My piece on Krauss was sincere praise, despite some expressions of doubt: the point is depicted clearly in the post. The antinomial issues behind many physics discussions finds a striking case in Krauss’ attempt to validate a non-creationist view.
My point is that nooone can really prove either side of such arguments.
And the question is how will an antinomial counterargument proceed? Since the attempt is to eliminate creationism, the answer is obvious. But I pointed out that the real argument is the less exciting ‘something from nothing’ or ‘nothing from nothing. The religious counterpoint would proceed, not from putting ‘god’ in the discussion, but finding a disguised ‘design’ argument. That’s a headscratcher, but…
To a student of Schopenhauer one answer would be obvious: the physics only looks at the phenomenal, but the ‘thing in itself’ would be an explicit acknowledgment of ‘behind the scenes’ design elements, the ‘Will’ in nature, here from an atheist.
I was sincere in my praise of Krauss, but I did perhaps ‘set him up’, i.e. to examine his own argument and to wait and study attempts at the antinomial counter.