Notes

First, the title of Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing", is misleading since he tries to argue that our Universe was created from quantum fluctuations. This means that the laws of physics (and physical manifestations of the laws) were there before the Big Bang.

Part of Krauss' purpose is to convince people that our Universe did not require a creator. But whether you suspect our Universe was intentionally created, or even if you don't, Krauss' argument is very weak. I've read many of Krauss' books, and he's very smart. But he is part of a group of physicists who seem bent on trying to convince everyone that there is no God. I have no idea why, but I can tell you this: there's not one convincing argument that any of them have made.

Now, you're probably thinking, "Jedi Grandmaster Farage, you've said elsewhere that you believe in God, so, with all due respect, aren't you a bit biased?"

Well, we're all biased about many things, but I'm pretty capable of thinking critically about pretty much any subject. (However, it seems I'm not very capable as being excessively humble).

The reviews of his book, from physicists and philosophers of science, all seem to agree that his argument is weak. Here are a few I found from the Wikipedia page about the book.

"Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing' (i.e. instead of having the meaning 'not anything)."

"Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by (and largely ignored in) the book, physicist Sean M. Carroll asks 'Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called the laws of physics, and why
those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some
particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could.' "

"Physicist George F. R. Ellis, when asked whether Krauss has 'solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing', notes that the 'belief that all of
reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations
of physics is a fantasy … Krauss does not address why the laws of
physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of
manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must
believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence).' "

Finally, here's one purely scientific critique:

"Mathematical Physicist I. S. Kohli also analyzed the main technical
arguments in Krauss' book, and concluded that 'many of the claims are
not supported in full by modern general relativity theory or quantum
field theory in curved spacetime.' "

So read the book if you wish, and see if Prof. Krauss makes a convincing argument
Tim Farage (QTE 2016)