A Universe from Nothing

[Thachosennee]

Save yourself time, Krauss's nothing isn't an actual "nothing".  Fail.

[hisham]

Unless this stuff can be proven, it's still not science.

[DonkeyKong]

He avoids the question, gets a higher like ratio because it is science. Christians explain how something can't come from nothing, and they get all the dislikes. 

[cobbercow]

Many people are religious because they are not aware of the universe can spontaneously arise as a result of theories we understand. At one time I too believed all of this could only come about from divine creation but thats just not true and few actually realize it isn't true. This video shuts down a central reason millions of people believe in God and it should have millions of views too!

[gpop]

i love this guy, Lawrence Krauss - hes not only smart but he can also express his knowledge.

[islamhome]

Great video but he did not answer the question how something comes from nothing. He completely avoided this.

[raymondt]

The universe, at one point, was very small, maybe the size of the tip of a pen. My question is how did that dot come into existence?

[TheMatrixnation]

if empty space has energy how can it be empty? energy is something so "empty space" is not really empty..

[rinassenpai]

Damn, there sure is a lot of physicist in the comments.

[aucourant]

If "empty space is not empty" as Krauss claims then it is not empty space. It needs to be defined as something else rather than 'empty space'. My own opinion is that empty space cannot exist because by existing it would have to be something. 'Empty space' is 'the absence of'. 

[FruKaos]

I think one major difference between Christians and atheists are that Christians feel the importance of the Why question while Atheists is comfortable in just trying to solve the How questions. As a Christian I marvel at the creation and love learning more about how it all works. Science is a friend of mine. At the same time I want to know more about Why and how I fit into this magnificent world.

[WgWilliams]

~ I would instead ask Krauss "Why is there this process you describe as nothing leading to something rather than no process at all, thus not causing anything?"

The question is still intact and he can no longer skirt around it... no scientist posits that the universe is necessary but that our universe is contingent, even Stephen Hawking; leaving this question as to why all instead of absent all?

[brianlaudrupchannel]

Krauss is basically saying that something has to be eternal because his nothing is not actually nothing but something, such a cop out. (im atheist by the way)

[trechbodyboardin]

Lawrence Krauss has done it again! this guy is brilliant!

[TehTezMan]

yeah, i didn't mean to support or deny what he said by my comment. i know my opinions on the subject, but when i think about i can't come up with any indisputable logic that makes what i believe true, and i believe that such a statement is true no matter what you believe about the beginning of the universe.

[Jamesvsteel]

The video isn't important, and really neither are our comments on the video, but the ideas involved are the most important ones we can ever consider.

[muttleymutt]

At 0:22 seconds, "Because questions such as, what is something and what is nothing, are really scientific questions, not philosophical ones." Wow, that is an extremely naive statement concerning philosophy. It leads me to believe he has no clue about what philosophy is actually all about.

[psford]

I agree with that. No before. But no before doesnt mean nothing could have existed. It only means that nothing that is reliant on time couldve existed. The only thing that couldve existed would have to be able to act independently from time. Is there is a conceivable 'natural', unconscious force that could choose to create time and cause and effect? Possible, but that would be bigger stretch than to assume that it was a conscious force...

[narasimah]

As you say "without time there can be no cause and effect"and there is no before without the arrow of Time

[mrup]

... This man's book is not worth your time :/
I don't know about you, but I become more and more amazed and baffled every day as I continue to learn about awesome our universe truly is! The term "cosmic pollution" that Lawrence Krauss just used in this video doesn't come to mind at all.
In fact, most of the "evidentiary" phrases that he uses are just poorly worded attempts to needlessly skew a few scientific theories in an Atheistic/anti-philosophical direction.
Krauss' claims only serve to mislead the general public and damage the integrity of scientists everywhere. Personally, I found his book to be depressingly bad. I'd advise you to do your own research (that means DOING MORE than just Googling it,  clicking on some of the search results and then pretending like you're an expert on the subject) before you decide whether you agree with what Krauss has to say or not. 
Thanks for reading and have a nice day! :D