Got a question? Ask it here!

Before you ask, please check to see if your question has been asked before by using the search function in the upper right hand side of each page. Please try to keep your question as brief as you can. Keep it simple. Remember that others will be reading your question and may not have the same vocabulary as you do.

Allow a few days for an answer. The best way to get updated on your question and others is to either subscribe by email or follow us on G+, Facebook, or Twitter.

Now ask away!

18 thoughts on “Got a question? Ask it here!”

  1. Why do atheists like Stenger, say that the universe can be eternal, when this does not hold?

    Stenger argues that the universe can be eternal, non-created, extrapolating the law of conservation of energy-mass before the planck time, he says that because we do not see a violation to this law, the universe can perfectly be eternal.

    But this is a fallacy as William Lane Craig exposed once. If the energy were eternal there would be no useful energy right now, it would have become useless, complete entropy an infinite time ago, and because we do not see this, the only conclusion is that the universe and the energy began a finite time ago. Were we christians think, the best explanation is the creation by God.

    1. Nope its not:

      “So much for physics revealing “the mind of God.” Lest anybody still think that Stephen Hawking is religious, even in a deistic sense, check out his new book, The Grand Design (coauthored with American physicist Leonard Miodinow), available in the US September 7. Here’s part of Hawkings’s precis, taken from the Amazon listing:

      In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a “model-dependent” theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse–the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete “theory of everything.” As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, “42.””

      Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist,” he writes.

      Taken from:

      God has not created the Universe according to Hawkings.

      1. Second this William Lane Craig??:

        “Dr. William Lane Craig, born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois, is an American Christian apologist, philosopher, and theologian. He received a Bachelor of Arts from theologically-moderate evangelical protestant Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, a summa cum laude Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (England), and a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Munich. Craig claims that religious faith must be supported by reason and logic or atheism will triumph.”

        Taken from:

        In the link above is even William Lane Craig and his arguments debunked.

          1. The thing which is discussed here is Kalam. Which is ancient(see wikipedia for this argument and its history – Kalām cosmological argument):

            “William Lane Craig’s version of the kalam cosmological argument is as follows:
            Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
            The universe began to exist.
            Therefore, the universe must have a cause.”

            There are however several counter-apologetics to this argument:

            “2 Counter-apologetics
            2.1 Counterargument
            2.2 Counterexample
            2.3 Circularity
            2.4 Equivocation
            2.5 Special pleading
            2.6 Why only one cause?
            2.7 Fallacy of Composition
            2.8 False Dichotomy
            2.9 So what ”

            Both quotes taken from:

            The argument however has one flaw. Even when god is involved it can be any god you want – from Zeus to even demons or pink unicorns. Second this cause could have been a natural one(to which we already have some evidence) and therefore it is not needed to be a god.

            1. Opps not only one flaw. It has several flaws according to the counter-apologetics.

              I wanted to say one major flaw for me..

              Also I would say another major flaw is that its another god in the gasp argument because it is one of those ancient questions.

          2. you runaway from dont have any understanding of religion.Because you have studied any didnt answer my counter question i asked two years back mr laurence krauss

      2. If the big bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Please tell me: which law of physics supports spontaneous creation? I have not found any laws or principles of the physical universe which support the idea of bridging the infinite gap between non-existence (quantity zero) and existence (quantity one) using no previous resources. In fact, I think it’s the opposite – there is a law (and a quite significant law) which clearly state that both matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed (1st law of Thermodynamics). If there was no one to make this law, then it is just part of the universe. But if it is just part of the universe, then the universe would have to violate its own laws to create itself. So please tell me, again: which law of physics supports spontaneous creation?

        1. It does not support spontaneous creation. I hesitate to give my shaky understanding of the ways and wiles of the universe, but I know that it did not violate any laws.

        2. The universe did not create or destroy energy. The net sum of the energy in the universe is zero. Add the positive energy (light, mass, thermal, kinetic, etc.) and subtract the negative energy (gravity) and you get zilch. The universe is nothing broken up into pieces basically. It does not violate thermodynamic laws…

        3. You might as well call this universe god, then, because the way everything is put together, all the necessities seem to have been provided as well as the things that could go wrong are also kept in check so much so as to make it impossible for life of any sort, but especially man to be extinguished.

      3. You might as well call this universe god, then, because the way everything is put together, all the necessities seem to have been provided as well as the things that could go wrong are also kept in check so much so as to make it impossible for life of any sort, but especially man to be extinguished.

    2. Will you, please, cool off, cos your silly, or put more bluntly, rather stupid, rant reminds me of the sorry, sad, fact that some humans have no higher iq than chimps and I don’t want to think so lowly of humans.
      As cooling off method for you I suggest listening to MOZART three times a day for an hour.
      This medicine will give you some perspective on ‘capability’ of your brain to think, it seems to me you only ‘think’.

  2. For Smartx,
    I finally figured out myself what the system wants me to provide, by asking me to write my ‘website’. I used to write only ‘’, but then I paid more attention to what the system called my website, ie, ‘’, not only ‘, so, when I wrote THAT, the system let my answer go online, for your affirmation.
    The only remaining issue for me now is, for you, Smartx, to allow my answer online, cos, unlike you, I have no patience and good manners for people like this one, who ask an ATHEIST…’What about MAGIC’!!! Too much for my taste. So I gave this nut my piece of mind, but am afraid you won’t let it online, but, then, it would be a sorry loss, cos people like this nut deserve to be told boldly, by someone like me, a radical atheist, what they REALLY are, NUTCASES.
    No discussions with such people. Not fore me, anyway. Too stupid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *