[W]hat the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged.
For example, in Newtonian physics the fundamental constituents are particles, absolute space and absolute time, the laws are Newton’s laws of motion and equations that describe the forces at work in the universe e.g. gravity, and the data are things like the motion of the planets, rolling down an inclined plane etc. After James Clerk Maxwell, we add to the basic stuff electromagnetic fields, and add his equations to the laws, and to the data add observations of electromagnetic phenomena. The standard model of particle physics has quantum fields and Einsteinian space time as the basic stuff, the laws are standard model Lagrangian and general relativity, and throw in all the data of particle accelerators and such. (I’m glossing over a lot here, obviously, but you get the idea.) Various theories beyond the standard model postulate different stuff and laws e.g. String theory, loop quantum gravity. In some of these theories, there is an attempt or at least the hope that the theory will be able to treat spacetime itself as a derived thing, that there will be something in the theory even more fundamental than space and time, out of which space and time can be made (so-called background independent theories).
Now, why think that neither the stuff, the laws or the data or a combination can answer the question of why anything exists?
1 can’t do it: A statement of the basic constituents of reality, in and of itself, obviously cannot explain why such things exist, any more than the statement “the sky is blue” can explain why the sky is blue. So 1 is out.
2 can’t do it: Mathematical equations describe properties, and existence is not a property. 5 dollars plus 5 dollars equals 10 dollars, but that fact will not tell you how much money is actually in my account. The same is true for all mathematical equations, even the more sophisticated ones used by modern physics. Write down any equation you like – you will not be able to deduce from that equation that the thing it describes really exists. Mathematical equations are abstract entities, they have no causal powers. They can’t do anything, least of all jump off the blackboard and pull entities into existence. So the answer cannot be found in 2.
1 and 2 can’t do it: 1 and 2 together give a theoretical description of reality as we know it, so succumb to the same problems as 2 alone.
3 can’t do it: for the same reason that 1 can’t. The statement “I observed an electron strike a screen” cannot explain why there are electrons at all, and thus (a fortiori) cannot explain why anything exists at all.
1, 2 and 3 can’t do it: Sitting and staring at 1+2 on one hand, and 3 on the other, will tell you why we think that 1+2 really describes our universe. They account for the data, which is what science does. But once again we see no resources to attack the question of why anything at all exists. We’ve successfully described our universe. But that is all.
Thus, physics cannot answer the question “why does anything at all exist?”.
It is important to realise that no amount of progress in physics will change this situation. Imagine the final equation, the law of nature, written on a blackboard to thunderous applause. After the adoration dies down, we will still be faced with the question “why does a universe described by that equation actually exist?”. The answer cannot be found in the equation. Stephen Hawking said it well:
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? (from A Brief History of Time)
Krauss’ new “scientific” “nothing” consists of yet more hypothesised fundamental entities and laws which govern their behaviour. In Q&A, Krauss appeared to deny that there were such laws, but his book makes it clear that by “no laws” what he really means is laws that are “stochastic and random”, admitting that “Although to be fair, to make any scientific progress in calculating possibilities, we generally assume that certain properties, like quantum mechanics, permeate all possibilities.” The novelty of Krauss’ particular stuff is that it is (hypothesised to be) more fundamental even than space and time. But it is still stuff. And the mathematical laws that describe its properties and behaviour still cannot explain why it exists at all.
If you are a philosophical materialist – if you believe that everything that exists is ultimately the stuff of physics – then this question is unanswerable. Not just unanswered – I have no problem with questions that science cannot currently answer. It’s because of such questions that I have a job. But materialism simply doesn’t have the resources to answer that question. To be a materialist, one must convince oneself that the question is somehow meaningless, that it is nonsense masquerading as one of the deepest and oldest philosophical questions mankind has ever asked.
Is theism’s answer any better? The attempt is as follows: if everything that exists does so contingently, that is, if it is possible that it could not exist, then the question of why anything at all exists is unanswerable. Given anything that exists, we would still be left with the question as to why it exists. To answer this question, we must postulate the existence of a necessary being, that is, one who can’t fail to exist, the reason for whom’s existence is found within itself, rather than externally. This is not creating an arbitrary exception for God. It is asking what kind of thing must exist in order to explain the existence of contingent things. It is the search for a sufficient explanation for existence that leads us to a metaphysically necessary being.
A plague of questions spring to mind. Does that even make sense? What kind of thing is a metaphysically necessary being? Why think that the necessary being is a person? Why couldn’t it be the universe? We get rather quickly into deep philosophical waters here. But that is my point. Physics simply cannot inform these questions, one way or the other. It cannot speak to ultimate existence, it cannot observe or model necessity. If the necessary being turns out to be the universe (a view that almost no modern philosophers defend), then this will not be a scientific conclusion – no observation could establish that fact. I agree with Martin Rees, who said
[P]hysics can never explain what ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, and actualised them into a real cosmos. The fundamental question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ remains the province of philosophers. And even they may be wiser to respond, with Ludwig Wittgenstein, what ‘whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent’.
Letters to Nature 
I completely agree with this analysis. I wrote something similar not long ago where I tackled the same question and many readers commented physicists could actually “derive something from nothing” based on Krauss’s argument, but I consider a quantum vacuum and a bunch of fields to be as far away from nothing as it gets.
As you say, physics cannot answer the question by definition, because physics presupposes the existence of an external reality, without which experiments would not be reproducible.
That being said, I do believe physics is one of the most (if not the most) reasonable way of getting information about the universe. It just can’t tell us why there’s one.
Hi, I am from Australia.
Please find a completely different Illuminated Understanding of Reality than the naive childish mommy-daddy “creator”-God promoted by John Dickson, via these related references.
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-7.htm
http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/4068
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god.aspx
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/17_companions/paradigms/real_god_is.html
http://global.adidam.org/media/science.html
http://global.adidam.org/truth-book/true-spiritual-practice-4.html
http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html
Luke Barnes says:
“if everything that exists does so contingently, that is, if it is possible that it could not exist, then the question of why anything at all exists is unanswerable. Given anything that exists, we would still be left with the question as to why it exists.”
I think this is not true. That physical existence is possible but not necessary doesn’t imply that physical existence must be explained, except if you have a good reason for why existence must be explained.
