You don't see " David Albert of Columbia said about Krauss’s book in The New York Times." in the article?

As for George Ellis's critique, this is a popular argument against this thesis in the scientific community. I'll summarize: there is not, and cannot be, any evidence for or against what was and what was not before the universe.

The Big Bang model suggests there was nothing before the universe, so it stands to reason that there will be no evidence of what was before the universe. This concept begs the question: is a lack of evidence evidence for a lack of anything? If yes, then since Krauss's thesis suggests that nothing is unstable, the infinite nothingness before the universe, evident by the lack of evidence, would inevitably break down into something that it is not, id est, something.
Kruass's conclusions are derived from mathematical models, true, however this is currently the best, if not only, way for us to measure mechanisms at the quantum level due to lacking technology. They are also based on an experiment that reproduced these conditions at a micro scale, solidifying his conclusion. However, to suggest that Kruass's thesis suggests anything more then a universe from nothing is plausible is to grossly misrepresent his work.

I actually agree that Kruass should engage this topic on a philosophical level. I fancy myself a philosopher and would love to see him do so.

I don't actually...... Strange.

I'll look it up.

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

You know that not all Theists believe that God is a "creature", right? A creature is something or someone that has been created.

In fact not all Theists say that God is a being, or an element of metaphysics. Existence is a metaphysical term (...but, incidentally, a metaphysical term that lacks a metaphysical definition).

The notion of "Creation" is anthropomorphic.

But sure, a lot of Theists believe the allegory. That allegory is the only Theism that most here have heard of. The preachy Theists, like the ones who knock on your door, are the most staunch believers in that allegory, in its extreme Biblical-Literalist version, and so that's what you hear about, and that's what Theism means to most people.

Above I mentioned the notion of God being a being. That's anthropomorphic too.

Anyway, non-Literalists don't promote, proselytize or preach. I don't regard religion as a matter to convince anyone about.

If you're curious about non-allegorical, non-anthropomorphic, non-Literalist Theism, then maybe googling "Negative Theology" would bring up some references.

Michael Ossipoff

“It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electro­magnetic fields. And so on. And what 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. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.

The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

Apparently, quantum fields must exist in order for something to come from Krauss's 'nothing', in Albert's pov.

Tossing a bit of bait into the fishpond and watching the action.

In the context of the history of ideas, I think it's important to get an understanding of the metaphysics of the Greek tradition, starting mainly with Plato, and in particular the Parmenides, and then developing through neoPlatonism, paying special attention to the metaphysics of The Republic. This philosophical tradition was then appropriated by the nascent Christianity which created fusion of Hebraic revealed religion and Greek philosophy especially by the early Greek-speaking philosophical theologians including Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Philo, and others.

I say this because due to the vagaries of history, much of the original metaphysics has been forgotten or rejected in relatively recent times. This is due, in my opinion, to the strongly anti-metaphysical strain in Protestantism, specifically arising from Luther and Calvin, and also to certain anti-metaphysical developments in later scholastic philosophy. The consequences of that, and other currents of thought, was the imposition of an essentially irrationalist notion of God, to whom one had no choice but to surrender in quaking submission. (Not for nothing has Calvin been called The Ayatollah of Geneva.)

Whereas, in the earlier Greek tradition, still preserved to some degree in Thomism and neoThomism, there is still the conception that the order of the Universe can be understood in terms of a Divine Intellect and a universalistic notion of Reason. Hence the traditionalist understanding that mathematics and science represent one tier in the 'great chain of being', but that still above that reside the eternal forms and essences in the eternal mind. (This is still preserved in Galileo's dictum that 'the book of nature is written in mathematics' whilst many of the supporting ideas have fallen away.)

Nothing discovered in modern science contravenes that understanding, indeed scientifically educated Thomist philosophers (typically Jesuit, such as Stephen M Barr and Robert Spitzer) are thoroughly conversant with the detail of current philosophical cosmology and don't see any conflict between it, and the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition which they represent. Unlike the idiot creationists, who wish to argue with rocks.

Hey, I thought Thomas agrees with creation ex nihilo.

Ah yes, that bit. My first "reply" to the article was aimed at this.

Apparently, quantum fields must exist in order for something to come from Krauss's 'nothing', in Albert's pov.

