Tag: Lawrence Krauss

Posted on

What Nothing Is

What Nothing Is

It may seem strange that we would have an article about “nothing,” but this is a serious topic. The dictionary defines nothing as “not any material or immaterial thing” (Oxford English Dictionary). Cosmologists like Stephen Hawking won’t accept that definition. Do we really know what nothing is?

Hawking argues that “nothing” can result from cyclic processes – quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss explained his understanding of what nothing is this way: “For surely “nothing” is every bit as physical as “something,” especially if it is to be defined as “the absence of something.” The cosmologists’ speculative attempts to redefine nothing is an attempt to eliminate God from the process of creation.

If I have a bill for $10.00 and $10.00 in my pocket, is my net worth “nothing”? If matter and antimatter combine, they destroy each other. Does that produce “nothing”? The answer is clear. They produce energy, which is not nothing. This is not a scientific discussion because you can’t observe “nothing,” and you can’t devise an experiment to test “nothing.” Hawking and Krauss are scientists, not philosophers, but they are attempting a philosophical argument to eliminate God from the creation process.

There is strong evidence of a beginning to time, space, and matter/energy. It was not eternal and was not created by “nothing.” We can talk about dimensions beyond the ones we live in and the ones scientists can do their experiments in, but ultimately, God comes to the creation process from a dimension beyond the three we know. String theory suggests eleven spatial dimensions, but that is not good science; it is only speculative guesses about the nature of reality.

“In the beginning, God created the heaven (space, time, and matter/energy) and the earth.” That statement in Genesis 1:1 gives purpose, direction, and realism to all of us. Let us not argue about what nothing is.

— John N. Clayton © 2024
Quotes and data from John C. Lennox’s book God and Stephen Hawking – Whose Design Is It Anyway? pages 30-33.

Posted on

Virtual Faith

Virtual Faith - Cat with Mirror
Atheist virtual faith reminds me of virtual images. I am an old physics teacher. One of the fun discussions that I used to have with my students was when we got into optics and began talking about virtual and real images. Real images are actually formed by light rays. When you take a convex lens or a concave mirror you can project an image of a candle onto a screen. The image is inverted, but it is there. You can block sections of it with your hand, and you can enlarge or reduce the image by changing the distance from the object to the projecting lens or mirror.

The other type of image is a virtual image, which is an illusion. When you look into a plane mirror, you see an image of yourself. The image is not real. It is not actually formed by the light rays, and it cannot be projected. Watching an animal see itself in a plane mirror is always interesting because the animal can be fooled by the realistic virtual image. We all know that magicians can fool us with virtual images as well.

When atheists want to get around questions concerning the existence of God, they frequently bring the word “virtual” into their discussion. Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time evaded the logical consequences of the second law of thermodynamics by inventing something he called “virtual time.” Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe from Nothing claims that empty space is actually “a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence on a time scale so short that you cannot see them.” This new definition of “nothing” is based on virtual particles.

Like the virtual image in a plane mirror, all of this is unreal! It is an unscientific proposal because it cannot be falsified or scientifically tested in any way. It is invented purely to justify the rejection of God as the creator. Krauss is fond of saying that there is no need for an intelligent being to will anything into existence because the means for this was already there and available. If you want to invent a religion that believes in unreal particles popping into existence, you are certainly free to do so. That gives the atheist a virtual faith. The problem is that he or she has to believe that from the “boiling bubbling brew” everything necessary for stable matter to exist came about by chance.

We have a booklet “Evidence for Design In the Universe” available on our doesgodexist.org website or from us on request. It contains a list of 47 physical design features that must be present for a planet like ours to exist. We would claim that all of this makes our faith real, and the rejection of God’s existence virtual faith.
–John N. Clayton © 2018