DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

How the frick should I know if science doesn't even know?

It was a question about what you believe, not an epistemological query.  Do you believe that my and everybody's favorite, fluffy ball of energy exists in the same space-time continuum as we do, or is he part of some other thing, as yet undefined?  It makes a difference what you are claiming as the germanity of my response and Krauss' response depends on exactly what it is you are claiming.  And if you are claiming that it is impossible to know if either case is true, then it becomes impossible to say that Krauss' solution is not the correct one, which would make your claim that, necessarily, according to what you know to be true, God is required, an untrue claim.

You really don't logic, do you?

Everena:
Krauss was already proven wrong. I did that a few pages back. Sorry you missed it

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...f-nothing/

 As Krauss elegantly argues in A Universe From Nothing, the accelerating expansion, indeed the whole existence of the cosmos, is most likely powered by “nothing”. Krauss is an exemplary interpreter of tough science, and the central part of the book, where he discusses what we know about the history of the universe – and how we know it – is perfectly judged. It is detailed but lucid, thorough but not stodgy.
It is remarkable to think that, a century ago, quantum theory was barely formed, general relativity was a work in progress and only a few scientists believed there was a beginning to the universe. We have come a long, long way since then by developing scientific tools that have proved themselves both reliable and remarkably fruitful. As Krauss’s insightful book shows, these days we really can talk with scientific rigour about the history and even the prehistoric origins of our universe.

Yet despite its clear strengths, A Universe From Nothing is not quite, as Richard Dawkins hopefully declares in the afterword, a “knockout blow” for the idea that a deity must have kicked the universe into being.

Krauss does want to deliver that blow: towards the end of the book, he promises that we really can have something from nothing – “even the laws of physics may not be necessary or required”. Ultimately, though, he has to perform a little sleight of hand. Space and time can indeed come from nothing; nothing, as Krauss explains beautifully, being an extremely unstable state from which the production of “something” is pretty much inevitable.

However, the laws of physics can’t be conjured from nothing. In the end, the best answer is that they arise from our existence within a multiverse, where all the universes have their own laws – ours being just so for no particular reason.

Krauss contends that the multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature “less significant”. Truthfully, it just puts the question beyond science – for now, at least. That (together with the frustratingly opaque origins of a multiverse) means Krauss can’t quite knock out those who think there must ultimately be a prime mover. Not that this matters too much: the juvenile asides that litter the first third of the book (for example, “I am tempted to retort here that theologians are expert at nothing”) mean that, by the time we get to the fascinating core of his argument, Krauss will be preaching only to the converted.

How is your repaste in any way an answer to my question? I noted this when you originally posted it as well as noting that it was not relevant and so yet another case of ignoratio elenchi. Are you going to answer the question as to what you believe or are you simply too chicken shit and dishonest?