|Switch to mobile friendly version||Follow @ThePoachedEgg|
Christian Apologetics Training
The following A Universe from Nothing review features a critique of Lawrence Krauss’ argument that science has removed the need for God to explain the origin of the universe.
A Universe from Nothing
Physicist Lawrence Krauss’ recent book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, provides a fine summary of modern cosmology. But Krauss’ fundamental purpose for writing the book is to use this summary to attempt to solve more philosophical and religious disputes. Krauss promotes the idea that science gives us the truth about the world, not philosophy or theology, and he defends this idea by arguing for the two primary contentions of his book:
His first contention is that science can answer the question age-old philosophical question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, by describing how our universe could have come from nothing:
The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science, in various guises, can address and is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing: The answers that have been obtained…all suggest that getting something from nothing is not a problem. Indeed, something from nothing may have been required for the universe to come into being. Moreover, all signs suggest that this is how our universe could have arisen. (p. xiii)
Krauss recognizes the “philosophical or religious” nature of this question, and acknowledges that it is often used to argue that our universe must have “design, intent, or purpose” (p. xiii). But because he believes that our universe’s arising from nothing is a purely physical process able to be described scientifically, he is hostile to the notion that this question has supernatural implications, which leads to his second contention: the existence of God is not necessary to explain why our universe exists. In the first line of the book he notes:
In the interests of full disclosure right at the outset I must admit that I am not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator, which is at the basis of all the world’s religions. (p. xi)
The main thesis of his book, therefore, is the merging of these two contentions together in the claim that science can show how the universe could have come from nothing, making the idea of God unnecessary.
In this article I argue that Krauss main thesis is false, and that the two primary contentions of his book fail…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE >>>
|Share this post:|