INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

No, the scriptures deal mostly with peoples interactions with other people.

I was referring to the main theme of scripture.

1. Christ appeared in history with a unprecedented sense of divine authority.

Where's the evidence he had "divine authority" and that he was a "christ"?

2. He was crucified on a cross by the Romans.

OK, at least as far as we know.

3. His tomb was found empty.

But we can't be certain why this may have been the case, and there are various possibilities as to what might have happened to the body.

The scriptures contain the best explanation for these facts and constitute the core of Christianity its self. They contain the only one consistent with all the evidence.

What evidence? If we accept that Jesus existed and was probably crucified, what other evidence is there? Yes, there's subjective "evidence", and that may be fine for some, but for us skeptics it simply isn't enough to bet the house on.

OK, let me give you an example outside of Christianity. Muslems tell us that on the "Night of Power", Mohammed visited and was shown what heaven was like, and then he returned. Did this happen? Muslems think so. Do you accept what they consider factual? Do you accept that Mohammed wrote what he learned from an angel while he was meditating in a cave?

 

[metis]

Nobody that I've seen here is saying that cosmologists and physicists are claiming that something came from nothing. Most lean in the direction that sub-atomic particles probably go back into infinity.

 

[metis]

That is true, at least as far as I have been taught. God can act within it but is independent from it. He is not before time of after it he is outside of time.

And exactly how do you supposedly know this?

 

[cottage]

What in the heck is going on here? No subsection of reality any way it can be sliced has the reason for it's existence within it. No effect has ever been observed that has no cause. That is what makes a law a law. Nothing has zero creative potential. The natural has zero demonstrated creative potential from non-existence. There are no known exceptions. If you wish to hope that some day something will change that is fine with me but I never cease to be amazed by this tactic. In every other issue of any type you would insist we go with the best evidence we have. Unless God is involved then we may freely go in-spite of every single piece of evidence we have even if we are only positing a fantasy. I have finite time to make certain determinations and like everyone else about everything else I make most based on less than knowing every fact about every thing every where. Why is this invalid for God? I know of nothing more substantiated that effects require causes. If you invent a standard that makes that unreliable then the entire spectrum of reality would become meaningless. I have no idea why you think this.

A hypothetical negates nothing in actuality and nothing has zero causal potential.


Again I do not get this type of thinking. You deny something that has no known or theoretical exception if favor of something that has no known example. Why? This is not reason or logic nor rational. It is preference driven hope in-spite of the evidence. We could sit around and debate hypotheticals till the end of time. Why should we when something is as consistent as cause and effect? I will end by simply saying that most philosophers since historical times have granted cause and effect and it is consistent with all known data. I am going with that. Hypotheticals in spite of the evidence and devoid of any themselves are not really my thing. The only challenge possible is for you to find at least one effect that has no cause. Good luck.

BTW if there was something then nothing then us. We can not access the something before the nothing and have the same problem because once the nothing arrived there was no creative potential anywhere. Nothing produces nothing, every time.

Did you want to answer the objections I’ve given re your response to this post and my critique of Greenleaf? I’m afraid they’re way in posts beginning 2393. I’ll reply when I'm back on the site in a couple of weeks if that’s okay.

Cottage

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nobody that I've seen here is saying that cosmologists and physicists are claiming that something came from nothing. Most lean in the direction that sub-atomic particles probably go back into infinity.

Actually, that's basically what Krauss, and others, have proposed with the zero-energy model; that fluctuations on the quantum level DO give us a case of something coming from nothing. Not "nothing" in the same sense philosophers have been concerned with, true enough, but that's not especially relevant since this sense of nothing cannot obtain. So while something probably cannot come from nothing in this absolute metaphysical sense of "nothing", that's sort of irrelevant since there's zero reason to suppose there ever was or ever will be (or even could be) "nothing", in an absolute metaphysical sense. In the sense of a vacuum- the absence of any matter- something can come from nothing; which is, for all intents and purposes, pretty much the same thing since matter is what carries causal efficacy- if something can occur in the absence of what are normally taken to be the basis of an efficient cause, clearly our notions of causality are not entirely accurate; and this would have significant consequences for our picture of the very early universe.

 

[1robin]

You said Bible

The Torah is part of the Bible.