For instance, the existence of my house needs an explanation because I know that houses are caused, not because houses are not logically necessary. However, this is not the case for physical existence itself. What we observe is that physical existence is always the case. Even in those situations where it might not be the case (before the Big Bang or after the Big Crunch), it either doesn’t make sense (because there is no time before the Big Bang), or it could be the case that something existed before the Big Bang (quantum foam or whatever). We have no reason to suppose that physical existence needs some sort of cause or reason. If you have one, please tell.
[…] This interesting post is from cosmologist Luke Barnes. (H/T ECM) […]
Luke, I really enjoyed and appreciated your thoughts here. I find Krauss both engaging (he is a funny and articulate guy) and irritating (he seems to be conning us), and have learned a lot from your posts on this topic over the past year or two.
As a christian I feel the theistic answer is better than you do, not least because it is supported by many non-Physics reasons to believe, but I can understand and appreciate your view, as I do that of Martin Rees.
But, Ricardo, isn’t that what science is all about? We don’t necessarily need to know how the big bang occurred, or whether it necessarily had a cause, but at the very least it is fun trying to find out, and at best curiosity, knowledge and understanding are part of what it means to be human. I can’t imagine not wanting to find out more, and wrestle with possible solutions.
The state of a true nothing is unstable and breaks down into positive and negative energy components. The best answer I have found is “The Origin of the Universe – Case Closed”.
“The state of a true nothing is unstable and breaks down into positive and negative energy components.”
Luke refuted that in an earlier post on this very blog.
Luke I believe you have made a number of very dubious statements here.
1
“However, Krauss et al have decided to creatively redefine nothing (with no mandate from science – more on that in a later post) so that the question becomes more like “why there is a universe rather than a quantum space time foam?”.”
No that’s not correct. Space time foam implies that space and time exist in some form. It may be in a different more turbulent form than in classical physics but it still exists in some form. However Krauss is re using Vilenkin’s idea that the universe tunneled into existence from a state with no space or time.
Here he is in his debate with Craig
“Quantum mechanics tells us that space and time them, not the space in which these things are appearing, but space itself spontaneously appears. There was no space, there was no time. And a region of space and time spontaneously appears. “
This was ignored by Albert in his lazy review of Krauss and it was ignored by you. Why do you keep making this straw man argument?
I have already pointed out your error on the 9th July 2012 yet you continue to make it, why?
Here’s another quote from Krauss, this time from the book you claimed you just read, page 169 on the e book:
“quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created nothing- meaning , in this case, I emphasize , the absence of space and time “ again he refers to Vilenkins 1982 paper “Creation of Universes from Nothing”
mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf
Now I have my own problem with Krauss statement, because it’s not really from a thoroughly worked out version of quantum gravity but is from a guess about what quantum gravity looks like. Far better to use a more developed theory such as LQG than this in my opinion. But at least I’m not making a straw man of what Krauss is saying.
2
Your argument assumes that “Mathematical equations are abstract entities, they have no causal powers.” Yet you try to appeal to a god; but there is no more reason to suppose that an embodied mind has any causal powers than abstract objects. At least we have evidence that abstract objects exist, so we can be open to the possibility that we are wrong about their casual powers. We do not have that for unembodied outside of space time minds.
3. “To answer this question, we must postulate the existence of a necessary being, that is, one who can’t fail to exist, the reason for whom’s existence is found within itself, rather than externally. This is not creating an arbitrary exception for God.”
Of course it is, why can’t the laws of physics be necessary?
4 Krauss’ new “scientific” “nothing” consists of yet more hypothesized fundamental entities and laws which govern their behavior.”
On a different tack, there is nothing new in what Krauss is saying, he’s just promoting the ideas of Alex Vilenkin. He’s not the first person to do this, Alan Guth used to do it. So why the knives out for Krauss? I suspect it’s because theists like to use Vilenkin’s and Guth’s ideas when its suits them (beginning of the universe). They re also not as vocal about their atheism as Krauss is.
5” If the necessary being turns out to be the universe (a view that almost no modern philosophers defend), then this will not be a scientific conclusion – no observation could establish that fact”
You know when I read this I thought your link would be some kind of survey of what professional photospheres think about this matter. Instead what we get is a question of the week on the personal web site of a theologian. This theologian is also aware of Vilnekin’s claims that the laws of physics exists before the universe exists, I know this because he reviewed Vilenkin’s book. Yet he goes on giving the same false impression that you do and this we are supposed to take seriously?
Let me show what a survey of professional philosophers actually looks like, we won’t be visiting some guys web site (what do you teach your students is an acceptable source Luke?). No well go oh Phil papers, the largest survey of professional philosophers I know of: they state
God: theism or atheism?
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.6%)
This means that the vast majority of professional philosophers do not think god is a necessary being. Slightly different result than the appeal to authority, that turned out not to be a real survey, but a rehash of William Lane Craig’s personal web site. Oh dear.
I met Prof. Krauss last thursday. Didn’t have much time to chat, unfortunately …
1. I’m well aware of what Krauss has *claimed*. My claim will (patience, good sir/madam) concern what Krauss has actually proved. As I said in response to the comment you reference, Vilenkin says: “I shall discuss a model in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from “nothing”, where by “nothing” I mean a state with no classical space time … “nothing” is a pure space-time foam, without any classical space-time substrate”. When Krauss and Vilenkin say no space and no time, they mean no classical space and time. There is still the “more fundamental nothingness” as Krauss calls it, “from which empty space may have arisen”. This is usually referred to as spacetime foam to emphasise its quantum nature and its status as a kind of proto-spacetime. This is what Krauss and Vilenkin are talking about. A state of pure spacetime foam can be described as being a state with no space and no time. That doesn’t entitle one to claim, as Krauss does, that it is therefore nothing. More details later.
2. (I’ll assume that you meant *unembodied* mind.)
We all have experiences of a mind that can cause things. I am such a thing. Look – I’m typing. The causal powers of matter are no less mysterious even if they are more familiar, as Hume stressed. A mind is the sort of thing that could have causal powers, especially the mind of an omnipotent being.
On the other hand, even Plato didn’t think that mathematical entities, in and of themselves, have causal powers. We know what mathematical entities are and they are not that kind of thing. Mathematical statements are not statements about the real world.
3. “This is not creating an arbitrary exception for God.” By this, I mean that we are not simply positing the existence of the same kind of thing as everything else in our universe, and then simply announcing that it is a necessary being. We are hypothesising the existence of a different kind of thing. The idea of God is the idea of a necessary being, not the idea of a contingent being and the postulate that we must ask why it exists.
“Why can’t the laws of physics be necessary?”. The laws of physics aren’t a being. They don’t exist in the same sense that the universe does. Why can’t the universe be a necessary being? I allowed for this possibility, merely noting that it isn’t popular. (More on that soon.) In short, none of the properties that we ascribe to the universe – age, density, size, composition, physical laws etc – seem to be necessary. But if you want to make that case – be my guest.
4. A fair point. Krauss is simply clearer about what he thinks all this means for the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”. And he was the one who appeared on my TV. I’d have to read Vilenkin’s book again, and I haven’t read Guth’s book. And, again, I have no problem with their scientific ideas.
5. “photospheres”?
Craig is a philosopher, not a theologian. Remember the claim that I am making: almost no modern philosophers defend the notion that the universe is a necessary being. This is not the same as claiming that the majority of professional philosophers do not think god is a necessary being. Even that claim is false. The idea of God is the idea of a necessary being. Most philosophers do not believe that God exists. Most people don’t think that unicorns exist, but do think that the idea of a unicorn is the idea of a one-horned horse.
Someone who has been a philosopher for over 35 years and written multiple books and articles on the cosmological argument for the existence of God is in a good position to report on what arguments he has encountered from his colleagues. There is no reason to think that Craig’s theism biases him on this – he is simply reporting on why his atheist colleagues reject the contingency argument. He reports that they often argue that the universe is a brute contingent fact. You don’t need to be an atheist to observe what kind of arguments appear in the literature and which don’t. Your statistics are irrelevant.
Been to the Lawrence Krauss school of bait-and-switch?
You are quite mistaken. The field within philosophy that deals with the existence of God is the philosophy of religion. And in this field, theism is clearly on the rise. Around ~ 70% of professional philosophers of religion are theists.
And I would personally not be a theist if it weren’t for modern cosmology. A Universe/Multiverse with a definite beginning, and fine-tunings for the evolution of intelligent life sounds awefully theistic to me.
And here I would also recommend the paper ‘The metaphilosophy of naturalism’ by the atheist philosopher of religion and physics, Quentin Smith.
At least we have evidence that abstract objects exist, so we can be open to the possibility that we are wrong about their casual powers.
I am not aware of a theory of abstract objects that attributes causal powers to them. For all we know, all of these could be wrong, but for all we know your parents could be aliens. If you are somehow convinced that they do have causal powers, feel free to share your reasons with the world and we can go from there.
Of course it is, why can’t the laws of physics be necessary?
Because they are not prescriptive, but merely descriptive.
So why the knives out for Krauss?
If I had to guess I’d say it’s because Krauss pretends as if this new “nothing” were relevant to the issue of “why does anything at all exist” when it isn’t and Vilenkin has not.
You know when I read this I thought your link would be some kind of survey of what professional photospheres think about this matter. Instead what we get is a question of the week on the personal web site of a theologian.
Craig is also a philosopher and an expert on cosmological arguments.
If you suspect that he is not telling the truth, feel free to do a survey on your own and tell us how many philosophers have defended the notion that the universe exists necessarily in print.
And even if the majority of philosophers do not believe in God, it does not follow that even one of them has defended the idea that the universe is a necessary being (also, the numbers are distorted because it includes people who do not work in the relevant field – the same survey shows that the vast majority of philosophers of religion do believe in God).
@WMF
And HOW on earth being a prescript(ion) makes you necesseary?
Merely because something is considered necesseary does not make it so…Defitions ARE tacit assumptions…e.g. If I define wve as fluctuation of mather the existence of aether will be almost inevitable 😀
If cosmological argument is to start we need to explain necessity…I believe the necessity itwofold: either aposteriori or logical…Aposteriori necessity requires some entity to be present and entity who cant’be necesseary aposteriori -hence
Hence necessity a posteriori Requires some brute facts (which mekes the cosmological argument failing -cause it sems to assume that there can not be brute facts…. (however thomistic version may slip here- Feser suggested, and I believe him after reading “Treatise on God” that proof of Tommy is actually attept to show that Grand Tooth Fairy alone can be brute fact…So idont believe Aquinas because of different reasons)
So cosmological argument with some exceptins ca not not use a posteriori necessity….And using loggical one is using petitio ’cause assuming logical necessity of GTF one can already present ontological proof which is better than cosmological (assuming ithat one CAN applly logical necessity to GTF)
Hence cosmological arguments are generally easy plainly,obvously long- at least if they are specified certain way….
As for the survey -it seems prima facie probable majority of philosophers of religion are theists, just like theologians…There is not much odf atheists who would like to investigate are which seems they consider not veridical : D
Erratum (sorry for typos)
There should be:
“If I define WAVE as fluctuation of MATTER the existence of aether will be almost inevitable ”
“So cosmological argument with some exceptions CAN not not use a posteriori necessity”
Sorry for other typos -I tend to write in a hurry…
1
As far as what Krauss has proved, I think we are likely in more agreement, Luke. I’m not especially sympathetic to the idea that the universe came from nothing,although I’m not comfortable with the concept of proof. Science isn’t as a whole in the business of proof; it’s in the business of building plausible theories and testing them with data. As more data comes in we get more confident in our ideas, but IMHO proof belongs to maths not physics.
But my point has never been to defend the validity of the claim that the universe came from thing. But for clarity as what is being claimed. David Albert in the article you recommended said “Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states – no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems – are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-¬theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields – what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! ”
But Vilenkin’s idea does not have any initial fields; there is no space or time for the fields to live in. So Albert is wrong by his own criteria. That is why I call Albert lazy in this review. Btw I’m generally a fan of Albert, I think his work on the interpretation on Qm is superb stuff.
Space time foam was invented by Wheeler to describe space time in quantum mechanical terms, if it exists it implies that space time is not smooth, not that it doesn’t exist at all. These are not the same. I have not seen Vilnekin, Guth nor Krauss describe Vilenkin’s initial state as space time foam. If you have a reference saying they do, please provide it.
2
I’m not disputing minds cause things, but in order to cause physical effects they always do so via some physical process. Yes you are typing, but only because your fingers are hitting the keyboard. If you had no physical body, how could you type?
Do you have any evidence that an unembodied mind, even if it exists can type let alone create a universe? This is science so we demand evidence, please provide some.
