Proof of God

[Mister Agenda]

Why are you quoting the Quran at me? I said if there is "a god", what difference does it make? Are you just switching in your God and hoping I won't notice?

Do you think nature (that originated you in first place) is obliged to provide all conditions for your existence and comfort?

Nope.

Well, congratulations! This is exactly what nature is doing.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure without hundreds of generations of technological and cultural progress on the part of humans, I would be pretty darn uncomfortable, if I were alive at all. The environment nature provided is harsh and unforgiving, as you would agree if we were still living the life of Kalahari Bushmen.

Does the nature that gave you the intelligence, not even deserves little bit of your pondering.

Yes nature gave us intelligence, and the theory of evolution neatly explains how and why nature 'gave us' intelligence.

Are you indifferent to nature?

Nope. How is that relevant to the discussion?

Relying on your own efforts is selfishness and arrogance that comes from erroneous views of self.

Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

Rather than indulge in egoistic fantasies, you ought to rely on the Mercy, Power, and Grace of God Who has created this nature and fine-tuned it for your conscious existence.

What you're really saying is that we should believe your poorly-reasoned arguments for your theological position, or we're bad people. Which is yet another example of poor reasoning on your part.

If you think, I had not provided enough logical evidences for the existence of God then try to counter-argue Fine-Tuning argument.

It's not an argument, it's a speculation based on a thought experiment. IF the physical laws could be other than they are and IF they could have been widely divergent from what they are and IF they are not related to one another such that the value of one determines the value of one or more others, and IF none of the other possible combinations of laws would allow for some other form of intelligent life, THEN the likelihood that our universe would be exactly the way it is, is miniscule. Of course, the odds of it turning out any other way would be just as miniscule. We don't know if the physical laws could have been different from what they are in the first place, so the whole argument is based on speculation, and if they could have been different, that leaves three more 'ifs' to get through. There should not be a need to counter something that hasn't been estabished in the first place, but theists are apparently aware that their position is so weak that they have to grasp at straws. And for the record, the odds of an event that has already occurred happening the way it actually did are always 100%. If you won the lottery would you give the money back because the odds against you winning were so high you can't believe you're the one who won it?

After giving my reasoning when I quote verse/s from Quran, the main purpose is to highlight how simply and concisely Quranic verses deliver profound logical facts.

They seem to be failing in their purpose, then.

Secondly, when I quote from Quran that is to show that no attribute of human nature is such that Quran has not encompassed.

People who don't already believe the Quran is impressive are usually not impressed by it.

I have quoted some verses from Quran especially to demonstration how to pay gratitude to God. But because those verses are from Quran and you think Quran is a fairy tale therefore you had not given any importance to them no matter how profound logical facts those verses manifested.

You knew we were unbelievers coming in, didn't you? Would you be impressed by a Hindu quoting the Vedas at you to demonstrate how to pay gratitude to Ganesha in advance of convincing you that Ganesha is real and wants and deserves your gratitude to boot?

True, God is outside of time because He is not the physical stuff.

All things that are nonexistent can be described as being 'outside of time'.

What motivates you to think that your mind exists in time and not outside of time?

The most elementary of observations. Does it take time to think? Yes. Do we experience things in the order in which they happen? Yes. Therefore our minds exiist in time.

Although, your mind and body coexist and influence each other directly yet they are entirely distinct realms.

That is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim.

You cannot define sense by means of physical properties.

The hell you say.

To measure time, matter is the crucial part. Whether that matter is quantum particles, pulsars, or your own body, without matter, no one can measure time.

That should tell you something.

Mind is not matter. You cannot apply physical laws (including time) on something, which has no dimensions and no physical properties.

Our minds demonstrably have a time dimension and show no signs of being able to exist without a physical substrate, such as a brain, so they have a location in space as well. You're taking nonsense. A surgeon with a long needle can deprive you of any part of your mind.

You are confused because you are treating mind as the function of brain.

You are confused because you are not treating mind as a function of a brain.

In other words, you are trying to give physical properties to the mind, which is incorrect.

In other words, you are trying to deprive the mind of physical properties, which is incorrect.