The Torah is a collection of five Jewish writings usually credited to Moses. The same writings as in the Bible in some or all cases (but I am not sure the contents of those books are identical) so I refused to defend the Torah. I am currently looking at one on my desk. I will however defend the Pentateuch which contains those books (but documents to do so by are all but absent) that is pre-history. The Torah is composed of books each of which were written at a different time. The Torah has no date that it was written in all together. The dates vary. So whether the Bible or Torah is what you meant your dates at most apple to only one book. I think your dates belong to Deuteronomy only and only a Germanic liberal school of thoughts guess work. The only books you mentioned are the only books I avoid discussing because they have almost no historical documents to confirm or deny them. Can you not select books that have historical documents to examine concerning that they claim. Why did you pick only the 5% of the bible that concerns events before recorded history to debate the history of.

Of course it's a resource, but you understand that it is broken down into the minimalist and the maximal view point. I.e. The Bible is a theological work or it is historical. I have actually looked up those claims. And while I will not be one to say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (though it is evidence itself), it does paint a very different picture of Israel than what we are use too.

There is neither an absence of evidence nor evidence of absence and I am almost certain I have looked them up far more. There was even a thread on them at some point. I have no idea what you mean by maximum and minimalist. Those who need to know where old stuff is use the Bible constantly. The evidence gets less and less available the further back you go until there exists almost no way to verify or deny the claims of the first five books. It is very notable you picked the section of the Bible least available to confirmation or even the attempt. There must be 100,000 plus Biblical claims about history in the Bible why are virtually none of the ones you selected in the later Bible books so they have records by which to debate them. The chance there is information to confirm or deny the Bible increases that later he book was written, why di you pick the oldest books if you desire resolution.

I will debate what evidence there is for any claim the Bible makes but if you desire the most information by which to establish the claims correctness or inaccuracy by I would get out of the Pentateuch.

Canaan is constantly used to call God evil by atheists. You say it never occurred? I have read many secular books about OT wars. It both occurred and was justified.

The destruction of Tyre is not seriously denied by anyone. I do not even know what you mean.

There is evidence the Hebrew were slaves in Egypt. Grave markers, instantaneous departure, etc...

I have never checked into this one: The attack by Sennarchab (sp) on King Hezekiah (Guess who came out on Top?) Use it if you wish.

Jericho is known to have had its walls collapse. I am unsure how good the evidence is the Hebrews do so by miraculous power. As I said the farther back you go the harder it is to disprove or prove. Why was not one NT event used that is much more easily verified?

If you will not pick one I am not going to briefly mention all that are in your list. Unless you think the OT guys were liars but not the NT guys why not use them and heir claims but it is your choice.

 

[1robin]

Did you want to answer the objections I’ve given re your response to this post and my critique of Greenleaf? I’m afraid they’re way in posts beginning 2393. I’ll reply when I'm back on the site in a couple of weeks if that’s okay.

Cottage

I have responded to your posts about Greenleaf unless you mean a response to my response to your response. I even complimented you on it. I am unsure what I have left out.

 

[1robin]

Well, not of all physicists, as we've seen here...

So far you have not given me a statement by a Physicist or any relevant specialty where the nothing they mentioned is actually nothing. IN Kraus's case it is energy fields not nothing. In Hawking's it is gravity and other laws not nothing. It does not count if your sources mean something by nothing. I just can't justify this any longer. I have spent more time trying to get you to post evidence and even fill in the blank foundations than anyone and have never been supplied with either. You talk a good game but when evidence and facts are the issue talk will not cut it and trying to get you to supply what you will not because it does not exist is a waste of time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You can lead a horse to water....

 

[1robin]

I was referring to the main theme of scripture.

The theme is not the issue. The verifiability of specific claims are. Even many of the God did this claims have effects that can be verified and to which the God explanation is the best available.

Where's the evidence he had "divine authority" and that he was a "christ"?

You know, I know you guys so well I almost objected to this request before it was given. If you doubt this I have done so several times in the past. I never said he had any authority, though the evidence suggests he did. I said he claimed unprecedented authority. This will come into play if you wish to contend what I did say on down the line but for now I only wished it known that scholars claims he believed he had it. At least 50% of the time the objections from your side have nothing to do with the claim.

OK, at least as far as we know.