3
“By this, I mean that we are not simply positing the existence of the same kind of thing as everything else in our universe, and then simply announcing that it is a necessary being.”
Either umebodied minds exist in the universe or they don’t. If they do then that’s exactly what you are doing. If they do not, I see no difference between your proposal and the proposal that a giraffe could appear spontaneously in my bedroom. If we reject one because we never see it we can reject the other on the same basis.
4 I’m not sure how Krauss is clearer than Guth and Vilenkin, they say exactly the same thing. I really recommend Guth’s book, it’s a classic. Even if you know all the physics just the story of the discovery of inflation is a worthy read in itself.
5.
Sorry my spell check is always changing philosopher to photosphere, lol.
To say that Craig is a philosopher and a theologian might be ok, but to say he is a philosopher and not a theologian is not okay.
: “Theology (from Greek Θεός meaning “God” and λόγος, -logy, meaning “study of”) is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.[1]
According to Websters dictionary its either “: “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; “or “the study of God and of God’s relation to the world ”
Virtually everything Craig writes about is about god,
He teaches at the Talbot school ofTHEOLOGY. His doctorate degrees are 1 in theology and 2 in philosophy but the latter was still about god (kalam argument). His personal web site describes himself as giving his life to Christ, his wiki page describes him as a theologian, need I go on?
“Remember the claim that I am making: almost no modern philosophers defend the notion that the universe is a necessary being. This is not the same as claiming that the majority of professional philosophers do not think god is a necessary being. Even that claim is false. The idea of God is the idea of a necessary being. Most philosophers do not believe that God exists”
First off you still haven’t provided a proper source for your claim. Second off if the majority of philosophers thought god was a necessary being then it follows they should think he exists. How can a being that necessarily exists, not exist?
Of course Craig theism biases him; he clearly misrepresents cosmology to back up his cosmological argument. Take for example his recent podcast on Penrose CCC model; he stated that it has a beginning from nothing, that’s complete crap. Penrose was asked whether his model necessarily had a beginning on the same Christian radio show that promoted Craig’s later debate, he answered no!
Craig’s claim here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/truth-free-will-and-cosmology
Penrose claim here: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7B320d8898-a8f0-4433-8934-d64ddeb8a21c%7D
_____________
Do you have any evidence that an unembodied mind, even if it exists can type let alone create a universe? This is science so we demand evidence, please provide some.
Actually this is philosophy, not science. Science doesn’t deal with unembodied minds. Also, I’m not sure what would count as “evidence” in this case. As an example, aristotelian metaphysics says it works. I’m not sure if better evidence is possible (for example, provide me with evidence that I’m not the only thinking being in existence).
To say that Craig is a philosopher and a theologian might be ok, but to say he is a philosopher and not a theologian is not okay.
I’m pretty sure Luke intended to be understood as saying “Craig is speaking as a philosopher”. Anyway, to quoque.
First off you still haven’t provided a proper source for your claim. Second off if the majority of philosophers thought god was a necessary being then it follows they should think he exists. How can a being that necessarily exists, not exist?
First of all, the source is the philosopher and expert on cosmological arguments William Lane Craig. If you believe he’s not telling us the truth, a survey of the literature on cosmological arguments should reveal whether or not that’s the case. If he’s wrong, you should find several philosophers who have recently defended the idea that the universe is a necessary being in print. If he’s right, you won’t be able to do so. I posed this challenge earlier and you haven’t met it yet, does that count as evidence?
Second of all, the claim isn’t “the majority of philosophers things God is a necessary being”, it’s “almost no philosopher today defends the idea that the universe is a necessary being”. Also, it has already been pointed out that the majority of philosophers who work in the relevant field do believe in God (the survey didn’t specify whether or not they believe in a necessary God, but I would guess that most of them do) and the opinions of philosophers who don’t work in this field do not matter.
How about the fact that we can even think about this concept, would invalidate all we know about science. How can we conceive this from nothing.
“How can a being that necessarily exists, not exist?”
I wouldn’t want to venture into most of your comment, but this merits a reply. There is a difference between defining something and positing that it exists. Some would say that we cannot posit the existence of an entity until we define it.
So God is defined by many as, among other things, a necessary being. That is the definition.Then we have to establish whether that defined being actually exists.
So, many philosophers may define God as a necessary being but still believe that he doesn’t exist.
trollmonster,
you don’t seem to have a very good grasp on the english language. I have a hard time trying to understand your line of reasoning. However, the parts I do understand seem completely irrelevant to the points I made in response to Big Blue Bump.
@WMF
Kind of…One reason is that I tend to write in a hurry, the other being the fact that English is not my native language…
Still, ss much as I suck in writing, I can read, which allowed me to study some cosmological arguments…yet I am unfamiliar (and highly suspicious) of any attempt to justify or explain GTF’s necessity via prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy…Modalities seem all descriptive…..As for other matters, I think they relate but OK..no trolling about them :D….
“yet I am unfamiliar (and highly suspicious) of any attempt to justify or explain GTF’s necessity via prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy”
FIrst of all, since I already have trouble understanding you, it would help if you wouldn’t resort to using abbreviations that don’t mean anything to me.
So what do you mean by GTF?
Plain and simple: Why do you think that being “merely descriptive” prevents you from being necessary being? Why something prescriptive (?) can be necessary, while descriptive can not?
Seems suspicious to me -the only way that comes to mind is to say that moral obligation (“moral must”) entails necessity (“modal must”) but this seems to be conflating two different things -kind of equivocation…….
First of all, I find it somewhat rude that you chose to ignore my question.
As for your question, a description isn’t an object at all (unless you take some sort of platonistic approach, in which case it still wouldn’t be the type of object that has explanatory power).
The former question was merely to point out the problem I asked later (but also at the beginning o our conversation)….
Now I understand (this argument I’ve encountered) …but this is not the matter of descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy..All you say is that laws can’t be necessary because they are not “substantial” but description of facts…The problem is that this description describes something -not necessarily platonic eidos -but for example timespace with certain symmetries…So law of physics per se can’t be necessary but corresponding property of timespace (symmetry) CAN..As well as timespace itself….
First of all, you almost certainly mean spacetime.
Second, the only problem here is that you don’t understand what people have written in the previous comments, including why I brought up the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive propositions in the first place.