Take a radical approach and think that mind is not the function of brain rather mind use brain to translate interactions between physical body and the physical world into senses and based on those primal senses it generates feelings, knowledge, logic, and emotions.

What makes that a radical approach is that all the available evidence is against it being true.

In my previous response, I made it clear that mind-body relation is not one sided. Physical body also influence immaterial mind.

To the extent that damage to a certain parts of your brain will completely change your personality.

You have wrong impression that human physical deeds have no effect on God.

Before one could have that impression, one would have to think that God is real.

God had given certain level of freedom to us and our actions based on our limited free choices can make God happy or displease.

That makes your version of God slightly less irrational than the one where he knew exactly what you were going to do billions of years ago and still acts upset when you finally do it. One thing about Muslim theology I like is that the leg they shorten on the tripod of theodicy is God's omniscience.

From Quran it is obvious that how God willed, that way he conveyed His messages to His prophets. To some He gave inspiration, to some He sent angles, and with some, He talked directly.

There's no rational grounds for believing that any of that is true.

We have a great example of Prophet Moses with whom Allah talked directly and showed him the real reflection of His Being.

If Moses existed as described, he was a murderer who ordered genocide and had thousands of his own people slaughtered.

You should read Quran with an intention to understand it rather than to find faults in it.

Wouldn't being unable to find faults in it be what would prove the true author was more than human?

I am hopeful it will clear your misconceptions about it and after reading it, you will not look at Quran as god of the gaps.

I deduce you meant to say 'Allah' instead of 'Quran' in that sentence.

Wishful thinking is a belief of entirely irrational factors. For example, lucky guesses resulting from wishful thinking is not knowledge. All wishful thinking is by its nature illusory. Thus, a central question in epistemology is what must be added to true beliefs to convert them into knowledge?

Convincing evidence.

You should make distinction between pure conjecture and an educated guess centred on logically interconnected facts.

So should you.

Nature and function of the simple concepts serve as the building blocks for the logical construction of true propositions. It is easy to construct ideas and mathematical equations by looking at repeated patterns and harmonized associations between different phenomenon in nature and in universe.

We believe in the existence of black holes and extra dimensions because we have constructed true logical schemes from accessible patterns and sequences in the universe although black holes and extra dimensions are out of our observational reach.

We believe in those things based on the evidence for them. Where the evidence is insufficient, they remain hypothetical until sufficient evidence is obtained.

With respect to unobservable phenomenon, the intuitive beliefs become prominent from the logical construction of true propositions. Such beliefs then become practical surrogate for knowledge.

They remain wishful thinking.

Observe the objects and soon it become evident that every existence has a cause.

The only things we have ever had observational evidence of coming into existence are virtual particles, which do not have a cause.

So what is the cause of the universe?

No one knows for sure. We can't even be certain it hasn't always existed in some form or another.

Oops!

Did that seem clever to you when you typed it?

Just like there is no practical way to look into Black hole or into extra dimensions, there is no practical way by which anyone can peek beyond Big Bang.

There might be impractical ways as yet beyond our capability. Several hyptheses for the origin of the universe are amenable to confirming evidence that could be obtainable within our lifetimes. Until that evidence is actually obtained, one shouldn't pick a particular cosmologial hypothesis as being 'the true one'.

This is the point where people start making educated guesses and theories after theories start pouring one after another.

And recognizing that they are somewhat speculative, we don't embrace any particular one as 'the true one'. That would be premature given the lack of evidence.

Professor Michio Kaku think that laws of physics did not arrive with the Big Bang. The appearance of matter did not start the clock of time. His interpretation of “nothing” tells, there was in short, “a before.” If he is right then there is an opportunity for a cause to have an effect after all.

Sure, if he's right. That would just push the ultimate cause back a step, though, most likely.

There are then

“Inflationary theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
“Brane (membrane) Theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane
“Black hole theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
“Big Bounce theory,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

All of these ideas stray from the standard model of cosmology, which holds that everything emerged from nothing at the point of the Big Bang.