Actually, they don't. Krauss's thesis is that nothingness is unstable. Since he is restrained by our pesky mortal existence, testing this is impossible. However, we can measure the closest thing to absolute nothingness, a complete vacuum, and his predictions seem accurate. His conclusions are derived from this experiment and then, when applied to absolute nothingness, can explain a universe from nothing. Remember, his thesis is that this is plausible, not definitive.

This argument comes from not being able to fully conceptualize Kruass's conclusions. Understandably so, the English language is too crude and clumsy to accurately describe how I, at least, envision the state of absolute nothingness.

I thought Thomas agrees with creation ex nihilo. — Cavacava

The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by "comes" they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.

Creation, on the other hand, [according to Aquinas] is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.

Strictly speaking, points out Aquinas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of Creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates—not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

Aquinas vs Intelligent Design

Gibberish.

Sorry, I do forget to adjust for the reading age when I drop by here. Reminds me why not to bother.

Fancy argument that leads no where, since it implies that god is of one with nothing.

Oh, is that what you mean. There is actually a reply to that, although I suspect it will also be categorised as gibberish, so I’ll leave it.

That actually leads to refutation of creation ex nihilo (in the sense of saying there was nothing present form which the universe came) because God is the presence from which the universe comes-- it did not come from nothing, but rather from God.

Any objection based on the assertion God must be nothing and so impossible only misses the point-- God is something and is that form which the universe springs.

does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

Please define "make sense".

Do you mean adherence to formal logic?

Do you mean subjective intellectual satisfaction?

Please clarify.

Thanks, I like that argument. I deny a deity, but I agree with the presence of something(s) out of which everything became.

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

The notion of God as a "being", and the notion of "creation" are anthropomorphic.

Michael Ossipoff

I think there's a way around belief by not believing. I don't believe in the big bang but I know there's evidence for it as I know that further evidence may more strongly prove or weaken the theory. If we're tentative regarding all these things, there's no need to believe anything. Our perspective, being limited, is bound to be temporary.

Some conceptions of God make sense to me, others do not.
In general I have a religious inclination which I cannot seem to shake, it is one that rejects the notion that the world is accidental and purposeless and lacks any larger meaning.
The notion of God that I employ has to do with creativity and novelty, order on primordial chaos, imposing form on the void, and providing possibilities for the future. I do not see God as primarily concerned with human morality.
If one looks at the question historically, it is hardly possible to understand history, architecture, art, music or literature without some understanding of the religious notions which inspired much such work and so perhaps belief in higher meaning and purpose has some utility to it other than just Pascal's wager.

But do you see god as one, as a deity, or as a force in nature

It is hard to put into words. In fact I think language is inadequate to describe many experiences or thoughts. In terms of religious philosophy, I am a panentheist of a process theology type, so nature is part of God but God is more than just nature as we understand and experience it. Nature itself is more than our mathematical models or our physical measurements. Gods purpose as I conceive of or understand it, is creativity, novelty, intensity of experience. In modern times the original religious notions of the earth as the center of the universe and man as the crown and purpose of creation are no longer tenable in any rational sense and so larger conceptions become necessary to avoid cognitive dissonance. God IMHO works through the laws and processes of nature not by contravention of them. Still I think it is possible to see nature as forms and patterns spontaneously organizing (Platonic)and complexity and experience as increasing, "forms wonderous and beautiful" (Darwin).

nobody has any idea whether God exists — Starthrower

That won’t stop me from trying to show them that God is real and is active. — Starthrower

How do you reconcile these two ideas?

Until someone proves or disproves God, I will continue to serve Him, because it’s better to be safe than sorry. — Starthrower

Sounds like fear not love

does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? — Starthrower

Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent. It is like asking what's North of the North Pole.

What's north of the north pole is technically space, the final frontier.

Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent. It is like asking what's North of the North Pole. — Maw

Questions like that get asked all the time, not that there are any scientific or empirical answers.
What exists beyond the universe?
What existed before the big bang?
Some people love asking and trying to answer such questions because one can speculate away unencumbered by any data or facts, others find it a massive waste of time and mental energy.

Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent. — Maw

No it's not. When people talk of "before time", they are talking of "before (scientific) time". Scientific time is the time physicists deal with - they say this time started with the Big Bang, because it was impossible to physically measure time before that. However, this isn't to say that there couldn't be a (non-physically measurable) time before this.

What's north of the north pole is technically space, the final frontier. — Buxtebuddha

How so? North is a direction that is relative to the North pole.

[Delete] @Baden