Oh yes, sorry..apparently my voabulary continually sucks -it is a little bit time I attended Engish classes -apparently reading in English is easier than speaking
As for the second issue- I checked the tread and it seems to me that I understand-you discussed what can be necessary being-Big BlueBump suggested laws-you disagreed-and I pointed out that even if laws as are descriptions ,the characterise something-and that something can be necessary…..
Do you see that there is a difference between laws that are necessarily existing prescriptive objects and laws that are necessarily true descriptions of necessarily existing objects?
What do you mean by “prescriptive object” at the first place? Neither laws nor symmetries tell us what “ought to happen” but what WILL happen under certain circumstances…Laws do not say”It is good for aplle to hit the ground” but rather something like “gravity will pull apple to eath if it not countered by other force”
Of course there is the difference between necessity of sentence and the necessity of situations that makes the statement true and necesseary….ButI can’t see how that makes Big Blue Bump argument weaker….
By prescriptive object, I mean an object that is the fact that something has to act a certain way. As an example, if the laws of gravity are viewed like this, an apple doesn’t fall to the ground because it’s getting pulled down by the mass of the earth. Instead, it falls because F=m*a is an object that causes apples in such a scenario to accelerate by its existence.
Also, there is no need for you to tell me that the laws of physics are descriptive. I was the one who brought it up in the first place.
Big Blue Bump raised the objection that the laws of physics might be necessarily existing prescriptive objects as an alternative to the necessary existence of the universe. Not that spacetime exists and behaves a certain way necessarily.
Ok -I take it that by “prescriptive” you mean active agency of something over something….I can agree that the laws as equations may indeed not have such property….but the properties they correspond to may…..Contrary to most philosophers I always viewed laws as some properties of world not sets of equations…
Well It seems that I understood BigBlue Bump differently but now I see no reason to argue about that…
WMF,
“I am not aware of a theory of abstract objects that attributes causal powers to them”
Vile kin’s theory argues the universe comes into existence because of the laws of physics, they exist without the universe existing. This implies to me that abstract objects do have causal powers. What could be more abstract than a set of laws that exist without any universe to encode them in?
If the laws of physics cause the universe to exist then that it seems to me that the universe is necessary.
You saying the laws of physics are not prescriptive but descriptive doesn’t make it so.
Vilenkin has made exactly the same argument as Krauss in terms of creations of universes from “nothing”. I challenge you to find one significant difference between what the two of them are saying. If it’s the case that the laws of physics somehow exist platonically and cause the universe to come into existence then of course it’s relevant as to why things exist.
On William Lane Craig I have already shown you a blatant misrepresentation of cosmology on his behalf, so I see no reason to trust him. I notice you have offered no defence in this instance. Why is that? He clearly bends the literature to fit the picture he wants. His record on nuero science is pretty bad too. Furthermore the onus isn’t on me to survey the literature, I have not made the claim, others have and so it’s up to them to prove it.
I find it incredible that an opinion piece on a personal website is considered serious source. It simply wouldn’t be allowed at my University, so why on this blog is it suddenly acceptable?
Olof you quote that we can’t look at the philosophers but only to religious philosophers is absurd. Would we only go to UFOolgists to decide if UFO are alien space craft? A biologist is plenty qualified to decide on evidence for big foot. We don’t need to go to someone that has studied nothing but big foot all their life. Don’t you think there might be a bit of a selection effect there?
UnkleE, I can define god as an existence being and then prove god exists because it’s true by definition. This sort of word play simply doesn’t interest me. If it’s actually a true that god existence is necessary then he must exist, that’s pretty straight forward.
Vile kin’s theory argues the universe comes into existence because of the laws of physics, they exist without the universe existing. This implies to me that abstract objects do have causal powers. What could be more abstract than a set of laws that exist without any universe to encode them in?
If the laws of physics cause the universe to exist then that it seems to me that the universe is necessary.
You saying the laws of physics are not prescriptive but descriptive doesn’t make it so.
First of all, if the laws of physics exist without the universe existing, then the universe does not exist necessarily. If the universe “comes into existence” at all, then it doesn’t exist necessarily.
Second, it doesn’t help to say that his theory needs this to work. Which philosophical arguments does Vilenkin offer for such a view of the laws of physics? Which philosophers have defended this idea and where can I read more?
Vilenkin has made exactly the same argument as Krauss in terms of creations of universes from “nothing”. I challenge you to find one significant difference between what the two of them are saying. If it’s the case that the laws of physics somehow exist platonically and cause the universe to come into existence then of course it’s relevant as to why things exist.
According to you, Vilenkin is at least working with the actual definition of “nothing”, whereas Krauss is commiting the fallacy of equivocation.
Also, where does Krauss argue that the laws of physics exist platonically and have causal powers?
On William Lane Craig I have already shown you a blatant misrepresentation of cosmology on his behalf, so I see no reason to trust him. I notice you have offered no defence in this instance. Why is that? He clearly bends the literature to fit the picture he wants. His record on nuero science is pretty bad too. Furthermore the onus isn’t on me to survey the literature, I have not made the claim, others have and so it’s up to them to prove it.
I find it incredible that an opinion piece on a personal website is considered serious source. It simply wouldn’t be allowed at my University, so why on this blog is it suddenly acceptable?
I don’t care for your opinion on Craig. Personally, I’d like to know what he has to say about the instances where you accuse him of misrepresenting what other people have said before I reach the point where I don’t trust what he reports about his field of expertise.
As for the burden of proof, there is no possible way to prove to you what people you haven’t read have written. So if you are honestly interested in the truth, you absolutely have to survey the literature for yourself, or at least find someone working in the field whom you trust, email him/her about this and hope for an answer.
Also, I do not rely on Craig’s personal website on this issue. I have actually read the literature (and I’m assuming so has Luke) and I have found the same result. So instead of arguing about who would constitute an infallible authority on who has written what, I’d be far more interested in counterexamples. So unless you provide us with one, I’m going to ignore this now.
@ WMF
Possible counterexample, the author seems to consider matter to posess some characteristics of necessary being
Rundle, Bede, 2004, Why there Is Something rather than Nothing, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
I have not checked but Thus speaks article on Stanford:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3.3
See for yourself…..
A quick update (won’t have time this weekend):
I need to read Rundle with more time on my hands to be sure, but after a quick look it really doesn’t seem like he believed the universe existed necessarily (in fact, I think he believed that there are no necessary beings, just that every possible world contains at least one contingently existing being).
I remember Rundle from interviews he did for “Closer To Truth”.
What I did not remember was that he argued for the necessary existance of anything in particular.
@WMF
First of all -What do you think when you say “Necessary universe”….You seem to suggest that If there is a necessary universe then nothing in it should be contingent…You seem to state that necessity of something entails necessity of everything “in” it (i.e. its properties)…But i don’t define universe that way…Universe is not a collection of things..I think of physical universe as defined by some primary substance (matter, energy of spacetime)…This substance is necessary…But its “mode” configurations” etc NEED NOT TO BE necessary..
In a similar manner supernatural agent may be necesary -but its properties need not to….Some Cartesian-like theist who view persons as substances with thoughts and wills as their “modes” or “accidents-may think exactly that way.I suspect Swinburne and Craig guy to think kinda that way., but this is a matter of dispute
It seems to me that thinking in a way akin to Rundle we may identify the world with matter which by its characteristics is deemed to be uncaused thus making it necessary being according to at least one definition of metaphysical necessity (BTW How do YOU understand necessity especially metaphysical necessity?)..
Of course if matter is necessary but its arrangement is not then we explained the existence of the world but not is specific properties…However it may be countered that supernatural being also faces similar difficulty-If the being is necessary but its “will” or willing” is not then we still do not know why we exist in such a world and not in the other…
What do you think when you say “Necessary universe”
I don’t think I said that.
You seem to suggest that If there is a necessary universe then nothing in it should be contingent
I said no such thing.
You seem to state that necessity of something entails necessity of everything “in” it
I am also fairly sure that I said nothing like that.
@WMF
As for the first item I am simply asking you to provide your definition of “Metaphysical necessity”…You state that Rundle does not seem to believe in necessity of universe…But, this may depend on what counts as a “necessary universe”…The Stanford suggest that he seems to believe in some kind of ncessity of matter….
Please note; that it is not important what Rundle himself thinks :D….TES! Rather it is important whether his characteristic of matter universe fits some definition of metaphysical necessity…:D
As for two other issues….OK technically you subscribed to Rundle the view that: (1)”there are no necessary beings, just that every possible world contains at least one contingently existing being”..And this was linked with (apparent) Rundles conviction that (2)universe is not necessary..
If (2) is to be supported by (1) we need to assume that han
possesing contingent being precludes universe to be necessary thus necessary universe should have all its beings(“parts”) necesssary….But I disagree with these conclusion as I specified above….
First of all, you might want to actually read Rundle for yourself.
Nowhere did anyone argue that (2) is true because (1) is true.
Second, there sis no prima facie reason for believing that “Necessarily, at least one material object exists” implies “At least one material object exists necessarily”.
Well I take it that you subscribed (1) and (2) to Rundle and it seemed that there is an inference…but if no then why you stated (1)…when we discusss (2)..???…But that may be irrelevant…My MAIN point is that you need to define metaphysical necessity to proceed with any considertion regarding who says what about necessity of something. To say that no one defends necessity of the world you have to specify its concept -merely stating that no one use the world “necessary is NOT enough.
As for the second matter,I do not understand-Of course from the fact that unspecified something is necessary we can not infer what it is….But I am at loss how w this relates to what I said…
Well I take it that you subscribed (1) and (2) to Rundle and it seemed that there is an inference…but if no then why you stated (1)…when we discusss (2)..???
I pointed out that Rundle didn’t believe the negation of (2) and instead believed (1), which is a weaker proposition.
But that may be irrelevant…My MAIN point is that you need to define metaphysical necessity to proceed with any considertion regarding who says what about necessity of something. To say that no one defends necessity of the world you have to specify its concept -merely stating that no one use the world “necessary is NOT enough.
I’m using “metaphysically necessary” in the standard sense. “The universe exists necessarily” means “X is necessarily true”, where X=”The universe exists”.
Well ,but I still do not get it what has (1) to do with it…It seemed to me that you cited it to support something, like (2)….If no then Im at loss as to what you trying to point out…
A for the second issue let me explain….It doesn’t help to explain the necessity of being by necesary truth of sentence…The problem is: how and why are things or sentence necessary…..Logical necessity explains it via tautologies -some sentences and facts are necessary cause the oposite would be contradictory…
Metaphysical necessity seems to refer to some underlying constitution of reality -for example Prime Mover of Aquinas is necessary by virtue of its peculiar “traits” simplicity and absolute actuality which determine that if such a thing exists it can not be caused by any other and this is what “necessity of pure act means”. We still can conceive there being no pure act but Aquinas tries to show that if it was the case there would be nothing.
Metaphysical necessity usually is explained as result of some basic state of affairs whereas logical by virtue of consistency of concepts though things sometimes got blurred here :D….
If someone says that Big Bang is ultimate fact cause it can’t have a cause there being no moment before him then (given temporal causality is the only one) we can say that someone ascribes some kinf of metaphysical necessity to Big Bang even if does not use the word “necessity”…Reichenbach seems to portray Rundle this way on Stanford entry…
Well ,but I still do not get it what has (1) to do with it…It seemed to me that you cited it to support something, like (2)….If no then Im at loss as to what you trying to point out…
The fact that the article gives off the wrong impression of Rundle’s beliefs, namely that he beleived “Necessarily, at least one material object exists”, but not “At least one material object exists necessarily”.
This turns out to be relevant because his alleged belief in the latter was the only reason you gave for bringing him up in the first place.
“X is (metaphysically) nessecarily true” means it’s impossible for X to be false.
It doesn’t matter why it would be impossible for X to be false, or if there even is a reason for why it would be impossible for X to be false. It doesn’t mean more than that.
If someone says that Big Bang is ultimate fact cause it can’t have a cause there being no moment before him then (given temporal causality is the only one) we can say that someone ascribes some kinf of metaphysical necessity to Big Bang
First of all, “ultimate fact” isn’t a well-defined term, do you mean “brute fact” (contingently true and without explanation)?
Second, we could say that, but we would be wrong, or at least badly equivocating. I strongly advise against doing so.
Excuse me but WHY ON EArth would we wrong or equivocating…?…How many times I have to tell you that it means nothing to say that something is necessary…And explaining necessity of beings via necessity of sentences does not help….
You have to explain HOW things are necessary…Aquinas did it, Even Craid attempts something. Without it these terms are vague….My studies
brought me to conclusion that metaphysical necessity is usually if not always RELATIVE to some basic unexplained facts, which you can call Brute facts….Or rather which you could call brute facts if they were contingent :d…But the point is that if some fact is “measure” for necessity it probably is either necessary itself or Neither necessary NOR contingent….Its very simple: When Aquinas says that angel is contingent he means simply that the angel is composed of two components which have the potency to connect to each other but “PER SE” are disconnected and thus they require some factor to join them…Prime Mover on the other hand does nor need “joint venture” 😀 cause it is simple and unitary….
Why I say this?..Please Pay attention to the fact that components of Angel (and any creature) seem to be NEITHER contingent no NECESSARY…Possibly Aquinas would like somehow to avoid this conclusion but it seems that if we can define contingency/necessity it’s because we hava these BASIC objects who define these terms PRECISELY because they are NEUTRAL to them.. The point is that that ,as I believe” ANY attempt to explin metaphysical necessity may be forced to do it in similar manner LEAVING some basic objects NEITHER necessary NO contingent…If you don’t believe read at least that wiki entry which luke provided…There is mentioning about “necessity simpliciter” but without reference -any explanations of metaphysical necessity from literature provided seem to be relative in my sense, that is is the presuppose existence of something to begin with..To be metaphysicaly necessary means for example:”a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it. ”
Please note that such definition doe not make the being defined necessary simpliciter…It still MAY not exist :d…. Howeverif something existss and everything that needs a cause , has it then existence of being defined as above is required…but NOT per se but on virtue of these assumptions…Thus cosmological argument and metaphysical necessity can not explain why there is “something rather than nothing”…The only what can (at best) do is to prove that if there is something then a being of certain qualities defined as above must exist….But this being is technicallya BRUTE FACT…
Now I believe you should explain why i can’t define some physical being or universe or matter or BIg Bang as necessary in a similar manner? Cause I take that you questioned the possibility of necessitating Big Bang, didn’t you?
And as for Rundle: Ibelieve you have to specify the difference between these two sentences
(A)“Necessarily, at least one material object exists”
and
(B) “At least one material object exists necessarily”
As I understand the article implies that matter according to Rundle is necessary but not necessary any particular configuration of that matter….So no specific material object is necessary but SOME
material object(s) must exist…These seems to be in line with afirming (a) and denying (B)..at least that is how I intepret the difference between these sentences….If you think otherwise then specify….
If that is what article states then this is enough for considering matter a necessary being…..Not particular material object but matter as a “stuff” things are made of…Perticular material beings …even apossibly amount of matter are contingent…So I can not see how I am forced to affirm (B)..I think my account is consistent with affirming (A) only…
“First of all, if the laws of physics exist without the universe existing, then the universe does not exist necessarily. If the universe “comes into existence” at all, then it doesn’t exist necessarily.”
If the universe is consequence of the laws and the laws exist platonically, then the universe is necessary, according to this theory it can happen and anything that can happen will happen. Many people have either endorsed this as a possible solution to the origins of the universe or given it credence enough to mention it in their books, this include cosmologists such as Alex Vielnkin (the inventor of the model), Alan Guth, Mario Livio and Andrew Liddle (who mentioned it in his text book). These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The paper has 60 citations in the professional literature. These people are all in cosmology. I couldn’t care less that they don’t have the label philosophers on their hats, why should I? In the past these people would have been labelled philosophers. The fact is this idea is out there in the peer reviewed literature. So it simply wrong to suggest that no one is seriously suggesting this.
“According to you, Vilenkin is at least working with the actual definition of “nothing”, whereas Krauss is committing the fallacy of equivocation.”
No they both call exactly the same state nothing, they both define what they mean by this nothing, there is no difference whatsoever in what they are saying and how they use and define the words. Again I challenge you to give a clear difference; you simply stating one is equivaicating and the other isn’t don’t make it so.
It is not my opinion on Craig that matter it is the evidence I have presented, I have given a clear and cut case of Craig miss representing the work of a professional scientist to make it look like it has totally different conclusion that it really does. No surprise it’s the conclusion Craig wants. I have given you the means to assess this claim. Yet you refuse to do so.
As for the burden of proof, you make a clam, you show the evidence. If I said no philosophers take god seriously then I have a burden to show that, so it is with you. What you have read and what your reading of the literature are is totally irrelevant, the issue is what have you actually presented evidence for, so far I see nothing.
I have also just finished reading Krauss’s book. I have not however finished reading the comments here (which are almost as long as the book), so apologies if the following has already been said. I have just posted the words below at http://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=http%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/290916/
in a thread about “why does Krauss call something nothing?”.
From the end of Chapter 9:
“While inflation demonstrates how empty space endowed with energy can effectively create everything we see, along with an unbelievably large and flat universe, it would be disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy, which drives inflation, is really nothing. In this picture one must assume that space exists and can store energy, and one uses the laws of physics like general relativity to calculate the consequences. So if we stopped here, one might be justified in claiming that modern science is a long way from really addressing how to get something from nothing. “
I would have been happy if he had stopped there, but he goes on:
“This is just the first step, however. As we expand our understanding, we will next see that inflation can represent simply the tip of a cosmic iceberg of nothingness.”
From the end of Chapter 10:
“The lesson is clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing – meaning, in this case, I emphasize, the absence of space and time – it may require them. “Nothing” in this case no space, no time, no anything! – is unstable”
So there is no question, he is finally quite explicit about it, when he talks about “nothing”, at least in Chapter 10, he is referring to “Nothing”, not a something that until recently most people (including scientists) thought was nothing.
So does he make his case, that the Universe as we experience it came from “Nothing”? I don’t think he does. The “Nothing” that he says is unstable is only unstable because of the action of something, albeit a something that was once thought to be nothing, and Is nothing in the sense that it contains no particulate matter. It seems to me that his arguments lead to the conclusion that either the basic underlying something that is space (or some still more basic something) has always existed (in some form), or that time is (in some sense) curved, so that it may be finite but without boundaries. The alternative is that it is vacuums all the way down, which is possible, but also implies there has always been something.
I think it is a shame he is so committed to the strong “Universe From Nothing” argument, because it gives theists a good excuse to dismiss the whole book as worthless, when in fact it is an excellent summary of developments in cosmology over the last 30 years or so, and the argument that the Universe (as we see it) came from something that has always existed disposes of the need to hypothesise a “God” just as effectively as the Universe from nothing argument.