That is not actually what the 'standard model' of cosmology actually says. What immediately preceded the cosmic inflation is unknown and currently unknowable. There is no requirement in the 'standard model' if that term can even be applied to cosmology, that what preceded the Big Bang was 'nothing'.

In the last 10 – 15 years, cosmology has experienced a remarkable turnaround. From insisting that there was nothing at all before the Big bang (prof. Penrose), most researchers (including prof. Penrose) now concede that there must have been something.

Penrose was never the pope of cosmology.

However, understanding what that something was and how it worked means that cosmologists have to give up many of their most priced certainties.

A good cosmologist should not have viewed any of those things that changed as 'certainties' in the first place, and I doubt any of them actually did. Unlike you, cosmologists seem to understand the speculative nature of their work. The most they can do is come up with a hypothesis consistent with physics as we know it with maths that work and try to figure out a way it could someday be tested.

I have tried to make my emphasis on two points:

1. Intuitive Logic has the power to see in the unseen world and calculate things in the inaccessible dimensions with near accuracy"

It certainly does not. And 'intuitive logic' is an oxymoron. Either a thing is logical or it is not. There is no special branch of logic that is intuitional.

2. As soon as cosmologists find the cause of the universe that immediately opens the door to a new question “What is the cause of the cause of universe.”

Probably but not necessarily. Some hypotheses stand on their own as the reason for the existence of the universe if they are ever verified to be the actual case.

How intelligible the universe is and how intelligible our bodies are that leads our thoughts only to one direction:

a. Nothing came out from nothing

There is no law of logic or physics that says that is impossible.

b. Chance and accident cannot produce intelligence

Not only can they, we understand exactly how they can.

No matter how you dislike God but your existence depends on the Will of God.

Like or dislike is irrelevant, only whether there is a good reason to think God, particularly your version of it, really exists. So far you have failed to provide any reasons that can be fairly described as 'good'.

Belief in God comes from contemplating over nature. Sometime, calamity also helps but contemplation over wonders of the nature is above all.

Yet scientists, the people who contemplate nature the most, are the least likely people to believe in God, particularly a personal God.

Only think why we are highly intelligent beings but live for such a short time.

Because the universe has no care for how long we live.

First, read Quran and try to understand it with a neutral mind. Keep on reading and contemplating over its verses even if something seems to be unscientific. After sometime, you will feel that God is literally talking with you. Just try it.

Keep trying to convince yourself it's true until you are convinced. That works for anything, but religion seems to be the only arena where the salesman have actually turned getting the customer to commit to convincing themselves they need the product into a workable tool. I would love to see a conversation on this matter between you and Drich.

The sense of perfect satisfaction can only evolve by praising and giving thanks to God Who is the Owner of every single gene in your body.

I have a sense of perfect satisfaction and I don't believe any of that crap. Q.E.D.

There never was “absolute nothingness” because if there was such a thing then right now you and I were not exchanging our thoughts here. “Absolute nothingness” can produce only nothing.

In physics, such a state is widlely regarded as virtually impossible. There's only one way for absolute nothingness to be the case and an infinity of ways for there to be something.

If you think that quantum vacuum is eternal then you should bring convincing theory to support your idea that conform to the norms of standard conventions in contemporary theoretical science.

Already been done. In theory, quantum foam is eternal and exists necessarily. There is no case where 'quantum fizzing' would not be happening, even if otherwise there were no time or space.

Read the following quotes carefully.

“… our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that "something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.”
Chapter 9
Nothing Is Something
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“A similar argument suggests that one can imagine one specific type of universe that might spontaneously appear and need not disappear almost immediately thereafter because of the constraints of the Uncertainty Principle and energy conservation. Namely, a compact universe with ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.

Now, I would like nothing better than to suggest that this is precisely the universe we live in.”

Chapter 10
Nothing Is Unstable
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence”

CHAPTER 11
BRAVE NEW WORLDS

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Lawrence Krauss

I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Because if our universe arose from 'nothing' (quantum vacuum fluctuation), there is no reason to suppose our universe is the only instance of it happening. Have you read the whole book?

Initially, you have stated that “Natural phenomenon is mindless” and this natural phenomenon has constructed the brain and according to you, there resides mind and extremely complex processing (the consciousness).

