Joe is basically giving out free college classes on KZfaq. Great stuff.

Lawrence Krauss is a brilliant involuntary comedian. I remember when he presented the book, he was literally laughing at anyone who thought a universe from nothing presupposes a supernatural cause. Then he started explaining what he actually meant by 'nothing', and comedy was never the same again... Thank you, Lawrence.

I've always found it very humorous that scientists feel that they have to explain to you why your "question" is incorrect. When pressed, the best they can come up with is, your question (as you've defined the terms) isn't open to a scientific explanation. THAT'S OUR POINT!!

I'm very much reminded of the story that Richard Feynman liked to tell about how to get yellow paint from white and red paint. Paraphrasing, Feynman was sitting at a cafe one day and struck up a conversation with a guy who was painting a room in the building upstairs, and the guy starts talking about how it's important to know how to mix paint to get the right colors and then explained that to get yellow paint, he would mix red and white paint together. This surprised Feynman, who didn't see how this could be possible, but couldn't figure out why this guy, who did this sort of thing for a living, would lie about something like this, asked him to show him how to get yellow colored paint from mixing red and white paint. So the guy got some red and white paint and began mixing it together, and he would put more red in, and then more white in, but it still just looked pink, no matter what he did, it wasn't yellow. Until eventually the guy said "now I just need to add a little bit of yellow from this tube here to sharpen it up a bit and then it'll be yellow."

Love this quote from Terence McKenna. It's always written as "limit test," but I'm pretty sure he would have said "litmus test."" "The sober men of science are saying the universe sprang from nothing, for no reason. This is the litmus test for credulity! Science is saying, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.' I'll take mine at the end, thank you. They have the big bang, I have the big surprise."

I'm a physicist and I tell my colleagues stuff like this all the time and they just don't understand lol. Thank you

Your clarity it's really unmatched. I started a bible study at my parish, and I'm trying to incorporate everything I can from your videos! Thanks for everything!

Good video as always. A minor nitpick, though it doesn't really affect the validity of your criticism: M-Theory doesn't refer to "multiverse theory". M-theory is the *hypothetical* general physical theory that unifies the 5 distinct Superstring Theories. This brings up an additional point that makes the argument put forward by Hawking and Mlodinow ridiculous: while there is certainly evidence that there is such a theory, its existence has not been rigorously established! So not only does M-Theory not answer the question, because it still requires the existence of Physical Law, as you've noted, but we don't even know what M-Theory is (if it exists) in a satisfactory way. And this doesn't even touch on the phenomenological issues, as it is not at all obvious at present that M-Theory could describe our universe. As far as the name goes, there isn't even agreement on what the M in M-Theory even stands for. It kind of just caught on and depending on who you ask you'll hear things like "membrane", "magic", "matrix", etc. It's actually a common joke in the field to say that once M-Theory is rigorously defined we'll finally know what the M stands for!

I think the issue with the question of why there is something rather than nothing is generally misused on both sides of the aisle. Atheists and Christians actually agree on the answer to this question in a fundamental sense. The answer is “because something has always existed.” For Christians that something that has always existed is God. For Atheists that something is whatever natural thing they believe to be eternal, be it quantum fields or whatever quantum fields originated from. Both sides agree that true nothingness only begets nothing. So the fact that anything exists at all must be because something has always existed.

Fantastic job explaining this! Looking forward to seeing the growth of this channel!

Exactly!!! Empty space is what you find in Genesis 1 as "void", that's actually part of creation, having a void is not nothing it's a void, empty space, "darkness over the face of the deep/abyss"

I really like watching these videos while I drink my morning coffee, it's a stimulating way to start the day. They challenge me and are engaging arguments that I may not have heard before. Keep up the great work!

What a fantastic video [all your vids are great]. God bless.

how did these people get to be "scientists"?

I'm loving your Chanel. keep going don't stop!

Yay! New video, thanks Joe!

Very helpful. Thanks Joe!

For a physicist he really doesn't get the difference between vacuum, void and nothing. It's high school level stuff btw.

