“So let me ask you something?”
“If there is no God…”
“If there is no thing called God…”
“If He is nothing…”
“Can’t something come from Him”
Stephen Colbert (speaking to Lawrence Krauss)
On the Thursday, 06/21/2012, episode of the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert had theoretical physicist, Lawrence Krauss on to talk about his new book, “A Universe From Nothing: Why is There Something Rather Than Nothing.” I have a B.A. degree in Philosophy, and have always been fascinated by the search for ultimate truth re: the existence of “God”, the “meaning of life”, the “origin” of the universe, etc. The big questions. So existentialism, epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion are some of my areas of greatest interest. And I love Mr. Stephen Colbert. I think he might be the smartest, and quickest, comedian (via his character on the Colbert Report) I have even seen…no hyperbole. And I was blown away with how he handled, or as Stephen would say, “nailed”, him. The crux of Lawrence Krauss’ argument is that “God” is unnecessary in explaining the origin of the universe, and quantum mechanics can now explain how something comes from nothing. Thus “God” is not needed to explain anything. Not an issue of “belief” or not, just unnecessary. Thus no “God”. “God” is nothing…
Now watch the genius of Stephen, “If He (God) is nothing…can’t something come from Him?”
He blew Lawrence’s mind.
And anyone who was listening…including me.
My comments on Lawrence Krauss’s ideas as presented on the Colbert interview,
1.) quantum mechanics may be able to explain “how” something can come from nothing, however, I’m guessing, it can’t explain the WHY? Many philosophers and scientists dismiss the question, however I don’t believe a self-conscious being (i.e. a human being) with deep, concrete, existential questions can just scoff at and not address the “WHY” of existence, and thus, the “WHY” of the origins of existence. Not just the mechanics of it.
2.) Just because “God” is not required in explaining the possible origin of the universe, that does not “prove” that “God” couldn’t, or doesn’t, actually exist.
3.) He didn’t address alternate theories re: multiple dimensions, multiple universes (vs. “the universe” equaling all of reality), the universe was always here, or even that there is an “eternal cycle” of the universe coming into and out of existence (i.e. constant cycle of: noting, then something, then nothing, then something…always and forever).