Hi Luke! This might be a stupid question so apologies in advance. When you mention that Stephen Hawking quote ‘what is it that breathes fire into these equations’, couldn’t the fundamental particles do it? If I understand correctly the problem with this line of reasoning is that it posits either an eternal universe (because if the fundamental particles were all there and had the right properties a universe necessarily follows) or an infinite regress of contingent effects (which is kind of like trying to reach the first number of pi by counting back through its infinite decimal places). I’d like to hear your thoughts. Also I really appreciate your blog, especially how you cut throughout he rhetoric often associated with these issues and focus on the facts, keep it up 🙂
Can a part of a thing explain why that thing exists at all? I don’t think so. If a contingent thing has an explanation, then that explanation is in terms of other things.
But could the fundamental particles or the laws of nature or a combination of the two every be considered as a necessary cause?
I thought the laws of nature came into being when the big bang was created. If you follow the math they give strange and weird calculations the closer you get to the moment the big bang started. Luke might able to clarify here.
*ever
No one really knows for sure at this point. The question why anything exists at all is very deep as all the comments show here and everywhere on the Internet.
One thing that maybe can shed some light on all this, is that maybe the answer is really out somewhere in the universe waiting to to be discovered or revealed to humanity.
I always thought that maybe the very concept of god(s) is correct but flawed by misinformation by human understanding through the ages.
Maybe we are part of an intelligent alien race that started all this with knowledge so ancient and beyond our own understanding that we simply have it all wrong. Maybe all the ancient writers either met firsthand or observed some ancient alien race here on earth and then created a writing such as the Christian bible to describe the events in terms that ancient communication standards allowed at the time of how we and the universe came to be, but since understanding and communication were more limited at the time, only wrote what they felt they observed based on their understanding. The technology used by the aliens might have been so powerful and beyond the writers comprehension.
I do not know the answer myself, but I leave open the door to everyday possibility no matter how absurbed it may sound that eventually the answer will be found. Everyone could be right in expousing their views as to the reason why all this exists simply because we cannot really know for certain if that one view amongst many is the right one at this point.
I see many discussions on this subject get very heated and degenerate into personal attacks. There is no need for this if you are truly searching for the truth yourself. Since we cannot be 100% sure the reason why anything exists, all of us must accept that maybe our view is wrong. So it is best to listen more and draw your own conclusions for yourself as it is really you that stares back at you in the mirror at the end of the day.
One thing we can sure of is that most of us would like an answer as to why there is something instead of nothing…
Wow that was strange. I just wrote an extremely long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t show up. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again.
Anyways, just wanted to say fantastic blog!
Hiya very cool blog!! Guy .. Excellent .. Wonderful .
. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds also?
I am satisfied to seek out a lot of useful info here in
the publish, we need develop extra strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing.
. . . . .
Great post.
Hello! I realize this is somewhat off-topic but I had to ask.
Does building a well-established website like yours take a massive amount work?
I’m completely new to writing a blog but I do write in my journal everyday. I’d like to start
a blog so I will be able to share my experience and views online.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions or tips
for new aspiring bloggers. Appreciate it!
It’s very trouble-free to find out any topic on web as compared to textbooks, as I found this paragraph at this site.
I am regular reader, how are you everybody? This piece of writing
posted at this website is in fact good.
What’s up i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anyplace, when i read this paragraph i thought i could also create comment due to this sensible piece of writing.
Thanks , I’ve just been searching for info approximately this subject for ages and yours is the best I’ve found out so far.
But, what about the bottom line? Are you sure concerning the supply?
Hi there it’s me, I am also visiting this website daily, this web site is in fact good and the visitors are actually sharing fastidious thoughts.
[…] posts about the philosophical claims of Lawrence Krauss. This is something I’ve blogged about a few times. His most recent post on Krauss contains this marvellous […]
[…] (Interested? Go read the whole piece.) […]
[…] to dig deeper? See Why science cannot explain why anything at all exists (understanding the limits of science by Dr. Luke […]
[…] laws of nature are the ultimate brute facts of reality. I’ve discussed this previously (here and here): the study of physics at any particular time can be summarised by three […]
[…] exists at all, let alone fine-tuned values of constants. I’ve explained this before here and here. Fine-tuning for life to exist at all is, however, and interesting kind of fine-tuning. I think […]
You say
“If the necessary being turns out to be the universe (a view that almost no modern philosophers defend), ”
I had a look at the link.
Who is William Lane Craig? Wink wink….
An intellectual giant I must say!
Make sure to to read his writings on the problem of the souls of the unevangelized, Amalekite infants and Midianite virgins….definitely no Wittgensteinian …wink wink…
You gotta be kidding….
What never fails to amaze me is how people with the intelligence to understand the most difficult branch of science can find wisdom in people who come up with the ridiculously technical reasons for
why it’s OK for people on Easter Island (before the arrival of the Europeans) to go to hell when they die
when it’s OK to kill babies
why its OK to rape the women of the conquered (please don’t call what was done to the Midianites marriage)
Really, explain to me.
This looked like a waste of time since he did not ask “why is there anything rather than a quantum space time foam?” rather than “why is there a universe rather than a quantum space time foam?”
So I really really hope I’m not missing the answer to the greatest question by skipping this article.
Reminds me…
SMITHERS
Sir, I’ve arranged for the people of Australia to join hands tonight and spell out your name with candles. There’s a satellite hookup on that monitor if you’ll just turn your head slightly.
BURNS
Bah! No time! Next!
[…] Science Can’t Explain Why Everything Exists […]
I agree with you that Krauss is using “nothing” in a way that isn’t literal, i.e. what most people (and especially philosophers) mean by the word. However, why is materialism incapable of answering the question? They don’t claim this is meaningless that I’ve seen, but say matter is a necessary and eternal thing, not unlike God as you mention. You may find the answer unconvincing-that is different from them being unable to answer at all though, or dismiss the question. For myself, I don’t know whether “nothing” is even coherent. Even if it were, to thin that something can come from nothing seems absurd. So there must always be something.
If some one wishes exper view regarding running a blog then i advise him/her tto pay a visit this webpage, Keep up the
nice job.
I visit daily a ffew web sites and blogs to resd articles or reviews,
however this weblog offers feature based writing.
Good post! We will be linking to this particularly great
post on our site. Keep up the great writing.
Asking questions are really good thing if you are not
understanding anything completely, but this article presents
nice understanding yet.