This exchange proves that we NEVER need a moderator. Every time this discussion becomes interesting, she moves us to a new, unrelated point. It's maddening.
I agree. Moderators are obstructive. I once moderated a panel at a comic book convention with Jonathan Frakes, Wil Wheaton, and the super cool LeVar Burton. I was in the way and unnecessary. It was still a good learning experience. If I had it to do over my only function would have been to take questions from the audience and keep them flowing, and I would have remained offstage. I had no business being up there. But I was invited, and I took the opportunity. I'll emcee anything.
Krauss provides an amazing mixture of non sequiturs, double speak, authoritative declarations and personal insults. Entertaining to some, irritating to others but enlightening to nobody.
That's weird because he continued to say repeatedly to not that his word for it and research yourself. 🤔🤔🤔.I have a feeling you just made up any critec you could think of in the hope that nobody actually watched the video. Real smart
I’ve been absolutely fascinated to watch LK speak on things. For some reason in this format he just gives me anxiety. Why is he so rude?! Constantly interrupting and getting off topic, absolute nightmare. Well done to WLC for staying cool.
@@nosteinnogate7305 Baseless propositions? He doesn't even get a chance to explain them. Kraus is a pain to listen to. He's a good scientist but a terrible debater.
Joe Vete judging from her clothing and this channel I am sure they planted her as the moderator to tip the debate in favor of Craig. I mean look at the way she cuts him Kraus but rarely William
That seems like a quite extreme statement saying based on her appearance you can categorise her to a certain bias. And she saved Kraus from attempting to explain absolute nothing is something.
I meant her extremely modest Christian type clothing. I also googled her and as suspected she’s a believer and “spiritual”. Just as she showed her bias through the whole debate.....
People, learn to listen, even if you don't agree, you first have to listen and don't just judge. Personaly i like to listen to these discussions. Just by listening you learn something, doesn't matter what
I'm a Christian. Krauss is one of those gifted teachers I don't mind learning his field of expertise. You will learn a lot from him. Reminds me of my civil engineering teacher that can make a boring subject interesting.
The only thing I learn from Kraus is how to lie with a straight face. He lies that a universe can come from (his definition of) nothing. He lies about the word nothing, as a universal negator. And he lies about the letter from Vilenkin.
You have (much) more respect than this agnostic atheist has for him. I could never get in tune with him and/or his attitude. In fact, I'm watching him right now to see if I can find something I can take seriously. Edit; I got bored.
greyeyed123 Yup, hence why I labelled her 'dozy'. She's also unnecessarily hostile/aggressive towards Krauss, in addition to giving her irrelevant opinion on whether or not a certain exchange is productive or not.
I've been an atheist since my early teens (I'm now 43yo), but since I started watching new atheists debates with Craig Lane about 10 years ago I'm getting closer and closer to the Christian faith. Dawkins, Harris and Krauss, who seemed to me 'heroes' of logic and reason, have become symbols of the ignorant and arrogant atheist community. Of course watching debates online hasn't been my main source of information: studying the Bible, philosophy, theology and science (especially quantum physics) is changing my world view to theism.
Pico della Francesca: You are moving towards theism because you are totally ignorant of “the Bible, philosophy, theology and science (especially quantum physics)”. If you had even the SIMPLEST understanding of anyone of these, you would realize that theism is unsupportable. Plus, I need to point out that you have NEVER been an atheist. You simply do not have sufficient knowledge to be one.
14:20 - One thing to note is that some physicists, despite this measurement, still believe that we live in a curved universe. Michio Kaku is one example. They maintain that the universe is so large that the curvature hasn't yet been detected by our methods of measurement. This would be analogous to standing on a flat field, for example, here on earth, and concluding that, as a result of your measurement, the earth is flat.
I know that this is 8 years later, but that analogy is disingenuous. The curvature of the earth wasn’t calculated after traversing the whole planet or seeing it from above, it can be done using basic trigonometry. The same was done for measuring the curvature of the universe using the most distant observation that can be made, the cosmic microwave background.
Lawrence Krauss has finally met his match. I love it. Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher. His expertise is strictly on observing the natural world; whereas the expertise of William Lane Craig is on asking and thinking about the deep philosophical questions about reality. Krauss, I advise you to leave abstract thinking to the pros.
Crane Sebastian BLEATED: “His expertise is strictly on observing the natural world; whereas the expertise of William Lane Craig is on asking and thinking about the deep philosophical questions about reality. Krauss, I advise you to leave abstract thinking to the pros” As Stephen Hawking famously wrote, philosophers have not kept up with the scientific advances of the last 150 years so they are uniquely UNQUALIFIED to speak about any of the deep Philosophical questions of the 21st century. And WLC is literally the worst of the modern philosophers as far as education goes. He is ridiculously unqualified to discuss any subject, even his own beliefs of Christianity Krauss on the other hand spends more time daily using the tools of science to address the deep philosophical questions than Craig ever has. That is why Krauss teaches at one of the best academic institutions in the world and Craig brainwashes illiterate children at a 10th rate Christian madrassa Krauss is correct. Craig is completely wrong about everything
Krauss is famous in these debates for absolutely crucifying Craig. It was such a mauling that afterwards craig complained about krauss being 'rude'. Also, please tell me you didn't accuse a *theoretical physicist whose specialty is the shape of space time and quantum field dynamics of not being up to the job of using abstract concepts... 😂🤦♂️
I clicked on this comment twice because I found it so amazing that anyone could genuinely watch this back and forth and come away thinking that _Craig_ performed well. I can only guess that you didn't watch it; I know that's a common accusation when people disagree but I really mean it. This was an evisceration by Krauss and it was so total it made me uncomfortable at points. WLC was utterly taken apart, quite aggressively, by Lawrence, and I felt like Krauss could've backed off sometimes because he was making WLC look like Grandpa Simpson in the Q and A and it was slightly pathetic.
That's no different than saying a scientist met their match when attempting to have a physic explain how they can see visions in a crystal ball. What I find most astonishing is that anyone can find intelligibility in anything Craig says.
22:22 - Krauss uses ellipses to cut out the part of Vilankin's reply which actually supported Craig's position. Vilenkin later wrote to Craig stating that Craig accurately conveyed his position and that Krauss did not. Krauss knew he was being deceptive on this point, and it's as bad as a 5 year old mumbling "I didn't take any cookies" through a mouthful of crumbs. Why tell a bald faced lie if your argument is strong, Lawrence?
This video reminds me of why I stopped watching Lawrence debates- I hate that he constantly interrupts and talks over his opponents. Same goes for that lame "moderator".What a bummer!
Jim McCray when someone linguistically and philosophically attempts to beat you in a debate which blatantly has a rational conclusion, I would be like Lawrence, constantly interrupt to correct Craigs bs interpretations and stance
It's hard not to be condescending when you are as smart as Dr Craig and I really admire how he manages to remain humble especially when interacting with a "formidable" opponent like Krauss.
They're is no universe in which Craig is intelligent. None of what he said had any basis at all in fact. His "proof" is idiotic nonsense wrapped in pseudo-intellectual lingo, which people such as yourself hear and think "wow, he made some valid intellectual arguments! " No, he spewed stupidity, baseless, fact less garbage. Not one shred of evidence to back up any of his ridiculous claims. Biblical "scholars" are not intellectuals. Were that the case, then all of the people that have studied, digested, and analyzed The Lord of the Rings would be intellectuals. Craig is an idiot, believed by gullible people who desperately want their particular fairy tale to be true.
Moderator: "Bill, you said that rubber duckies do not come in colors other than yellow." Bill: "No, I don't think I said that. I'm sure they come in all sorts of colors and-" Lawrence: "HOW DO YOU KNOW!? HAVE YOU *SEEN* ALL THE COLORS REPRESENTED IN RUBBER DUCKIES!??"
Lawrence interrupted all the time, usually with another question. William seems to attempt to entirely think on his feet in this debate. That means he needs time to think about each question instead of going to prepared material. Lawrence seems more interested in winning the debate that discovering knowledge, and he bombards William with questions and talks very fast so that he loads up what William (and the audience) has to process in a very short time. The debate or discussion was a bust because of Lawrence and possibly the moderator.
Glasstable2011 Yes!!! Because you enter into an infinite regress if you’re trying to determine the origin of something. The first piece of word could not have come from wood.
sounds like something he would say. And indeed, why does "the cause" (assuming the concept applies at that "moment") have to be immaterial? In other words, what's the reason that it HAS to be immaterial? Like Krauss, I am REALLY asking.
@TheBuilder I don't think that's Krauss's argument. It's certainly not mine. As a sentence in English it doesn't work. If there already is a "some thing" then "it" doesn't have to "create itself" because... it already is whatever it is.
@TheBuilder I don't know that matter was "created". Why not say "matter" naturally occurs? That's what Krauss seems to argue. That fluctuations in the quantum wave (whatever that means; I don't really understand it; not a physicist!) result in energy converting to particles. What "created" energy...? I dunno either! I suppose you will say god. And then you will say, by definition, nothing/no one created god. That's "special pleading". Your explanation seems to be exempt from your challenge against infinite regress. But if infinite regress is allowed for your god, why not allow it for energy, matter, or the multi-verse? The point is... no one knows for sure. Krauss makes an argument for the plausibility of spontaneous "creation" because he understands/ has data about how energy and mass interact and behave. Sounds interesting. Who knows?! No one for sure. And god seems LESS plausible, and does not really explain anything. God did it. How? He's magic, he can do anything. Really? How did he get that way? He always was. That does not explain anything. And you might as well just stick with the Universe, because we know for sure that's There, and we can measure/ observe/ study it.
A lot of people were evidently annoyed by Krauss (!) In fact, there was one thing and one thing only which annoyed me. That was when he directly accused Craig of intellectual dishonesty. It's interesting because I recently watched another video in which Krauss participated, and the subject was prejudice (specifically xenophobia). Another speaker gave a quite persuasive definition of what prejudice is 'in itself'. It is when one person refuses to allow that another may sincerely hold a different view. In these situations, the former concludes that there are three possibilities: the other person is 1) dishonest (or not serious); 2) intellectually inadequate; or 3) insane. This is why what I sometimes call 'evangelical atheism' may rightly be considered an irrational prejudice (unlike atheism as such, which is a perfectly reasonable philosophy). Amusingly, Krauss savages the syllogism he attributes to Craig - which, we learn soon afterwards, originates with Leibniz, one of the finest scientific minds in history. Leibniz' syllogism is surely debatable, but it is far from nonsense or sophistry, as Krauss is implying. Ironically, for a moment there, Krauss is sailing close to item 1 of the prejudice triad just noted...
Micro, your rant on Krauss only shows that you can’t defend your silly beliefs. You’ve put your mind to learn to write, great. Now put it to work on basic logic, scrutiny and all.
'Rant'? It was a mild disagreement on one small point. Actually, as Jefferson had it, it makes no difference to me whether my neighbour has one God, ten Gods, or no God at all. It sounds to me like your beliefs may be rather more dogmatic than mine. Sadly, I must defend this too, or I would be terribly inconsistent...
I can't get past the fact that at 1:07:26 WLC said that Islam got Jesus wrong because he is written about 600 years after his "death" when the bible accounts of Jesus could not have been written any earlier than 80 years after his "death"... The cognitive dissidence of this man is staggering.
Pat Ireland Hi Pat. I'm aware of his point. But he is saying the bible accounts are a reliable source when none of the accounts of Jesus were written during the lifetime of the followers of Jesus. As to why this is relevant, I'll tell you a tale that Pen Jillette said during the bible episode of Bullshit. 3 members of Elvis' entourage wrote books sometime over the years after his death. These were actually written by people who knew Elvis personally. All 3 books has recipes in them for Elvis' favorite fried chicken, all 3 have claimed to personally made this chicken for Elvis and he gave them the thumbs up; all claimed to be the "Official" recipe. And all three recipes are drastically different. So if none of these direct sources, who were Elvis' contemporaries, who walked with Elvis, talked with Elvis and knew him personally, got this detail right.How can we take the bible accounts of the life of Jesus, that contradict each other left and right, which most bible scholars say written anywhere from 70 - 200 years after Jesus was reported to have died, as an accurate historical document? This, and direct revelation from God, are what WLC's main reported sources. Although he seems to shoehorn quotes from philosophers and scientists into his argument to varying degrees of success.
Avonidsed Three different recipes for fried chicken from three different people intimately associated with Elvis tells us one thing (with reasonable certainty)... ...Elvis liked fried chicken... That three different people with three different recipes all claim to have the "One Recipe" tells us that people like to think they are special. I'm reasonably sure that the authors of various Biblical texts felt the same thing.
1:04:17 YES!! Oh my word,...LET THE MAN TALK, GEEZ!!! Yet he will keep interrupting Bill over and over and over again. If Krauss would shut his mouth and listen for 5 seconds Bill might not have to repeat himself. Krauss is so angry, he has no problem personally attacking/insulting anyone he disagrees with - he is one of the most ignorant people I have every heard in that regard.
The problem is that Craig continues to promote complete bullshit, and absolute factual inaccuracies, while telling people that they're fact. He deserves to be shouted down every time he says something idiotic.
Haha, YOU think it's factually inaccurate. Based on what you literally just said you have no clue of the arguments he is presenting b/c you don't care. Just like Krauss you are intolerant of any other worldview than your own which is why Krauss acted the way he did in this debate - like a 5yo. He will not only cut Bill off EVERY 5-10 seconds, but he will use insults in what is supposed to be a professional, public, civil debate. You hate religion therefore you are intolerant of it, and what's disturbing is you don't see anything wrong that or how Krauss acted.
mytuber81 it is not intolerance to any other wordlview than yours, it is intolerance to a view that has absolutely no real evidence for it. Krauss does not have a worldview, he just acknowledges the evidence of the universe we have today, while Bill ignores it.
Daniel Dourado Again, YOU say there is "no real evidence". You, like Krauss, ignore/reject ANY evidence that may point to a higher being b/c you have a predisposition to believe there isn't one - that's called being close-minded. Science cannot explain everything - Krauss even admitted this - which is what a lot of atheists don't realize. There are other ways of garnering truth than through science. Never-the-less science is great and we should follow the facts wherever they lead us. With that being said Craig presents facts in science and logic that point to a higher being. Craig's arguments are more plausible than Krauss's arguments against a God he doesn't believe in. Krauss cannot refute the argument itself, which is why he is well-known for almost ALWAYS using red herrings. Anyone who uses insults as a tactic in an argument is one who does not have a good argument.
The fundamental difference between religious people and scientifically minded people is that: Religious people state a hypothesis and confirm it with no empirical evidence (that god exists). Scientifically minded/critically thinking people state a hypothesis and test it rigorously finding (or not finding) empirical evidence, if that evidence is not found then the hypothesis is struck down and not believed to be true. Now which one of these methods seems to make more rational sense to you?
***** Because doing the opposite causes unsuccessful results. If I just choose to believe that things can fly if I ask them to, I will fail to launch satellites into space. If I choose to believe I don't need to eat, I will starve to death. In some cases, you may choose to believe something that by chance happens to be true, it's just statistically less likely. Therefore, scientifically testing things will statistically increase your chance to be successful in your actions (by a lot). We use science simply because it has been proven to be effective. However, you ask the question in a very strange way. If you don't want to be effective, you can go ahead and believe whatever you want about things, no one is going to force you either way. (To some extent.) But really, I think you already know all of this. In my opinion, it's a stupid question.
you're disproving your own point: ration is of no concern to faith based thinking and vice versa. Ration and faith are diametrically opposed, you cannot argue one from the other, as has been proved over centuries of two parties thinking they are each correct and the opposing side is wrong. They are irreconcilable the best we can do is agree to disagree. It's all a waste of time anyway.
***** 'Rape is Wrong' is a statement that actually can be supported by science. Facts and Values aren't necessarily separate entities. Rape is a term/concept that parallels our development of intelligence and conscious awareness. We once engaged in sexual intercourse without permission but it was not rape, it was evolution working to promote the survival of species. But now, intelligence/consciousness has allowed independence/individuality to become an important consideration in species interaction. The science is in the development of the complex cognitive structures in the human brain. The brain tells us that it does not want to be raped through things like screaming, "help me!" and "No!" to get away from an unpleasant and potentially fatal experience. Therefore, science does have a say about truths in that regard.
***** You need to be more careful and/or specific about your question. If you ask "why should we believe in science?", then you're asking a philosophical question, and should expect to recieve a philosophical answer. (That's because science deals with "how", not "why".) You can phrase it as a scientific question instead: "How did we end up believing in science?", or "How is science a good belief for us?", for example. These questions can be answered, scientifically.
I must ask you,psychofmse, in what manner you have tested rigorously your hypothesis concerning "religious people"? Good grief dude, you are very unscientific!
Nothing is NOT a possible state of reality, because of it's very nature, which means that the flat vacuum state is closest we can ever come to it. And that flat vacuum state is technically something. In other words, there always has been, always will be and currently is "something." So Instead of trying to find an absolute beginning, what we should try to do is find some sort of fundamental law where CHANGE is a constant and causality is emergent.
+LIQUIDSNAKEz28 both your point and grandmasterjoshh's point are strong and equally valid for both sides of the argument. The solution thus far is an intriguing evasive mystery.
+grandmasterjoshh both your point and Liquidsnakez28's point are equally strong and valid for both sides of the argument. The solution thus far is an intriguing evasive mystery.
Mary Beth Miranda Sort of. Another way of thinking about it is this, Something and Nothing are exactly where they are supposed to be. "Something" is everywhere and "Nothing" is nowhere.
44:49 Science limits, physics and metaphysics (beyond physics) 25:10 Nothing is something 32:07 Krauss sneaks in cosmology 33:42 Leibniz's a.f.c. 1:24:21 Krauss attitude 52:20 subtle to vague 54:48 popular slogan 45:15 the three Leibniz's (equal to Benoit's three german suplexes)
I loved it when he said "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Yet one aaaaallways hears atheists whining, "but there's no evidence for God".
Majestic, unfortunately, you are using that principle in the wrong context. If one is making a positive claim that a god exists, one needs to provide evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept the claim. It is not up to everyone else to try to disprove you. In other words, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not to be used here (and is unnecessary), because, by default, no one is claiming no god exists, rather, you just haven't met the burden of proof that a god does.
What context? Either that statement is consistently true or always irrelevant. Many people believe in 'aliens' or life on other planets in the Universe, despite NO evidence having ever been provided. Even scientists have speculated with probablity and statistics affirming that there IS a high probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere and have even spent $millions on SETI because they 'firmly believe' in their delusion despite the 'absence of evidence'. Scientists distort science to suit their own purposes and agenda - same as the lying politicians.
First off, the SETI researchers are not spending money despite evidence. Quite the contrary. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence. Why? Because the we find that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, meaning, the distribution of matter is more or less the same, everywhere. Thus, the same laws of physics that permitted life to arise on Earth are the same working in solar systems very similar to ours. In other words, the probably is in our favor. The scary thing is why aren't there any intelligent communicating aliens? Just as well, we just started serious SETI searches only a few decades ago. And there is no guarantee that we can resolves radio signals, cover all the band reliably, throughout the whole sky, nor that any intelligent aliens are sending radio waves. Perhaps they are using optical communications (i.e. optical SETI) or other things.
You're an idiot. For example, my research group doesn't distort anything, nor do any of my colleagues in other labs. There are bad apples that serve to tarnish the images of groups in any human pursuit. The science we practice today has a major social component to it (we are not robots) and thus, errors, whether on purpose or accident, are made. But this is precisely why we have the methodology of science. To eliminate such errors. If any scientist or science group lies about major (or even minor) results, the beauty of science, unlike politics, is that they will eventually be found out and dealt with. Interestingly, I recently gave a talk on the Schön Scandal. You should take your ignorant brain and educate yourself about it to understand how we researchers really deal with the rare instances of liars in our field.