If you say you are the product of blind, mindless, and unguided process then why should I believe in any of your word or what makes you confident in your own actions.

What her opinion of her origin is, is irrelevant to whether you should believe anything she says. Regardless of either of your opinions, you both have the same origin, and her word is as good as yours. And experience is what teaches us that we can be confident in our actions and statements.

If I find something mindless, blind, and unguided then my first priority would be to keep myself away from it.

Are you implying that pocaracas is mindless? That would make you an idiot. Are you implying that if the cosmos is mindless, you will try to separate yourself from it. That's profoundly irrational, but good luck with it anyway.

In place of answer, I received a question.

Fortunately, I do not have any problem in making my conscious decisions therefore do not include me in the “we” of your question.

If you have trouble in making conscious decisions then I suggest you should consult a good psychiatrist.

I think you should consult a manual on how to act like a decent human being. Apparently your Quran is not such a document.

My body remains lively through feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage... and... sleeping

Is life responsible for your feeding and breathing or feeding and breathing keep you alive? If feeding and breathing, keep you alive does that mean with the infinite supplies of food and other necessities you can be immortal!

No, only an idiot would think that, and only an idiot would think pocaracas thinks that.

Harris Wrote: Only dead can tell what death is and I think you are still alive.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Be not so sure...
Death is, to put it simply, the cessation of an individual's life.

Can you define “cessation” and its cause?

Can you use an online dictionary? Can you ask an even more stupid question than that one?

Harris Wrote:
Perhaps you know the mechanics of sensory system and I do not argue on that but can you or anyone interpret what actually SENSE is.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Make sense man. What do you mean?

Sense is the relation of experiences to objects, to language and to the perceiving self or subject. In addition to the five types of senses, sense is also identified as “mental perception” (as of pleasures, pains and desires) and apperception (awareness of awareness).

I repeat my question, What is pain. What is Pleasure? What is sadness? What is delight? …“What actually SENSE is?”

Do you know what 'JAQing off' is? What about a 'red herring'?

-tastings and seeings: sensory input.

I have not asked you about the mechanics of sensory input. I have asked you, “what sense experience is?”

Harris Wrote: -bodily-sensational experiences, such as those of pains, tickles and itches:

Pocaracas Wrote:
unconscious reaction to particular types of sensory input. Pain can represent damage on your body; tickles seem related to erogenous zones; itches are a mild form of pain.

I am asking you what is the program that your computer is running, who design that program, how efficient it is and in response, you are trying to explain the mechanical structure of CPU and how it functions.

The program is our autonomic responses to these sensations, it was designed by natural selection, and it is fairly efficient though far from perfect.

-imaginative experiences, such as those of one’s own actions or perceptions: Fiction.

Do you really think your actions and perceptions are nothing but Fictions?

No, pocaracas does not think that, but I'm starting to think you really are an idiot.

Harris Wrote:
- streams of thought, as in the experience of thinking ‘in words’ or ‘in images’:

Pocaracas Wrote:
recollection, mix and match of different memories forming those streams....

If you want an account of how single neurons connected to other neurons in some particular pattern... contemplating millions and millions of neurons working in tandem... give rise to those thoughts... then I cannot give you that... it's way too complex.

Brain does not work like your desktop computer. The first step to a more accurate understanding of memory is to realize the following:

There really is no single thing called memory. It is not a thing at all. Remembering is a set of cognitive processes that occur within the biological matter of our brains.

Memory (remembering) is activating anytime some effect of past experience that influence the way you think or behave now or in the future. Memory preserve experiences over time. So remembering systems are the vehicles for transporting the effects of experiences over time.

The function of a neuron is to receive INPUT "information" from neurons, to process that information, then to send "information" as OUTPUT to other neurons. In other words, each neuron has its own mind that analyses the received information, based on that information take certain decision, and fire a unique set of signals to other neurons. In this sense, each neuron is a conscious being.

According to best estimates, there are around 200 billion neurons in the brain alone. And as each of these neurons is connected to between 5,000 and 200,000 other neurons, the number of ways that information flows among neurons in the brain is so large, it is greater than the number stars in the entire universe! Each neuron has power to interpret, decide, and act. Think of it as if 200 billion conscious beings are communicating with each other simultaneously within our brain.

