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!

38 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. Do you mean life being created all at once by a being? Or that it popped into being all of a sudden for no known reason?

          2. “Something can come from nothing, he says, because “nothing” is unstable.)”
            Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to use as yet unprovable hypothetical hypothesis’ to maintain that an unproven theory must be true, all the while rejecting another supposedly unproven hypothesis? And how can someone even accept a theory that is un provable without being able to observe it one way or the other. You say that nothing is unot able now prove it. Find some nothing and permit us the opportunity to observe it’s unstability. Or do you think that just because a person has a few more letters backing up his name therefore anything that they would postulate should be accepted as the way, the truth and the life? But if there are supposedly an infinite number of possibilitits for the future and since the past at one time was future, then why couldn’t God have been one of the possible infinite possibilities of how everything and everyone got to be? Indeed if the only limitation of a possible future would be what is or what isn’t imaginable, then to disallow anything theorized would be breaking your theory from the beginning. I say that we must limit our assumations bytesting them against observable occurences applying more or less the old adage “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” that is just because you don’t like the implications, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
            Why is or was the nothing at 0. Could the answer actually be because there actually was nothing? But there was Someone? And then Someone made something. Just follow the logic now. Just as when man goes to a deserted place or island. There is nothing but material. But after man utilizes his ability to fashion, using the material on hand, he makes what was nothing into something. As did God. Using what was on hand, He spoke and it was. He commanded and it stood fast. We are “chips of the old block” after all.

            1. they are not ‘letters’ they are years of education on a subject and grand accumulated knowledge, backed by very high IQ

        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.

          1. By spontaneous creation you mean life all at once being created by a being? Or that life just popped up for a unknown reason or cause?

          2. Do you mean life being created all at once by a being? Or that it popped into being all of a sudden with no known reason

        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…

          1. “The universe did not create or destroy energy. The net sum of the energy in the universe is zero.” Please prove to me these two points that you have made. How do you know that theuniverse did not create? Are you reasoning wirh logic? If so what are you using as references to shape your logic? And how can you show that the net sum of the energy is actually 0?

            1. It has been shown via scientific experiment and has been verified many times. All you need to do is visit your local university’s library, or email someone in the field of physics, or join a scientific journal and read the articles they have on the topic. This isn’t “logic”, it’s validated fact. Please let us know how you choose to pursue this information and what questions you may have AFTER you take the time to study the material.

        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.

          1. Gerald, are you an expert in living things? Because I don’t know anyone that can say, with any kind of certainty, what possible range of life forms are possible in this universe. Furthermore, there is no way for anyone to be able to intelligently comment on what range of life forms are possible if the rules of the universe were different. In other words, you cannot possibly state what IS and ISN’T possible for “life of any sort”.

            What we do know about life, we know because of life on Earth. That life on Earth fits within the parameters of the universe is kind of obvious, isn’t it? Of course life is going to fit within the rules of this universe. It would have to! What would be extraordinary is if life didn’t fit within said parameters.

            Some people do, in fact, consider the universe a type of god (pantheism). I don’t subscribe to that personally however. Nothing appears to have been “provided” to me. The use of “provided” implies a purposeful effort to make or supply certain things. No one knows why the rules of the universe are the way they are, but to date there is no evidence that they exist the way they do for any particular, determined reason. If life is possible under the rules, then life is possible…

      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.

        1. Man can be extinguished. We’re not immortal. We all die and turn to dust in a coffin in the ground, We don’t go to some glowing land in the sky or some demon infested hole in the ground.

      4. Why do you use a unprovable theory that is just that, an un provable theory. Nothing is future except as it is considered a possibility of happening. Can it be followed as a set moment? No. As it as not materialized. And to theoririze an already materialized past, using an unprovable philosophic “could have been” just because you can imagine it does not make it possible. The best way to theorize is to do so using tools or methods that have substance. For example we know we are because here we are. This is something observable. We know that we had a beginning beginning because it is being observed that everyone of us has a beginning. And since we see that each on of us comes from an already alive entity, then it is logical ro assume that that is how we started. The same with this universe. We observe that only a form of intelligence makes use full stuff. An intelligence of some sort, manipulates materials to make stuff. And nothing notable ever happens unless an intelligence causes it to happen. That is an observable fact. So the construction of this universe and us, had to have had anintelligence behind them.

        1. Unfortunately your entire comment is not relevant, because you are assuming that this is some kind of conclusion reached via logic without empirical data and evidence. As I noted in my other 4/24/17 post earlier in this thread, I suggest you read up on the topic and learn what has been done and how. After you make that effort, I would be happy to answer any pertinent questions you may have.

      5. The fact is though that one cannot cantilever into the void. If the universe is simply a consequence of circumstance this is tantamount to saying “it just is”. This is not very scientific. Hawking leaves the realm of factual statement and enter the metaphysical clothed in words of science. At best one could say that it could appear to an observer with our present ability that the universe makes itself from nothing. But even this is incredibly unclear. In trying to refute theism and deism hawking painted himself into a corner. There is not good reason tone drawn into a bs via of reality.

        1. Ray writes: [If the universe is simply a consequence of circumstance this is tantamount to saying “it just is”. This is not very scientific.]

          It’s scientific if it is based on data and evidence. How scientific a conclusion is has nothing to do with what the conclusion is, it has everything to do with what empirical support is used in reaching the conclusion. It was everything to do with putting a hypothesis through the scientific method and seeing if it survives experimentation and verification.

          The universe is a zero-sum game. The net charge of the universe is zero. The net spin is zero. The net energy is zero. The universe literally cancels itself out when you bring it all together. The universe has been expanding out from a single point, long ago. Plenty of data supporting that as well. As you say, it certainly does “appear to an observer with our present ability that the universe makes itself from nothing.” That is the correct conclusion, given the data and evidence we have so far.

          Compare that to the complete and utter lack of data or empirical evidence for any theistic claim regarding anything, be it the existence of the universe, or life after death, or souls, or spirits, etc.

          The scientific approach is to follow what empirical information we do have, and go from there. That is what Hawking did.

    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’.

    3. i dont know about the beginning of your question but you christians are surely not the proof of the existence of god, on the contrary, what a preposterous though you have. i feel sorry for you.

  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.

  3. The following was submitted by someone as a question:

    ” I have pretty well been a LIFELONG ATHEIST, but outwardly I ascribe to PANTHEISM, having little more than PITY on the MAJORITY of IGNORANT Christians”

    Please note that this is not a question, or really anything I can respond to. The problem might be that this text was submitted in the Name field and might have been cut off. I invite the sender to try again.

  4. the universe IS eternal, it does hold, only Aristotelian logic does not allow for it. Get over it and over yourself, because, if you exclude ‘god’ as cause of it, which i suggest you do asap, because it cries loudly that you are stupid, then what remains as solution to your problem, is eternal universe or rather the ’empty’ space had never been empty for Aristotle, even ‘before’ the big bang, this is why you need ‘god’ as cause of it, but this so called, as scientists call it, empty space has never been empty, it was and is now and forever, pregnant empty and because of unknown yet to science of theoretical physics, conditions in its essence, base, it created energy which is the source of matter. you and i are matter that thinks about itself and creates ‘god’ when it is not too smart and has a lack of basic knowledge in theoretical physics.

Leave a Reply

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