I'm so looking foward to the rest of the series. You do an amazing job. Thank you so much to explain things in a way noobs like me can understand

Thanks much for this video.

Nicely done. I’d love to hear more generally philosophical content like this.

I think a lot of Atheists subscribe to the "it just happened" theory.

I am still a fan of Dawkins and Krauss for various reasons - I think they have offered a lot. But you are absolutely correct here about Krauss' confusion, and even his hubris, at least on this topic. A good reminder to always check your own arrogance and assumptions. Brilliant people are brilliant at fooling themselves.

Adding to my RCIA class materials!

Esse tipo de vídeo nós já deixamos o LIKE antes mesmo de assistir porque sabemos que o conteúdo será Top.

Hahahahahahahah........simply superb Joe! with these fellas is ultimately down to pride. If our minds can't come up with the answer then one must humbly say I don't know or I can't answer that but thats a tough ask for them with their many many awards and accolades.

Joe, thank you for the great video. In addition to the question posed here, I couldn't wrap my mind around the question "How do I lead a good life, what does it even mean to live Atheism consistently?" whenever thinking about Atheism. Maybe this touches of your fifth way about saints. As a German, I have one small point of consideration when it comes to pronunciation of the name 'Leibniz'. The German 'ei' is pronounced like the English 'ie'. If you would pronounce it like 'Liebniz' in English, it would be a perfect German pronunciation of the name.

I like that shirt. Can't wait for it to make an appearance on the Flannel Panel

"I'm reminded of the words of that great philosopher, Billy Preston, "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'."

Conspicuously, Krauss doesn't bother to read Aristotle and Aquinas. He can't imagine that their thought was as or more sophisticated than his own.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?". Um....we don't know. That is the simple, correct answer.

Hey if nothing is something then send Krauss a bill for $100,000. And when he asks what it is for say, "Nothing." And when he balks at it say, "Nothing is not nothing, but something. And it is this something that I am charging you for."

Joe watches Matt Fradd, Jonathan Frakes' X Factor and listens to Mountain Goats. :) At least according to the youtube suggestions. That is actually a nice song from Black Pear tree...

“Philosophy always buries its undertakers.” - E Gilson

"Nothing" is vague, too. When I say "I know nothing," I might mean that I know about something the word "nothing" signifies. Before my brother shops for me, he may ask what else I need. But I won't say "The absence of anything."

Hi Joe, I agree that basically all the responses from the athiests (who were sadly scientists and not philosophers sadly) were poor. I think the main problem with the existence argument is that premise 1 seems very hard to justify. I didn't catch the justification for that premise, could you clarify why you think it is true?

I think Joe Schmidt did a video where they give some arguements for something being nessacary

The book also says "No refund".

As much as i enjoy all of Joe's videos, this one stands head and shoulders above all the others. Exposing Krause as the pompous, ill-informed scientist that he is was refreshing. This video is a masterpiece!

Quantum Field Theory and virtual particles are indeed useful yet somewhat controversial because virtual particles technically violate the conservation of energy, and the field theory is technically a theory which derives from the older field theory which required some sort of aether or medium to transmit the waves. Einstein tried to resolve this aether problem with Special Relativity however wasn't able to explain Quantum Mechanical phenomena with it. The simple fact that there are two theories (Quantum Mechanics and Relativity) which, for instance, contextualize space and time very differently in order to explain and make accurate predictions just goes to show that guys like Krauss, in attempting to explain the universe in certain terms, have no idea what they're talking about because these two theories are technically incompatible (for instance their interpretation of space and time).

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't know. I don't believe anyone knows. There are people who believe they know, but it's just a belief and not knowledge. Knowledge should be demonstrable.

The late Stephen hawking had more guts and courage with his disability than many who rely on faith from dead saints bones and relic's.

Probably not much more than a half a dozen people (joking) can grasp the depth of the argument Joe is making here. Yet, he does it in a way that even I can understand it.

Galatians 6:3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.

An atheist saying NO, there was Not NOTHING, but instead some form of "SOMETHING", really just digs a deeper hole for themselves, in a number of ways. Most obviously, because the question would simply become....well OK, where did the "something" you magically believe in (talk about flying spaghetti monsters) come from, as the cause of no-thing, is found within itself! So, they just kicked the same can, a little further down the road!

WHY? We don"t know. If someone knows and can support their answer with evidence, go ahead.

Perhaps it's true that _some_ Atheists can't answer this question, but many Atheist philosophers have adequately responded to the type of argument you raise. I'd encourage reviewing the works of J.L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Stephen Maitzen, Adolf Grunbaum, and Bede Rundle. Rundle even has entire book _Why there is Something rather than Nothing_ dedicated to his entire question.

Does Dr. Krauss explain why empty space and laws of physics exist? Who created empty space, the laws of physics, and low energy fields ?

His book should have beeen titled, “And God Created Empty Space.”

I’m glad I was never “smart” enough to ponder these things. I think it would have driven me to insanity 😂

I seem to remember hearing Dawkins answer that question with something like, "Give science enough time and we'll why there's anything." But science assumes that there's something. If you argue scientifically for something science presupposes, your argument will be circular. It'll treat its conclusion as a premise. The conclusion becomes, you might say, evidence for itself.

Based

how is empty space "something"?

Lack of existence being nothing; how can/(does) existence exist?

What’s this evolution you speak of? Lol! Thanks Joe!!

these hard-core naturalists are so soaked in their material things that they can not imagine nothingness.

I may not be a brilliant scientific or philosophical mind, but I at least know that there are smaller and larger infinities. But I'm prettyy sure there's just the one nothing. There's just one nothing. We just have the one nothing. Or... there just isn't one nothing, and we don't have it. There's that intelligence bit coming back up.

You are absolutely right. This IS a religious/philosophical/metaphysical question, NOT a material one. Krauss is full of BS. Nothing means a State of Non-being, where not even the concept of Nothing exists. It is, for the human mind, totally incomprehensible. And this is where the mind of the scientist cannot go. Leibnitz is correct, for God alone meets the criteria of sufficient reason to explain the existence of anything, even if that anything began as an abstract concept.

I think one could plausibly argue that "nothing" is a product of human imagination. It derives from the distinction between everything (beings as a whole) and what is in no way anything (nothing whatsoever). Now the irony is that the latter, as deriving from a _negation,_ is capable of many determinations. One could say it is Nothing, but one could also say it is Being, since Being (esse, to-be) is also not any thing. Metaphysicians have played on this paradox to produce many profound communications, and Alain Badiou, drawing from set-theory, has transported it into a theory on the immanence of eternal truths. Fundamentally though, it seems to me one is speaking about immanence and (vs.) transcendence. Transcendence is what is fundamentally different from whatever-is, the temporal, the everything. Depending on the philosopher/theologian/mystic, Transcendence can take on the flavor of Being, Nothing, Ab-solute, and so on. And that is going to depend on how they draw these distinctions; and no one can say which way of drawing these distinctions is "exactly" right. The point here is that our imaginations of "nothing" (and its avatars) are derived through a distinction we ourselves are drawing (and cannot help but draw) between everything that is and its negation or negative side. But in the end, we _cannot observe_ anything that isn't "something." We can think about it through contradistinctions, certainly we can write down words like "nothing" and "nonbeing." But to observe these in an absolute form is an absurdity, since they would imply the annihilation of being and of its observer, hence of the very possibility of observing the distinction being vs. nothing. Martin Heidegger of course explored the Being/Nothing homophony in all of his works, and by dint of that set off a veritable revolution in metaphysics that was best traced through Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy. On that note there is an excellent essay in _Cult and Culture_ by Jacob Taubes on Heidegger's "substantivization" of the adverbial nothing, defending him from Carnap's attack. Graham Priest has some books on this topic, though his flavoring is more of a Zen style mixed with analytical philosophy; I haven't read him though did take a course with him once. I have mentioned Alain Badiou, whose theory of being, void, event, worlds, truths, is certainly one of the most immense ever produced, and deserves the attention of theologians (he has a book _Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism_ which is a good introduction to how the theory works). But the book I would recommend to everyone here above all is Niklas Luhmann's _A Systems Theory of Religion;_ very challenging but it is his work that has inspired me, after a life of studying theology, to think about all this in a more radical and, I think, enlightening way. Returning to my initial statement, doesn't one have to admit that "nothing" is totally beyond the reach of any operation we could make? All of our operations are with "something." Even if they be ideas or fictions, these aren't nothing. I think those of us who are familiar with theology and terms like "nonbeing", we take for granted that there is some _signified_ corresponding to this signifier. And this _seems_ easy because we have experiences of things not being there all the time. "The house was full, now it's empty and there's nothing in it." We derive our intuition of "absolutely nothing" from such experiences of the transience of things. Then we project a total nothingness somewhere-- but where? Usually into a temporal "before" of Everything. But obviously, we have no proof of this outside of imagination (including our imaginative interpretation of the ancient cosmologies in Genesis, which we now also admit are not literal/physicalist but allegories). We have to default on the extension of a metaphor. We seem to make some sort of mental image of the negation of all "stuff" and all the "laws"--but really, what sort of mental image is this? One would have to admit, it is quite limited and (what irritates the scientists) seemingly unfalsifiable. I think if we ask ourselves seriously, we do not really know anything about nothing, except by a hypothesis that says: "nothing" is outside the boundaries of what we can observe, e.g. being. We can then take it for its source or its negation, its animating umphf or its inglorious dissipation. Or again as the evil that attends to being by some flaw. Or again as the reality of our very existence insofar as we observe that existence from the standpoint of God (via the analogy of being, cf. Pryzwara). But as for nothing's "existence", well, it depends upon what we observe it "existing" over and against. And on top of that, obviously, _the existence of nothing is a paradox,_ including when it is hypothesized as "pre-not-existing" existence itself. When we look at paradoxes we have to look at the unity of the difference, here, the unity of everything and nothing, and interdependence of the distinguished sides. It is the distinction we make between them that makes the difference, quite apart from the 'ontological status' of 'everything' and 'nothing', which can be arranged in countless different "framings." None of the framings can claim ultimacy, while at the same time they all converge (unity of mystical thinking) because they all come back to the same code of immanence/transcendence and the endless variety of interpretations we can put on that distinction. The difference-making is operative. Because really, if one asks oneself seriously, what evidence do we have of "nothing," outside of speculation/imagination, that is, outside the _observation_ of the difference (the difference Heidegger called ontological and Maxence Caron calls "fundamental")? It being remembered that _to observe a distinction is always to (re)make one..._

It’s telling that the most well known modern atheistic arguments contain such a simple error. I bet there are some atheists out there that cringe when these seemingly brilliant thinkers fail so pitifully. It might be better to hold to atheism by faith than because of these books. I wonder if the authors believed their own words.

An atheist could reply that the universe is a logically necessary object, that you contradict yourself if you say there was a time when there was no universe. The nonbeing of a unicorn is something, It's the lack of a unicorn. Evil is a privation. It's the absence of something that should be present. But the word "should" could mislead us if it refers to natural evil instead of moral evil. Now that dinosaurs T. rex has died out, have we lost a kind of animal who should still be here on earth?

We don’t need to answer why things exist. It’s not knowable

"Why is there something ratherthan nothing?" Uh, because there is something, and not nothlng? There is no "WHY"?

There's another possible problem for Prof. Krauss. "Empty" is vague. If I tell my brother Dave that our refrigerator is empty, will he open the refrigerator door and say, "Billy, you lied. The shelves are still in it with the cold air and the lightbulb?" Of course not. He'll know I meant that we ran out of refrigerated stuff we kept in it.

Nice haircut

Neither theists nor materialists believe there was ever such a thing as "nothing."

Hawking did not then, but know now, that God IS! But God is not just an answer, He is THE Mystery the Faithful will contemplate for eternity.

You know when you see at title like "Atheists Can't Answer This Question" it is going to be either not a coherent question or a question that is actually very easy to answer and has been countless times.

Has anyone ever witnessed a nothing ? The something may well be a brute fact, with a god or not.

Listen, we clearly can't ask that much from modern scientists when it comes to philosophy. These are the people that gave the name "atom" to particles that can be divided into further. Poor guys are just not cut up to properly thinking about these issues.

not just Atheist's but many cannot answer this question, Who is the serpent? once you understand all will be made clear!

Okay but First cause, Moral Law, fine tuning, intelligent design, etc only get you as far as Deism. How do we know the Judeo Christian God specifically did all these things?

Why is irrelevant. The more interesting question is “How is there something rather than nothing?” FYI this question has literally nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods

0+0=0 Things exist therefore, God, the sufficient reason for the Mystery of Being

I was an atheist for about 5 years and got really into many of the atheist thinkers you listed. I happen to have read Krauss' book you're referring to. I have to admit, I'm a bit critical still of various arguments for God's existence even as a believer. My criticism of your basic argument is that it establishes that the non-existence of things would be a result of the non-existence of God (some potential problems with that idea, but I'll leave them for now). But it doesn't establish that God's existence is the only possible precondition for the existence of things. You're saying if A then B. Then you say B, therefore A. It doesn't necessarily follow. More accurately, you're saying this. If not A therefore not B. B, therefore A. Premise one may be true. But it doesn't follow that A is therefore the only precondition for B. If we established B exists if and only if A, then given B exists we would necessarily have to conclude that A exists. You're argument doesn't make it quite that far. But what I do find interesting is that how Krauss and others answer the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing" is, at its core, the same answer Aquinas gives for the existence of God. Krauss' presupposition is the same as Aquinas' conclusion, that there must be some bruit fact, some non-contingent reality in a category all it's own from which all else derives it's being. What I am skeptical of is the very idea or nothing as such. An atheist can validly say that the very idea of nothing in absolute terms is meaningless. It's self negating. It's a contradiction to refer to the "being of nothing," which is what the question you're asking does. "Why is there something rather than nothing" pits the "is" of something against the "is" of nothing. An atheist can validly say this is a completely meaningless question because the very idea of the "is" of nothing is a contradiction in terms and therefore negates itself, and thus has no meaning. Since the second part of the question negates itself, the question reduces to a mere observation that things exist. It's sort of like asking what blue smells like. Grammatically it qualifies as a question we can ask. But it confuses categories in a way that renders the question meaningless, and thus no question at all. I agree that the existence of things leaves us demanding an explanation. But I don't think this question is the best way to get at an answer. I think Aquinas gets at it better with the argument from contingency. It doesn't prove God per se. But it's a solid first step because it shows there must be something categorically other and non-contingent upon which all else depends. So, in a round about and back door sort of way, I'm arriving at the same point you are.

Why is there something rather than nothing? “God did it” is no different an answer than “We don’t know” except the latter doesn’t require one to believe in an imaginary being. Which God? Zeus? Ram? If one accepts that God can exist without cause then the universe can exist without cause. Why can we not accept that the honest answer is, “We don’t know.”

Neil of Grass Tyson

How does the Pope disagree with God's Word?

Science can only answer the questions "how" and "what". What happened? How did it happen? What caused it? What if?; these questions are the purview of science. Science cannot answer the question "Why". Now someone might reply: "But asking, 'why does energy flow from higher states to lower states?' is a why question". But this question asked in this way implies a cause that possesses will and purpose. Energy does not make a reasoning decision to move from higher states to lower states, it simply follows the laws of physics. The scientific answer to the question is a "how" and "what" answer, not a "why" answer, so the proper scientific way to ask about the flow of energy would be: "What causes energy to flow from a higher state to a lower state?" or "how does energy flow from higher to lower states?" If one askes "why" the answer become theological/philosophical.

Hawking Our universe exists because there are other universes that made it so …. Hahahaha how he made the simple question of how one universe came to be from nothing … to infinitely more complex issue on how multiple universes came to exist from nothing and how they are able to interact with one another to both create and destroy other universes

I think that the whole misunderstanding with the definitions of nothing from Krauss and Hawking comes from a completely different mindset between philosophers and scientists. Where the philosophers are asking "Why?", the scientists only hear "how?". The philosophers who ask "why?" seem to be seeking a Teleological explanation. Science has largely rejected Teleology for the past few hundred years - which might explain the whole scientific misunderstanding. While "How does space exist" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense (kind of like "How does God exist?"), "Why does space exist" will actually be a question that makes sense to those who accept Teleology, as most religious-types seem to. But if you don't accept that Teleology is veridical, then the question probably needs to be reinterpreted (misinterpreted?) in order to make the question answerable beyond just "Its a brute fact" - which is an intensely unsatisfying answer! Anyway, just my thoughts here, and I am just some kid haha! Edit: Posted too soon! at around 38 minutes, you call the "How question" "remarkably incurious". I am not sure I'd call it that way, I'd just say that that question underpins an understanding of the way the universe works that scientists simply don't share.

Thanks be to God Christianity can answer the most difficult questions. Why because Jesus said, "the Holy Spirit will tell you all truth".

The term or concept of nothing is a non sequitur, surely. It's an incomprehensible nonsense. All that can be is being, or something. Nothing can't be, because if it was (which again is a nonsense) then something couldn't be. In the absence of matter and energy, the only thing that can exist is being or mind. So what we mistakenly think of as nothing, due to the absence of matter, is actually not nothing but being. Something always has to be for anything to exist at all, because there's no such thing as nothing, and since matter and energy has not existed eternally, then something has to exist eternally to bring it into existence, and the only thing that can exist is being, or mind. It's remarkable that a man will say "my brain" or "my body," as if he has a brain and has a body that he uses and lives in, yet is somehow ontologically separate and distinct from it. We just are, just as God just is, and we derive our being from his being whilst being separate from his being. And so, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is also a non sequitur, because nothing can't be, only being can be.

God is byhond being able to be defined. Why can't we say the same for existence itself. Backing up on the why's of what we are meets up with mystery. Mystery which is by definition nothing we know. That's not "nothing". That's nothing we know to define, or able to know. Just like what God is. The God of the Bible wants us to believe. But science will never be the final answer (proof) to belief. But what we are looks for God. The question is what makes us find Him. A science of God!? Funny how evil proves God more than good does. We need an explanation before our battered dignity. Only a transcendent something before nothing can fill that space. Only a God suffering the same as us could explain the deep nothingness of evil in our lives. Only love has the definition of giving itself away, when nothing is forcing it to do so.

Nothing you have stated provides credible evidence that you have a specific version of a Magical Invisible Friend. Dismissed. Next!

Is there a sufficient reason, besides God, to answer why there's something rather than nothing? It seems like answering this question will definitely direct one's life to "somewhere"....

Fine Tuning: The universe’s physical constants are fine tuned for life and extremely improbable. Not just carbon life but any life, because if it were a little bit different, then it would be something like completely crushed or so on. The physical constants being necessary wouldn’t make much sense. There’s nothing saying they are necessary. Furthermore, Why then would we have a set of necessary constants that happen to be fine tuned? Some will use the multiverse as an objection. First of all, the multiverse is a theory with no evidence whatsoever. Theories like the black hole theory have been debunked. There are also scientific reasons to believe there is not a multiverse. Beyond this, there’s many problems and contradictions with actual infinites, meaning their probably not possible. Beyond even this, even if there were life in a universe, it would probably be a bunsen brain, or a single observer popping in and out of existence, with false memories, and a simple universe. You know you are not a bunsen brain because your still here aren’t you? There is still technically a possibility we get us right? Well, imagine if you had a poker game. And someone got 5 royal flushes in a row. It would be more probable that you are in a universe where someone cheated than probability allowed it. You would have to get rid of all probability if you were to say that, and not be surprised by anything anymore. Furthermore, a multiverse would also have to be fine tuned to create other universes. And the “Meta Laws” Atheists talk about are things eerily similar to gods.

he should stop trying to a VOID the issue

AMAZING CONTENT but presentation is too 'square.' Not to say be all hipster but small things. Like the into sounds like im watching a cheese old grandma tea time show.

Atheists could answer the questions in these ways: 1. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe humans are incapable of understanding it. 2. Even if God did create the universe, that is a long way from proving the Christian conception of God.

Only by Faith can you inter into God's rest. it is a free Gift and if you pay or work for it, it is no longer a gift. and you are sill dead in your sins and execution is all your waiting for. Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Why is there a God and not nothing? Question answered by another unanswerable question. Also, does there being something mean the Christian God is the only answer? So answer this question: since there is something, who created it? And prove without falling back on the Bible says so.

This isn’t remotely difficult for atheists to answer. You first have to justify the idea that “nothingness” is even a possibility, to begin with. Literally every human experience throughout history has entailed “something” - everywhere around us, there is “something”. Even a vast expanse of empty space is still _something,_ for example, so what gives you the impression that there even has been, or ever could be, a total absence of all things? Even modern cosmology shows us that, at the very earliest moments of the Big Bang, all of the mass and energy in the universe already existed, so there quite literally has never been a point in time in the entire history of the universe that there hasn’t already been “something”.

Everything begins from nothing, all physical matters and spiritual begun from Zero level, meaning nothing. By nothing does not mean emptiness. God is the cause of everything that exists

Any theist out there who whole heartedly rejects the idea that something can come from nothing should just as enthusiastically reject the idea that god created the universe and everything in it from total nothingness (creatio ex-nihilo). If, on the other hand, you DO want to argue that god created the entirety of physical reality (time, space, energy, mass, matter, etc) from complete nothingness, then just admit that you’re perfectly fine and dandy with the idea that something can come from nothing. You would just then have to think that plugging a deity into the equation there somehow makes a nonsensical idea make sense, which I don’t agree with.

Let's turn this back around. Why is there a God instead of no God?

"Is" and "nothing" cannot be used at the same time, because "is" describes some state of existence, which "nothing" should not have. Statement P1 of the existence argument does not make sense. "If god did not exist, no things would exists". But god exists, so at least one thing exists. P1 is therefore wrong and cannot be used as the base of a conclusion. If the premise is wrong, you cannot conclude anything from that. In fact you complain about the re-definition of nothing, but accept the existence of a god as not violating the"nothing". If "nothing" would be as you intend it should be seen, you would also exclude a god from that nothingness. But there are other reasons why that entire reasoning is useless. You could replace "God" with anything, and the logic would be the same, e.g. replace "God" with "Hyperdimensional Spacemonster". Do you think the Hyperdimensional Spacemonster exisits? Linkely not.

Can the "nothing" that you describe ever exist? No? Then why did you spend so much time talking about something that, by definition, cannot exist. Krauss and co. know that your "nothing" is meaningless, so they talk about other things which could be real--and that point sailed directly over your head.

Unfortunately, scientists are not the only people who struggle with conversations contrary to their beliefs. The reason for the conversation is that he needs others to believe what he believes. That's not because he genuinely wants others to see the truth. He needs others to agree with his version of truth, because if enough people can agree with him his truth can actually be true. The real issue is that he cannot defend his view. So he attempts to redefine the parameters so he can defend his "truth".

People come up with convoluted, intellectually empty anti-religion arguments like this so they don't have to do penance for their sins. If God is real, they have to repent and ask Him for mercy, just like the rest of us sinners. If God being real didn't effect their lives like that, they would never write such wastes of paper and ink as these books. They would simply stand aside, not believe, and move on with their lives. But because God offers mercy and love, they want to shirk their responsibilities so that they can't enter into that. It's so gross.