Paarsurrey says:
I agree with you that there is no inherent conflict between science and religion; whenever it seems to occur it is because of wrong interpretation either on the part of those on the side of science or on the side of religion due to the humans making mistakes of omission or commission on either side; otherwise science and religion support one another; these are in perfect harmony with one another.
“Something” and or “nothing”; are both creations of the one true God; He only is eternal and immortal.
Though I’ve discussed a few different versions of the cosmological argument, I’ve just realized that I’ve never addressed Lawrence Krauss’ claim that the universe can arise from nothing.
This is half-intentional, as the problems with his argument have been pointed out many times before. But, to give the briefest of summaries for those who are unfamiliar: Krauss has pointed out that empty space contains vacuum energy, from which virtual particles can arise. It is not impossible, then, that the entire universe is a massive quantum fluctuation.
To be equally brief in criticizing him, it has been pointed out that, even though scientists often use the word “nothing” to refer to the quantum vacuum, it is not actually nothing. Moreover, this addresses only the Kalam, and is irrelevant to the other cosmological arguments.
I bring this up, however, because it is a good example of a common mistake. Philosophical arguments for…
View original post 254 more words
paarsurrey 
Leave a Reply