Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God? | City Bible Forum

Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?

Video of a discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig
Lawrence Krauss
William Lane Craig
Fri Aug 16th, 2013
Cosmology and physics
Philosophy of science

This is the third in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.

Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss whether it is reasonable to believe there is a God.

The copyright for the Life, the Universe and Nothing videos is held by City Bible Forum. Prof Krauss has requested that these videos are not copied on to any device nor uploaded by anyone other than the City Bible Forum.


Thank you for releasing the videos. Are there any plans to release the Sydney dialogue?

Some people have had problems accessing the Vimeo video, so we've added the video to Youtube as well. Enjoy!

How would one get only the audio for these debates?

The Jocaxian Nothingness could explain why the universe came from nothing

Joao Carlos,

Thanks for sharing your article. While you aim to show how the universe came from nothing, unfortunately the article fails to do that. What you are proposing is a 'something' - not nothing.

The article is too brief to engage with in depth, but it seems to need a peer review. Here are my layman's thoughts ...

  • The article claims to show "why" and "how" an object called "Nothing" can build the universe, but it doesn't go into enough detail to see whether that could be true
  • You treat the classical philosophical concept of nothing as if it is an object with the property "Nothing can happen". But that's false - nothing is ... nothing.
  • You claim your concept of "nothing" allows for events to happen, but in assuming that you've introduced the concept of time. Once you have a time dimension you also have the spatial dimensions, and all of a sudden you have a quantum vacuum. I don't see how your proposal is different to Krauss', and it's subject to all the same difficulties.
  • Your proposal is not scientific but philosophical. It can't be tested by the means of science.


- I do not use the "nothing" beause the nothing is not logical
( if the nothing exists then it doesnt exist because there is it )
so, I use the JN concept that is the simplest thing that exists.

Therefore this JN is much more simple than God ou simpler than the Big-Bang..

- The traditional nohing, I called trivial Nothingness, is a concept from parmenides Wiki:
" 'Ex nihilo nihil fit' is a Latin expression that means nothing comes from nothing. It is an expression that indicates a metaphysical principle that being can not begin to exist from nothing. The phrase is attributed to the Greek philosopher Parmenides"

But this concept is false because there is , at least, a rule embeded in it.

-There is no time before the first event happen.
Time can be definid the quantity events happen in the universe.
If there was no event then there is no time.
The relationship between time and space is due our phisycals laws only.
We can not generalize the time and space for any universe.

- The cause why something can emerge from NJ is the logical tautology:
its is true and we can not say "Happen" can not happen !!

-The proposal is phiposophical because science can not explain the appearance of physical laws.
(sorry my English)

Joao Carlos,

There's no need to apologise for your English - it's better than my Portuguese!

You write "nothing is not logical (if the nothing exists then it doesn't exist because there is it)".

Do you understand how 'nothing' functions in this debate? The question is "why is there something rather than nothing". We live in a universe that is not nothing, it's a something. If there was nothing, there would always be nothing. Parmenides was right. And there is no "rule" embedded in nothing. Nothing is nothing.

You write "Therefore this JN [the 'something' you are proposing] is much more simple than God and simpler than the Big-Bang". Einstein said "a good idea must be simple, but not too simple". It seems to me your idea is too simple. It doesn't explain anything.

I consider the scientific evidence for the Big Bang to be good - it explains why galaxies are rushing away from each other. I consider the concept of a creator God to be a good explanation of why we have something rather than nothing. I consider the historical evidence for Jesus to be good evidence that this creator God cares about his creation and can be known.

K. West ,
'Nothing is nothing' is not a good reason. Because it not explain why nothing could exist.
Nothing is ilógical Because if there is something then there is not nothing. So if there is nothing there is not nothing!
It is a logical contradictory.
But JN is not contradictory.
Big bang is not simple. It has a lot of energy condensed and b bang not explain the origin of phisycals laws.
JN explain origin of phisycals laws and is simples than Big bang and very much simplier tranquilo god.

Joao Carlos,

I did a Google search on "Jocaxian nothingness" and saw you're the only person writing about it. It then dawned on me that "Jocax" is an abbreviation of "Joao Carlos".

We should finish this thread. I can see that my critique of your idea is the mildest out there - perhaps you should listen to your reviewers.