He says that in the sense that asserting something before any means to verify is useless knowledge and no better than blind guessing. It's healthy skepticism.
That's the only true answer. Anyone might believe in a deity, but there's no way of knowing for sure. The problem is when people claim "scientists don't know, they can't explain, therefore why can't there be a god"... Usually when a scientists knows only 99.999% of something, they still say i don't know.
Very good dialogue and positions on both sides, much better than the Brisbane debate! Both science and philosophy/theology are not at odds with each other and complement each other well. Science explains the "how" and philosophy/theology attempts to explain the "why". In the end they both seek the truth!
Theology is not truth. Neither is philosophy. Science is the only truth. How is the only question that really matters. Why questions are usually pointless. Does it matter why you were involved in a traffic collision? How is what matters. When speaking in scientific terms, how and why are essentially the same. The "why" questions of theology are meaningless. Fairy tales aren't facts. Fairy tales stop knowledge. Fairy tales destroy intelligence
Krauss defines science as "empirical evidence and rational thought" (1:43:00)... but wouldn't this also include much of philosophy? For example, philosophy of mind uses the empirical evidence of how the brain works and our mental experiences, coupled with reasoning, to try to understand if mental states are physical. The kalam cosmological argument would fit the bill of combining empirical evidence and rational thought.
Ask three questions from yourself after waking from a dream. 1. The observer of my dream was conscious or unconscious? 2. The observer of my dream was in my dream or in the universe? 3. Is the observer of my dream still conscious and if so then where? Answers to these questions will enable you to understand how universe came from nothing.
I'm an atheist. And Krauss would do himself and others on our side a favour by refining his mannerisms. That might go some way to making those sitting on the fence to take him/us more seriously.
"hofifut"...I will second that. I truly wanted a high quality debate (I am not an atheist). But I was really disappointed in the way Krauss acted and some of his totally unnecessary attacks on groups he didn't like (Christians, republicans, Microsoft, etc).
He would do us all a favour by not debating and stick to doing science. I don't think there is any room for Lawrence Krauss in the Atheism vs Theism debate. To me, he has jumped on the bandwagon. I like him and I am an Atheist but he can't and shouldn't debate Theism.
bada9412"Spamming"? I've seen a number of his videos, and I've commented twice in this series only when he was in Austrailia. That's as in "2" times total. I don't consider that spamming. And no, it's not the exact same comment. Maybe the same idea, OK, but check the words. Care to clarify what makes that "childish"?
***** I don't go to church, don't know the scriptures, and accept the science indicating the earth is a few billion yrs old. If that makes me a Christian, so be it. Don't care much for labels. I only mention I'm an atheist because I know if I'd only made the statement regarding Krauss's behaviour, then I'd be labelled religious.
So Krauss' technique was to ask Dr. Craig a question and then when he started to give an answer to ask him another question and another. So is that how an intelligent person debates?
@@MrVincehalloran No I don't think it is. The whole point of a debate is for two people to engage in dialogue about a particular topic. And that can't happen if one person is doing all of the talking.
One of the big themes I'm noticing in comments is "Science proves things." That's not true in any sense of the word. Science creates models to best explain the evidence. Some of these models are almost assuredly correct (Newtonian mechanics, for example). Others may require refinement as new evidence emerges (evolution, Big Bang). Note: just because I said that evolution requires refinement does not mean I deny it. Evolution has changed massively since the advent of modern genetics. It's still correct, however.
themetsfan861 Newtonian Mechanics is not "correct". It only applies in certain situations. It required "refinement". That is the reason we now have GR and QM. Evolution is FACT. Evolution is simply change over time. Everything evolves over time. Evolutionary Biology is FACT. Evolutionary Biology is simply the change in the gene pool over time. If Evolutionary Biology wasn't a fact, you would be able to look at every single organism and say, without correction, that every organism that ever existed on planet Earth is a clone of one of its biological parents. Big Bang is FACT. The Big Bang is simply the description of the EXPANSION of the universe from the time of the Planck Epoch until today. Our math/science/tools/brains are not up to describing what occurred prior to the point called the End of the Planck Epoch. But you are correct that science doesn't prove things. Science mostly disproves things. You can have a trillion examples of something but that doesn't prove that thing (Black Swans). All you need is a single example to disprove something.
No. You fundamentally misunderstand the philosophy and nature of science. Science doesn't prove anything. Mathematics "proves" things. Science constructs models that take into account the evidence. Read Michael Polanyi. I'm not denying either the Big Bang or evolution. Both of them are supported by the vast amount of evidence. Both of them may require refinement as we discover new evidence. For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" that ID people like to point to as "proof" of an "intelligent designer" is best explained by punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is not what Darwin proposed. The Big Bang may require refinement as new data arises.
themetsfan861 You wrote: "Science doesn't prove anything. " If you will reread my post, you will see that I wrote exactly that. Here, I will save you some time: I wrote in my post "But you are correct that science doesn't prove things. Science mostly disproves things" You claimed: "Science constructs models that take into account the evidence. " Science constructs models varying initial conditions and checks those models against boundary values. You claimed: 'Punctuated equilibrium is not what Darwin proposed. " No, if I remember correctly, PE was proposed by Falconer a decade before Darwin's work. Falconer died before he could push his idea into the mainstream. But punctuated equilibrium, like classical mechanics, is a tiny subset of evolution. Different species have different metabolisms. Different metabolisms manifest at different evolutionary rates. These rates hinge on reproductive, feeding, predator/prey requirements, and ability to regulate their internal heat. So you will find a cold blooded clam, for instance, that has remained unchanged for 45 million years and a warm blooded mammal that explodes in a wide variety of species to occupy the available niches. You claimed: 'For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" that ID people like to point to as "proof" of an "intelligent designer" is best explained by punctuated equilibrium " Not really. It is better explained by the change in the food supply that enabled organisms to utilize calcium and other elements as structural frameworks. While called the Cambrian Explosion, changes that were occurring at that time evolved over a period of nearly 100 million years. Wiki states that the earliest Trilobite fossils date to 530 million years but were already widely diversified by that point indicating that the Trilobite was already an ancient life form by the date of the first fossils we have. You claimed; ''Both of them may require refinement as we discover new evidence. " Refinements to be expected will be of the order of "dinosaurs are warm blooded" which isn't quite the revolution that had GR overturning Newtonian Mechanics at the beginning of the 20th century. You claimed: 'The Big Bang may require refinement as new data arises " Again, the Big Bang only describes the evolution of our space-time since the Planck Epoch. Things like galactic evolution will be refined. But revolutions are to be expected as our incredibly primitive math/physics/tools develop allowing researchers to pierce the observable limits of light. Such things as gravity waves will allow a pushing of researchers observations back into the Planck Epoch. You claimed: "You fundamentally misunderstand the philosophy and nature of science " How is it that I misunderstand?
I give my respect to both men regardless of how i feel on the topic, however i think the one thing everyone here can agree on here is moderators get in the way. I like when you can see both men going back and forth with passion in their answers and they start to get really into it, then all of a sudden the moderator jumps in and says they have to move on to another question.
More than that, we've all watched SOOOOOO many structured, back and forth debates, and it's just rehashing the same arguments over, over and over again. But having a free-form discussion is so rare, and its unfortunate that the moderator can't be there to bring up a couple topics, and then just let it go. There are natural lulls, and THAT should be when a topic gets changed. NOT in the middle of someone's sentence.
I don't understand why theists find it necessary that the universe has a creator but not that the creator has a creator. If the creator can be eternal, then why can't the universe be as well.
John Abad The creator has no first cause or prime mover. Maybe the universe has no first cause or prime mover. We still have no idea what existed before the big bang.
***** Craig's argument is slightly more involved than your giving him credit for, His argument is contingent on attributes he gives God to give him a loophole out of this. It's still silly though.
John Abad I still see it as a leap of faith. Different logical proofs could just as easily hold up in a polytheistic view. What if the Hindus got it right? How do you think you have have turned out if you were born in India? Most likely, you would think the Christian beliefs were very odd (they are when viewed objectively) and you would wonder how anyone could believe in such dogma. You will naturally gravitate toward what's familiar. I'm not going to beat this into the ground. It's very clear that neither of us will change our minds. Just make sure your beliefs make sense to you and that you don't believe it out of familiarity, pressure from others or fear of the consequences of unbelief / disbelief.
John Abad You could say an infinite regress can't exist as easily as you can say it can. Neither are known facts. The Prime Mover, First Cause and infinite regress argument can be refuted as easily as saying: Maybe, maybe not.
You can't just let someone pile shit on top of bullshit; it becomes impossible to address every false statement if someone as wrong as Bill is allowed to continue his "argument".
Krauss essentially proved WLC's position with his opening speech and wasnt even aware of it. Even the email snippet very first line backs up WLC. The "proof" of God isn't concrete, and WLC never claims it is. Instead he argues that the logical reasoning based on the physical evidence provides a stronger argument in favor of God than against. Note: which religion has the right answer is another topic entirely and is irrelevant to the topic, which again WLC said in the first debate
I have plenty of evidence for dogs. It's lying in the middle of the street. I have zero evidence for gods, even though the concept smells just as bad as the physical evidence for dogs. :-)
The point Krauss tried to make made no sense when it came to Craig’s point about abstract objects. He says that you’re just demonstrating the limits of your knowledge and it’s like....yeah dude that’s how this works.
How unsophisticated. He did not just say it. He offered a logical argument to which the conclusion followed that it could only be god that is the explanation of the universe. That is plainly a misrepresentation of William Lane Craig's case. I'm an agnostic myself, but that doesn't imply I would dishonestly get around William Lane Craig's arguments to make a case of my own. Evidently, he supports his case very thoroughly. He utterly and logically destroyed the concept of an infinite past, and he has demonstrated that an infinite amount of infinite universes is also subject to the same theorem. He had also presented a case as to why it couldn't be an abstract cause that is the explanation of the universe, and so it follows that is is god, and his conclusion follows, "logically and inescapably", as he puts it.
The girl that sat in front of him in class, who was a radiant Christian, was simply a faithful and joyful sower of the word as Jesus described in his parable. She had no idea what the result would be.
I think definately Lawrence Krawze did a great job in preventing William Lane Craig to get away with elusive definition to support his claims...I think that's the great contribution of debating William L. Craig, which has elevated the debating skills of many atheist. I see a great improvement of Lawrence Krawze debating skills here...
Atheists Exposed Debate is the art of persuasion of the audience. It's not about establishing the truth and as the late Stephen Gould said, honesty is rarely the best tactic. That's why he never participated in debates, at least as far as I'm aware. Debates are won by grand oratorical style, excellent use of facial expression and body language, use of argument that superficially sounds convincing and rebutting the opponents arguments by use of clever word play and semantics. It's entertainment and theater. Craig is a master of debate tactics. He has his lines down pat. He relies on philosophical argument (If this, then that. If that, then the next thing. If the next thing, then God did it.). For a guy who admits he cannot prove the existence of God, he spends an awful lot of time establishing the existence of God. Granted, when pinned down, Craig will admit that his arguments give only a plausible conclusion but he then goes on with, "My premises are more plausible than your premises, therefore my conclusiona follow logically and necessarily whether you like it or not." First, his premises are rarely plausible and second, his "more plausible" is never defended. He always leaves that point to his end remarks where his opponent has no more time. And third, plausible premises do not lead to necessary conclusions. After watching several Craig debates, it gets nauseating.
Atheists Exposed Of course; L.Krawze might have been mouthed, obnoxious but let's not forget, LK was also VERY RIGHT and correct in his statements. L.Krawze does an amazing job in preventing Craig from getting away using debating tricks to misguide people by reshaping the definition of what “faith” is or elevating theology to the level of “science” so that his arguments remain valid. Atheist always lose? Hilbillies? and creationists? Is the best you got? The only time I’ve seen an atheist losing to a Christian is with Craig, not because he is right but because he has amazing debating skills, but unfortunately for him and his supporters, Craig’s tricks are becoming useless, clearly in this debate, it was Krawze who was at the offensive, he was the one doing the challenging bit and preventing Craig from misguiding people and steering the debate in his favor. Personally, It was Krawze who actually won the debate, and if he didn’t certainly neither did Craig who tried to prove the existence of god with philosophy? Objective morality coming from god? How can anyone say that if god can be proved in the first place?
What makes you think Krauss is an atheist? He never claimed to be an atheist, and all he says is that "we do not know if god exists" which at best makes him agnostic.
Agreed...In fact he is a confessed Anti-theist just as Christopher Hitchens was...by the way, don't you hate these people who edit and post videos of the debate saying "Lawrence Krauss beaten by William L. Craig" then they disable the comment section?..The fact they have to do this is a sign of lack of confidence in WL Craig who was at least the "only" christian with certain level of success in these debates.
Well you cant be mad at Krauss, at least he was consistent. The whole time he said...nothing, absolutely nothing. But then again according to his definition of nothing its a whole lot of something.
@@leonardu6094 Only gullible, ignorant, American fundamentalist Christians who believe the bible is a science manual and Ham tells the truth say that, don't you. Presumably you are yet another one that doesn't actually know what the Big Bang theory states or why it is so named. Correct? Just like the OP.
wong what an emotional response. Not a whole lot of substance. I'm quite familiar with the big bang. You don't posses any more information on it than I, so get to your supposed point.
@@matswessling6600 So now nothing is not nothing ? So everything is nothing and nothing is everything huh 🤔? Reflect on your own nonsense and you won’t need to look any further .
@@matswessling6600 lol 😂 You should try eating from an empty plate with nothing for 30 days and you will definitely find meaning in “nothing “ forever or drinking from a glass of nothing that has something known as nothing to see if it quenches your thirst.
The big bang is the expansion of existing condensed matter, not the creation of matter from nothing. Nobody is certain if the changing cosmos is eternal or created. when you're uncertain you should be honest & admit it instead of concluding, out of arguments from ignorance, that an invisible being did just bc you desperately need a conclusion to end your discomfort with uncertainty.
My favorite part is Craig's "air tight" list of premises. If I rang a bell every time he said something either stupid, or made an unfounded assertion, I'd end up deaf.
the arguments are indeed airtight, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows to be true as well. i'm not saying that that makes the arguments correct. you can dismiss his arguments by refuting 1or more premises. i'm interested in hearing the premises you refute in his arguments, though.
Krauss actually points out his faulty premise, the second one. "If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is god." It doesn't even matter that that is at best an argument for a deistic god, but the sheer gall he has to insert god there as if that was a logical step from the first half of the sentence. That's akin to saying "If my migraine has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is god." He doesn't even explain that point. He just puts it there as if he expected noone to question why he just institutes god as the explanation. Or maybe I'm missing the part where he explains it, but he brought up the exact same points in the debate before this one, again, without any real explanation where he got the god explanation from. I mean I get that he then makes it all about the "transcended mind" then, but that's still not really an argument. Is it the watchmaker? The god of the gaps? Does it even matter? Either way, the best he can do is establish a shaky reason that the universe needs a kickstarter. But everything beyond that is a pure thought experiment with no real explanatory power.
@@gea2854you would be wrong if leibniz knew someone like you would give this same argument. First I want you to clear what is meant by God. Then read again the first premise. Now you try to explain to me what could possibly be the explanation of the universe. If you think Craig is not explaining well about the 2nd premise. I encourage you to read his book " on guard"
Wow, great debate! Just finished by math homework right on time. In a debate, I say the person who won is the person who used the best support. In this case, it's a tie. However, I do side with Dr. Craig overall. Krauss seems to look at things only from the perspective of a scientist. The better debater overall is clearly Craig. It's so aggressive and rude to interrupt someone speaking. Krauss got his emotions way too involved. When proving the existence of God, Craig made an excellent point about the given attributes of God. First of all, you need to prove that one exists, which can be done by science. After that, using historical evidence, which not only includes the Bible, but the documentation of the events occurring during the time, can it lead to believe in one particular one. This is why that we can give the attributes of "loving" and "omnipotent" to God. There are so many prophecies in the Bible that have come true. What other book can do that? I truly believe that faith is the MOST important ingredient to believing God, which is why I never argue with someone who does not believe in God.
***** I am muslim, and it does not make Krauss right... He is a fraud because he changes the meaning of nothing.... When you undrestand this you can be anything you want and call krauss a fraud!
"When proving the existence of God, Craig..." ************ Craig proved the existence of God? media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/98/04/d9/9804d98c6b6a994110ccc1e1ce6d9a9d.jpg
Krauss looks at things only from the perspective of a scientist (meaning to use rationality and empirical evidence). Would you suggest that someone should not use rationality and empirical evidence, and just make things up instead?
jpchen0321 I am not suggesting that my any means. These "things" are not made up. If you have ever felt Jesus' presence, wow it just feels fantastic. Totally can't even be explained the amount of love you feel when having accepted Jesus. As for this case, God exactly can't be proved, but I believe his existence can be supported by what we have empirically. Science can't disprove God, it only proves it to me. The amazing accuracy of the Bible proves it, and our Bible today is 98% accurate from when it was first written. It gets the creation spot on in terms of order. THOUSANDS of online testimonies prove God. But how can we have the same evidence, but come to different conclusions? I truly wonder this. Jesus in the Book of John did many divine, yet STILL people rejected him. (I am not sure if all historians believe he was the person he said he was, but they believe he existed.) With that, I have two answers. God has either not revealed himself, or a person has rejected him. Faith is what you need to know God, and even I as a Christian have to admit that at the end of the day to an atheist. I urge you to read the Book of John and just ask God to reveal himself. I would love to answer your questions via messaging or something!
Simeon Davis "The amazing accuracy of the Bible proves it, and our Bible today is 98% accurate from when it was first written. It gets the creation spot on in terms of order. THOUSANDS of online testimonies prove God." *************** fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/345/4/6/jane_the_killer_facepalm_demotivator_by_angrydogdesigns-d6xmqyn.png
Keymo, I find your points hit the nail on the head, I have listened to many of these type of debates and in nearly all I find the theists participants speak in either a very patronising or condescending manner, like you said I feel preached at instead of spoken to.
ignatei: no it was like the Super Bowl champions (Krauss) playing 11 two year olds in diapers (Craig) in American football. Craig simply doesn't belong on the field against someone who knows science, math, (or any subject at all for that matter). Theology doesn't belong on the field against science. Theology will always lose.
Keymo: Krauss teaches intelligent young adults at a major USA university. Craig brainwashes illiterate children whose parents have sent them to a Christian madrassa because those adults want to be sure their children are never exposed to 21st century knowledge. Krauss is an educator, Craig is a preacher. that is the difference
+Flipver0 Yeah? Not accepting a truth statement unless it has supporting evidence is a myth? Good luck with that logic, and by the way, we all know you were not an atheist. You are engaged in a transparent and dishonest ploy, an activity that defines christianity.
If you consider atheism too much "myth", Definition: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. Perhaps myth is not the right word.
I am sorry but Atheists don't believe no god exists, they simply lack a belief in a god since there is a lack of evidence. Thus, there is no position to hold as an atheist, just like there is no position to hold on, say, Leprechauns. We are all a-Leprechaunists. (Remember, the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.)
Arya Stark: Nothing can be worse than this. Dying Man: Maybe "nothing" is worse than this. Arya Stark: "Nothing" isn't better or worse than anything. Nothing is just... Nothing...
