Dina sent me news of Saturday’s episode of Unbelievable, which features Lawrence Krauss, who debated William Lane Craig. Krauss’ book was also reviewed in the New York Times.

The MP3 file is here.

Details:

Lawrence Krauss is a Cosmologist at Arizona State University who describes himself as an “anti-theist”. His latest book “A Universe From Nothing” has received both acclaim and criticism for its attempt to answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Debating the issue with Krauss is Rodney Holder, Course director at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. An astrophysicist and priest by background. In a lively exchange they debate whether Krauss’ “nothing” is “nothing”, fine tuning and multiverses, scientific knowledge, miracles and the usefulness of theology and philosophy.

This debate is quite entertaining, and do not be intimidated if your don’t understand science. You can understand pretty easily who is arguing based on facts and who is speculating about unobservable, untestable entities. At one point, Krauss actually denies that there is any fine-tuning in the universe, so please see this link to refute that claim as well as this podcast which explains some examples of fine-tuning. Krauss gets a bit angry at the beginning, but calms down.

Quotation marks are for direct quotes, italics is for made-up snark. See below the summary for more posts that are related to this one.

Summary of the discussion: (picked up at 9:30 when they start talking about the book)

Brierley:

explain your theory of how the universe can come into being from nothing

Krauss:

the nothing that preceded the universe is “no space, no time, no universe”

theists say that God is responsible for creating the universe out of this nothing

but the laws of nature can create the universe uncaused out of nothing

Holder:

Krauss sometimes writes that the nothing is really a quantum vacuum, but that is not nothing

He even acknowledges in his book that a quantum vacuum is not nothing

He thinks that the nothing has properties, even though it has no being

It has the property of being unstable

It has the property of being acted on by quantum fields

It has the property of being acted on by gravity

Krauss:

But nothing can have the potential to do things inside it

For example suppose you have an electron, which is not nothing

If it jumps from one level to another, it emits light

There was no potential for the light in the electron, but it was there as part of atomic structure

Holder:

But in cases like that, there is something physical that has the potential

Krauss:

Well, how did God makes the universe then if it had no potential? Holder: God existed, and the potential for creating the universe in himself Brierley: Consider the critical review of your book in the New York Times Krauss: It was written by a philosopher, so I dismissed it Brierley: Consider the critical review of your book in the Scientific American Krauss: These book reviewers have not even read my book! Krauss: Science will be able to figure out how to make something from nothing in the future

We are even now speculating about interesting questions, like is there a multiverse? Brierley: Consider the critical review of your book in the New York Times

The author of the review claims that you equivocate on the term “nothing”

In order to get things to pop into being, you have to make “nothing” mean “something”

Reviewer: none of Krauss’ theories explain how something can come from actual nothingness Krauss: In physics, something and nothing are not that different

The reviewer doesn’t understand the physics

He doesn’t understand quantum field theory

You could call a quantum vacuum “nothing”, (this is the vacuum fluctuation model, refuted by William Lane Craig in a peer-reviewed publication in an astrophysics journal – get the full text of the article here)

Maybe there is an eternally existing multiverse that we can’t observe or test scientifically

Maybe it has laws that we don’t know about which allow our universe to pop into being

Maybe this popping into being is uncaused

(alarmed) Who made God? Who made God? Holder: God is eternal and necessary Krauss: (interrupting, angry) What does it mean for something to be necessary? Holder: Basically, you have to decide whether there is more evidence that the necessary being God or a multiverse Brierley: So Dr. Krauss are you willing to say that the universe is a brute fact, in some sense, and requires no explanation Krauss: (angry) Religious people are stupid because they just assume brute facts, not like me and my unobservable, untestable multiverse

(angry) Religious people are against the progress of science, they don’t want to figure out how things work Brierley: But isn’t it possible that naturalists can be opposed to the progress of science?

What about the way the Fred Hoyle opposed the Big Bang because he wanted an eternal universe Krauss: (angry) But naturalists like me let the facts determine our beliefs, like the facts about the eternal unobservable, untestable multiverse

(angry, shouting) Philosophers are stupid, they know nothing! === Break === Brierley: Do you see any evidence of purpose in the universe? Krauss: Well maybe I would believe if the stars lined up to spell out a message from God Brierley: Actually no, that wouldn’t be evidence for God on your multiverse view

if there an infinite number of universes existing for an infinite amount of time, then anything can happen no matter how unlikely it is

therefore, no evidence could convince you that God exists, since the unobservable, untestable, eternal multiverse can make anything it wants Krauss: That’s a true statement, and very convenient for atheists who don’t want to be accountable to God, don’t you think?

Brierley: