Lawrence Krauss

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In response to the question, "Why is incest wrong?", the atheist Lawrence Krauss said, "It's not clear to me that it is wrong."[1]

Lawrence M. Krauss (born 27 May 1954) is a physicist and atheist from Arizona State University.

Atheism related activities

In March 2011, Dr. Krauss debated Christian apologist William Lane Craig. In 2012, Dr, Krauss published his book, A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing in which Krauss tries to disprove God's role in the creation of the universe.

Lawrence Krauss and the new atheist Richard Dawkins produced a documentary entitled The Unbelievers.

Lawrence Kraus, the origin of the universe and the fallacy of equivocation

See also: Atheism and the origin of the universeand Atheism and equivocation

The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) points out that Krauss uses the logical fallacy of equivocation in his failed attempt to explain the origin of the universe.

CARM declares:

But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, which has the subtitle Why there is something rather than nothing? Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”....

You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book he answers the question that Leibniz posed, but he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum.... defines ‘nothing’ as:

1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing. 2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence. 3. something that is nonexistent. 4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.

But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”

Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God but also doesn’t like God. Here is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And as Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.

All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth.[2]

Comment about incest

In response to the question, "Why is incest wrong?", Krauss said, "It's not clear to me that it is wrong."[3] See also: Atheism and incest

External links


  1. Lawrence Krauss on incest
  2. Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing, by Robin Schumacher, edited by Matt Slick
  3. Lawrence Krauss on incest