George R. R. Martin is a wise man, I think he could have accomplished a lot of good as a philosopher. I like how Sam Harris puts it too "You'll no more suffer the eternity after your death than you suffered the eternity before your birth."
As an atheist, but i totally get what you're saying and agree with you. That said, he has spent more than 40 years studying and learning about the very topics that someone like Craig comes in and wants to knock down simply because of his personal beliefs. I can understand why that might give someone an attitude.
Ok...now I understand 'nothing' ....it's the total sum of William Lane Craig's points. That man can sure talk a loooonggg time about 'nothing' (literally and figuratively). Craig makes zero claims that can be tested in any way. He just says, well I don't get it ...so...God.
lol ... the whole fact that you cant get enything out of nothing doesnt ring a bell? miracalous... after that he axplains that God is logic. and sience without logic is worthless. so yeah... Craigs won...
Science describes whatever know of the universe. The universe we argue was created by God. The rules of scientific inquiry such as testable hypotheses do not apply to God. What kind of God would be easily measured by skeptical earthlings? Not a very great one.
at 48:00 that's the problem with philosophy and why it's no longer adequate to think about questions like these. it's arguments are based entirely on what your mind can conceive of. Lawrence was on point and bill just ignored it and that woman gave him the opportunity to escape . on a desperate note what would his argument for the soul be when consciousness is shown to be completely physical? and the question about the the book at 1:21 is obviously a false equivalency I mean is that woman serious?
Is it just me or it seems like Dr. Krauss spend half of the debate talking about other topics because he did not did research of his opponent books and works? It´s a pity, a "scientist" that goes to a debate without previous preparation. I think Dr. Craig deserved a better and more respectful opponent.
Krauss is notorious for dismissing theology and philosophy outright; he probably didn’t think it was worth his time; ironically much like an evangelical, he dismisses subjects he doesn’t understand or care to understand and gets irritated and doubles down on his own ideas when that ignorance becomes apparent-he should stick to his research and stop debating, it does no favors to his field
1) People who believe a supernatural force created the universe take 1 leap of faith 2) people who believe this supernatural force has a will takes 2 leaps of faith 3) people who believe this supernatural force's will is to be worshiped take 3 leaps of faith 4)people who believe this supernatural force will punish its own creation take 4 leaps of Faith 5)people who believe this supernatural force is Jesus take 5 leaps of faith Conclusion: Christians should join the Olympics for long jump
A Good Man by that logic, 1) people who believe that the universe was caused by a natural force take 1 leap of faith. 2) people who believe this natural force doesn't have a will take 2 leaps of faith. 3) people who believe this cause doesn't want to be worshiped take 3 leaps of faith. 4) people who believe this cause won't punish it's creations take 4 leaps of faith. 5) people who believe this cause isn't jesus take 5 leaps of faith.
jon keene No, because rejecting negative claims is not a leap of faith. It's remaining objective. For example, are you making a "leap of faith" when you drink your coffee in the morning? That coffee could have been poisoned by somebody. Or you could choke on it somehow. You don't take leaps of faith when you reject things you have no reason to believe
A Good Man none of my points were based on the rejections of claims or beliefs. They were all "positive" beliefs or claims in there own right. For example, the first point was that "people who believe that the universe was caused by a natural force take 1 leap of faith." This isn't simply the rejection of the belief that it was caused by supernatural means, and the belief in the neutral claim that it was caused by natural means. As i see it, before any evidence, arguments, or whatever or whoever else is included, the two explanations are on an even playing field. Once all support, or objections and questions for each claim are taken into account, the supernatural claim is in fact shown to be stronger. But with anything short of certainty, how i see it is that one who believes the universe was in fact caused by natural means (or supernatural means) are exercising faith. I don't see how it could take absolutely no faith at all to believe that the universe was made by natural means, especially with no evidence or arguments in support of that claim.
jon keene I agree, believing the universe created itself is an equal leap of faith to believing the supernatural. However, to stop at that is only 1 leap of faith. If you start believing the supernatural force has a will you've taken a second leap because it's just as possible that it doesn't have a will. "will" is a man-made concept. Then to go on say that "will" is to be worshiped is another huge leap of faith because "worshiping" is huge man-made concept that has all kinds of moral degradations associated with it. It's quite simplistic to believe a super natural force desires worship. Then to go on to say this supernatural force will send it's own creation to hell is another huge leap of faith because "punishment" is flawed man-made concept. Especially eternal punishment. Then to go on to say this supernatural force is responsible for a deeply flawed and questionable book is an almost uncomprehensible leap of faith. One would expect that the only book in the world to be completely flawless in every way would come from a being as such. If I simply stop at saying a supernatural force created the universe but i don't know why I am no longer taking any leaps. This is the same with natural force
I can't imagine how embarrassed Krauss must feel on the playback. Can you imagine....he needed to use an edited video to define what he meant by "nothing"! Laughable.
+Mary Beth Miranda He didn't need to use an edited video, he could have explained it clearly live on stage. He even stated the reason why he used the video, which was because it was short and concise, and freed up time for him to talk about other things.
+Marcus Turner But you do understand that nothing literally means nothing, right? Not something. Krauss talked about gravity and other *seemingly* none material things. But what Krauss fails to understand is that everithing in the universe began to exist, the NATURAL world. Gravity and his other things therefore cannot make a universe from nothing because they began to exist, so they are not nothing. And infinite regression is impossible. Conclusion, God is the only rational answer, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and personal being.
+Dêstynatiõn Y Where did he say gravity is nothing? The graviton is an elementary particle. Your statement "nothing literally means nothing" is rather empty. But the nothing you seem to expound is not nothing at all, it contains a god.
Adrian Owens I never said that nothing was everything there was. Either there was nothing, or there IS God. Krauss said that gravity could help the process of something coming from nothing. But that doesn't make sens, gravity is natural, not beyond the universe because it began to exist. His entire argument is about particles popping in and out of existence without any apparent cause. He is like someone trapped in a computer program trying to explain the origin of existence, but he cannot se outside the program...yet he uses the laws of the program to determine what is outside of the program. It is impossible.
The phenomenon of particles popping into and out of existence doesn't have a cause because it doesn't NEED a cause. That is the only answer that is currently available because scientists have not learned enough about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is the most difficult science; no one completely understands it or even how it works. It just *does*. You are just like that person trapped inside the computer program. No one knows what's outside the universe; just because desert tribes more than 2000 years ago (that didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun.) wrote books about the creation and God (which isn't the first. The creation part is practically plagiarized, as well as the "moral" teachings.). I'd rather gain knowledge on reality rather than myth and superstition. I'd rather not read a book written by desert tribes 2000 years ago; I'd rather learn from the professional scientists that are actually searching for the truth. Scientists can not, and don't, say that they know for certain about anything. We try to explain phenomena as best we can with the *empirical* evidence that we have. It doesn't matter if that evidence is logical or not (meaning we don't understand how it works, like Quantum Mechanics). The conclusion that "either there was nothing, or there is god" is just stupid. Just because something came from nothing does *not* mean a supernatural being created everything. What did then? We don't know. That's the point. The same logic can be applied to God. What created God? What created the creator of God? So on and so forth. Don't even try to state that God can't be created because he's infinite or some shit. How do you know God is infinite? You don't. Theists think that just because they have faith that anything they apply to God is correct. And that's just it: *faith*, or the belief *without evidence*. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims, while Lawrence has used only that: evidence (which is empirical evidence, btw.) About the gravity thing. Lawrence explains that by applying the laws of Quantum Mechanics to gravity, gravity will fluctuate in and out of existence just like particles. I think you didn't understand anything Lawrence explained at all. Your closed-mindedness and brainwashed state of religion has clouded your logical reasoning. Or maybe it's just because you're ignorant, which religion strives so hard to keep. Why do you think God kicked out Adam and Eve? Because they gained knowledge from the tree. Religion wants to keep people ignorant so it can completely control them. This can be seen everywhere. Just because there is something rather than nothing does not automatically point to a supernatural being. That's just lazy. Nothing needs a purpose to exist. It can find a purpose, but just because it exists, does not mean it has a purpose. That, to me, seems like religious people are unable to stay sane knowing that they have no purpose and that they are not unique. That's weak and sad. Doesn't bother me at all. I don't care if I'm not unique; I gain my enlightenments and purpose from understanding the universe, not from believing that some supernatural being placed me here on this Earth in a comfortable family while millions of children suffer before they die. Last note: I'm pretty sure that's a tokyo ghoul image. Nice.
You just made a negative claim. Prove it. And don't give me the FMS shit. We're talking about the First Cause concept here which you atheists can't even touch. But let's be honest. Your gripe is only with religion and theism. If I proposed deism you'd shut up. Unanswered prayers but a cosmos ruled by laws point to deism not to atheism.
Atheists Exposed "If I proposed deism you'd shut up. Unanswered prayers but a cosmos ruled by laws point to deism not to atheism." **************** Deism (a disinterested, impersonal deity who created the universe and gave humanity reason but does not intervene... and thus, unanswered prayers) is even more boring than theism. Now you posit an omnipotent and omnitient deity who doesn't give a damn. A; "I think I'll create a universe." B; "Okay, and then what are you going to do with it?" A; "Nothing at all... especially no answering of prayer." B; "What's the point?" A; "Just to mess with their heads." Seriously? Deism has been around since ancient Greece and likely earlier. Like theism, it's man-made superstitious nonsense. It's "Theism Lite". What laws rule the cosmos? Natural physical, chemical and biochemical laws rule the cosmos.
Atheists Exposed What the fuck a possible first physical cause (like a particle or a singularity) has to do with this "first cause" also being perfect, supernatural, intelligent law giver, all loving, moral, metaphysical and having a son named jesus and so on?
Aguijon1982 Wonderfully articulated! I won't assume your grasp of the spiritual is any more firm, than of the English language, and will explain that my first statement was sarcasm, and that God does exist. It's terribly unfortunate that God hasn't called you, but at least you have RUclips to vent to... It's my experience that "atheists" radiate an anger that is exeplified by your use of profanity. I pray the Almighty and Holy God will open your ears and your heart.
Our beautiful shared "i" Am will say, remembering ye once born Lawrence, to crawling, to walking Lawrence, and thy shared Feet resting upon the very tip of time in front of HIM Lawrence!
A disappointing debate. Krauss' was unable to talk at the limited capacity of his debaters, and they appeared unable to grasp basic linear reasoning. Craig's intent seems to be directing argument down rabbit holes.of rhetoric and untested rationalisations, then skipping away or obfuscating any direct challenge. It was ultimately the same old 'god of the gaps' bs. Plus the moderator was disappointing.
anders larsen i respect both intellects, the only low point in this debate was when krauss dismissed the nobel prize as nothing. absurd and offensive to the greats who hold this award for thier contribution to mankind in my opinion, absolute farce.
OhhYeeah Merchant There is a lot of politicking involved in the Nobel prizes, which is probably why he said that. It doesn't mean that some winners weren't great scientists but the prize doesn't mean as much as people attribute to it and there have definitely been some who got it over others who deserved it more or who stole credit from others.
+Stephen Ireland So you allow God to come from nothing without any questioning, and without any evidence or explanation of how, because an ancient person who performed no research or experimentation in science said so?
Stephen Ireland Then are you claiming to be a Deist, or do you subscribe to absolute belief in a particular religion as perfect? I too have read through the Bible a good deal, and spent 20 years as a dedicated Christian, even fooling myself into hearing voices in my head from prayer;like I was told was supposed to happen. But I came to the conclusion this is what the minds of ancient men were. I would expect much more amazing wisdom if it was "from God", but then again, if there is a God, I would not attempt to define His character nor put Him inside a box the size of the human imagination. If you are arguing the Bible, or particularly the gospels, they disagree on several important points including apparently half of Jesus' most loyal followers being unaware that God was the father of Jesus, and not Joseph. There is evidence, this was added latter on and the conflicting genealogy of Jesus might point to that. Of course there is the Jewish argument, or rather simply pointing out that Jesus did not fulfill the multiple messianic prophecies in the Old Testament at all. A main point of that being, he was not from the line of David. Some argue, and I tend to agree, that the whole story of Herod(no evidence for this strange consensus) creating a situation that forces people to return to their home towns, is likely false. This seems strange, but if added later, would help to protect the story against the realization he did not originate from the town the messiah was supposed to come from. At any point, "God's chosen people" the Jews, point this out frequently as the reason..how else to put it..the story was made larger than life, or he was an outright liar. I don't see any particular reason to trust in a religion, as all of them are believed in the same way, and all are "infallible" in the minds of those biased against evidence(hundreds of small to large contradictions in the Bible, unexpected if written from God). They all use the mechanism, and make it a key principle: believing without evidence. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. I do not know of anything else in existence, where it would ever be good to believe without evidence; or at least if it was necessary, that in itself would certainly not be celebrated. And it would rightly be called a theory, and not proclaimed to be wisdom from a divine being..because some human apostle with no other record of existing, said so. The level of scrutiny applied to Socrates, even for his existence, is drastically higher than religious characters who through mob rule have been immune from historical questioning. God could show His power for 5 seconds, and I don't think there is a soul on Earth stupid enough to not bow down at that point. Strange how little effort it would take to simply give evidence that would prevent billions of humans burning for eternity; and yet no supernatural event in history has ever been proven to be true except by hearsay.
Lee so you were a Christian 20 years. Did you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? If yes, then you have all the evidence you need. If you didn't receive the Holy Spirit I would ask what gospel message you accepted. Most professing Christians are not born again believers.
Stephen Ireland I was born into it, baptized, Catholic schools, "converted" to Baptist(I felt the near divinity of Mary was not Biblical). I wont go overboard here, but I lived it, loved it, believed it absolutely. I accepted all 4 Gospels but I may misunderstand your question there. I do understand the nature of God described in the Bible. It is a very long story, but all I will say is I went through a couple years when skepticism and belief did extreme battle in my mind. The only answers to prayers I ever received, where my "mind's voice", and it totally destroyed me. I developed a literal death wish that eventually overcame my fear of hell, did some stupid shit, then deployed overseas and learned a lot about reality. I absolutely believe religion has come past it's use, and humans should not accept absolute authoritarianism unless there is absolute proof. If there is a God who wrote a book, I believe He would have written a much better one(read the Quran, same BS). I do not believe a God of the power I imagine, if existing, would care to interact with our lives;any more than I would care to speak with or develop a personal relationship with a bacterium. That is, of course, my subtle little opinion on the matter haha. I respect your opinion, but I doubt either one of us can convince the other.
Lee if you had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, the same spirit that has been poured out since the day of pentecost, you would have known the nature of god which is described in the bible. "It's no longer I that lives but Christ that live in me"
That's funny. He does say that a lot. But the point is, he does not assert anything that has been, or currently can be, refuted. He's a skeptic and a scientist. Bravo, I say.
Ridiculing a belief, a socially acceptable one (The belief in a God for example in this case) which is no way deviant, is in itself retarded. For example you may believe that aliens exist, let's say that I don't or vice versa. It would be retarded of me to ridicule the opposite belief because it's not the same as mine. And how does one justify saying that the theist position is uneducated (when there are a lot of theist that are well educated, presumably a lot more than you are, or that aside, saying someone is uneducated based on a belief is not a valid conclusion). Or deliberately dishonest, deceitful? Deceitful of what? Pointing out lies? Do you even read what you're typing? One could argue that it is stupid for a non-theist, but saying anything of the above is plain ignorant
As seen by you, I don't think they consciously, constantly lie to people for some reason. They believe what they say therefore it is not retarded, ridiculous, absurd and delusional to them
Bad rhethorics on my part yes, I could've worded that better, it is late so I would be better off sleeping instead of watching youtube vids but lemme put it this way "The earth is flat" is a delusion you can easily disprove, "God does/does not exist" is a delusion you can't prove nor disprove. I could turn that argument upside down and call you deluded for not believing the obvious and point out that you are hiding behind your ignorance, or do what you do, bury my manners, call names, and pretend that just because I am an atheist and I don't believe in a God I am somehow more educated, smarter and more sciency than the rest. It doesn't work that way no matter how many pejorative adjectives you use
You can always tell when Lawrence Krauss realizes he's getting his ass handed to him... he gets more emotional, more angry, and more nutty, and he grabs his water bottle! --- funny to watch!
No Krauss was getting annoyed at trying to explain things to Craig he knew were right and Craig wont understand.Its like handing someone a can of coke telling hem what it is and the other person continuously saying no I don't agree your wrong etc Very frustrating!
punnet2 there is a God as opposed to no God for the same reason that the rationals are dense in R and not not dense in R. the existence of God follows from a logical argument
Uwot Mate The Existence of God follows from a _deductive_ argument, and that is the problem. Deduction is simply not a good tool to figure out truth because it will never conclude something you don't already know or expect. If deduction worked, then we wouldn't need science. Craig's arguments, if you're not literate in formal logic, sound neat and cool, but they hold no water. Every one of his arguments employ circular reasoning in one form or another. It's almost disgusting.
punnet2 In order to understand this we have to define the word god just like Krauss redefined the word nothing. He redefined the word nothing by saying nothing is quantum mechanics and relativity. This was redefined as nothing and therefore we are to accept it. The problem with this is that he has to prove that absolutely everything has come from the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity and that he cannot do, and he made a book called "a universe of nothing". BTW, did you know that Krauss did not believe in the Higgs Boson, or in other words he was Ahiggst. He also introduced string theory and a little bit of nonsensical statements that I don't know if they were jokes in the debate. Can you define or redefine the word god?
Whats your point?? The scientific method was fully established in the 16th century. *500 Years ago* . and its catagorized as *modern science* Should we get rid of that too??? Is it too outdated?
Lawrence keeps throwing ad-hominem attacks at Bill. The last refuge for the mentally challenged. He says that quantum states popping in and out of existence. Just because one does not know where the quantum state went does not mean it went into nothingness. Lawrence is selling us his atheist beliefs.
yep.... Through my classes on philosophy I have learned that there is a good argument for a God to exist and a good argument for a God to not exist. I expected some good intellectual arguments to attempt to sway me one way or the other. Bill just kept being an ass and the debate never could get off the ground. Science can never show direct empirical prof that God does not exist nor can science find any direct empirical prof that God does exist.
Simon P Krauss has been talking against God and against religion here and in other debates. He is using his atheistic argument to confuse his audiences so as to be able to sell more books and make more money. He is basically what you might call F.O.S. You want to watch good science watch Kaku, he doesn't do debates.
Yes, Kaku is a pantheist. Pantheism is but a nickname for universe. Tracie Harris says we already have a name for it, we don't really need another one. Michio Kaku doesn't believe in any religion, Jesus doesn't mean very much to him.
Krauss asks the best question of the debate. Krauss: "You always say these things but how the hell do you know it?" Craig: Pauses while he thinks of something to say "Well... that's a different debate." If Krauss would just be quiet and let Craig continue to make wild ass assertions for which he has no justification the debate would be over. But instead he let's Craig off the hook and keeps talking, and Craig is all too happy to change the subject.
Wow. While I expect that Krauss is more right about more things than Craig, Krauss REEAAALLLLY needs to learn to have a conversation. His interruptions are incredibly annoying.
I wonder if Mr Krauss can predict or produce in his model a singularity that produces a Universe with the fine tune tuning for carbon based life including the proper quantity of dark matter.
