“Much Ado About Nothing!”

Can everything that we see truly come from nothing?  Let’s evaluate some “experts” answers?

What if I asked you to solve the following problem: 2 + 2 = _____ HOWEVER, the answer cannot be “4.” All other answers would seem like nonsense. That is the predicament science finds itself in when attempting to answer the question of origins. This is due to the a priori commitment to naturalism, which argues that nothing exists beyond the natural world (i.e., no God). Naturalism is arbitrarily yet militantly demanded of anyone who engages in the scientific endeavor and wishes to have a shot at a successful career. Thus the answer to the origins problem can be anything except . . . God (the right answer).

The answers to the origins question vary in degrees of ridiculousness. Some go as far as giving credit to a yet-to- be-found advanced intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But the proverbial cake goes to those who argue that EVERYTHING came from NOTHING.

Asking someone who believes this to explain how “something came from nothing?” can be very entertaining. We’ve used the argument quite a bit and find it compelling. We honestly do try and hear how folks that don’t believe the way that we do explain/answer the objections that we might bring up.

So, recently we were watching a conversation between the popular atheist physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss and the atheist biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins on the topic of “Something from Nothing”. The discussion took place as part of a promotion for Krauss’ new book, A Universe from Nothing. It’s quite a long discussion containing many interesting exchanges.

At the very beginning of the conversation Dawkins makes an interesting statement:

“Charles Darwin solved one of the greatest riddles that the human mind has ever solved, which is how you get something from nothing in the sense of how you get the immense complexity and diversity and beauty and elegance of life and perhaps above all how you get the powerful illusion of design that life shows starting, not quite from nothing, but starting from extreme simplicity.”

Hold up! I thought the whole conversation was to show scientifically how the entire universe with everything in it could “scientifically” come from “nothing!” Within the first 5 minutes of the conversation we hear Dawkins affirm that it didn’t actually come from “nothing!”

Well, Krauss challenged Dawkins on this matter as follows:

“But I think you’re not being fair to Darwin. I think in a sense, it’s something from nothing, I mean, completely nothing. Take humans. We weren’t around, perhaps more than maybe 5-10 million years ago, and so, in a sense, every time a new species is created it’s something from nothing.”

Notice Krauss argues with Dawkins that he wasn’t being “fair” to Darwin and that it really was “something from nothing.” Can you see that just from the statement that he made he does not truly mean that “something came from nothing?” He’s starting with “something” (one species) that is turns into “something” (another species) that didn’t exist before. He’s not starting with “nothing” to get “something!”

It gets better, Dawkins is not buying Krauss’ argument and his response is very interesting. Take a look:

“Well, it’s not from nothing, because it’s from an antecedent species, and even the evolutionary process, the process that Darwin discovered doesn’t start from nothing. It had to start from, well, a reasonably complicated chemical beginning which was the first self-replicating molecule. Natural Selection can’t get goinguntil you have genetics and so you’ve got to have genetics, and that’s not a trivial problem, and it’s a problem that actually hasn’t yet been solved.”

Hmmm! We totally agree with that. Notice a common feature in atheist ramblings about origins—CONTRADICTIONS. Earlier in the discussion Dawkins had attributed to Darwin the theory that solved “how you get something from nothing.” Now he is dogmatic that “the process that Darwin discovered doesn’t start from nothing.”

Incredibly, it gets better. Krauss then makes a stunning confession. The truth is, there is NO evidence that “something” came from “nothing!” Take a look:

“what Darwin showed as you said at the beginning of our discussion, is this miracle is actually plausible for basic principles of physics, chemistry, and biology, that you can produce us without a Creator, without an intelligence. And what we’ve learned is …. the fact that it is plausible, based on everything we now know that a universe could come from nothing. Now that doesn’t mean it did that it did come from nothing, any more than Darwin’s argument implied that life absolutely originated by chemistry; we don’t know that yet. Similarly, we can’t prove that the universe arose from nothing, but the discoveries in physics and cosmology have led us to realize that it is increasingly plausible. And I find that remarkable and worth celebrating.”

Did you notice one word that was used multiple times? “Plausible!” Forgive me for questioning, but that’s an interesting word choice to use when you speak so dogmatically about the “fact” of “something came from nothing.” Even the subtitle of Krauss’ book is dogmatic, “Why there is something rather than nothing.”

We looked up the definition for the word plausible and here’s what we found:

adjective

1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable:

Synonyms

Plausible, specious:  describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. The person or thing that is plausible strikes the superficial judgment favorably; it may or may not be true: a plausible argument (one that cannot be verified or believed in entirely). Specious definitely implies deceit or falsehood; the surface appearances are quite different from what is beneath: a specious pretense of honesty; a specious argument (one deliberately deceptive, probably for selfish or evil purposes).

If you’ve ever struggled with this, or felt intimidated by these men with degree’s behind their names etc. We pray that you will look at what the truth is and know that no matter how smart someone is by man’s standards, if they reject God, they are fools!

Juan does a talk entitled, “A Universe from Nothing” where he uses quite a number of clips from this discussion. In addition, it includes similar affirmations from Peter Atkins,

Steven Weinberg and Alexander Vilenkin (all atheist physicist that argue for a universe from nothing). If you get a chance to hear this talk, take it. If you get the chance to invite him to come speak at your event, take it!

Please pray for us. One of our primary desires is to teach a generation to critically evaluate what they are being taught and to encourage the body of Christ to become more visible, in a loving way, in an increasingly dark culture!

Stay Bold!

Carl Kerby & Juan Valdes

Juan Valdes

Dr. Juan Valdes is a bi-lingual speaker for Reasons for Hope (English and Spanish) and the senior pastor of a Spanish-speaking congregation in Miami, Florida. He has taught Theology, Bible and Apologetics at the seminary level in both English and Spanish and speaks regularly across the country and internationally at Pastor’s Conferences, Youth Conferences, Apologetics Conferences and local church events. Juan, his wife Daisy and their children, Juan Elias and Jessica serve in multiple areas of ministry in Miami, Florida.