Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,404
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: − +
→Atheism, equivocation and the origin in the universe
:4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.
: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.”
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.”
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.”