Thomas Cavanaugh asked: “I wonder if Mr Krauss can predict or produce in his model a singularity that produces a Universe with the fine tune tuning for carbon based life including the proper quantity of dark matter.” To properly address all the mistakes and misunderstandings in your short post, I would have to write a post that was several 1000 lines long. I am typing one handed due to rotator cuff surgery so I have to keep my posts short. I hope you can extrapolate the rest without me explicitly correcting you fully Singularities do not exist. They are artificial entities that merely express that our physics is too primitive to model exactly. You are confusing cause and effect. Carbon based life is the effect of the geometry of the space-time we observe. The geometry existed yielding the physics. The physics then yielded the biology The most important thing you MUST understand if you want to be involved in a discussion on this topic is that the universe is not fine-tuned for carbon based life. In reality, carbon based life was fine tuned to the geometry that exists in this space-time. Carbon based life is the waste product of the geometry that exists for the short period between 4 billion years ago to the present on the ultra-thin surface of planet Earth, nothing more. Life exists everywhere. Life would exist no matter what the natural constants are. But that life would evolve to survive in the conditions that are present. It is no more difficult than that.
MISTERWHITE111 You missed my main point. It was about if his model could predict the desired outcome. And life is based on carbon because of its flexibility and capacity to support complex structures .Silicon would the second choice , but the Si-Si bonds are much weaker than the carbon ones to begin with
Thomas Cavanagh: I understood your point completely. You do not understand what science actually is. That much is obvious. All models use initial conditions and boundary conditions to validate their adequacy. A model is refined to determine if these conditions better represent observations. And you fail to understand anything I posted. There are an infinite number of CLASSES of life. Carbon and silicon based life represent two of them. The carbon based class is simply fine tuned to meet the extreme limitations of an onion skin thick surface of a small planet in a frozen portion of a hostile space-time. every possible portion of every possible space-time can harbor life. But that life is fine tuned to the geometry that exists there.
MISTERWHITE111 The problem with humankind is they think God is a monster. He is 11 years old and quite a troll.He made us to explore his creation and he is cool that we make science but the condition for that is that everything we discover we say thank you God for your creation, for your science we are discovering. That's while no one understands what original sin is. Science, good and evil. Do not ignore my work or try play God. He doesn't like it.Humans are trying to create life with abiogenesis, playing God is not allowed. And now they are lying about the singularity. to the world. Why don't say God made us all and we are exploring His creation. Thank you God. People like me who trust him never had problems with the errors of the plot we didn't mind at all. We are driven by trust and faith alone. He is timeless , watches everything from a pandimensional realm. Scientist should stop lying to the World and call God create us we are exploring His creation and doing science. And I know some more potholes and I don't mind. Trust is the key. Trust God and you will be fine.Spread the word my friend
Thomas Cavanaugh BLUNDERED: “The problem with humankind is they think God is a monster” No, the problem with humankind is that they are too lazy to spend their lives LEARNING useful things choosing instead to make up fairy tales, fabulations, urban legends, reality television, mythology, superstition. Thomas Cavanaugh BLUNDERED” He made us to explore his creation and he is cool that we make science …..” But that the humans with the lowest intelligence and the least ability to learn choose to become occultists because they are too useless to use their brains. Thomas Cavanaugh BLUNDERED: “Humans are trying to create life with abiogenesis,” Humans are trying to figure out the natural world and have become very very very successful at showing in the lab how life emerged from simple elements. BTW, stay in school. Eventually you will learn how to communicate in English
It's funny that Craig uses Ockham's razor to opt for a monotheistic god, yet he chooses the most "complex" god - the Christian one, that consists of three entities, rather than Jewish or Islamic gods, which are purer (simpler) in that respect. Obviously he's justifying his choice of god after he's chosen him for psychological reasons, because if he used pure logic, Trinity seems an awful choice in view of all the arguments based on simplicity and necessity. I was frustrated no one - not even Krauss - touched on that.
I'll touch on it. The claim that God is love, and a relational being who loves us personally. One can only give what one has, God shares a fellowship of love as part of His intrinsic Triune being. Distinct, yet united as one. The Triune God is the only that fits all the facts ( not just questions presented in this debate ) Also the Jewish God is the Trinitarian God as well (I don't know enough about Islam) But if you look a the Jewish names for God they're plural, and in the very beginning when making man God says "Let US make man in OUR image".
for the people who pin everything on quantum fysics and the one particle that can be at two places at once... should not have much difficulty the subject of a God, creator of quantum fysics, to be three at once... i'm just saying ... is it not wiser to see your own faults ? instead focusing on a theological debate... focus on the -> how the fuck did we come in existing? its a Godly piece of work isn't it? :P
His choice of Christianity is based on the logic that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus's claim to be God was true based on evidence such as the reliable accounts of his resurrection. There are other reasons he would point to as more likely than the alternatives. Simplicity equates to elegance in some cases but should not be confused for logic. On a side note, if you find the concept of the trinity unusual why should one expect that a God so inconceivably powerful as to create the universe should also be simple and operate in ways that humans really understand?
This fucking mediator............ I really think having so many questions in a debate is useless since the time would be very minimal and no room for an exchange of argument because there's too many questions to address. We can't see who's backed in a corner in the end, we can't see the end of the argument because the mediator will stop them and move on to the next question.
Craig, on two occasions, gave examples of how a word can have more than one specific meaning. Both "science' and "infinity", yet he wasted 10 minutes arguing that "nothing" can only have one meaning. He's intelectually dishonest.
So - because two words have multiple meanings, all words have multiple meanings? Pure genius. Also, why don't you tell us what the other meaning of "nothing" is?
***** The evidence for God is our souls. There is no evidence that suggests our brains cause our intentions as opposed to embodying them. It's intentionality or epiphenomenalism.
+NyxSilver8 In the 21st century now, you still don't look for scientific explanations for things but mystical ones, just to comply with your ridiculous, irrational religious beliefs, pathetic !
***** When a philosophical naturalist experiences the supernatural they set aside their experience for natural explanations to come later. That's unreal. Atheists who don't set aside their supernatural experiences are now theists.
...In response to RagingBlast2Fan since I cannot reply to his comment - Craig's logical arguments are no different than making a well thought out logical case as to explain why Spock has green blood instead of red. Or, how about Whitley Strieber's 'Communion' in which he explains his case for extraterrestrial visitation in an entire book? Both are authors of science fiction. Both pretend not to be fictional authors in these particular cases. And, both appear to have had personal motivations and biases to create such a view of the world. In my view, Craig does 'just say it' with no evidence and no real world reason why his arguments carry any weight. Craig's assertions CAN be simply dismissed.
You're completely clueless as to how these things work, aren't you? Can you come up with a logical argument for Spock's existence and for him having green blood? No, you can't. You would be laughed off stage if you tried to argue for that because there is no basis for it. However, there is basis for God and Craig argues for it. If you want to argue with Craig then address his arguments. Don't just dismiss them offhand because they seem ridiculous to you, or because you beg the question by a-priori deciding that God is fictional like Spock, or else you're just showing yourself to be willfully ignorant.
***** Not clueless at all. You need God and Spock as evidence of their own existence. The concept of God and the concept of Spock are concepts. The fiction of God and the fiction of Spock are fictions. Your beliefs about God and your beliefs about Spock are beliefs. Your logical argument for the existence of God and your logical argument for the existence of Spock are logical arguments. On those grounds, I can dismiss the existence of both.
***** "You need God and Spock as evidence of their own existence" what is that even supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that something's existence needs to be confirmed before you're even allowed to argue for its existence? Sorry, but I don't speak nonsense. If you have an argment in which it logically follows that something exists, then you can't dismiss the argument by saying "oh yeah, well this thing needs to be evidence of itself", whatever the heck that is even supposed to mean. Fyi, there are a number of really god ontological arguments out there right now. Robert Maydole's ontological argument that he employed in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is so good that even Quentin Smith has admitted that he is at a loss for words at how to refute it. So, if you want an argument in which the very concept of God implies its own existence, i would suggest learning mathematical logic and then reading Maydole's article.
***** Right, so the arguments for the existence of God and Spock are arguments. Thanks. I think it is pretty obvious that if the existence of God and Spock were facts then you would need to bother arguing. You can't understand that?
***** Wow. Just, wow. What do you consider a fact? When a proposition is outside of space and time do you expect us to find specific tangible evidence of that thing and call it a fact? Your point is completely irrelevant. Also, if the structure of an argument is valid and its premises are sound, then the conclusion must be true. Whether we have tangible evidence of something or not is irrelevant, so long as we have a valid structure and sound premises. Can you think of an argument with those features that is WRONG? Oh, and the fact that two things need to be argued over does not put those two things in the same ballpark. I argue against the law of identity, but that's not going to ever be in the same ballpark as arguing for a theory of ethics. Likewise, arguing for Spock is never going to be taken as seriously as arguing for God. God has major explanatory power and scope, given that he exists. That's what makes him worth arguing about. Spock has no explanatory power or scope, other than explaining that Spock exists.
I cant even imagine believing in an invisible entity that has magical powers. Even at age 13 I remember looking around at church and being stunned that grown ups were praying to something invisible and talking about magic that happened thousands of years ago like they were there.
Most physicists now believe that there are many more dimensions than our 3 space and one time dimension. And that invisible particles of incredible 'magic' powers create matter, and that your own material body is 99.999% empty space between particles, and on and on. Also, that the universe either is self-existing and eternal, or that it was created by some incredible power outside time and space. In fact, to believe in science you are back to believing almost all the same things that religious people believe, minus a belief in rational thought. Because if you are merely the product of cause and effect you have no way to have free thoughts. Everything you think and feel has been predetermined by your dan, your programming, even the physical history of the molecules making up your body and everyone else's. You merely react in the only way you can to each mental or physical input. If you are an atheist, you must believe THAT as well, because there is no rational option. But, the fact that every thought is predetermined means that rational thought is also impossible, so you lose your personhood, your free will, and your ability to thing rationally if you are an atheist. It's pretty bleak and most try to deny clear fact and reason.
Craig is speaking the language of philosophy, and Krauss is speaking the language of Physics... no wonder they seem to have so much trouble communicating. A debate between two men from different disciplines is bound to be difficult.
***** Krauss's discipline has value. Craig's does not. But it deosnt' matter anyway since Craig isn't even current on any philosophy of the last 100 years.
Lane Craig does know a lot about physics though. I haven't seen this debate in a long time and right now I've just gone on this page to gone on the comments section, but I have seen this debate and have been exposed to a sufficient amount of material from William Lane Craig to know that he does know a lot about physics and in at least some debates, uses that knowledge frequently.
jon keene In this particular debate, he demonstrates less knowledge of physics than my 8 year old granddaughter. So the question is to you; if he KNOWS physics, how come he doesn't DISPLAY that knowledge here? More importantly; if Craig actually understands LOGIC, how is it that each and every argument he makes is COMICALLY illogical. Did he jut decide to PRETEND the rebuttals to his illogic that have been around for centuries dont' exist?
MISTERWHITE111 Well as I said, I haven't seen this debate in a long time, and don't remember how much, if any knowledge of physics he displays in this debate, but he does make it known elsewhere at least that he does know a lot about physics (at least in my opinion). It's also my opinion that he is logical and his arguments are completely valid and convincing. I'm not going to claim that to be surprising that I hold to those beliefs, since I am a Christian and he is a renowned Christian apologist. I also don't find it surprising that you hold your beliefs, since you're on the opposite end of the spectrum, holding to atheistic beliefs.
jon keene MISTERWHITE111 is actually not an atheist as he proclaims. If you read his other posts, especially towards me, you will see he believes in Chi Energy, and he claims to practice Taoist and Buddhist exercises every morning for a couple of hours, and that he also practices Qigong...a system of many styles of chi cultivation exercises designed to improve health and longevity...Qigong involves mystical concepts such as Qi (chi) cultivation, visualization meditation, posture practice as well as stretching and certain forms. However, he claims that Qigong is completely scientific...and if you send him a link of some Qigong masters, he will just lambast those masters and say they don't know what they are talking about. Also, he claims to studied under 13 grandmasters, he claims to have learned Tai Chi, Xing I Chuan, Yi Chuan, White Crane, etc...Now IF he ever tries to elucidate you about how scientific and nonspiritual QiGong is...show him this: “Qigong practices can be classified as martial, medical, or spiritual. All styles have three things in common: they all involve a posture, (whether moving or stationary), breathing techniques, and mental focus. Some practices increase the Qi; others circulate it, use it to cleanse and heal the body, store it, or emit Qi to help heal others. Practices vary from the soft internal styles such as Tai Chi; to the external, vigorous styles such as Kung Fu.” --NATIONAL QIGONG ASSOCIATION I am not a religious person, but I do not agree with MISTERWHITE111's ill manners. He is an insecure little boy who needs to boast and use insults to feel good about himself. He simply cannot act normal.
MY GOSH! Lawrence Krauss is so irritatingly obnoxious! Aside from that he made excellent points which I can agree with, and also to a certain extent expanded my knowledge. None the less he still hasn't convinced me as to why I should drop my belief in the Divine presence behind everything. Explaining why something happens does not take away from the credibility of God.
Steve Lee No I am not kidding, I am very serious. Am I less intelligent because I believe that God, who exists In an immaterial state of being, exists? Atheists seem to have one thing in common: crass disregard for people of faith, being loud and uncivilized, and of course, extremely liberal, to the extent that it is sickening
+iloveamerica007 Whether there's an unknown dimension where exists an elusive, immaterial entity which has a personality, is highly doubtful. I, as a rational, thinking person wouldn't "believe" in something this absurd. It sounds more like metaphysical woolgathering.
Steve Lee I am quite happy that you've come to that decision, no doubt based on all the current and best research practices and modalities. Yay for you! My belief in God, how ever, isn't as fancy. I didn't study philosophy (except for college level ethics) nor natural science (although I am a social scientist). My faith is directly related to my own personal experience with the Divine constant. I know, personally, that God exists. Intellectually and (and absolutely empirically) academics may never be able to quantify evidence for the Holy Spirit because she exists on a level transcendent to the human plane. Its like tying a wing contraption to both your arms and flapping them wildly whilst you jump off the highest building on earth. It just won't work. What's so crazy about believing in God anyway? Some scientific theories are absolutely crazy but yet we accept them.Some have been disproven also. I fear that science is going the same road of ultimate absolutivity that intellectual society and common citizens ridicule the Church for in its medieval time frame.
+iloveamerica007 To say there exists anything "transcendent" is again highly speculative, since "transcendent" means it's beyond our knowing, even our imagination. Then how do you know anything transcendent exists at all ? I do not make my "decision" not to believe in a deity. I don't believe in any deities as I don't believe there's a human being who stands 20 ft. walking on Earth now. Am I being rational or irrational in this case ?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
This exchange proves that we NEVER need a moderator. Every time this discussion becomes interesting, she moves us to a new, unrelated point. It's maddening.
I agree. Moderators are obstructive. I once moderated a panel at a comic book convention with Jonathan Frakes, Wil Wheaton, and the super cool LeVar Burton. I was in the way and unnecessary. It was still a good learning experience. If I had it to do over my only function would have been to take questions from the audience and keep them flowing, and I would have remained offstage. I had no business being up there. But I was invited, and I took the opportunity.
I'll emcee anything.
Yeah.. but a lot of people only agree to debate with a moderator.
Well, in this case you do not even need Craig.
@@ApaX1981lol
@@ApaX1981But if Kraus was absent we could finally be able to discuss 'nothing' without him confusing us.
Krauss provides an amazing mixture of non sequiturs, double speak, authoritative declarations and personal insults. Entertaining to some, irritating to others but enlightening to nobody.
Enlightening to me. Sorry.
Well the anti-theists never do have any good arguments, so they have to rely on rhetoric mostly.
Yep. And it gets rather old and daunting.
That's weird because he continued to say repeatedly to not that his word for it and research yourself. 🤔🤔🤔.I have a feeling you just made up any critec you could think of in the hope that nobody actually watched the video. Real smart
+Pesadaman Dis enlightening to what nigga???? to what exactly you dumbass
I’ve been absolutely fascinated to watch LK speak on things. For some reason in this format he just gives me anxiety. Why is he so rude?! Constantly interrupting and getting off topic, absolute nightmare. Well done to WLC for staying cool.
Its understandable. Craig just asserts baseless propositions as if they are obvious.
@@nosteinnogate7305 Not understandable at all in my book
@@nosteinnogate7305ignorance must be bliss for you.
@@nosteinnogate7305 Baseless propositions?
He doesn't even get a chance to explain them.
Kraus is a pain to listen to. He's a good scientist but a terrible debater.
@@heavybar3850Exactly. The person who committed couldn’t even stop to think that the interruptions is why he believes Craig’s points lack foundation 😂
What an utterly useless moderator! The moment each 'argument' got interesting she killed it.
Agreed. She derailed the entire debate at 57:17.. totally useless.
Joe Vete judging from her clothing and this channel I am sure they planted her as the moderator to tip the debate in favor of Craig. I mean look at the way she cuts him Kraus but rarely William
That seems like a quite extreme statement saying based on her appearance you can categorise her to a certain bias. And she saved Kraus from attempting to explain absolute nothing is something.
I meant her extremely modest Christian type clothing. I also googled her and as suspected she’s a believer and “spiritual”. Just as she showed her bias through the whole debate.....
Their*
People, learn to listen, even if you don't agree, you first have to listen and don't just judge. Personaly i like to listen to these discussions. Just by listening you learn something, doesn't matter what
Its probably a matter of knowing how to listen and process what the other side is actually saying.
Lawrence is like a pouty school child during the Q&A. I barely made it through. Craig was remarkably patient with the man.
I'm a Christian. Krauss is one of those gifted teachers I don't mind learning his field of expertise. You will learn a lot from him. Reminds me of my civil engineering teacher that can make a boring subject interesting.
LoL 😂
The only thing I learn from Kraus is how to lie with a straight face.
He lies that a universe can come from (his definition of) nothing.
He lies about the word nothing, as a universal negator.
And he lies about the letter from Vilenkin.
You have (much) more respect than this agnostic atheist has for him.
I could never get in tune with him and/or his attitude.
In fact, I'm watching him right now to see if I can find something I can take seriously.
Edit; I got bored.
Often times, people get angrier and angrier when they know in their heart that they are losing an argument and have no chance of winning.
or when their opponent are intellectually dishonest, as WLC is here.
There's nothing more loathsome than a moderator that thinks/assumes they're part of the debate. I have utter contempt for this dozy, ego-led woman...
She also doesn't seem very bright.
greyeyed123 Yup, hence why I labelled her 'dozy'. She's also unnecessarily hostile/aggressive towards Krauss, in addition to giving her irrelevant opinion on whether or not a certain exchange is productive or not.
Yeah. Christopher Hitchins was right all along.
Women ruin everything.
Well, no matter how one defies "no-thing" it still remains no more than what rocks dream about
Exactly. Give me one miracle and I will explain the universe.
I've been an atheist since my early teens (I'm now 43yo), but since I started watching new atheists debates with Craig Lane about 10 years ago I'm getting closer and closer to the Christian faith. Dawkins, Harris and Krauss, who seemed to me 'heroes' of logic and reason, have become symbols of the ignorant and arrogant atheist community. Of course watching debates online hasn't been my main source of information: studying the Bible, philosophy, theology and science (especially quantum physics) is changing my world view to theism.
Pico della Francesca: You are moving towards theism because you are totally ignorant of “the Bible, philosophy, theology and science (especially quantum physics)”. If you had even the SIMPLEST understanding of anyone of these, you would realize that theism is unsupportable.
Plus, I need to point out that you have NEVER been an atheist. You simply do not have sufficient knowledge to be one.
Pico Della Francesca doesn't exist!!!
And now?
I suppose there is always a strong temptation to invoke the magic word: "Goddidit!"
@@vincenzodimasofootballandc748That's a positive claim. What's your proof for it?
14:20 - One thing to note is that some physicists, despite this measurement, still believe that we live in a curved universe. Michio Kaku is one example. They maintain that the universe is so large that the curvature hasn't yet been detected by our methods of measurement. This would be analogous to standing on a flat field, for example, here on earth, and concluding that, as a result of your measurement, the earth is flat.
I know that this is 8 years later, but that analogy is disingenuous. The curvature of the earth wasn’t calculated after traversing the whole planet or seeing it from above, it can be done using basic trigonometry. The same was done for measuring the curvature of the universe using the most distant observation that can be made, the cosmic microwave background.
Lawrence Krauss has finally met his match. I love it. Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher. His expertise is strictly on observing the natural world; whereas the expertise of William Lane Craig is on asking and thinking about the deep philosophical questions about reality. Krauss, I advise you to leave abstract thinking to the pros.
Crane Sebastian BLEATED: “His expertise is strictly on observing the natural world; whereas the expertise of William Lane Craig is on asking and thinking about the deep philosophical questions about reality. Krauss, I advise you to leave abstract thinking to the pros”
As Stephen Hawking famously wrote, philosophers have not kept up with the scientific advances of the last 150 years so they are uniquely UNQUALIFIED to speak about any of the deep Philosophical questions of the 21st century. And WLC is literally the worst of the modern philosophers as far as education goes. He is ridiculously unqualified to discuss any subject, even his own beliefs of Christianity
Krauss on the other hand spends more time daily using the tools of science to address the deep philosophical questions than Craig ever has. That is why Krauss teaches at one of the best academic institutions in the world and Craig brainwashes illiterate children at a 10th rate Christian madrassa
Krauss is correct. Craig is completely wrong about everything
Krauss is famous in these debates for absolutely crucifying Craig. It was such a mauling that afterwards craig complained about krauss being 'rude'.
Also, please tell me you didn't accuse a *theoretical physicist whose specialty is the shape of space time and quantum field dynamics of not being up to the job of using abstract concepts... 😂🤦♂️
I clicked on this comment twice because I found it so amazing that anyone could genuinely watch this back and forth and come away thinking that _Craig_ performed well. I can only guess that you didn't watch it; I know that's a common accusation when people disagree but I really mean it.
This was an evisceration by Krauss and it was so total it made me uncomfortable at points. WLC was utterly taken apart, quite aggressively, by Lawrence, and I felt like Krauss could've backed off sometimes because he was making WLC look like Grandpa Simpson in the Q and A and it was slightly pathetic.
That's no different than saying a scientist met their match when attempting to have a physic explain how they can see visions in a crystal ball. What I find most astonishing is that anyone can find intelligibility in anything Craig says.
Krauss never took apart WLC 😂 people are such fanatics. This was a good debate.
22:22 - Krauss uses ellipses to cut out the part of Vilankin's reply which actually supported Craig's position. Vilenkin later wrote to Craig stating that Craig accurately conveyed his position and that Krauss did not. Krauss knew he was being deceptive on this point, and it's as bad as a 5 year old mumbling "I didn't take any cookies" through a mouthful of crumbs.
Why tell a bald faced lie if your argument is strong, Lawrence?
This video reminds me of why I stopped watching Lawrence debates- I hate that he constantly interrupts and talks over his opponents.
Same goes for that lame "moderator".What a bummer!
He’s a much worse and stupid version of Richard Dawkins when it comes to this stuff
Jim McCray when someone linguistically and philosophically attempts to beat you in a debate which blatantly has a rational conclusion, I would be like Lawrence, constantly interrupt to correct Craigs bs interpretations and stance
@@james-rimagine trying to justify Kraus in this debate, lol. Dude is insufferable.
@@weston06. Nobody needs to “justify” Lawrence. We live in a world where somehow some peoples ideas of evidence is insufferable bs.
It's hard not to be condescending when you are as smart as Dr Craig and I really admire how he manages to remain humble especially when interacting with a "formidable" opponent like Krauss.
Krausse is incredibly obnoxious
They're is no universe in which Craig is intelligent. None of what he said had any basis at all in fact. His "proof" is idiotic nonsense wrapped in pseudo-intellectual lingo, which people such as yourself hear and think "wow, he made some valid intellectual arguments! " No, he spewed stupidity, baseless, fact less garbage. Not one shred of evidence to back up any of his ridiculous claims. Biblical "scholars" are not intellectuals. Were that the case, then all of the people that have studied, digested, and analyzed The Lord of the Rings would be intellectuals. Craig is an idiot, believed by gullible people who desperately want their particular fairy tale to be true.
@@ceceroxy2227 Its hard to watch,
Moderator: "Bill, you said that rubber duckies do not come in colors other than yellow."
Bill: "No, I don't think I said that. I'm sure they come in all sorts of colors and-"
Lawrence: "HOW DO YOU KNOW!? HAVE YOU *SEEN* ALL THE COLORS REPRESENTED IN RUBBER DUCKIES!??"
Why does Krauss shout so much? I was getting a headache from listening to him.
Time stamp?
except bill wasn't talking about rubber duckies. he was talking about an infinite "after life"... bit of a difference there
@@joshua_wherleybecause he is losing the debate. You can always tell.
Lawrence interrupted all the time, usually with another question. William seems to attempt to entirely think on his feet in this debate. That means he needs time to think about each question instead of going to prepared material. Lawrence seems more interested in winning the debate that discovering knowledge, and he bombards William with questions and talks very fast so that he loads up what William (and the audience) has to process in a very short time.
The debate or discussion was a bust because of Lawrence and possibly the moderator.
51:41 did Krauss really just ask why the cause of the universe has to be immaterial ?🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
Does it have to be immaterial?
Glasstable2011 Yes!!! Because you enter into an infinite regress if you’re trying to determine the origin of something. The first piece of word could not have come from wood.
sounds like something he would say. And indeed, why does "the cause" (assuming the concept applies at that "moment") have to be immaterial? In other words, what's the reason that it HAS to be immaterial? Like Krauss, I am REALLY asking.
@TheBuilder I don't think that's Krauss's argument. It's certainly not mine. As a sentence in English it doesn't work. If there already is a "some thing" then "it" doesn't have to "create itself" because... it already is whatever it is.
@TheBuilder I don't know that matter was "created". Why not say "matter" naturally occurs? That's what Krauss seems to argue. That fluctuations in the quantum wave (whatever that means; I don't really understand it; not a physicist!) result in energy converting to particles. What "created" energy...? I dunno either! I suppose you will say god. And then you will say, by definition, nothing/no one created god. That's "special pleading". Your explanation seems to be exempt from your challenge against infinite regress. But if infinite regress is allowed for your god, why not allow it for energy, matter, or the multi-verse? The point is... no one knows for sure. Krauss makes an argument for the plausibility of spontaneous "creation" because he understands/ has data about how energy and mass interact and behave. Sounds interesting. Who knows?! No one for sure. And god seems LESS plausible, and does not really explain anything. God did it. How? He's magic, he can do anything. Really? How did he get that way? He always was. That does not explain anything. And you might as well just stick with the Universe, because we know for sure that's There, and we can measure/ observe/ study it.
A lot of people were evidently annoyed by Krauss (!) In fact, there was one thing and one thing only which annoyed me. That was when he directly accused Craig of intellectual dishonesty. It's interesting because I recently watched another video in which Krauss participated, and the subject was prejudice (specifically xenophobia). Another speaker gave a quite persuasive definition of what prejudice is 'in itself'. It is when one person refuses to allow that another may sincerely hold a different view. In these situations, the former concludes that there are three possibilities: the other person is 1) dishonest (or not serious); 2) intellectually inadequate; or 3) insane.
This is why what I sometimes call 'evangelical atheism' may rightly be considered an irrational prejudice (unlike atheism as such, which is a perfectly reasonable philosophy). Amusingly, Krauss savages the syllogism he attributes to Craig - which, we learn soon afterwards, originates with Leibniz, one of the finest scientific minds in history. Leibniz' syllogism is surely debatable, but it is far from nonsense or sophistry, as Krauss is implying. Ironically, for a moment there, Krauss is sailing close to item 1 of the prejudice triad just noted...
Micro, your rant on Krauss only shows that you can’t defend your silly beliefs. You’ve put your mind to learn to write, great. Now put it to work on basic logic, scrutiny and all.
'Rant'? It was a mild disagreement on one small point.
Actually, as Jefferson had it, it makes no difference to me whether my neighbour has one God, ten Gods, or no God at all. It sounds to me like your beliefs may be rather more dogmatic than mine. Sadly, I must defend this too, or I would be terribly inconsistent...
Lawrence thank you for attending unto our own!
I can't get past the fact that at 1:07:26 WLC said that Islam got Jesus wrong because he is written about 600 years after his "death" when the bible accounts of Jesus could not have been written any earlier than 80 years after his "death"... The cognitive dissidence of this man is staggering.
*cognitive dissonance
sorry to be that guy.
*****
NP :)
Actually, Craig's point was that the Koran was written about 600 ad, thus subject to exaggeration, legend, and alterations.
Pat Ireland Hi Pat. I'm aware of his point. But he is saying the bible accounts are a reliable source when none of the accounts of Jesus were written during the lifetime of the followers of Jesus.
As to why this is relevant, I'll tell you a tale that Pen Jillette said during the bible episode of Bullshit. 3 members of Elvis' entourage wrote books sometime over the years after his death. These were actually written by people who knew Elvis personally. All 3 books has recipes in them for Elvis' favorite fried chicken, all 3 have claimed to personally made this chicken for Elvis and he gave them the thumbs up; all claimed to be the "Official" recipe. And all three recipes are drastically different.
So if none of these direct sources, who were Elvis' contemporaries, who walked with Elvis, talked with Elvis and knew him personally, got this detail right.How can we take the bible accounts of the life of Jesus, that contradict each other left and right, which most bible scholars say written anywhere from 70 - 200 years after Jesus was reported to have died, as an accurate historical document? This, and direct revelation from God, are what WLC's main reported sources. Although he seems to shoehorn quotes from philosophers and scientists into his argument to varying degrees of success.
Avonidsed
Three different recipes for fried chicken from three different people intimately associated with Elvis tells us one thing (with reasonable certainty)...
...Elvis liked fried chicken...
That three different people with three different recipes all claim to have the "One Recipe" tells us that people like to think they are special. I'm reasonably sure that the authors of various Biblical texts felt the same thing.
1:04:17 YES!! Oh my word,...LET THE MAN TALK, GEEZ!!! Yet he will keep interrupting Bill over and over and over again. If Krauss would shut his mouth and listen for 5 seconds Bill might not have to repeat himself. Krauss is so angry, he has no problem personally attacking/insulting anyone he disagrees with - he is one of the most ignorant people I have every heard in that regard.
William lane craig is a vapid moron.
The problem is that Craig continues to promote complete bullshit, and absolute factual inaccuracies, while telling people that they're fact. He deserves to be shouted down every time he says something idiotic.
Haha, YOU think it's factually inaccurate. Based on what you literally just said you have no clue of the arguments he is presenting b/c you don't care. Just like Krauss you are intolerant of any other worldview than your own which is why Krauss acted the way he did in this debate - like a 5yo. He will not only cut Bill off EVERY 5-10 seconds, but he will use insults in what is supposed to be a professional, public, civil debate. You hate religion therefore you are intolerant of it, and what's disturbing is you don't see anything wrong that or how Krauss acted.
mytuber81 it is not intolerance to any other wordlview than yours, it is intolerance to a view that has absolutely no real evidence for it. Krauss does not have a worldview, he just acknowledges the evidence of the universe we have today, while Bill ignores it.
Daniel Dourado Again, YOU say there is "no real evidence". You, like Krauss, ignore/reject ANY evidence that may point to a higher being b/c you have a predisposition to believe there isn't one - that's called being close-minded. Science cannot explain everything - Krauss even admitted this - which is what a lot of atheists don't realize. There are other ways of garnering truth than through science. Never-the-less science is great and we should follow the facts wherever they lead us. With that being said Craig presents facts in science and logic that point to a higher being. Craig's arguments are more plausible than Krauss's arguments against a God he doesn't believe in. Krauss cannot refute the argument itself, which is why he is well-known for almost ALWAYS using red herrings. Anyone who uses insults as a tactic in an argument is one who does not have a good argument.
The fundamental difference between religious people and scientifically minded people is that: Religious people state a hypothesis and confirm it with no empirical evidence (that god exists). Scientifically minded/critically thinking people state a hypothesis and test it rigorously finding (or not finding) empirical evidence, if that evidence is not found then the hypothesis is struck down and not believed to be true. Now which one of these methods seems to make more rational sense to you?
***** Because doing the opposite causes unsuccessful results. If I just choose to believe that things can fly if I ask them to, I will fail to launch satellites into space. If I choose to believe I don't need to eat, I will starve to death.
In some cases, you may choose to believe something that by chance happens to be true, it's just statistically less likely. Therefore, scientifically testing things will statistically increase your chance to be successful in your actions (by a lot).
We use science simply because it has been proven to be effective.
However, you ask the question in a very strange way. If you don't want to be effective, you can go ahead and believe whatever you want about things, no one is going to force you either way. (To some extent.)
But really, I think you already know all of this. In my opinion, it's a stupid question.
you're disproving your own point: ration is of no concern to faith based thinking and vice versa. Ration and faith are diametrically opposed, you cannot argue one from the other, as has been proved over centuries of two parties thinking they are each correct and the opposing side is wrong. They are irreconcilable the best we can do is agree to disagree. It's all a waste of time anyway.
***** 'Rape is Wrong' is a statement that actually can be supported by science. Facts and Values aren't necessarily separate entities. Rape is a term/concept that parallels our development of intelligence and conscious awareness. We once engaged in sexual intercourse without permission but it was not rape, it was evolution working to promote the survival of species. But now, intelligence/consciousness has allowed independence/individuality to become an important consideration in species interaction. The science is in the development of the complex cognitive structures in the human brain. The brain tells us that it does not want to be raped through things like screaming, "help me!" and "No!" to get away from an unpleasant and potentially fatal experience. Therefore, science does have a say about truths in that regard.
***** You need to be more careful and/or specific about your question.
If you ask "why should we believe in science?", then you're asking a philosophical question, and should expect to recieve a philosophical answer. (That's because science deals with "how", not "why".)
You can phrase it as a scientific question instead: "How did we end up believing in science?", or "How is science a good belief for us?", for example.
These questions can be answered, scientifically.
I must ask you,psychofmse, in what manner you have tested rigorously your hypothesis concerning "religious people"? Good grief dude, you are very unscientific!
Nothing is NOT a possible state of reality, because of it's very nature, which means that the flat vacuum state is closest we can ever come to it. And that flat vacuum state is technically something. In other words, there always has been, always will be and currently is "something."
So Instead of trying to find an absolute beginning, what we should try to do is find some sort of fundamental law where CHANGE is a constant and causality is emergent.
+LIQUIDSNAKEz28 both your point and grandmasterjoshh's point are strong and equally valid for both sides of the argument. The solution thus far is an intriguing evasive mystery.
+grandmasterjoshh both your point and Liquidsnakez28's point are equally strong and valid for both
sides of the argument. The solution thus far is an intriguing evasive mystery.
Nothing is not a possible state....the implication that there must be space?
Mary Beth Miranda Sort of. Another way of thinking about it is this, Something and Nothing are exactly where they are supposed to be. "Something" is everywhere and "Nothing" is nowhere.
1:04:30 Warns Krause to stop interrupting. What does Krause immediately do right afterwards?
44:49 Science limits, physics and metaphysics (beyond physics)
25:10 Nothing is something
32:07 Krauss sneaks in cosmology
33:42 Leibniz's a.f.c.
1:24:21 Krauss attitude
52:20 subtle to vague
54:48 popular slogan
45:15 the three Leibniz's (equal to Benoit's three german suplexes)
What an interesting debate! I come back and listen to it every other month and enjoy it each time.
I loved it when he said "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Yet one aaaaallways hears atheists whining, "but there's no evidence for God".
wrong answer dumbass, mathematical proof by contra-positive
Majestic, unfortunately, you are using that principle in the wrong context. If one is making a positive claim that a god exists, one needs to provide evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept the claim. It is not up to everyone else to try to disprove you.
In other words, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not to be used here (and is unnecessary), because, by default, no one is claiming no god exists, rather, you just haven't met the burden of proof that a god does.
What context? Either that statement is consistently true or always irrelevant. Many people believe in 'aliens' or life on other planets in the Universe, despite NO evidence having ever been provided. Even scientists have speculated with probablity and statistics affirming that there IS a high probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere and have even spent $millions on SETI because they 'firmly believe' in their delusion despite the 'absence of evidence'. Scientists distort science to suit their own purposes and agenda - same as the lying politicians.
First off, the SETI researchers are not spending money despite evidence. Quite the contrary. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence. Why? Because the we find that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, meaning, the distribution of matter is more or less the same, everywhere. Thus, the same laws of physics that permitted life to arise on Earth are the same working in solar systems very similar to ours.
In other words, the probably is in our favor. The scary thing is why aren't there any intelligent communicating aliens?
Just as well, we just started serious SETI searches only a few decades ago. And there is no guarantee that we can resolves radio signals, cover all the band reliably, throughout the whole sky, nor that any intelligent aliens are sending radio waves. Perhaps they are using optical communications (i.e. optical SETI) or other things.
You're an idiot. For example, my research group doesn't distort anything, nor do any of my colleagues in other labs. There are bad apples that serve to tarnish the images of groups in any human pursuit. The science we practice today has a major social component to it (we are not robots) and thus, errors, whether on purpose or accident, are made. But this is precisely why we have the methodology of science. To eliminate such errors.
If any scientist or science group lies about major (or even minor) results, the beauty of science, unlike politics, is that they will eventually be found out and dealt with. Interestingly, I recently gave a talk on the Schön Scandal. You should take your ignorant brain and educate yourself about it to understand how we researchers really deal with the rare instances of liars in our field.
"I dont know...and thats okay.."
- Lawrence Krauss.
He says that in the sense that asserting something before any means to verify is useless knowledge and no better than blind guessing.
It's healthy skepticism.
That's the only true answer. Anyone might believe in a deity, but there's no way of knowing for sure.
The problem is when people claim "scientists don't know, they can't explain, therefore why can't there be a god"...
Usually when a scientists knows only 99.999% of something, they still say i don't know.
Very good dialogue and positions on both sides, much better than the Brisbane debate! Both science and philosophy/theology are not at odds with each other and complement each other well. Science explains the "how" and philosophy/theology attempts to explain the "why". In the end they both seek the truth!
Theology is not truth. Neither is philosophy. Science is the only truth. How is the only question that really matters. Why questions are usually pointless. Does it matter why you were involved in a traffic collision? How is what matters. When speaking in scientific terms, how and why are essentially the same. The "why" questions of theology are meaningless. Fairy tales aren't facts. Fairy tales stop knowledge. Fairy tales destroy intelligence
Krauss defines science as "empirical evidence and rational thought" (1:43:00)... but wouldn't this also include much of philosophy? For example, philosophy of mind uses the empirical evidence of how the brain works and our mental experiences, coupled with reasoning, to try to understand if mental states are physical. The kalam cosmological argument would fit the bill of combining empirical evidence and rational thought.
Lawrence love you without shame but with boldness!
Krauss is such a sophist.
And you're such an idiot. No one will ever remember you.
Or care.
I wish this discussion had a different moderator. I was annoyed by her time and again. Am I the only one?
no!
And she really didn't seem impartial. I think she was part of the Christan organization that put on the event, and it was plainly obvious.
I'm annoyed by krauss. If he could just let wlc speak.