If you knew all that, it makes most of your questions to pocaracas even MORE pointless and stupid.

But questions remain unsolved. What is conscious experience itself? Consciousness whether at the level of neuron or at the level of whole brain is a puzzle for philosophers and scientists alike.

Some remaining puzzles don't make your claims true.

Not only neurons but also every single blood cell is a conscious being.

No...just no.

I know why I sleep... if you don't know why you sleep, then maybe you should try sleep deprivation for a week or two.

Melatonin.

If you think, you know what sleep is then here is a challenge for you.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-n...ld-n260021

Harris Wrote:
Do not overlook the fact that the law of gravity is based only on experience.

“Gravity must be Caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether that agent be material or immaterial I leave to the consideration of my readers”
(Newton’s Letter to Bentley 25 February 1692).

Pocaracas Wrote:
Like all physical laws...

Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.

Harris Wrote:
My question was “Is the universe finite or infinite?” and
Your answer is “Who knows?”

Pocaracas Wrote:
Do you know?
Do you know of anyone who knows?
I don't know and I fail to realize how anyone could know.

So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”

Science has not answered a question is not the same thing as science cannot answer a question. And it's a poorly-phrased question anyway. Infinite in what dimensions? The current scientific consensus is certainly that the universe if future-infinite, and though it will 'die', it will never actually end. The universe is bigger than 'the observable universe', so we can't put a number on how big it actually is, but it has a size and is ever-expanding, so scientists can say with confidence that the universe is finite in the spatial dimesnsions.

Harris Wrote:
Quantum Vacuum has PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and so it is not NOTHINGNESS.

Pocaracas Wrote:
No way!!!!!
Krauss' nothing is not really nothing?!!?
No shit, Sherlock!?!!

That's the whole basis of the thing: the nothing you want to be prior to some god's creation of everything... that nothing was never there.... according to the theory.

The vacuum that has always been and is commonly thought of as nothing is, in fact, something.
That's the whole point and Krauss was pulling your leg when he called it nothing.. very well aware of all the crap that would flow from it!

Krauss is not a philosopher and he may not understand the difference between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter and it is not “Absolute Nothingness”

Krauss understands that. You're just too dense to comprehend on your own that Krauss understands that. He explains the difference in detail in his book from which you took so many quotes.

If Krauss emphasising that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” rather it is eternal then he should not build his conclusions on speculative ideas rather as a physicist he should come up with some elegant scientific theory, which can clearly demonstrate that quantum vacuum is eternal.

Although it is called 'theoretical physics' few of its products rise to the level of 'scientific theory'. It is mostly hypothesis, and eternal quantum vacuum is in accordance with known physical laws and the math works, which is as much as other cosmological hypotheses have going for them. As far as we know, quantum vaccum is eternal and exists necessarily. If you think otherwise, coming up with something that would prevent it from existing would prove you right.

If I were to tell you that if you walk in a straight line always forward, you'll come to the same point where you started, would you believe me?

A thousand years ago, you'd find it very hard, huh?

Today, you can even accept gravitational lensing effects where the fabric of space-time itself can get bent and moving in a straight line (like light would do) means moving in a curved line.

Physical reality isn't particularly simple, at it's core. And if even physicists find it difficult to wrap their minds around the theories, then how do you think lay-people will (and do) wrap their head around them? They can't, you can't. So don't misrepresent them with whatever is your god-biased version of the theory.

I am not the one who is pulling out mystical concepts like “natural selection” which has no foot and no head or quantum this and quantum that. Many scientists are not sure about the accuracy of these theories, including those who have designed them.

You're a liar, Harris. Both natural selection and quantum mechanics are well established (and both have technology based on them working) and the few nuts who object almost invariably have a religious agenda and speak outside their area of expertise.

“The bottom line is that we have no clear idea how to describe the entire mathematical structure of String Theory or what building blocks, if any, will win the title of “most fundamental.””