Please pay attention to what I say. Do not contort it into something you think is more susceptible to an argument. I said this is conceded by the majority of NT scholars on all sides. I did not say it was a proven fact. No historical claim is. Why is one way of resolving truth claims good for history and law but not for God? Double standards are the hallmarks of failed arguments.

But we can't be certain why this may have been the case, and there are various possibilities as to what might have happened to the body.

I know I know as long as you can invent something, anything, no matter how unlikely, no matter how illogical, no matter how devoid of evidence, if it is not proven to be impossible then the denial of faith is still open. In history and law the best explanation is what professors teach and jurors make decisions on. Why is the presence of something that is far less probable what you use. My burden is not even best fit. It is intellectual permissibility . However I went way beyond that and claimed it the best explanation known. Don't believe it, try me. However you did not even bother showing it was not the best explanation you said until all not impossible things are excluded for God and only God the best explanation is less that enough. Why have you and the rest of unbelieving humanity got one standard for everything and a different unjustifiable one for God alone? Historical claims and faith claims are about probability and best fit never certainty. Using your standards no historical claim ever made is justifiable.

What evidence? If we accept that Jesus existed and was probably crucified, what other evidence is there? Yes, there's subjective "evidence", and that may be fine for some, but for us skeptics it simply isn't enough to bet the house on.

There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of ancient history of any kind. In what way is that deficient if that was all there was? Professors teach what they believe is true about Caesar every day around the world. Their primary source is less than ten copies of a work that was written 950 years before they were and was written by Caesar for the admitted purpose of glorifying Caesar. The history of the Peloponnesian wars is said to be 95% accurate by scholars all over the world. It is the work of one man and exists in copies written hundreds of years later. The Bible is written by over 40 men and has fragments that go back to within a dozen years. There is no text in ancient history that has a meaningful fraction of its reliability or pedigree. I can't point out the all the evidence the most scrutinized 750,000 words of text in history contains. A list of actual shortcomings you can produce is far more practical. Why these double standards?

OK, let me give you an example outside of Christianity. Muslems tell us that on the "Night of Power", Mohammed visited and was shown what heaven was like, and then he returned. Did this happen? Muslems think so. Do you accept what they consider factual? Do you accept that Mohammed wrote what he learned from an angel while he was meditating in a cave?

I do not believe it but I deny it based on the fact it got much of its verifiable history wrong. It make makes claims that have verifiable proof they are wrong. It is the word of one man that fails every test of reliability. The Gospels alone have 5 witnesses that pass every test that histories greatest experts in testimony and evidence could evaluate it by. In what way are these two claims equal? I do not deny Islam's supernatural claims because they are supernatural. I deny them because what is verifiable is wrong in many cases. Muhammad plagiarized at least a dozen heretical and gnostic sources just for starters.

 

[1robin]

Actually, that's basically what Krauss, and others, have proposed with the zero-energy model; that fluctuations on the quantum level DO give us a case of something coming from nothing. Not "nothing" in the same sense philosophers have been concerned with, true enough, but that's not especially relevant since this sense of nothing cannot obtain. So while something probably cannot come from nothing in this absolute metaphysical sense of "nothing", that's sort of irrelevant since there's zero reason to suppose there ever was or ever will be (or even could be) "nothing", in an absolute metaphysical sense. In the sense of a vacuum- the absence of any matter- something can come from nothing; which is, for all intents and purposes, pretty much the same thing since matter is what carries causal efficacy- if something can occur in the absence of what are normally taken to be the basis of an efficient cause, clearly our notions of causality are not entirely accurate; and this would have significant consequences for our picture of the very early universe.

I checked into Kraus's claims quite a bit. His nothing is something and his something is probably impossible anyway. No known exception to something comes from something else or that effects have causes exists. The causes may be weird and the something may be unfamiliar but they are causes and are not nothing. Here is just one critique, they are all similar.

The reason Krauss fails to show how something can come from nothing is simple: all of the prior states he describes are something, not nothing. Nothing is a term of universal negation meaning “not anything.” This is the meaning of the term in the original question that Leibniz proposed. However, all the examples Krauss gives are at best examples of something coming from another something, but perhaps with less physical properties. This is especially evident in his first example, where he admits that empty space with energy is something after all. This first example by Krauss, then, self-admittedly fails at showing how something can come from nothing.
http://kiefsblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-critique-of-lawrence-krauss-universe.html

 

[1robin]

Nobody that I've seen here is saying that cosmologists and physicists are claiming that something came from nothing. Most lean in the direction that sub-atomic particles probably go back into infinity.

