“I don’t make any claims to answer any questions that science cannot answer, and I have tried very carefully within the text to define what I mean by “nothing” and “something.” If those definitions differ from those you would like to adopt, so be it. Write your own book. But don’t discount the remarkable human adventure that is modern science because it doesn’t console you.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
Lawrence Krauss is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. He is also a self-proclaimed atheist and one of the best known leaders of the “God is not” army of unbelievers. In 2012, Dr. Krauss released his book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, in an attempt to explain how our universe – the “something” – could come into existence from “nothing” and forever put away the need for a creator or god. The book was a success, reaching the New York Times Best Seller List shortly after the release, but was widely panned by physicists and philosophers alike. When asked whether Krauss has “solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing”, physicist George F. R. Ellis, says that the “belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy … Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert stated the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his misuse of the term nothing.
I’m neither a physicist, nor a cosmologist, and there is definitely not a “Dr.” before my name. I do, however, have a pretty clear understanding of what “nothing” is. It’s nothing. Webster’s defines nothing as “not any thing; not any being or existence; a word that denies the existence of any thing; non-entity; opposed to something.” The “laws of physics”, to which Krauss attributes the origin of our universe, are not nothing, but something. According to Krauss’ own argument, because the laws of physics did exist, the universe could exist. A Universe from Something would have been a much better title for the book, but had this been the title it probably never would have made the best seller list. Unbelievers would not have bought it. They need some facts to wave before the “God Is” crowd to establish as truth that the universe came to exist from nothing. If there was a something, any something, you have to start all over. Where did that something come from?
The release and success (in terms of sales) of Krauss’ book is a classic example of the Santa Claus Syndrome (see my previous blog post with this title). A subject matter expert – Krauss, in this case – has received, and continues to receive, enormous benefit in terms of name recognition and monetary compensation by propagating his belief system among the masses with “sketchy, fabricated, or manipulated lines of evidence.” As a matter of fact, in this book the total amount of “evidence” presented is zero, or “nothing”, if you prefer. Rather, what Krauss presents are his opinions on a wide range of scientific possibilities, none of which have graduated to the point to be considered legitimate scientific theory. My intent, however, is not to analyze Lawrence Krauss’ book but to see if he, or anyone else for that matter, has utilized the scientific method to produce any evidence in support of the hypothesis that the universe came from nothing. Thus far in my journey, I have not found any such evidence. Maybe you have had better luck.
With regards to the beginning of our universe, a pretty sound scientific theory has actually been developed. Unfortunately for unbelievers, the most significant component of this theory is that the universe indeed had a beginning. It all started back in 1931 when Albert Einstein travelled to California to take a peek through Edwin Hubble’s telescope. Up to that point in time, Einstein was a proponent of a “static universe”, where the stars were stationary and the idea of multiple galaxies was unheard of. But Albert had a problem. It seemed the equations he developed with his General Theory of Relativity indicated that the universe could not exist because gravity would pull everything together into a massive cosmic blob. To compensate, Einstein introduced the infamous “cosmological constant” into his equations so that the universe could exist. This “fudge factor” essentially compensated for the effect of gravity and enabled the stars to stay put.
Meanwhile, out in California, Edwin Hubble began to notice some peculiar things while looking through his new high-powered telescope. He had identified a bunch of red “nebula” (which were eventually determined to be galaxies), and the farther these cosmic bodies were from earth, the redder they appeared. Basically, it was well understood that when light waves get “stretched”, they appear red, and if a light emitting body is moving away really fast, it appears redder. With his new fancy telescope, Mr. Hubble was able to capture clear images of this phenomenon. According to Hubble, this “red shift” was pretty sound evidence for an expanding universe.
Einstein travelled to meet Hubble with tempered anticipation. He realized that if the hypothesis of an expanding universe was supported with visual, documented pieces of evidence, his equations of general relativity would be wrong. It was not long after their meeting that Einstein called his cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his career. Whether he was immediately converted into a believer in the expanding universe is debatable, but the images produced by Hubble’s telescope were pretty convincing.
In the years that followed the amount of evidence gathered in support of an expanding universe grew exponentially. Many consider Hubble’s achievement the greatest scientific breakthrough of the 20th century because the way in which we view our universe was forever changed. The expanding universe hypothesis has been tested and re-tested, and what we have learned about our universe to date is mind blowing. As telescopes became more powerful, we have been able to probe deeper and deeper into space. Astronomers currently estimate there are somewhere between 125 million and 250 million galaxies in the universe. Each one of these galaxies contain millions, even billions of stars. And, apparently, all of these celestial bodies are moving away from us at a very high velocity.
Using what is known about the “red shift” exhibited by light waves and the laws of physics, minds greater than mine have been able to postulate the size and age of our universe. They have also been able to use what we have learned and work backwards to a point in time about 13.8 billion years ago when it all started with a bang, a rather large bang at that.