I can’t listen to full-of-himself Krauss anymore.
Ask three questions from yourself after waking from a dream.
1. The observer of my dream was conscious or unconscious?
2. The observer of my dream was in my dream or in the universe?
3. Is the observer of my dream still conscious and if so then where?
Answers to these questions will enable you to understand how universe came from nothing.
wow, i have never heard of that perspective. Thank you after 5 years.
@ GUPTAYOGENDRA Another grand claim with falls flat on its face !
What about the dream you apparently experienced but cannot recall. You apparently experienced it but you have no memory of it that you can retrieve.
How the hell is this supposed to help me understand how the universe came from nothing
Love you Lawrence!
I'm an atheist. And Krauss would do himself and others on our side a favour by refining his mannerisms. That might go some way to making those sitting on the fence to take him/us more seriously.
"hofifut"...I will second that. I truly wanted a high quality debate (I am not an atheist). But I was really disappointed in the way Krauss acted and some of his totally unnecessary attacks on groups he didn't like (Christians, republicans, Microsoft, etc).
He would do us all a favour by not debating and stick to doing science. I don't think there is any room for Lawrence Krauss in the Atheism vs Theism debate. To me, he has jumped on the bandwagon. I like him and I am an Atheist but he can't and shouldn't debate Theism.
bada9412"Spamming"?
I've seen a number of his videos, and I've commented twice in this series only when he was in Austrailia. That's as in "2" times total. I don't consider that spamming. And no, it's not the exact same comment. Maybe the same idea, OK, but check the words. Care to clarify what makes that "childish"?
***** I don't go to church, don't know the scriptures, and accept the science indicating the earth is a few billion yrs old. If that makes me a Christian, so be it. Don't care much for labels. I only mention I'm an atheist because I know if I'd only made the statement regarding Krauss's behaviour, then I'd be labelled religious.
***** Do you believe in a God?
So Krauss' technique was to ask Dr. Craig a question and then when he started to give an answer to ask him another question and another. So is that how an intelligent person debates?
No, that is how an arrogant person debates
@@MrVincehalloran No I don't think it is. The whole point of a debate is for two people to engage in dialogue about a particular topic. And that can't happen if one person is doing all of the talking.
One of the big themes I'm noticing in comments is "Science proves things." That's not true in any sense of the word. Science creates models to best explain the evidence. Some of these models are almost assuredly correct (Newtonian mechanics, for example). Others may require refinement as new evidence emerges (evolution, Big Bang). Note: just because I said that evolution requires refinement does not mean I deny it. Evolution has changed massively since the advent of modern genetics. It's still correct, however.
themetsfan861
Newtonian Mechanics is not "correct". It only applies in certain situations. It required "refinement". That is the reason we now have GR and QM.
Evolution is FACT. Evolution is simply change over time. Everything evolves over time.
Evolutionary Biology is FACT. Evolutionary Biology is simply the change in the gene pool over time.
If Evolutionary Biology wasn't a fact, you would be able to look at every single organism and say, without correction, that every organism that ever existed on planet Earth is a clone of one of its biological parents.
Big Bang is FACT. The Big Bang is simply the description of the EXPANSION of the universe from the time of the Planck Epoch until today.
Our math/science/tools/brains are not up to describing what occurred prior to the point called the End of the Planck Epoch.
But you are correct that science doesn't prove things. Science mostly disproves things. You can have a trillion examples of something but that doesn't prove that thing (Black Swans). All you need is a single example to disprove something.
No. You fundamentally misunderstand the philosophy and nature of science. Science doesn't prove anything. Mathematics "proves" things. Science constructs models that take into account the evidence. Read Michael Polanyi. I'm not denying either the Big Bang or evolution. Both of them are supported by the vast amount of evidence.
Both of them may require refinement as we discover new evidence. For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" that ID people like to point to as "proof" of an "intelligent designer" is best explained by punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is not what Darwin proposed. The Big Bang may require refinement
as new data arises.
themetsfan861
You wrote: "Science doesn't prove anything. "
If you will reread my post, you will see that I wrote exactly that.
Here, I will save you some time: I wrote in my post "But you are correct that science doesn't prove things. Science mostly disproves things"
You claimed: "Science constructs models that take into account the evidence. "
Science constructs models varying initial conditions and checks those models against boundary values.
You claimed: 'Punctuated equilibrium is not what Darwin proposed. "
No, if I remember correctly, PE was proposed by Falconer a decade before Darwin's work. Falconer died before he could push his idea into the mainstream.
But punctuated equilibrium, like classical mechanics, is a tiny subset of evolution.
Different species have different metabolisms. Different metabolisms manifest at different evolutionary rates. These rates hinge on reproductive, feeding, predator/prey requirements, and ability to regulate their internal heat.
So you will find a cold blooded clam, for instance, that has remained unchanged for 45 million years and a warm blooded mammal that explodes in a wide variety of species to occupy the available niches.
You claimed: 'For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" that ID people like to point to as "proof" of an "intelligent designer" is best explained by punctuated equilibrium "
Not really. It is better explained by the change in the food supply that enabled organisms to utilize calcium and other elements as structural frameworks. While called the Cambrian Explosion, changes that were occurring at that time evolved over a period of nearly 100 million years.
Wiki states that the earliest Trilobite fossils date to 530 million years but were already widely diversified by that point indicating that the Trilobite was already an ancient life form by the date of the first fossils we have.
You claimed; ''Both of them may require refinement as we discover new evidence. "
Refinements to be expected will be of the order of "dinosaurs are warm blooded" which isn't quite the revolution that had GR overturning Newtonian Mechanics at the beginning of the 20th century.
You claimed: 'The Big Bang may require refinement as new data arises "
Again, the Big Bang only describes the evolution of our space-time since the Planck Epoch. Things like galactic evolution will be refined. But revolutions are to be expected as our incredibly primitive math/physics/tools develop allowing researchers to pierce the observable limits of light. Such things as gravity waves will allow a pushing of researchers observations back into the Planck Epoch.
You claimed: "You fundamentally misunderstand the philosophy and nature of science "
How is it that I misunderstand?
0:05:27 Matthew Arnold - Dover Beach
0:05:33 Krauss
0:25:10 Craig
0:40:34
I give my respect to both men regardless of how i feel on the topic, however i think the one thing everyone here can agree on here is moderators get in the way. I like when you can see both men going back and forth with passion in their answers and they start to get really into it, then all of a sudden the moderator jumps in and says they have to move on to another question.
More than that, we've all watched SOOOOOO many structured, back and forth debates, and it's just rehashing the same arguments over, over and over again. But having a free-form discussion is so rare, and its unfortunate that the moderator can't be there to bring up a couple topics, and then just let it go. There are natural lulls, and THAT should be when a topic gets changed. NOT in the middle of someone's sentence.
I don't understand why theists find it necessary that the universe has a creator but not that the creator has a creator. If the creator can be eternal, then why can't the universe be as well.
John Abad
The creator has no first cause or prime mover. Maybe the universe has no first cause or prime mover. We still have no idea what existed before the big bang.
***** Craig's argument is slightly more involved than your giving him credit for, His argument is contingent on attributes he gives God to give him a loophole out of this. It's still silly though.
John Abad My point is that giving God specific attributes that are not proven to support God's existence is a leap of faith to prove a leap of faith.
John Abad I still see it as a leap of faith. Different logical proofs could just as easily hold up in a polytheistic view. What if the Hindus got it right? How do you think you have have turned out if you were born in India? Most likely, you would think the Christian beliefs were very odd (they are when viewed objectively) and you would wonder how anyone could believe in such dogma. You will naturally gravitate toward what's familiar.
I'm not going to beat this into the ground. It's very clear that neither of us will change our minds. Just make sure your beliefs make sense to you and that you don't believe it out of familiarity, pressure from others or fear of the consequences of unbelief / disbelief.
John Abad
You could say an infinite regress can't exist as easily as you can say it can. Neither are known facts. The Prime Mover, First Cause and infinite regress argument can be refuted as easily as saying:
Maybe, maybe not.
Laurence wait for your turn let bill finish his argument and explanation. Stop interupting him.
Craig is full of shit, i'd interrupt as well
You can't just let someone pile shit on top of bullshit; it becomes impossible to address every false statement if someone as wrong as Bill is allowed to continue his "argument".
@@grains425 LMAO cuase he's destroying all atheists? Nice
Krauss essentially proved WLC's position with his opening speech and wasnt even aware of it. Even the email snippet very first line backs up WLC.
The "proof" of God isn't concrete, and WLC never claims it is. Instead he argues that the logical reasoning based on the physical evidence provides a stronger argument in favor of God than against.
Note: which religion has the right answer is another topic entirely and is irrelevant to the topic, which again WLC said in the first debate
I have plenty of evidence for dogs. It's lying in the middle of the street. I have zero evidence for gods, even though the concept smells just as bad as the physical evidence for dogs. :-)
Great debate. The way in which they say their facts reflect their faith. Wish I had such faith like Dr.Craig.:)
Why? To be imprisoned for eternity by a God, whether it be heaven or hell? Couldn't think of anything worse.
The point Krauss tried to make made no sense when it came to Craig’s point about abstract objects. He says that you’re just demonstrating the limits of your knowledge and it’s like....yeah dude that’s how this works.
How unsophisticated. He did not just say it. He offered a logical argument to which the conclusion followed that it could only be god that is the explanation of the universe. That is plainly a misrepresentation of William Lane Craig's case. I'm an agnostic myself, but that doesn't imply I would dishonestly get around William Lane Craig's arguments to make a case of my own.
Evidently, he supports his case very thoroughly. He utterly and logically destroyed the concept of an infinite past, and he has demonstrated that an infinite amount of infinite universes is also subject to the same theorem. He had also presented a case as to why it couldn't be an abstract cause that is the explanation of the universe, and so it follows that is is god, and his conclusion follows, "logically and inescapably", as he puts it.
Keep watch!
Man, Krauss is emotional.
The girl that sat in front of him in class, who was a radiant Christian, was simply a faithful and joyful sower of the word as Jesus described in his parable. She had no idea what the result would be.
Hunh what are you talking about?
Please dont zoom in that close when interviewing Krauss.......thank you.
It's impossible to have a conversation with Lawrence and it's infuriating to try and listen to.
I think definately Lawrence Krawze did a great job in preventing William Lane Craig to get away with elusive definition to support his claims...I think that's the great contribution of debating William L. Craig, which has elevated the debating skills of many atheist. I see a great improvement of Lawrence Krawze debating skills here...
Atheists Exposed
Debate is the art of persuasion of the audience. It's not about establishing the truth and as the late Stephen Gould said, honesty is rarely the best tactic. That's why he never participated in debates, at least as far as I'm aware.
Debates are won by grand oratorical style, excellent use of facial expression and body language, use of argument that superficially sounds convincing and rebutting the opponents arguments by use of clever word play and semantics.
It's entertainment and theater.
Craig is a master of debate tactics. He has his lines down pat. He relies on philosophical argument (If this, then that. If that, then the next thing. If the next thing, then God did it.). For a guy who admits he cannot prove the existence of God, he spends an awful lot of time establishing the existence of God.
Granted, when pinned down, Craig will admit that his arguments give only a plausible conclusion but he then goes on with, "My premises are more plausible than your premises, therefore my conclusiona follow logically and necessarily whether you like it or not."
First, his premises are rarely plausible and second, his "more plausible" is never defended. He always leaves that point to his end remarks where his opponent has no more time. And third, plausible premises do not lead to necessary conclusions. After watching several Craig debates, it gets nauseating.
Atheists Exposed Of course; L.Krawze might have been mouthed, obnoxious but let's not forget, LK was also VERY RIGHT and correct in his statements. L.Krawze does an amazing job in preventing Craig from getting away using debating tricks to misguide people by reshaping the definition of what “faith” is or elevating theology to the level of “science” so that his arguments remain valid. Atheist always lose? Hilbillies? and creationists? Is the best you got? The only time I’ve seen an atheist losing to a Christian is with Craig, not because he is right but because he has amazing debating skills, but unfortunately for him and his supporters, Craig’s tricks are becoming useless, clearly in this debate, it was Krawze who was at the offensive, he was the one doing the challenging bit and preventing Craig from misguiding people and steering the debate in his favor. Personally, It was Krawze who actually won the debate, and if he didn’t certainly neither did Craig who tried to prove the existence of god with philosophy? Objective morality coming from god? How can anyone say that if god can be proved in the first place?
What makes you think Krauss is an atheist? He never claimed to be an atheist, and all he says is that "we do not know if god exists" which at best makes him agnostic.
91Chanito
In this debate Krauss may not have said that he's an atheist but he has said so on many other occasions.
Agreed...In fact he is a confessed Anti-theist just as Christopher Hitchens was...by the way, don't you hate these people who edit and post videos of the debate saying "Lawrence Krauss beaten by William L. Craig" then they disable the comment section?..The fact they have to do this is a sign of lack of confidence in WL Craig who was at least the "only" christian with certain level of success in these debates.
Well you cant be mad at Krauss, at least he was consistent. The whole time he said...nothing, absolutely nothing. But then again according to his definition of nothing its a whole lot of something.
Lol
You really are a silly child
@@boffeycn Not as silly as Krauss and his arguments
@@leonardu6094 Only gullible, ignorant, American fundamentalist Christians who believe the bible is a science manual and Ham tells the truth say that, don't you.
Presumably you are yet another one that doesn't actually know what the Big Bang theory states or why it is so named. Correct? Just like the OP.
wong what an emotional response. Not a whole lot of substance.
I'm quite familiar with the big bang. You don't posses any more information on it than I, so get to your supposed point.
Krauss says there is something in nothing but the main QUESTION is where did that "Nothing" come from ?
yes? and he also say that we dont know that. And its better to acknowledge where our limits of knowledge go instead of inventing fantasies.
@@matswessling6600 Oh yeah you mean inventing fantasies about something from nothing?
@@fpxpGetReal So you still havent understood what Krauss means with "nothing".
@@matswessling6600 So now nothing is not nothing ?
So everything is nothing and nothing is everything huh 🤔?
Reflect on your own nonsense and you won’t need to look any further .
@@matswessling6600 lol 😂 You should try eating from an empty plate with nothing for 30 days and you will definitely find meaning in “nothing “ forever or drinking from a glass of nothing that has something known as nothing to see if it quenches your thirst.
The big bang is the expansion of existing condensed matter, not the creation of matter from nothing. Nobody is certain if the changing cosmos is eternal or created. when you're uncertain you should be honest & admit it instead of concluding, out of arguments from ignorance, that an invisible being did just bc you desperately need a conclusion to end your discomfort with uncertainty.
I've seen this video, and I forgot that Lawrence Krauss never actually addresses the topic
My favorite part is Craig's "air tight" list of premises.
If I rang a bell every time he said something either stupid, or made an unfounded assertion, I'd end up deaf.
the arguments are indeed airtight, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows to be true as well. i'm not saying that that makes the arguments correct. you can dismiss his arguments by refuting 1or more premises.
i'm interested in hearing the premises you refute in his arguments, though.
Krauss actually points out his faulty premise, the second one. "If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is god."
It doesn't even matter that that is at best an argument for a deistic god, but the sheer gall he has to insert god there as if that was a logical step from the first half of the sentence.
That's akin to saying "If my migraine has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is god."
He doesn't even explain that point. He just puts it there as if he expected noone to question why he just institutes god as the explanation.
Or maybe I'm missing the part where he explains it, but he brought up the exact same points in the debate before this one, again, without any real explanation where he got the god explanation from.
I mean I get that he then makes it all about the "transcended mind" then, but that's still not really an argument. Is it the watchmaker? The god of the gaps? Does it even matter? Either way, the best he can do is establish a shaky reason that the universe needs a kickstarter. But everything beyond that is a pure thought experiment with no real explanatory power.
Good summary TyrantGea!
@@gea2854you would be wrong if leibniz knew someone like you would give this same argument.
First I want you to clear what is meant by God.
Then read again the first premise.
Now you try to explain to me what could possibly be the explanation of the universe.
If you think Craig is not explaining well about the 2nd premise. I encourage you to read his book " on guard"
Wow, great debate! Just finished by math homework right on time. In a debate, I say the person who won is the person who used the best support. In this case, it's a tie. However, I do side with Dr. Craig overall. Krauss seems to look at things only from the perspective of a scientist. The better debater overall is clearly Craig. It's so aggressive and rude to interrupt someone speaking. Krauss got his emotions way too involved. When proving the existence of God, Craig made an excellent point about the given attributes of God. First of all, you need to prove that one exists, which can be done by science. After that, using historical evidence, which not only includes the Bible, but the documentation of the events occurring during the time, can it lead to believe in one particular one. This is why that we can give the attributes of "loving" and "omnipotent" to God. There are so many prophecies in the Bible that have come true. What other book can do that? I truly believe that faith is the MOST important ingredient to believing God, which is why I never argue with someone who does not believe in God.
*****
I am muslim, and it does not make Krauss right...
He is a fraud because he changes the meaning of nothing....
When you undrestand this you can be anything you want and call krauss a fraud!
"When proving the existence of God, Craig..."
************
Craig proved the existence of God?
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/98/04/d9/9804d98c6b6a994110ccc1e1ce6d9a9d.jpg
Krauss looks at things only from the perspective of a scientist (meaning to use rationality and empirical evidence). Would you suggest that someone should not use rationality and empirical evidence, and just make things up instead?
jpchen0321 I am not suggesting that my any means. These "things" are not made up. If you have ever felt Jesus' presence, wow it just feels fantastic. Totally can't even be explained the amount of love you feel when having accepted Jesus.
As for this case, God exactly can't be proved, but I believe his existence can be supported by what we have empirically. Science can't disprove God, it only proves it to me. The amazing accuracy of the Bible proves it, and our Bible today is 98% accurate from when it was first written. It gets the creation spot on in terms of order. THOUSANDS of online testimonies prove God.
But how can we have the same evidence, but come to different conclusions? I truly wonder this. Jesus in the Book of John did many divine, yet STILL people rejected him. (I am not sure if all historians believe he was the person he said he was, but they believe he existed.) With that, I have two answers. God has either not revealed himself, or a person has rejected him.
Faith is what you need to know God, and even I as a Christian have to admit that at the end of the day to an atheist. I urge you to read the Book of John and just ask God to reveal himself. I would love to answer your questions via messaging or something!
Simeon Davis
"The amazing accuracy of the Bible proves it, and our Bible today is 98% accurate from when it was first written. It gets the creation spot on in terms of order. THOUSANDS of online testimonies prove God."
***************
fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/345/4/6/jane_the_killer_facepalm_demotivator_by_angrydogdesigns-d6xmqyn.png
Great moderator!! People are saying she is bad because they are fully biased towards Krauss.
This was like the clash of Titans. I think Dr. Krauss provided very strong arguments, but Dr. Craig came out on top at the end.
***** are you?
+Keymo Fetus So what you're saying is, content doesn't matter, only tone of voice?
Keymo, I find your points hit the nail on the head, I have listened to many of these type of debates and in nearly all I find the theists participants speak in either a very patronising or condescending manner, like you said I feel preached at instead of spoken to.
ignatei: no it was like the Super Bowl champions (Krauss) playing 11 two year olds in diapers (Craig) in American football. Craig simply doesn't belong on the field against someone who knows science, math, (or any subject at all for that matter). Theology doesn't belong on the field against science. Theology will always lose.
Keymo: Krauss teaches intelligent young adults at a major USA university. Craig brainwashes illiterate children whose parents have sent them to a Christian madrassa because those adults want to be sure their children are never exposed to 21st century knowledge. Krauss is an educator, Craig is a preacher. that is the difference
after this debate, I decide that I no longer want to be an atheist. it is too much of a myth to be believable.
+Flipver0
Yeah? Not accepting a truth statement unless it has supporting evidence is a myth? Good luck with that logic, and by the way, we all know you were not an atheist. You are engaged in a transparent and dishonest ploy, an activity that defines christianity.
+Adrian Owens duh of course I am not an atheist, I converted 5 days ago. I must say, everything makes sense now. I hope you see it one day.
If you consider atheism too much "myth",
Definition:
a traditional story,
especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining
some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural
beings or events.
Perhaps myth is not the right word.
+francisco444 yeah you are right. maybe myth is the wrong word to use.
I am sorry but Atheists don't believe no god exists, they simply lack a belief in a god since there is a lack of evidence. Thus, there is no position to hold as an atheist, just like there is no position to hold on, say, Leprechauns. We are all a-Leprechaunists. (Remember, the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.)
Arya Stark: Nothing can be worse than this.
Dying Man: Maybe "nothing" is worse than this.
Arya Stark: "Nothing" isn't better or worse than anything. Nothing is just... Nothing...
George R. R. Martin is a wise man, I think he could have accomplished a lot of good as a philosopher.
I like how Sam Harris puts it too "You'll no more suffer the eternity after your death than you suffered the eternity before your birth."
Wow, a quote, you must know the state and working of the universe. I envy you.
SolSilence He's appealing to sound philosophical reasoning.
SolSilence It's a joke, you muppet.
Ceasius A joke for a joke, you muppet.
23:20 he didn't show the fully email and was later shown to be omitting important information
Krauss reminds me of the know it all I was at 13 before maturity taught me otherwise. It appears poor Krauss is a stunted adolescent.
He's a man that is not fooled by an idiot trying to prove unicorns exist. Grow up.
Lol try to get a Phd in Physics. Then come back and criticise Krauss.
Did you mature?
As an atheist, but i totally get what you're saying and agree with you. That said, he has spent more than 40 years studying and learning about the very topics that someone like Craig comes in and wants to knock down simply because of his personal beliefs. I can understand why that might give someone an attitude.
Krauss is anxious to confuse... My experience is that he cant handle questions directly...digression into oblivion
Craig wasn't able to justify ANY of his arguments, what are you talking about?
That's religious garbage logic
Ok...now I understand 'nothing' ....it's the total sum of William Lane Craig's points. That man can sure talk a loooonggg time about 'nothing' (literally and figuratively). Craig makes zero claims that can be tested in any way. He just says, well I don't get it ...so...God.
lol ... the whole fact that you cant get enything out of nothing doesnt ring a bell?
miracalous... after that he axplains that God is logic. and sience without logic is worthless. so yeah... Craigs won...
Science describes whatever know of the universe. The universe we argue was created by God. The rules of scientific inquiry such as testable hypotheses do not apply to God. What kind of God would be easily measured by skeptical earthlings? Not a very great one.
at 48:00 that's the problem with philosophy and why it's no longer adequate to think about questions like these. it's arguments are based entirely on what your mind can conceive of. Lawrence was on point and bill just ignored it and that woman gave him the opportunity to escape . on a desperate note what would his argument for the soul be when consciousness is shown to be completely physical? and the question about the the book at 1:21 is obviously a false equivalency I mean is that woman serious?
Is it just me or it seems like Dr. Krauss spend half of the debate talking about other topics because he did not did research of his opponent books and works? It´s a pity, a "scientist" that goes to a debate without previous preparation. I think Dr. Craig deserved a better and more respectful opponent.
Krauss is notorious for dismissing theology and philosophy outright; he probably didn’t think it was worth his time; ironically much like an evangelical, he dismisses subjects he doesn’t understand or care to understand and gets irritated and doubles down on his own ideas when that ignorance becomes apparent-he should stick to his research and stop debating, it does no favors to his field
Haha wow Craig nails it again! So fun to watch!
Yes, you can always count on Craig to serve up simple fare for simple folk.
Craig wastes a lot of time and energy saying absolutely nothing worth hearing. Incoherent, illogical, idiotic, pointless, baseless, fact less drivel.
Are deaf his avoidance of all the question by quoting long dead philosophers. He did not once produce any tenderable evidence.
That Rat is poison and lucrative infected
1) People who believe a supernatural force created the universe take 1 leap of faith
2) people who believe this supernatural force has a will takes 2 leaps of faith
3) people who believe this supernatural force's will is to be worshiped take 3 leaps of faith
4)people who believe this supernatural force will punish its own creation take 4 leaps of Faith
5)people who believe this supernatural force is Jesus take 5 leaps of faith
Conclusion: Christians should join the Olympics for long jump
A Good Man by that logic,
1) people who believe that the universe was caused by a natural force take 1 leap of faith.
2) people who believe this natural force doesn't have a will take 2 leaps of faith.
3) people who believe this cause doesn't want to be worshiped take 3 leaps of faith.
4) people who believe this cause won't punish it's creations take 4 leaps of faith.
5) people who believe this cause isn't jesus take 5 leaps of faith.
jon keene No, because rejecting negative claims is not a leap of faith. It's remaining objective.
For example, are you making a "leap of faith" when you drink your coffee in the morning? That coffee could have been poisoned by somebody. Or you could choke on it somehow.
You don't take leaps of faith when you reject things you have no reason to believe
A Good Man none of my points were based on the rejections of claims or beliefs. They were all "positive" beliefs or claims in there own right. For example, the first point was that "people who believe that the universe was caused by a natural force take 1 leap of faith." This isn't simply the rejection of the belief that it was caused by supernatural means, and the belief in the neutral claim that it was caused by natural means. As i see it, before any evidence, arguments, or whatever or whoever else is included, the two explanations are on an even playing field.
Once all support, or objections and questions for each claim are taken into account, the supernatural claim is in fact shown to be stronger. But with anything short of certainty, how i see it is that one who believes the universe was in fact caused by natural means (or supernatural means) are exercising faith. I don't see how it could take absolutely no faith at all to believe that the universe was made by natural means, especially with no evidence or arguments in support of that claim.
jon keene I agree, believing the universe created itself is an equal leap of faith to believing the supernatural. However, to stop at that is only 1 leap of faith. If you start believing the supernatural force has a will you've taken a second leap because it's just as possible that it doesn't have a will. "will" is a man-made concept.
Then to go on say that "will" is to be worshiped is another huge leap of faith because "worshiping" is huge man-made concept that has all kinds of moral degradations associated with it. It's quite simplistic to believe a super natural force desires worship.
Then to go on to say this supernatural force will send it's own creation to hell is another huge leap of faith because "punishment" is flawed man-made concept. Especially eternal punishment.
Then to go on to say this supernatural force is responsible for a deeply flawed and questionable book is an almost uncomprehensible leap of faith. One would expect that the only book in the world to be completely flawless in every way would come from a being as such.
If I simply stop at saying a supernatural force created the universe but i don't know why I am no longer taking any leaps. This is the same with natural force
A Good Man
Who said Universe created itself ?
It always existed in form of Energy.
That Energy simply changed it's form in Matter.
Matter=Energy.
As an atheist, I give this one to Craig for not punching Krauss in the face.
I can't imagine how embarrassed Krauss must feel on the playback. Can you imagine....he needed to use an edited video to define what he meant by "nothing"! Laughable.
+Mary Beth Miranda He didn't need to use an edited video, he could have explained it clearly live on stage. He even stated the reason why he used the video, which was because it was short and concise, and freed up time for him to talk about other things.
+Marcus Turner
But you do understand that nothing literally means nothing, right? Not something.
Krauss talked about gravity and other *seemingly* none material things.
But what Krauss fails to understand is that everithing in the universe began to exist, the NATURAL world.
Gravity and his other things therefore cannot make a universe from nothing because they began to exist, so they are not nothing.
And infinite regression is impossible. Conclusion, God is the only rational answer, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and personal being.
+Dêstynatiõn Y
Where did he say gravity is nothing? The graviton is an elementary particle. Your statement "nothing literally means nothing" is rather empty. But the nothing you seem to expound is not nothing at all, it contains a god.
Adrian Owens I never said that nothing was everything there was. Either there was nothing, or there IS God.
Krauss said that gravity could help the process of something coming from nothing.
But that doesn't make sens, gravity is natural, not beyond the universe because it began to exist. His entire argument is about particles popping in and out of existence without any apparent cause. He is like someone trapped in a computer program trying to explain the origin of existence, but he cannot se outside the program...yet he uses the laws of the program to determine what is outside of the program. It is impossible.
The phenomenon of particles popping into and out of existence doesn't have a cause because it doesn't NEED a cause. That is the only answer that is currently available because scientists have not learned enough about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is the most difficult science; no one completely understands it or even how it works. It just *does*.
You are just like that person trapped inside the computer program. No one knows what's outside the universe; just because desert tribes more than 2000 years ago (that didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun.) wrote books about the creation and God (which isn't the first. The creation part is practically plagiarized, as well as the "moral" teachings.).
I'd rather gain knowledge on reality rather than myth and superstition. I'd rather not read a book written by desert tribes 2000 years ago; I'd rather learn from the professional scientists that are actually searching for the truth.
Scientists can not, and don't, say that they know for certain about anything. We try to explain phenomena as best we can with the *empirical* evidence that we have. It doesn't matter if that evidence is logical or not (meaning we don't understand how it works, like Quantum Mechanics).
The conclusion that "either there was nothing, or there is god" is just stupid. Just because something came from nothing does *not* mean a supernatural being created everything. What did then? We don't know. That's the point.
The same logic can be applied to God. What created God? What created the creator of God? So on and so forth.
Don't even try to state that God can't be created because he's infinite or some shit. How do you know God is infinite? You don't. Theists think that just because they have faith that anything they apply to God is correct. And that's just it: *faith*, or the belief *without evidence*. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims, while Lawrence has used only that: evidence (which is empirical evidence, btw.)
About the gravity thing. Lawrence explains that by applying the laws of Quantum Mechanics to gravity, gravity will fluctuate in and out of existence just like particles.
I think you didn't understand anything Lawrence explained at all. Your closed-mindedness and brainwashed state of religion has clouded your logical reasoning. Or maybe it's just because you're ignorant, which religion strives so hard to keep. Why do you think God kicked out Adam and Eve? Because they gained knowledge from the tree. Religion wants to keep people ignorant so it can completely control them. This can be seen everywhere.
Just because there is something rather than nothing does not automatically point to a supernatural being. That's just lazy. Nothing needs a purpose to exist. It can find a purpose, but just because it exists, does not mean it has a purpose. That, to me, seems like religious people are unable to stay sane knowing that they have no purpose and that they are not unique. That's weak and sad.
Doesn't bother me at all. I don't care if I'm not unique; I gain my enlightenments and purpose from understanding the universe, not from believing that some supernatural being placed me here on this Earth in a comfortable family while millions of children suffer before they die.
Last note: I'm pretty sure that's a tokyo ghoul image. Nice.
Worst. Moderator. Ever.
you couldn't do better.
Where do they find them, ugh... (the moderator from the first talk was terrible too).
Craig Reeves It was as if there were no moderator.
Lawrence likes it to be a discussion.
Justin White he also likes the sound of his own voice
I agree with theists on one thing. God is immaterial. He is IMAGINARY.
And that's what "metaphysical" means.
You just made a negative claim. Prove it. And don't give me the FMS shit. We're talking about the First Cause concept here which you atheists can't even touch. But let's be honest. Your gripe is only with religion and theism. If I proposed deism you'd shut up. Unanswered prayers but a cosmos ruled by laws point to deism not to atheism.
Atheists Exposed
"If I proposed deism you'd shut up. Unanswered prayers but a cosmos ruled by laws point to deism not to atheism."
****************
Deism (a disinterested, impersonal deity who created the universe and gave humanity reason but does not intervene... and thus, unanswered prayers) is even more boring than theism. Now you posit an omnipotent and omnitient deity who doesn't give a damn.
A; "I think I'll create a universe."
B; "Okay, and then what are you going to do with it?"
A; "Nothing at all... especially no answering of prayer."
B; "What's the point?"
A; "Just to mess with their heads."
Seriously? Deism has been around since ancient Greece and likely earlier. Like theism, it's man-made superstitious nonsense. It's "Theism Lite".
What laws rule the cosmos? Natural physical, chemical and biochemical laws rule the cosmos.
Atheists Exposed
What the fuck a possible first physical cause (like a particle or a singularity) has to do with this "first cause" also being perfect, supernatural, intelligent law giver, all loving, moral, metaphysical and having a son named jesus and so on?
Aguijon1982
Wonderfully articulated! I won't assume your grasp of the spiritual is any more firm, than of the English language, and will explain that my first statement was sarcasm, and that God does exist. It's terribly unfortunate that God hasn't called you, but at least you have RUclips to vent to... It's my experience that "atheists" radiate an anger that is exeplified by your use of profanity. I pray the Almighty and Holy God will open your ears and your heart.
Our beautiful shared "i" Am will say, remembering ye once born Lawrence, to crawling, to walking Lawrence, and thy shared Feet resting upon the very tip of time in front of HIM Lawrence!
A disappointing debate. Krauss' was unable to talk at the limited capacity of his debaters, and they appeared unable to grasp basic linear reasoning. Craig's intent seems to be directing argument down rabbit holes.of rhetoric and untested rationalisations, then skipping away or obfuscating any direct challenge. It was ultimately the same old 'god of the gaps' bs. Plus the moderator was disappointing.
in that case we all look forward to seeing you present a much more intellectual debate the next time your on stage.
anders larsen i respect both intellects, the only low point in this debate was when krauss dismissed the nobel prize as nothing. absurd and offensive to the greats who hold this award for thier contribution to mankind in my opinion, absolute farce.
OhhYeeah Merchant Craig
who is who, it's not up to you...
OhhYeeah Merchant
There is a lot of politicking involved in the Nobel prizes, which is probably why he said that. It doesn't mean that some winners weren't great scientists but the prize doesn't mean as much as people attribute to it and there have definitely been some who got it over others who deserved it more or who stole credit from others.
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
When you rule out a creator, your then open to believe any self serving delusion , like believing something can come from nothing!
+Stephen Ireland So you allow God to come from nothing without any questioning, and without any evidence or explanation of how, because an ancient person who performed no research or experimentation in science said so?
Stephen Ireland Then are you claiming to be a Deist, or do you subscribe to absolute belief in a particular religion as perfect? I too have read through the Bible a good deal, and spent 20 years as a dedicated Christian, even fooling myself into hearing voices in my head from prayer;like I was told was supposed to happen. But I came to the conclusion this is what the minds of ancient men were. I would expect much more amazing wisdom if it was "from God", but then again, if there is a God, I would not attempt to define His character nor put Him inside a box the size of the human imagination.
If you are arguing the Bible, or particularly the gospels, they disagree on several important points including apparently half of Jesus' most loyal followers being unaware that God was the father of Jesus, and not Joseph. There is evidence, this was added latter on and the conflicting genealogy of Jesus might point to that. Of course there is the Jewish argument, or rather simply pointing out that Jesus did not fulfill the multiple messianic prophecies in the Old Testament at all. A main point of that being, he was not from the line of David. Some argue, and I tend to agree, that the whole story of Herod(no evidence for this strange consensus) creating a situation that forces people to return to their home towns, is likely false. This seems strange, but if added later, would help to protect the story against the realization he did not originate from the town the messiah was supposed to come from. At any point, "God's chosen people" the Jews, point this out frequently as the reason..how else to put it..the story was made larger than life, or he was an outright liar.
I don't see any particular reason to trust in a religion, as all of them are believed in the same way, and all are "infallible" in the minds of those biased against evidence(hundreds of small to large contradictions in the Bible, unexpected if written from God). They all use the mechanism, and make it a key principle: believing without evidence. Blessed are those who believe without seeing. I do not know of anything else in existence, where it would ever be good to believe without evidence; or at least if it was necessary, that in itself would certainly not be celebrated. And it would rightly be called a theory, and not proclaimed to be wisdom from a divine being..because some human apostle with no other record of existing, said so.
The level of scrutiny applied to Socrates, even for his existence, is drastically higher than religious characters who through mob rule have been immune from historical questioning. God could show His power for 5 seconds, and I don't think there is a soul on Earth stupid enough to not bow down at that point. Strange how little effort it would take to simply give evidence that would prevent billions of humans burning for eternity; and yet no supernatural event in history has ever been proven to be true except by hearsay.
Lee so you were a Christian 20 years. Did you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? If yes, then you have all the evidence you need. If you didn't receive the Holy Spirit I would ask what gospel message you accepted. Most professing Christians are not born again believers.
Stephen Ireland I was born into it, baptized, Catholic schools, "converted" to Baptist(I felt the near divinity of Mary was not Biblical). I wont go overboard here, but I lived it, loved it, believed it absolutely. I accepted all 4 Gospels but I may misunderstand your question there. I do understand the nature of God described in the Bible.
It is a very long story, but all I will say is I went through a couple years when skepticism and belief did extreme battle in my mind. The only answers to prayers I ever received, where my "mind's voice", and it totally destroyed me. I developed a literal death wish that eventually overcame my fear of hell, did some stupid shit, then deployed overseas and learned a lot about reality.
I absolutely believe religion has come past it's use, and humans should not accept absolute authoritarianism unless there is absolute proof. If there is a God who wrote a book, I believe He would have written a much better one(read the Quran, same BS). I do not believe a God of the power I imagine, if existing, would care to interact with our lives;any more than I would care to speak with or develop a personal relationship with a bacterium.
That is, of course, my subtle little opinion on the matter haha. I respect your opinion, but I doubt either one of us can convince the other.
Lee if you had received the gift of the Holy Spirit, the same spirit that has been poured out since the day of pentecost, you would have known the nature of god which is described in the bible. "It's no longer I that lives but Christ that live in me"
46:08 There WAS a time when that sperm and that egg DID NOT EXIST therefore Krauss DID 'come from nothing'.
Lawrence "I say 'The point is' when I've been refuted" Krauss
That's funny. He does say that a lot. But the point is, he does not assert anything that has been, or currently can be, refuted. He's a skeptic and a scientist. Bravo, I say.
Why do Atheist always have to take low blows & act childlike to get people to laugh? it's a shame
Thats the best they can do...
+1 for pig-shit stupid
Ridiculing a belief, a socially acceptable one (The belief in a God for example in this case) which is no way deviant, is in itself retarded. For example you may believe that aliens exist, let's say that I don't or vice versa. It would be retarded of me to ridicule the opposite belief because it's not the same as mine.
And how does one justify saying that the theist position is uneducated (when there are a lot of theist that are well educated, presumably a lot more than you are, or that aside, saying someone is uneducated based on a belief is not a valid conclusion). Or deliberately dishonest, deceitful? Deceitful of what? Pointing out lies? Do you even read what you're typing? One could argue that it is stupid for a non-theist, but saying anything of the above is plain ignorant
As seen by you, I don't think they consciously, constantly lie to people for some reason. They believe what they say therefore it is not retarded, ridiculous, absurd and delusional to them
Bad rhethorics on my part yes, I could've worded that better, it is late so I would be better off sleeping instead of watching youtube vids but lemme put it this way
"The earth is flat" is a delusion you can easily disprove, "God does/does not exist" is a delusion you can't prove nor disprove.
I could turn that argument upside down and call you deluded for not believing the obvious and point out that you are hiding behind your ignorance, or do what you do, bury my manners, call names, and pretend that just because I am an atheist and I don't believe in a God I am somehow more educated, smarter and more sciency than the rest. It doesn't work that way no matter how many pejorative adjectives you use
You can always tell when Lawrence Krauss realizes he's getting his ass handed to him... he gets more emotional, more angry, and more nutty, and he grabs his water bottle! --- funny to watch!