I agree that they should not and the experts have not. However there are those who think they have. BTW even their something is almost certainly impossible. No known actual infinites are known to exist and no reason to think the are possible anyway. Even secular cosmologists use the term impossible to describe their fantasies.

http://kiefsblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-critique-of-lawrence-krauss-universe.html

 

[1robin]

And exactly how do you supposedly know this?

I did not claim it as a provable fact. I claim it comes from a reliable source. It has no reason to think it impossible or even problematic in any category. When I said it is true I meant it is a true description of a concept.

 

[metis]

No known actual infinites are known to exist and no reason to think the are possible anyway. Even secular cosmologists use the term impossible to describe their fantasies.

How can one supposedly know infinity exists? What these scientists are proposing is a hypothesis, not an axiom. And the cosmologists that I've been reading, which are actually research cosmologists, certainly don't believe that the concept of infinity is a "fantasy". Any cosmologist who calls "infinity" a "fantasy" isn't much of a scientist because there's simply no way to tell if "infinity" exists or not-- theists can jump to unwarranted conclusions based on an absence of evidence, but scientists can't and still be called "scientists" because that would violate the scientific method that we so much rely on.

 

[metis]

I did not claim it as a provable fact. I claim it comes from a reliable source. It has no reason to think it impossible or even problematic in any category. When I said it is true I meant it is a true description of a concept.

What you said was this: "God can act within it but is independent from it. He is not before time of after it he is outside of time."

IOW, you stated as if it were an obvious fact. It's not.

 

[MaxPayne]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

That is a very good argument.
Start of Science: Trying to make sense of things around us, ever sense intelligence emerged.
create the first something: If the first thing was created, technically it is not the first thing
We call God : That is Okay.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The Torah is a collection of five Jewish writings usually credited to Moses. The same writings as in the Bible in some or all cases (but I am not sure the contents of those books are identical) so I refused to defend the Torah. I am currently looking at one on my desk. I will however defend the Pentateuch which contains those books (but documents to do so by are all but absent) that is pre-history. The Torah is composed of books each of which were written at a different time. The Torah has no date that it was written in all together. The dates vary. So whether the Bible or Torah is what you meant your dates at most apple to only one book. I think your dates belong to Deuteronomy only and only a Germanic liberal school of thoughts guess work. The only books you mentioned are the only books I avoid discussing because they have almost no historical documents to confirm or deny them. Can you not select books that have historical documents to examine concerning that they claim. Why did you pick only the 5% of the bible that concerns events before recorded history to debate the history of.


There is neither an absence of evidence nor evidence of absence and I am almost certain I have looked them up far more. There was even a thread on them at some point. I have no idea what you mean by maximum and minimalist. Those who need to know where old stuff is use the Bible constantly. The evidence gets less and less available the further back you go until there exists almost no way to verify or deny the claims of the first five books. It is very notable you picked the section of the Bible least available to confirmation or even the attempt. There must be 100,000 plus Biblical claims about history in the Bible why are virtually none of the ones you selected in the later Bible books so they have records by which to debate them. The chance there is information to confirm or deny the Bible increases that later he book was written, why di you pick the oldest books if you desire resolution.

I will debate what evidence there is for any claim the Bible makes but if you desire the most information by which to establish the claims correctness or inaccuracy by I would get out of the Pentateuch.

Canaan is constantly used to call God evil by atheists. You say it never occurred? I have read many secular books about OT wars. It both occurred and was justified.

The destruction of Tyre is not seriously denied by anyone. I do not even know what you mean.

There is evidence the Hebrew were slaves in Egypt. Grave markers, instantaneous departure, etc...

I have never checked into this one: The attack by Sennarchab (sp) on King Hezekiah (Guess who came out on Top?) Use it if you wish.

Jericho is known to have had its walls collapse. I am unsure how good the evidence is the Hebrews do so by miraculous power. As I said the farther back you go the harder it is to disprove or prove. Why was not one NT event used that is much more easily verified?

If you will not pick one I am not going to briefly mention all that are in your list. Unless you think the OT guys were liars but not the NT guys why not use them and heir claims but it is your choice.