“Epilogue”
The Cosmis Landscape
"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
Leonard Susskind

String theory is hypothetical and not part of the theory of evolution or quantum mechanics. You don't even understand what would constitute an example of the point you're trying to make.

You guys are pulling out these hazy ideas to confuse the minds of lay people in order to divert their attentions from the concept of God.

Yes, science is just a big conspiracy to undermine your faith and the computer you're griping about with and the vaccines that make you resistant to communicable diseases are just lucky byproducts. Check your own egoism, please.

I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.

Your ideas are idiotic and 'intuitive logic' is not a thing. Instead of avoiding a scientific education, you should try obtaining one.

As I recall it wasn't Jacob who initiated the infinite regress. You did that. It is you who are trying to profit here from the question of origins, something about which none of us knows the full and true story.

Jacob(smooth) has raised the question:

“…unless you can come up with the force which created God” and in response I started the infinite regress.

It is better to say, from our shared ignorance no necessary conclusions may follow. You haven't established a basis for a necessary god and I see no basis for establishing the impossibility of such a thing. Ignorance is ignorance. Lets leave it at that until we actually have something to talk about.

Did you or anyone has disproved the fine-tuning argument?

“… the special properties of the physical universe are so surprisingly fine-tuned that they demand explanation.”

Preface
The Cosmis Landscape
"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
Leonard Susskind

See above. Just because you and Leonard find it compelling doesn't make it so. The argument is founded on sheer speculation, and I suspect Leonard likes the fact that it sells books.

“… we really do have a big problem to explain in the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants.”

Page 142
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins

Quote-mining is a form of lying.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Page 125
A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking

The operative term is 'seems to'.

Fred Hoyle was shaken by his own discovery that in the stars, carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen. If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Fred Hoyle
"The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,"
Engineering and Science,
November 1981

And still we have no knowledge that the constants could have been anything but what they are. A zero total energy universe indicates that the range of universal constants was at the least, very tightly constrained, and it is likely that some of them are determined by the value of others, such that if one is one value, another must be a related value.

Or it's rather the art of your evasiveness that makes you believe in a timeless god that caused everything. If he caused everything, he basically was sitting in a timeless void before he decided to create something. Sounds pretty boring for starters.

What do you think whether Time started at the Big Bang or Big Bang happened in time?

And, oh yes, somehow this timeless being in a void has a bodily form, since there's that religious dogma of being created in his image.

Quran is clear about the personality of God:

"And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."
Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verse 4-

God is immaterial. Immaterial things cannot have physical properties in any sense.

That's because they lack existence.

If you are not making a claim “there is no god” then what are you claiming as being atheist?

A theist is someone who believes at least one god or God is real. An atheist is someone who does not believe that. They are position on belief or lack thereof, not claims in themselves. A theist is not obliged to claim God is real, merely having the opinion that it is true is enough to make someone a theist. An atheist is not obliged to claim that God is not real, it's not believing that God is real that makes him or her an atheist.

Now most of the atheists on this forum take the position that a person should not believe something unless they have good reasons to think the proposition overcomes the null hypothesis. So far, people proposing God exists have not succeeded in overcoming the null hypothesis.

I found some contradicting statements in Krauss’ book “A Universe From Nothing.”

“… our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that "something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.”
Chapter 9
Nothing Is Something
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“A similar argument suggests that one can imagine one specific type of universe that might spontaneously appear and need not disappear almost immediately thereafter because of the constraints of the Uncertainty Principle and energy conservation. Namely, a compact universe with ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.

Now, I would like nothing better than to suggest that this is precisely the universe we live in.”

Chapter 10
Nothing Is Unstable
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence”

CHAPTER 11
BRAVE NEW WORLDS

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Lawrence Krauss

Couldn't find any contradictory statements by Krauss, eh? Too bad that didn't stop you from posting all that irrelevant stuff.

I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Krauss is not a philosopher and perhaps cannot make distinction between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter yet it has properties.

If Krauss is saying that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” then he is trying to prove, Quantum Vacuum is eternal. If so, did he propose any reasonable theory for that?

I want to know why you're repeating yourself. See above for the answers to these questions you've already asked.