Why? How can "nothing" be an axiom? "Nothing" certainly isn't a self-evident truth. How could it be?

agreed, and also why does quantum mechanics exist in the nothingness?

I don't mean to say that nothingness should be considered axiomatic in a general sense at all. I was directing it specifically to the discussion regarding quantum mechanics and substance being gestated from nothingness, per the discussion regarding Krauss and his theories. In the manner that Krauss was speaking, that is a possible scenario in which something arises from nothing via quantum mechanical processes, that nothingness is the most primitive state and should be treated axiomatically. Therefore it seemed weird to posit this question of just where the nothingness came from given the context. It seems far too susceptible to infinite regress.

FWIW, I certainly don't believe that we should assume much of anything before what we call the big bang occurred. An assumption of nothingness seems no more or less valid in general than an assumption of ever existent substance or any other number of possible theories for how and why the universe exists as it does. Outside of certain theories being invalid by either not being consistent with reality and/or lacking rigorous internal consistency, we simply don't really have the ultimate explanation for the universe at this point.

No kidding. But this talk of "nothing" or "nothingness" just seems ridiculous to me. Nothing isn't a "zero-sum" concept. It is the definition of zero. There is no -1 to oppose +1 to equal zero, there is nothing.

To even propose that something came from nothing makes no sense to me. It simply isn't possible, by any definition or theory.

There has always been something. There is no other option. So what do we call that "something"?

Who is getting axiomatic now??!!!??

I really only mean nothing in a material sense. Moreover, I am not even committing myself to a particular meaning of nothingness save for a somewhat vague discussion of what Krauss intended to communicate with regards to something coming from nothing. I haven't read his materials yet obviously, but I expect it may have something to do with virtual particles or a discussion of matter/anti-matter pairs from some energetic void, thus rendering the idea of nothingness even in the context of Krauss' discussion to be somewhat vacuous as "nothing" probably implied a void of matter and not of energy.

But again, I haven't read his stuff. But I am kinda interested now, so I might have to go do some reading.

The same thing was said about DNA. You are going to find fractals all over nature. It has to do with the way life evolves/replicates. It's interesting but far from proof of anything other than how elegant nature can be. I think you are just reading too much into it in regards to it being proof of some type of creator. It's still fascinating. I look at it this way. The laws of nature are going to dictate how things are formed without need for a creator. There are just only so many ways things can evolve so you are bound to find symmetry on occasion.

Loving all the videos!

I know what you're saying. This is all pretty subjective stuff. But given a choice of two possible "axioms":

1. There has always been something.
2. There was nothing, then there was something.

I'll take #1 all day long.

If you watch the video posted earlier ITT (and that's all Ive seen from Krauss so maybe he does address this somewhere else in his writings/videos but I doubt it), his definition of nothing includes the existence of quantum mechanics. To me, that is not nothing. It is something. If you were to define quantum mechanics on its own, would you define it as nothing?

Now as far as the potential that there has always been something, I agree that it makes more sense than something coming from nothing (truly nothing with no laws of nature/quantum mechanics), but it is still just as meaningless as theists saying "there has always been god/jesus". As pointed out earlier ITT, causality is the most basic understanding that we have about our world, and saying something "has always been" just goes against everything we think we know about the world. So if neither is a reasonable answer based on our understanding of causality and time, I'm going to go back to my point that we don't understand time at all, and the best explanation is that time is a completely made up concept that we adapted for our survival.

And to take it one step further - since the concept of time is vital to our survival - this answer is unknowable (*disclaimer* that was an opinion)

Well, as I noted earlier (though perhaps vaguely), Krauss seems more interested in positing plausible reasons for the existence of matter rather than energy of even the rules by which everything exists. Therefore it seems clear that Krauss doesn't mean "nothing" in the same sense that you do, and I think that what you say on this matter has some validity insofar as our current state of scientific ignorance is concerned. If we ever really achieve a true "theory of everything", it should have the expository power to not only explain all universal phenomena, but also its own necessity.

With regards to "time", there is a thread on SMP about whether time is real, and you might have fun checking it out. Long story short, we probably have a better understanding of time than I think you give credit for.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media...d-the-designer

I've always disliked the 'what designed the designer' rejoinder bec it presupposes that what is a valid question in this realm would be equally valid in another one.

It's the obvious rejoinder to the incessant special pleading that underlies the arguments from design/first cause.

It's too easy and smacks of poo flinging.

It's not poo flinging, it's a critique of the move the theist just made by invoking God as the explanation for order in the universe. The theist is trying to set up a distinction where the atheist has no explanation for order in the universe, while the theist does have an explanation: God did it. But then "who designed God" is just as valid a question as "who designed the universe". Explaining one thing in terms of another thing that remains unexplained gets you nowhere. Pointing this out isn't poo flinging.

I mean this exchange doesn't explain order in the universe from the atheist standpoint either. The atheist hasn't provided an explanation here. All he has done is point out that the theist hasn't made any progress toward an explanation either.