Traditionally attributed to Moses (Though even his historicity is called into question). The authorship of the Torah by Modern Scholars is that it was completed during the time around 7th to 9th century b.c. Hence the documentary hypothesis which looks at the books drawing from the J, the E, the P, and the D.

That said it does not mean that the stories themselves did not exist prior to that formation, but they were not nearly as concise as they were now.

There is plenty of ways to investigate the claims of the older books.

Particularly when it starts meshing in history.

Genesis Parallels are found in many mesopotamia cultures. Even evident in literary styles, seen in the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 and also in the flood story "two of every kind, or 7 clean pairs and 2 pairs of every kind"...Did Noah send a Dove or a Raven? The story of the flood matching up with the epics of gilgamesh for instance.

Abram, Jacob, Isaac, all up in the air if they were real or actual composite characters.

But even when you step away from that.

Exodus mentions a mass evacuation of a number that could easily tally up to 2+ million people. There have been no records as of that that has Egypt ever having such an exodus. Especially when they left in such a rush, there would have been things left behind...and of course when did it actually happen? But so far there is no evidence of that, the Egyptian empire was huge and stretched a good distance, what may have been called an exodus may have really just been small scale rebellions.


What Secularist books have you read on the Canaanite wars? Because none of the articles and research have indicated that these lands were privy to the massive attacks lead by Moses and Joshua (anything can be justified by those who need it to be). Rather it seems to indicate that things were relatively peaceful. It also seems at least with current evidence that the Israelites were a subset group of Canaanites...of course as more evidence comes out there is much to learn. Digressing though, Jericho as you mentioned the burned wall which was crushed does not fit the timeline as described by the Bible, with most archaeologist agreeing that the wall feel several hundred years before the narrative in Joshua.

The five kings slew by Joshua, have yet to turn up evidence of their existence, but again I do not believe the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence necessarily.

The destruction of Tyre did not go by the way Ezekiel claimed it would. Tyre was destroyed not by Nebudchanezzer which is made explicit in the chapter but rather by Alexander the great, though now it exists.

There are other countries or groups who would be told they would be destroyed forever but later were told remnants would remain (looking at you Jebusites and Edom).

It is said that the Lord sent an angel to kill somewhere along the lines of 185,000 of Sennacherib men and that he was forced to retreat, and was later killed by his sons. Sennacherib actually did get assassinated, by whom isn't actually recorded in history, however (and yes he could have been lying):

Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took 46 of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about, I took and plundered a countless number. From these places I took and carried off 200,156 persons, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mules, ***** and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude; and Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape... Then upon Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver, and diverse treasures, a rich and immense booty... All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government.

Hezekiah's actions according to some archaeologist nearly bankrupted Judah and it was during the time of his Son Manasseh there was peace.

Now of course there is actually some mentions by Josephus that some disaster had befallen Sennacherib's men and Herodutus mentions it as well, perhaps that is the disaster that had befallen his men, but how closely related that is to Judah (which he left to go put down a coup), is lost to history currently.

There are definitely good amounts of theological and poetry in the Bible that are beautiful (Book of Job, Song of Solomons, story of Esther and Ruth), there are great lessons that can be drawn from them. However as history? It's not holding much weight currently as it once did.

but there is so much more left to discover so I withhold any actual judgement.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I checked into Kraus's claims quite a bit.

No, you went looking for refutations without bothering to see what Krauss is actually saying. Refutations of professional physicists in blogs by random college students, to be precise. Not sure why you chose to share that pearl of wisdom with us either- was the opinion of some college kid (hacking at a strawman) supposed to carry some weight?

And you're missing the whole point here- in the sense that we understand causation (i.e. Aristotle's efficient causes), causation in the absence of matter is "something from nothing". The old, useless notion of a metaphysically absolute state of nothingness is a red herring- talking about it as if it were an entity or state, with being of its own, is contradictory (nothing cannot have being, by definition), and guilty of reification.

 

[1robin]

How can one supposedly know infinity exists?

Infinity is an abstract concept not an actuality. I have a math degree and will tell you it is mostly a boundary condition and causes many equations to blow up. I believe it was you who claimed an actual infinity existed so it is your burden to prove it does.

