rationalskepticism.org

John P. M. wrote:We've had this discussion already.

Perhaps he should have called his book "Why there's no such thing as nothing", with a more descriptive subtitle.

Not a bad suggestion. I think the argument over the precise meaning of "nothing" evades the main point. The "nothing" that physicists like Krauss describe may be completely unrelated to the "nothing" that some philosophers discuss. But in terms of the question of the origin of the universe, that may be irrelevant. It's a bit as if philosophers, for some reason, were arguing over whether the universe could have emerged from a plate of scrambled eggs and, when physicists come up with a convincing theory of how the universe actually emerged, people complain "But that has nothing to do with scrambled eggs. Where do the scrambled eggs fit in?"