A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

Lawrence Krauss - A Whole Universe From Nothing?** #Sürdürülebilirlik #Sustainability #süreklilik #continuity https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aEDAsvuL0n8 1. Awesome read. The physics in the book proves universe can be self-generating. With this, the universe is a self-licking ice cream cone and God is not needed. __a. Secularism teaches the «how» precedes the «why». How we got here is in the book. The why is necessity after that. Thus God is not fundamental then we can understand that those without God do very well. __b. In religion, the «why» precedes the «how». Creationism provides the why. God is fundamental. So we should hate sin and throw a hand grenade at a bum. The reason is that God is not talking to us, but the clerics are acting in place of God. 2. The scientific arguments are overwhelming as the author's presumption. He says, «Read Steven Weinberg, Peter Atkins, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking. And now we can read Lawrence Krauss for what looks to me like the knockout blow.» Elsewhere, Lawrence uses Woody Allen humor to lighten the book. 2. However, what the book is that God is not based on need, but is based on evidence. The evidence is God's calling on us. See: Ephesians 1:3 For he_"chose"_ us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he _"predestined"_ us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely _"given"_ us in the One he loves. https://www.bibleserver.com/text/NIV/Ephesians1%2C4-6 3. The book presents the physics needed to form an opinion that is presented in the book. So it is thought provocative and a must read.

Explains things so a six year old could understand them. Unfortunately, many of the people who bought this haven't reached a 6 year old level yet. The laws of science do prove that something can come from nothing thats the point of the book. Earn an undergraduate degree in physics at least, then comment and you may not make such a fool of yourself. You apparently don't understand a word he said or you would not be of this mind. It's easier to recite 2000 year old rhetoric then it is to earn a 12 yr degree

Plenty of history ranging from the beginnings of Copernicus to the Higs boson, with a substantial amount of ridicule towards religion in between. These smart fellows are extremely apathetic to human emotions and take it up with religion. This isn't a theological debate, stick with the science.