Atheist: "Lawrence Krauss showed how something can come from nothing in his book, A Universe from Nothing."
Answer: Lawrence Krauss cleverly changed the definition of the word “nothing” the same way Richard Dawkins changed the definition of God in his book The God Delusion. The word nothing is a term of universal negation meaning NOT ANYTHING. When someone says it’s plausible that the universe came from nothing, what you would have to mean is it’s plausible that the universe did not come from anything. But this is not what Krauss means. He has simply changed the meaning of the word “nothing” into meaning a quantum vacuum—which is actually something. Therefore, the claim that quantum physics shows something can come from nothing is a deceitful one because this “nothing” has fluctuating energy, is governed by physical laws, and has a physical structure. In short, this “nothing” (quantum vacuum) is “SOMETHING.”
Atheists often claim we ignorant Christians are just not smart enough to understand quantum physics. One doesn't need a PhD in quantum physics to understand what is impossible--something CANNOT come from NOTHING--PERIOD! Just because one person, Lawrence Krauss, decided to change the definition of the word "nothing" into a quantum vacuum (which is "something") doesn’t negate the original definition, nor does it nullify the problem that naturalists/atheists have yet to answer coherently and with logical consistency--the idea that something can come from not anything at all.
This idea that something NEW can pop into existence from something unrelated and undetected is nothing new to science. Scientists once believed in "spontaneous generation" because what they observed could not be properly understood by the naked eye. Similarly, just because science cannot yet explain the CAUSE of what we detect today at the quantum level (what appears to be spontaneous actions) does not mean we make the same mistakes scientists in the past made: "We cannot detect the cause; therefore, it must spontaneously generate."
This idea that something NEW can pop into existence from something unrelated and undetected is nothing new to science. Scientists once believed in "spontaneous generation" because what they observed could not be properly understood by the naked eye. Similarly, just because science cannot yet explain the CAUSE of what we detect today at the quantum level (what appears to be spontaneous actions) does not mean we make the same mistakes scientists in the past made: "We cannot detect the cause; therefore, it must spontaneously generate."
*If you would like to hear William Lane Craig dismantle this claim by Krauss in their debate, fast forward to the 25:40 mark below.