The “Big Bang Theory” is the predominant scientific theory held by most all scientists today. All the data collected to date support the hypothesis that all the matter that makes up our universe originated from a single point no bigger that the tip of a needle, and in a millisecond was hurled to and fro to start forming the stars and galaxies that we see today with our telescopes. The hypothesis of the Big Bang is supported by the detailed images that we have gathered of distant portions of our universe as well as our tested understanding of the four forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The evidence for the Big Bang and expanding universe continues to grow, and the Scientific Method is employed time and time again to gather this evidence.
The problem for unbelievers is that all of this data and all of this evidence ultimately takes us back to that one point in time 13.8 billion years ago when the “something” began, so the beginning must be explained scientifically. However, thus far, the evidence produced comes to an abrupt dead end at the Big Bang. What’s on the other side of the bang? What the “God is not” scientific community strives to do is convince us that there is a plausible scientific explanation for the origin of our universe. They have just had a hard time doing this using actual science.
The challenge scientists face to make the “something from nothing” case is a bit of a problem. Consider the hypothesis – “the universe originated from nothing 13.8 billion years ago with a cosmic explosion”. We have already reviewed some of the evidence of the Big Bang and have determined that it is sound scientific theory. It takes us to the “originated” part of the hypothesis. It’s the “from nothing” part that continues to present the problem. In order to test this part of the hypothesis, it will be necessary to get some “nothing” and watch it for a while to see if something pops out. The initial problem is apparent – there is no where we can go in the entire universe to find “nothing”. Even deep space is cluttered with cosmic radiation left over from the Big Bang, and there’s that “dark matter” and “dark energy” floating around that scientists are trying to figure out, but let’s not get into that. The bottom line is that in our physical universe, there is no “nothing” to work with, so this hypothesis cannot even be tested. The rigorous series of experiments required to turn a hypothesis into acceptable scientific theory can’t even begin. This is unfortunate for unbelievers, because there won’t be any facts to support their unbelief.
Let’s assume for a minute that I’m wrong on this point, and that through our genius and determination we discovered or produced “nothing”. What tests could we run which might generate results in support of the “something from nothing” hypothesis? Again, this presents quite a dilemma for unbelievers. What we cannot do, as Lawrence Krauss attempted, is somehow take all the laws of physics and forces of nature and inject them into the “nothing” to see what happens. This would just prolong the debate over the definition of “nothing”. The only test that could be performed that would add any merit to the hypothesis whatsoever would be to do, well, nothing. Unbelievers would watch their “nothing”, around the clock, day after day, month after month, year after year, in hopes of the final bang that would be their demise.
The “God is not” scientists tend to get a little uppity when we question their beliefs, and downright angry if we criticize their “science”. They are the experts, and believe we should accept their positions based on their shear genius alone. I, however, would encourage you to use your own brain and take a hard look at their arguments. Read the books and articles, see for yourself if you can find the facts you need to justify your unbelief. With regards to the “something from nothing” hypothesis, I’m sorry to say, you won’t find anything.
Remember the definition of “faith” – “the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence”. You may choose to believe the claims presented by Lawrence Krauss in A Universe from Nothing, or others making similar claims, but you do so by “resting on their authority and veracity, without other evidence.” In other words, you do so by faith. This is the First Tenet of Faith for the unbeliever. Namely, you believe that all the matter that exists in the universe came into existence, spontaneously and without cause, from “nothing”. You believe this because without God, it just has to be so, and a lot of smart people believe it. Your belief qualifies as an act of faith because there exists no evidence to support it.
Suggested Reading
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M Krause
The Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross
theory as real science and consider those who question its validity as ignorant, while most in the religious community consider evolution as a scheme of Satan himself designed to eliminate the need for a creator. If you are firmly planted in either of these camps, it is difficult to step back and look at the evolution question with an open mind. However, to try to get to the truth, you must, so take a step back with me and let’s look at what we really know – and what we don’t.
frag-ments and snapshots of the fossil record and painted this beautiful evolutionary picture to fuse into the minds of our young, refusing to debate the issue or address the ever-increasing holes in the theory. In order to get to the truth, questions such as those I have raised above must be asked. And if these questions remain unanswered, alternatives must be considered. As a Christian, I have been pursuing these questions with a passion, looking for any evidence that may cause me to question my Creator. I have found none.
I was so excited that morning. It was the Spring of 1974. I was in 6th grade, and our science teacher had scheduled a field trip to Lake Bridgeport, TX for a fossil hunt. The problem was only eight kids could go because that was all that could fit in the van. In order to go on this adventure, you had to be one of the first kids at his office door the morning of the trip. I had my mom drop me off at 5 AM that morning, and I was number three, so I was in. I didn’t know it at the time, but that excursion would begin in me a search for truth that continues to this day.