@Jonathan Gullett What makes you think he was judging the truth of the argument based on that? Maybe he was just making fun of Krauss acting this way
No Krauss was getting annoyed at trying to explain things to Craig he knew were right and Craig wont understand.Its like handing someone a can of coke telling hem what it is and the other person continuously saying no I don't agree your wrong etc Very frustrating!
Interesting conversation.
My question to Dr. Craig: Why is there a god rather than no god?
Totally meaningless question from a dead head.
sgentlemanjack112 Which illustrates the meaninglessness of asking why there's something rather than nothing (in order to insert god as the answer).
punnet2
there is a God as opposed to no God for the same reason that the rationals are dense in R and not not dense in R. the existence of God follows from a logical argument
Uwot Mate The Existence of God follows from a _deductive_ argument, and that is the problem. Deduction is simply not a good tool to figure out truth because it will never conclude something you don't already know or expect. If deduction worked, then we wouldn't need science. Craig's arguments, if you're not literate in formal logic, sound neat and cool, but they hold no water. Every one of his arguments employ circular reasoning in one form or another. It's almost disgusting.
punnet2 In order to understand this we have to define the word god just like Krauss redefined the word nothing. He redefined the word nothing by saying nothing is quantum mechanics and relativity. This was redefined as nothing and therefore we are to accept it. The problem with this is that he has to prove that absolutely everything has come from the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity and that he cannot do, and he made a book called "a universe of nothing".
BTW, did you know that Krauss did not believe in the Higgs Boson, or in other words he was Ahiggst.
He also introduced string theory and a little bit of nonsensical statements that I don't know if they were jokes in the debate. Can you define or redefine the word god?
LEIBNITZ for god's sake! 400 years ago! Craig's really got his finger on the pulse of modern thought!
Whats your point??
The scientific method was fully established in the 16th century. *500 Years ago* . and its catagorized as *modern science*
Should we get rid of that too??? Is it too outdated?
Lawrence keeps throwing ad-hominem attacks at Bill. The last refuge for the mentally challenged. He says that quantum states popping in and out of existence. Just because one does not know where the quantum state went does not mean it went into nothingness. Lawrence is selling us his atheist beliefs.
yep.... Through my classes on philosophy I have learned that there is a good argument for a God to exist and a good argument for a God to not exist. I expected some good intellectual arguments to attempt to sway me one way or the other. Bill just kept being an ass and the debate never could get off the ground. Science can never show direct empirical prof that God does not exist nor can science find any direct empirical prof that God does exist.
right sorry ooops
"Lawrence is selling us his atheist beliefs."
That is bullshit. Atheism has nothing to do with science. He is talking about science, not atheism.
Simon P Krauss has been talking against God and against religion here and in other debates. He is using his atheistic argument to confuse his audiences
so as to be able to sell more books and make more money. He is basically what you might call F.O.S. You want to watch good science watch Kaku, he doesn't do debates.
Yes, Kaku is a pantheist. Pantheism is but a nickname for universe. Tracie Harris says we already have a name for it, we don't really need another one.
Michio Kaku doesn't believe in any religion, Jesus doesn't mean very much to him.
Krauss asks the best question of the debate.
Krauss: "You always say these things but how the hell do you know it?"
Craig: Pauses while he thinks of something to say "Well... that's a different debate."
If Krauss would just be quiet and let Craig continue to make wild ass assertions for which he has no justification the debate would be over. But instead he let's Craig off the hook and keeps talking, and Craig is all too happy to change the subject.
I agree, he was way too lenient on this debate.
Wow. While I expect that Krauss is more right about more things than Craig, Krauss REEAAALLLLY needs to learn to have a conversation. His interruptions are incredibly annoying.
*****
47
I understand why he does though. wlc is SO dishonest and it infuriates me. He is hurting the world with his woo woo. I literally want to punch him.
I wonder if Mr Krauss can predict or produce in his model a singularity that produces a Universe with the fine tune tuning for carbon based life including the proper quantity of dark matter.
Thomas Cavanaugh asked: “I wonder if Mr Krauss can predict or produce in his model a singularity that produces a Universe with the fine tune tuning for carbon based life including the proper quantity of dark matter.”
To properly address all the mistakes and misunderstandings in your short post, I would have to write a post that was several 1000 lines long. I am typing one handed due to rotator cuff surgery so I have to keep my posts short. I hope you can extrapolate the rest without me explicitly correcting you fully
Singularities do not exist. They are artificial entities that merely express that our physics is too primitive to model exactly.
You are confusing cause and effect. Carbon based life is the effect of the geometry of the space-time we observe. The geometry existed yielding the physics. The physics then yielded the biology
The most important thing you MUST understand if you want to be involved in a discussion on this topic is that the universe is not fine-tuned for carbon based life. In reality, carbon based life was fine tuned to the geometry that exists in this space-time. Carbon based life is the waste product of the geometry that exists for the short period between 4 billion years ago to the present on the ultra-thin surface of planet Earth, nothing more.
Life exists everywhere. Life would exist no matter what the natural constants are. But that life would evolve to survive in the conditions that are present. It is no more difficult than that.
MISTERWHITE111 You missed my main point. It was about if his model could predict the desired outcome. And life is based on carbon because of its flexibility and capacity to support complex structures .Silicon would the second choice , but the Si-Si bonds are much weaker than the carbon ones to begin with
Thomas Cavanagh: I understood your point completely. You do not understand what science actually is. That much is obvious. All models use initial conditions and boundary conditions to validate their adequacy. A model is refined to determine if these conditions better represent observations. And you fail to understand anything I posted. There are an infinite number of CLASSES of life. Carbon and silicon based life represent two of them. The carbon based class is simply fine tuned to meet the extreme limitations of an onion skin thick surface of a small planet in a frozen portion of a hostile space-time. every possible portion of every possible space-time can harbor life. But that life is fine tuned to the geometry that exists there.
MISTERWHITE111 The problem with humankind is they think God is a monster. He is 11 years old and quite a troll.He made us to explore his creation and he is cool that we make science but the condition for that is that everything we discover we say thank you God for your creation, for your science we are discovering. That's while no one understands what original sin is. Science, good and evil. Do not ignore my work or try play God. He doesn't like it.Humans are trying to create life with abiogenesis, playing God is not allowed. And now they are lying about the singularity. to the world. Why don't say God made us all and we are exploring His creation. Thank you God. People like me who trust him never had problems with the errors of the plot
we didn't mind at all. We are driven by trust and faith alone. He is timeless , watches everything from a pandimensional realm. Scientist should stop lying to the World and call God create us we are exploring His creation and doing science. And I know some more potholes and I don't mind. Trust is the key. Trust God and you will be fine.Spread the word my friend
Thomas Cavanaugh BLUNDERED: “The problem with humankind is they think God is a monster”
No, the problem with humankind is that they are too lazy to spend their lives LEARNING useful things choosing instead to make up fairy tales, fabulations, urban legends, reality television, mythology, superstition.
Thomas Cavanaugh BLUNDERED” He made us to explore his creation and he is cool that we make science …..”
But that the humans with the lowest intelligence and the least ability to learn choose to become occultists because they are too useless to use their brains.
Thomas Cavanaugh BLUNDERED: “Humans are trying to create life with abiogenesis,”
Humans are trying to figure out the natural world and have become very very very successful at showing in the lab how life emerged from simple elements.
BTW, stay in school. Eventually you will learn how to communicate in English
Krauss is a prime example as to why scientists should only be allowed in labs and the occasional classrooms
why? he shows exactly how WLC is intellectually dishonest. its a good thing.
What a great moderator she is!
It's funny that Craig uses Ockham's razor to opt for a monotheistic god, yet he chooses the most "complex" god - the Christian one, that consists of three entities, rather than Jewish or Islamic gods, which are purer (simpler) in that respect. Obviously he's justifying his choice of god after he's chosen him for psychological reasons, because if he used pure logic, Trinity seems an awful choice in view of all the arguments based on simplicity and necessity. I was frustrated no one - not even Krauss - touched on that.
I'll touch on it. The claim that God is love, and a relational being who loves us personally. One can only give what one has, God shares a fellowship of love as part of His intrinsic Triune being. Distinct, yet united as one. The Triune God is the only that fits all the facts ( not just questions presented in this debate )
Also the Jewish God is the Trinitarian God as well (I don't know enough about Islam) But if you look a the Jewish names for God they're plural, and in the very beginning when making man God says "Let US make man in OUR image".
for the people who pin everything on quantum fysics and the one particle that can be at two places at once... should not have much difficulty the subject of a God, creator of quantum fysics, to be three at once...
i'm just saying ...
is it not wiser to see your own faults ? instead focusing on a theological debate... focus on the -> how the fuck did we come in existing? its a Godly piece of work isn't it? :P
His choice of Christianity is based on the logic that it is reasonable to believe that Jesus's claim to be God was true based on evidence such as the reliable accounts of his resurrection. There are other reasons he would point to as more likely than the alternatives. Simplicity equates to elegance in some cases but should not be confused for logic. On a side note, if you find the concept of the trinity unusual why should one expect that a God so inconceivably powerful as to create the universe should also be simple and operate in ways that humans really understand?
Lukas Jansen I think that has actually been observed. I will have to look that up
This fucking mediator............ I really think having so many questions in a debate is useless since the time would be very minimal and no room for an exchange of argument because there's too many questions to address. We can't see who's backed in a corner in the end, we can't see the end of the argument because the mediator will stop them and move on to the next question.
Craig, on two occasions, gave examples of how a word can have more than one specific meaning. Both "science' and "infinity", yet he wasted 10 minutes arguing that "nothing" can only have one meaning.
He's intelectually dishonest.
So - because two words have multiple meanings, all words have multiple meanings? Pure genius. Also, why don't you tell us what the other meaning of "nothing" is?
***** Oh man, that was devastating. First, a non-sequitur and then attack a straw man. What did I say about God?
***** The evidence for God is our souls. There is no evidence that suggests our brains cause our intentions as opposed to embodying them.
It's intentionality or epiphenomenalism.
+NyxSilver8
In the 21st century now, you still don't look for scientific explanations for things but mystical ones, just to comply with your ridiculous, irrational religious beliefs, pathetic !
***** When a philosophical naturalist experiences the supernatural they set aside their experience for natural explanations to come later. That's unreal.
Atheists who don't set aside their supernatural experiences are now theists.
...In response to RagingBlast2Fan since I cannot reply to his comment -
Craig's logical arguments are no different than making a well thought out logical case as to explain why Spock has green blood instead of red. Or, how about Whitley Strieber's 'Communion' in which he explains his case for extraterrestrial visitation in an entire book? Both are authors of science fiction. Both pretend not to be fictional authors in these particular cases. And, both appear to have had personal motivations and biases to create such a view of the world. In my view, Craig does 'just say it' with no evidence and no real world reason why his arguments carry any weight. Craig's assertions CAN be simply dismissed.
You're completely clueless as to how these things work, aren't you? Can you come up with a logical argument for Spock's existence and for him having green blood? No, you can't. You would be laughed off stage if you tried to argue for that because there is no basis for it.
However, there is basis for God and Craig argues for it. If you want to argue with Craig then address his arguments. Don't just dismiss them offhand because they seem ridiculous to you, or because you beg the question by a-priori deciding that God is fictional like Spock, or else you're just showing yourself to be willfully ignorant.
*****
Not clueless at all. You need God and Spock as evidence of their own existence. The concept of God and the concept of Spock are concepts. The fiction of God and the fiction of Spock are fictions. Your beliefs about God and your beliefs about Spock are beliefs. Your logical argument for the existence of God and your logical argument for the existence of Spock are logical arguments.
On those grounds, I can dismiss the existence of both.
*****
"You need God and Spock as evidence of their own existence" what is that even supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that something's existence needs to be confirmed before you're even allowed to argue for its existence? Sorry, but I don't speak nonsense. If you have an argment in which it logically follows that something exists, then you can't dismiss the argument by saying "oh yeah, well this thing needs to be evidence of itself", whatever the heck that is even supposed to mean.
Fyi, there are a number of really god ontological arguments out there right now. Robert Maydole's ontological argument that he employed in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is so good that even Quentin Smith has admitted that he is at a loss for words at how to refute it. So, if you want an argument in which the very concept of God implies its own existence, i would suggest learning mathematical logic and then reading Maydole's article.
***** Right, so the arguments for the existence of God and Spock are arguments. Thanks. I think it is pretty obvious that if the existence of God and Spock were facts then you would need to bother arguing. You can't understand that?
*****
Wow. Just, wow. What do you consider a fact? When a proposition is outside of space and time do you expect us to find specific tangible evidence of that thing and call it a fact? Your point is completely irrelevant.
Also, if the structure of an argument is valid and its premises are sound, then the conclusion must be true. Whether we have tangible evidence of something or not is irrelevant, so long as we have a valid structure and sound premises. Can you think of an argument with those features that is WRONG?
Oh, and the fact that two things need to be argued over does not put those two things in the same ballpark. I argue against the law of identity, but that's not going to ever be in the same ballpark as arguing for a theory of ethics. Likewise, arguing for Spock is never going to be taken as seriously as arguing for God. God has major explanatory power and scope, given that he exists. That's what makes him worth arguing about. Spock has no explanatory power or scope, other than explaining that Spock exists.
Professing themselves wise they became fools.... oooh ,how true , how true !
I cant even imagine believing in an invisible entity that has magical powers. Even at age 13 I remember looking around at church and being stunned that grown ups were praying to something invisible and talking about magic that happened thousands of years ago like they were there.
God is as invisible as germs are to your pathetic human eyes.
That's an assumption.
Most physicists now believe that there are many more dimensions than our 3 space and one time dimension. And that invisible particles of incredible 'magic' powers create matter, and that your own material body is 99.999% empty space between particles, and on and on. Also, that the universe either is self-existing and eternal, or that it was created by some incredible power outside time and space. In fact, to believe in science you are back to believing almost all the same things that religious people believe, minus a belief in rational thought. Because if you are merely the product of cause and effect you have no way to have free thoughts. Everything you think and feel has been predetermined by your dan, your programming, even the physical history of the molecules making up your body and everyone else's. You merely react in the only way you can to each mental or physical input. If you are an atheist, you must believe THAT as well, because there is no rational option. But, the fact that every thought is predetermined means that rational thought is also impossible, so you lose your personhood, your free will, and your ability to thing rationally if you are an atheist. It's pretty bleak and most try to deny clear fact and reason.
Craig is speaking the language of philosophy, and Krauss is speaking the language of Physics... no wonder they seem to have so much trouble communicating. A debate between two men from different disciplines is bound to be difficult.
*****
Krauss's discipline has value. Craig's does not. But it deosnt' matter anyway since Craig isn't even current on any philosophy of the last 100 years.
Lane Craig does know a lot about physics though. I haven't seen this debate in a long time and right now I've just gone on this page to gone on the comments section, but I have seen this debate and have been exposed to a sufficient amount of material from William Lane Craig to know that he does know a lot about physics and in at least some debates, uses that knowledge frequently.
jon keene
In this particular debate, he demonstrates less knowledge of physics than my 8 year old granddaughter.
So the question is to you; if he KNOWS physics, how come he doesn't DISPLAY that knowledge here?
More importantly; if Craig actually understands LOGIC, how is it that each and every argument he makes is COMICALLY illogical.
Did he jut decide to PRETEND the rebuttals to his illogic that have been around for centuries dont' exist?
MISTERWHITE111 Well as I said, I haven't seen this debate in a long time, and don't remember how much, if any knowledge of physics he displays in this debate, but he does make it known elsewhere at least that he does know a lot about physics (at least in my opinion). It's also my opinion that he is logical and his arguments are completely valid and convincing. I'm not going to claim that to be surprising that I hold to those beliefs, since I am a Christian and he is a renowned Christian apologist. I also don't find it surprising that you hold your beliefs, since you're on the opposite end of the spectrum, holding to atheistic beliefs.
jon keene
MISTERWHITE111 is actually not an atheist as he proclaims. If you read his other posts, especially towards me, you will see he believes in Chi Energy, and he claims to practice Taoist and Buddhist exercises every morning for a couple of hours, and that he also practices Qigong...a system of many styles of chi cultivation exercises designed to improve health and longevity...Qigong involves mystical concepts such as Qi (chi) cultivation, visualization meditation, posture practice as well as stretching and certain forms. However, he claims that Qigong is completely scientific...and if you send him a link of some Qigong masters, he will just lambast those masters and say they don't know what they are talking about.
Also, he claims to studied under 13 grandmasters, he claims to have learned Tai Chi, Xing I Chuan, Yi Chuan, White Crane, etc...Now IF he ever tries to elucidate you about how scientific and nonspiritual QiGong is...show him this:
“Qigong practices can be classified as martial, medical, or spiritual. All styles have three things in common: they all involve a posture, (whether moving or stationary), breathing techniques, and mental focus. Some practices increase the Qi; others circulate it, use it to cleanse and heal the body, store it, or emit Qi to help heal others. Practices vary from the soft internal styles such as Tai Chi; to the external, vigorous styles such as Kung Fu.”
--NATIONAL QIGONG ASSOCIATION
I am not a religious person, but I do not agree with MISTERWHITE111's ill manners. He is an insecure little boy who needs to boast and use insults to feel good about himself. He simply cannot act normal.
MY GOSH! Lawrence Krauss is so irritatingly obnoxious! Aside from that he made excellent points which I can agree with, and also to a certain extent expanded my knowledge. None the less he still hasn't convinced me as to why I should drop my belief in the Divine presence behind everything. Explaining why something happens does not take away from the credibility of God.
Devine presence behind everything ? Everything ? Are you kidding ? Please make some sense.
Steve Lee
No I am not kidding, I am very serious. Am I less intelligent because I believe that God, who exists In an immaterial state of being, exists? Atheists seem to have one thing in common: crass disregard for people of faith, being loud and uncivilized, and of course, extremely liberal, to the extent that it is sickening
+iloveamerica007
Whether there's an unknown dimension where exists an elusive, immaterial entity which has a personality, is highly doubtful.
I, as a rational, thinking person wouldn't "believe" in something this absurd. It sounds more like metaphysical woolgathering.
Steve Lee
I am quite happy that you've come to that decision, no doubt based on all the current and best research practices and modalities. Yay for you!
My belief in God, how ever, isn't as fancy. I didn't study philosophy (except for college level ethics) nor natural science (although I am a social scientist). My faith is directly related to my own personal experience with the Divine constant. I know, personally, that God exists.
Intellectually and (and absolutely empirically) academics may never be able to quantify evidence for the Holy Spirit because she exists on a level transcendent to the human plane. Its like tying a wing contraption to both your arms and flapping them wildly whilst you jump off the highest building on earth. It just won't work.
What's so crazy about believing in God anyway? Some scientific theories are absolutely crazy but yet we accept them.Some have been disproven also. I fear that science is going the same road of ultimate absolutivity that intellectual society and common citizens ridicule the Church for in its medieval time frame.
+iloveamerica007
To say there exists anything "transcendent" is again highly speculative, since "transcendent" means it's beyond our knowing, even our imagination. Then how do you know anything transcendent exists at all ?
I do not make my "decision" not to believe in a deity. I don't believe in any deities as I don't believe there's a human being who stands 20 ft. walking on Earth now. Am I being rational or irrational in this case ?
How to be a Moderator 101: DO NOT STOP THE CONVERSATION, That is why they are sitting there.