New guy with questions

[MindForgedManacle]

I think the reason why we ask 'why' is somewhat obvious: agency assumptions. We have this ingrained disposition towards attributing agency to things in the world. But of course, barring an infinite series, this is going to come to an end somewhere, probably ending in a brute fact.

I wouldn't suggest Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing" on this, to be honest. I think Krauss was playing a semantic game to get more book sales. And hey, I don't blame him. Publishers LOVE provocative titles; tends to get the books off the shelves. That's why we get things like "The God Delusion". But in Krauss' case he very clearly is being to fast and dirty with the word 'nothing', by which he just means quantum foam.

Perhaps you should read up on causality. David Hume's works iare always a good start here.

[orogenicman]

I think the reason why we ask 'why' is somewhat obvious: agency assumptions. We have this ingrained disposition towards attributing agency to things in the world. But of course, barring an infinite series, this is going to come to an end somewhere, probably ending in a brute fact.

I wouldn't suggest Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing" on this, to be honest. I think Krauss was playing a semantic game to get more book sales. And hey, I don't blame him. Publishers LOVE provocative titles; tends to get the books off the shelves. That's why we get things like "The God Delusion". But in Krauss' case he very clearly is being to fast and dirty with the word 'nothing', by which he just means quantum foam.

Perhaps you should read up on causality. David Hume's works iare always a good start here.

I doubt that anyone with half a brain would misunderstand what Krauss was saying when he used the word "nothing", particularly since he explained what he meant, though I could be wrong.

[Clueless Morgan]

How long would it take to read Universe From Nothing?

5 hr 32 min, according to audible.com

http://www.audible.com/pd/Science-Techno...258&sr=1-1

Also,

[MindForgedManacle]

I think the reason why we ask 'why' is somewhat obvious: agency assumptions. We have this ingrained disposition towards attributing agency to things in the world. But of course, barring an infinite series, this is going to come to an end somewhere, probably ending in a brute fact.

I wouldn't suggest Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing" on this, to be honest. I think Krauss was playing a semantic game to get more book sales. And hey, I don't blame him. Publishers LOVE provocative titles; tends to get the books off the shelves. That's why we get things like "The God Delusion". But in Krauss' case he very clearly is being to fast and dirty with the word 'nothing', by which he just means quantum foam.

Perhaps you should read up on causality. David Hume's works iare always a good start here.

I doubt that anyone with half a brain would misunderstand what Krauss was saying when he used the word "nothing", particularly since he explained what he meant, though I could be wrong.

The problem is that Krauss specifically said that physics can and has shown how the universe came from nothing. Initially, it's clear he means that physics can show that the universe came from quantum foam. The problem is, Krauss has doubled down on the growing criticism and, in a debate against Dinesh D'Souza, said that it can show that the universe came from 'absolute nothing', which is utter bullshit. Krauss just needs to come clean, as his argument is a non sequitur in terms of the universe coming from 'nothing'.

[Whateverist]

Thank you. I've thought the guy has been unnecessarily obtuse about this for some time.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

In science we do ask why. Why do we observe A? Is it because B existed and did this? We don't mean it like: why did you choose the apple pie instead of the chocolate cake? In other words, it could be rephrased as how did this come to be? What does this mean? What had to happen to bring this into being? In terms of the universe, we really don't even know anything before Planck time. We simply do not know and the assumptions we can make are so limited we might as well not make any because we haven't observed any other universe and don't have a frame of reference. Questions in science cannot presuppose an intelligence that there is no evidence for, otherwise the question would only be relevant in a scenario where that intelligence has been proven, making it irrelevant.

[orogenicman]

I doubt that anyone with half a brain would misunderstand what Krauss was saying when he used the word "nothing", particularly since he explained what he meant, though I could be wrong.

The problem is that Krauss specifically said that physics can and has shown how the universe came from nothing. Initially, it's clear he means that physics can show that the universe came from quantum foam. The problem is, Krauss has doubled down on the growing criticism and, in a debate against Dinesh D'Souza, said that it can show that the universe came from 'absolute nothing', which is utter bullshit. Krauss just needs to come clean, as his argument is a non sequitur in terms of the universe coming from 'nothing'.

Yeah, but Dinesh D'Souza has been charged with campaign finance fraud, and is a creationist, so why would you take stock in what he has to say on the matter?

[Mr Greene]

Basically this is the Cosmological Argument;
Quantum Mechanics demonstrate that not everything requires a cause.
Physics gets us back to Planck-Time so there is a question mark over the the first quantum of spacetime.
There is no valid reason to call this question mark god. Even as a hypothesis it fails due to need for a hypothesis to rely on naturalistic falsifiable components.
All deities and religions trace back to this planet. Any attempt to point at the origin of the Universe is nothing more than presuming us to have the mental capacity of dog, shouting "Fetch!" and making a throwing action. We aren't fooled by that trick, if you were you have my commiserations.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, but Dinesh D'Souza has been charged with campaign finance fraud, and is a creationist, so why would you take stock in what he has to say on the matter?

"Have you ever been convicted of child molestation?"

"Convicted? No."

[atheism is illogical]

If you'll pardon me, I'm new to all this and I'm still navigating what is and is not considered constructive. I wanted to know how the atheist community responded to this question, I meant no offense.

Someone once referred to "the atheist community" as a herd of cats, meaning impossible to keep then all in agreement, nor together...
I was showing you that there are some questions which do not lead to honest and constructive discussion.

Like this one?