Passing on this video posted today on openculture.com.
In considering the cosmological argument on the God episode, we made no attempt to say how or if modern cosmology affects the challenge we discussed in comparing the mental satisfaction of "the universe was caused by God, who is special and doesn't need a cause in turn" vs. "the origin of the universe is a brute fact."
30 minutes in or so is where he gets to why the universe could have come from nothing on the assumption that the universe is not curved, and in the 10 minutes after that he explains why we think that it is in fact not curved. Starting at 45 minutes he addresses some of the physics-related challenges by creationists that the universe must be designed, including discussion of the anthropic principle that we (and Mackie) dismissed on episode in the context of physics.
Whether or not you think Krauss's account does anything to resolve the dilemma we were considering on the episode, it's good to have the latest physical theories in mind when considering these questions.
I find it amusing that both the scientist here and the theologians declare that their side properly acknowledges the mystery at the heart of things and accuses the other side of being arrogant our epistemic status: the theologian because he thinks he's been given all the answers by scripture and the scientist because he thinks that real knowledge is attainable by humans without divine intervention.
-Mark Linsenmayer
Isn’t Krauss being a bit silly here? How are the “laws of physics” nothing?
I don’t see how Krauss’ “religious mysteries” can be mentally satisfying to anyone given that he has asserted before that logic doesn’t exist and everything is absurd (he has some secret knowledge ‘gnosis’ gleaned from quantum physics that allegedly provides evidence of this, even though no one, not even physicists, understand quantum physics, physicists like Krauss seem fond of assuming that it’s not their conclusions that are absurd, no it’s the universe that must be absurd)
If we assume existence is simply absurd as he has liked to do, then sure, any answer works for explaining existence. Why the heck not in his looney toons existence of backwards spinning clocks and jack-in-the-boxes, where left is right, and up is down, and backwards is forwards, and logic is illogical, where sense is nonsense, and inside is outside, where 2+2=5, where truth is lies and lies is truth, where everything exists and doesn’t exist at the exact same time, where nothing is something and nothing weighs something, where “empty space” isn’t empty, where we wear pants on our heads and socks on our hands in parallel universes, where chewing madly on rocks, tin-foil, and human hair is the greatest human virtue, and where the answers are all zero because that’s just the way it is. No deity needed.
Indeed that is, as Krauss proudly proclaimed with utter glee, the worst universe to live in. The nothing nonsense universe of atheistic naturalism where “a deity isn’t need” (lets just ignore the fact, as Krauss did, that Creatio ex Nihilo is a Christian doctrine). A nihilistic living hell if there ever was one, where irrationality and nonsense reigns supreme, where anything goes, like this:
Existence came about 20 seconds ago because my cat sitting here next to me accidentally made it come about. Never you mind that the universe existed before my cat did, and that I’ve been typing up my post for longer than 20 seconds, to think I’m talking nonsense by attributing the cause of the universe to my cat is to think that sense is possible here, well, sorry, sense is nonsense in Krauss’ wacky world of atheistic adventures. {insert meaningless appeal to quantum physics here}
He went to college and became a physicist and knows every Star-Trek episode by heart and takes a tv show a lot more seriously than anyone ever dreamed one should, therefore, his new-agey quantum religion is not religious or philosophical, it’s scientific. He said so.
I don’t know why Krauss and his “brothers” in the new age quantum pseudo-scientific religion of metaphysical atheistic naturalism don’t just start up a church and call it a day.
“We’d overcome a lot of problems in this country if we just got everyone to think the same way I do, durp durp.”
Krauss is such an arrogant condescending goober, his obnoxiously hypocritical personality never fails to get me all riled up. Ugh. What a painful video to watch, sticking my head in the oven for 65 minutes at 350 degrees would have been a much more enlightening method of baking my brain and boiling my blood.
“This tells us we are more insignificant than we ever imagined”
No, your meaningless atheistic philosophy tells **you** that, Krauss.
“We are completely irrelevant, why such a universe where we are so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me.”
Yes, indeed it is beyond you, Mr. Krauss. It swooshes right over that simple-minded melon of yours.
blech. His condescending delight throughout his presentation was truly nauseating.
Hey, Ace
Not a Krauss fan, eh?
I appreciate your sentiments against his polemics, which are more Woody Allen in style than Dawkins’ (as Dawkins notes).
I won’t say anything about his knowledge of physics, but will remind all that Einstein’s GTR is a theory with serious problems, yet physicists anonymously hold Albert up as irrefutable gospel.
As followers of Feynman go, I think Leo Suskind’s string theory looks more well researched than Krauss’ talking points.
I was recently given videos of Robert Solomon and his wife on Existentialism and Neitzche (sp?) and others. I was never a fan, but after hours of Solomon now realize I pretty much think like an existentialist and Freddy N. That said, it is important to note the idea of perspectivism, wherein what you believe is formulated from your existential circumstances, which differ from mine, or Krauss, or anybody. One set of beliefs may be superior to another, and it is good to keep an open mind to the probability that our own beliefs may be upended when we come across some that are more pleasing to our psyches.
On gloomy vs enchanted outlooks of natural reality, I like the process myths of Whitehead and Pirsig vs, say Dawkins and Krauss. W and P fall on the side of the sense of wonder about meaningfulness which teases/begs/lures for further curious questioning of ‘how.’ A negative meaninglessness outlook seems out of sync with the affective motivation to even ask the questions.
“that our own beliefs may be upended when we come across some that are more pleasing to our psyches.”
If that is a fair summary of what you understand is the tipping point to change our beliefs (whatever is more pleasing), I’m not surprised you’re not a big Krauss fan either