Most lean in the direction that sub-atomic particles probably go back into infinity.

It is at least your sides claims that suppose this. There are many reasons to think that no actual natural infinites can exist. Which is another in a inexhaustible list of things that are consistent with the Bible.

What these scientists are proposing is a hypothesis, not an axiom. And the cosmologists that I've been reading, which are actually research cosmologists, certainly don't believe that the concept of infinity is a "fantasy".

So a thing that has no known example, no direct evidence, and many reasons to think can't possibly exist is more science that fantasy? How? There is nothing that strikes me harder than the fact your side of these issues has one standard for everything else and one for God. Science can have valid theories (and many times claims to truth) that have no evidence, no reason to think they will ever have any, and fly in the face of reliable science and that is just fine. The Bible can have inexhaustible evidence and God can be all but a logical necessity and it is never sufficient.

Any cosmologist who calls "infinity" a "fantasy" isn't much of a scientist because there's simply no way to tell if "infinity" exists or not-- theists can jump to unwarranted conclusions based on an absence of evidence, but scientists can't and still be called "scientists" because that would violate the scientific method that we so much rely on.

1. I never said the concept of infinity was a fantasy.
2. I said claims to cosmological models that use infinity as a basis are fantasy. Because they are speculations about things that have no evidence, contradict what evidence does exist, and have many reason to think that can't be true.
3. As a theist I do not jump to illogical conclusions but it is still claimed I do even though the faith camp is allowed to do this if it does not contradict reliable evidence. However a scientists can jump to any fictional claim he wishes whether it contradicts evidence, has no evidence, or even appears possible as he desires even though he doe snot claim to be making faith claims. That is dishonest, unprofitable, and based on double standards and the misapplication of burdens.

The most accepted cosmological models in existence are of a single finite universe. Everything else is faith. There are no known natural infinites and no reason to believe there could be and all of reliable science is consistent with Biblical cosmology.

 

[1robin]

No, you went looking for refutations without bothering to see what Krauss is actually saying. Refutations of professional physicists in blogs by random college students, to be precise. Not sure why you chose to share that pearl of wisdom with us either- was the opinion of some college kid (hacking at a strawman) supposed to carry some weight?

Again with he claims to what you do not know. This is dishonest. You could not know what I did even if you were right (which you are not). I actually tried to download his book several times in PDF but no link ever worked. For some reason my server blocked most links to anything about him. I only found 4 I could access. Two were critiques from non-theists, one from a theist, and one that just talked about the book in general. It does not take a PHD or even a high school diploma to know his nothing is not nothing. The critique I gave made no sophisticated Boolean calculus claims or partial differential equations. It stated what would be obvious to a 7th grader. This is just the latest attempt to mitigate damage and to deflect from the fact his theory is not what you said it was.

And you're missing the whole point here- in the sense that we understand causation (i.e. Aristotle's efficient causes), causation in the absence of matter is "something from nothing". The old, useless notion of a metaphysically absolute state of nothingness is a red herring- talking about it as if it were an entity or state, with being of its own, is contradictory (nothing cannot have being, by definition), and guilty of reification.

That is not how I have ever heard the cause and effect relationship described. Matter is energy. In fact everything is energy. If it was not known that matter and energy are two states of the same thing how did we invent nuclear power? Cause and effect even as it existed thousands of years ago never said causes must be material. They can be forces, energy, heat, light, etc.... Maybe some cave men sitting around 5,000 years ago would be described by what you said but cause and effect as it has existed for thousands of years is not. That is irrelevant anyway. Even if we pretended you described cause and effect as anyone in 2000 years has thought of it, that has nothing to do with Krauss. His nothing is something. He was not saying well it equals nothing according to cause and effect as cave men understood it. He used nothing because of only two possible reasons I can think of.

1. It sounds like he has done something important even it was a complete lie. So he would get grant money, pictures on magazines, or recognition. It is a long tradition in academia.
2. He had some conscious or unconscious theological preference which warped his terminology.

Regardless what is a fact as he got something from something even in his speculative theory. Not nothing. The same with Hawking and I imagine the same with them all. Reliable cosmology is consistent with the Bible and apparently even the fantasy guesswork of sensationalists is that inconsistent with it either. His nothing was something and his something has no reason to be eternal and to obfuscate and try to talk your way around this just proves my point further.