Craig is wrong. The validity of the strongest version of the POE (which is probably John Mackie's) wouldn't put a dent in Christianity. The "greatest possible being" conception of God is a Scholastic innovation. The property of omnibenevolence, or infinite goodness, or whatever, is not a term you will find mentioned in any of the early ecumenical councils. Christians are not required to accept that God is "omnibenevolent" to be in His good graces. So it's a premise Christians can deny.
@mindauggas Go to Wikipedia's "Probability" page, there are many references and book titles and people listed. I tried to help you out, maybe I did a horrid job. :/
"infinity cannot be translated into the real world." Yes, it can. Krauss just explained 10 seconds earlier. Physics uses infinities *all the time*. Krauss explained the example of residue calculus and Complex Analysis.
I appreciate Lawrence Krauss. He is a great physicist and a phenomenal educator. I had the chance to take a course with him when he was at Case and it was mind-expanding. I understand the joke 2+2 = 5. It really is just a joke, but it is one that only someone who has studied relativity and QM would find entertaining.
The debate was quite good, but I did feel as if the two really were not addressing each other at all. They were just making their own points and ignoring each other.
Moral epistemology - moral values should be based on the following principles: what we call good is a negation of our selfish animal instincts (ego) and/or be something that you would want everyone to say or do anytime.God's commandments meet the criteria, any other thing we call good should too. The absence of good is what we call evil, the same way the absence of light is darkness and God is the source of all good.
@dejesusluisx Absence of good is not evil, you are committing a faulty analogy fallacy. Good and evil are subjective terms. That is to say, they can be applied differently in different situations. For instance, petting my cat is good, not petting my cat is not evil. Light is a physical entity per se. Darkness is not a physical entity, it is a description of state of a physical system. You are mixing laymen terms with scientific terms and committing a second fallacy of equivocation.
@MewCat100 "Good and evil are subjective terms" The point I'm making is they aren't subjective. There are two types of actions: consequential and inconsequential. Inconsequential action are of no concern, they are not to be qualified as good or evil (like petting your cat). Consequential actions can be qualified and we call good those that are contrary to our selfish animal instincts and/or we want everyone to say or do anytime. I'm afraid you're getting too technical and missing the point.
@dejesusluisx I see your point about consequential/inconsequential. Is it possible that there are consequential actions that can be interpreted though? For instance, there is a lot riding on the president's decision to start a war. Let's take Iraq for instance. Some would say it was good and others would say evil. Some would say it is evil to remain idol while children in Africa starve. Others would say people who do just that (most Americans) are good. What is your take on these issues?
@DrKnowsMore To start a war is always evil, because what is you are a person living in the country to be attacked? What if your child were to die from an attack? When you start a war you follow your selfish animal instincts. ""to remain idol while children in Africa starve"" is evil if you can do something about it and decide, thinking selfishly, that you won't. Capitalism is evil, and so are most governments. If you send all troops to Africa and wage war on hunger, everybody wins.
@dejesusluisx I'm not sure that everyone would agree with you that starting a war is always evil. In fact, there are times in the bible that god commands people to start wars. If god is the source of all morality, then there must be times that it is "good" to start wars if god has condoned it.
I do, however, agree that ending hunger in Africa and everywhere else for that matter is a noble goal.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""there are times in the bible that god commands people to start wars"" I'm aware of it, but in the Bible, there is always a fine line between what God commands and what people of those times attributed to God commands but where their own plans instead. Remember the Bible was written by men, not by God. Starting wars are evil, always have and always will, now having said that, there are necessary evils in the world, like defeating Germany in ww2.
@dejesusluisx So if the bible is so unreliable, how can you trust that anything it has to say is true? Also, I have another question for you regarding the good/evil hypothesis. You may have heard it, but let's see where it goes. I'll put it in another reply as it is long.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""how can you trust that anything it has to say is true?"" The Bible isn't a book you take for a light reading and that's it. You need to study it, find references, interpretations for the passages and spiritual guidance. Precisely the reason for 30,000+ Christian sects is people interpreting the Bible at will; history has proven Luther wrong.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""You have no reliable evidence that god exists"" I do, and the evidence is personal. If you see a flying saucer landing in your backyard, would you say you have reliable evidence for their existence? I'm sure you would believe too, regardless what others might think about it. The point is salvation is an individual business, so is irrelevant a collective evidence. I have a video named "atheism vs self programming brain" where I show one of the arguments that motivated me to look.
@dejesusluisx I understand your point about personal experience. Here would be my two thoughts on that topic:
1. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That is why we use the scientific method. Our senses can be easily tricked (optical illusions, auditory illusions, slight of hand, etc.). There is no reason to believe that any eye-witness is correct without corroborating evidence.
2. Why would your personal experience of god being something to convince anyone else of his existence?
@DrKnowsMore1 ""we use the scientific method"" of course but the scientific method can't be used to measure abstract things or to examine conscious being without their consent. God is a conscious entity and therefore can't be studied the same way you study a tangible object. You need God's consent, and God won't consent that because faith would be gone. We don't perceive by our senses, we perceive by our brain and since it's our soul or consciousness what will be saved, our senses are irrelevant
@dejesusluisx I'm afraid that this entire reply simply does not make sense. It is possible to apply the scientific method to many things, including the study of conscious beings. It may not be ethical to study conscious beings without their consent, but it is still possible to do so.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""Why would your personal experience of god being something to convince anyone else of his existence"" Is not my goal to convince anyone, my goal is for people to look further. I can't convince anyone, no one can, people have to convince themselves as free agents. I was a non-believer scientist and my life was transformed, is my guest that the arguments that helped me might be good enough for others to initiate their quest.
@dejesusluisx By the way, I do take the Bible for a light read. I do that will all works of fiction. How can claim there is any objective moral standard when you cannot produce any such standard from the only work you have that speaks of your god?
@DrKnowsMore1 "when you cannot produce any such standard" The commandments are pretty inclusive and if those weren't enough, Christ summarized them in loving God with all your heart and your proximus as He loved us (who gave his life for us). This mean you have to be one with God; how?, by living the message, and the message is Christ (the verb became flesh). Loving your proximus means all becoming one body. Christ came because men couldn't understand the message and unfortunately we still don't
@dejesusluisx The commandments are incredibly inconclusive when it comes to morality. They make no mention of rape and neither does Jesus. They say nothing about molesting children and neither does Jesus. They don't say anything about domestic violence and neither does Jesus (though other parts of the bible seem to encourage it). They say nothing of the evils of slavery, though the bible seems to condone it.
@DrKnowsMore1 "The commandments are incredibly inconclusive" They are is you consider them as a literal checklist. But if you understand the real meaning of just one commandment: love God above all things, and you put it in practice you don't have to have a checklist. When you really and truly love someone, you become one with that person, you know how this person think and feels, you know what pleases them and respects it. If you are one in God consciousness, you won't harm anyone, guaranteed.
@dejesusluisx Once again, you are interpreting the bible, which means it is not reliable. If it is open to interpretation, then it is not a reliable source of information.
@DrKnowsMore1 "you are interpreting the bible" I don't base my faith in how reliable is it, I base my faith in the inspiration I have received from the Holy Spirit. Even if the Bible didn't exists that won't prove God didn't. To be honest, the Bible's depiction of God in an anthropomorphic being is actually more a liability than a blessing for the 21st century and beyond. The problem is that God could not be understood in any other form by ancient goat herders; therefore we need to interpret it.
@dejesusluisx Fair enough. It seems that your notion of god is really a Christian paradigm so much as your own thoughts. Tell me, if you were asked to present evidence that god exists, what would you offer? Also, do you believe that those who do not believe in god are going to hell? Do you believe in hell for that matter?
@DrKnowsMore1 "were asked to present evidence that god exists" the only evidence is our own existence, watch the video "atheism vs self programming brain" so you can understand where I'm coming from. There can't be any other evidence, because if there were, faith would be gone. "are going to hell" hell is just the absence of God as darkness is the absence of light, the only problem is that you are conscious. I don't believe in hell as often described, and I have personal evidence for my beliefs
@dejesusluisx Seems we are going in circles here. Your argument is, in essence, that you believe because you believe correct? Further, if there were more evidence you would stop believing because faith would no longer be required?
So I get to spend eternity alive and just without god? That sounds good to me since I've been doing it with few problems for several decades now.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""That sounds good to me since I've been doing it with few problems for several decades now."" alone? in the darkness? without feeling your body or having any senses? remembering all your sins, problems and mistakes? with an overwhelming anxiety?. Good luck.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""open to interpretation"" God is depicted in the Bible as light, and light is energy, propagating through waves; God is a spirit and a spirit is an immaterial being, energy. Physicists agree that anything originating the BB must have been some sort of energy or a collision or waves. Genesis place the spirit of God moving through the waters, and water represent waves. A Menorah was ordered by God for the temple, and a Menorah depicts a half wave. Metaphors needs interpretation.
@dejesusluisx How do you know all of these attributes of god? How do you know god is a spirit? What makes you think that any such being exists? What are you referring to regarding the big bang?
@DrKnowsMore1 ""How do you know all of these attributes of god"" personal revelation, I know it sounds absurd, but God gave me a sort of "papal seal" for me (and the right people) to understand this concept was real. The papal seal was a theory which physicist often describe as a theory of everything, it explains the duality of particles, electromagnetism and gravity in a simple concept that a 10 yr old can understand. I just haven't found the right people to work on it though. continue....
@dejesusluisx You understand that what you are expressing (personal revelation and all) is indistinguishable from delusion. With no external evidence, it is not possible to determine if what you are experiencing is real or delusion. Schizophrenics, I have worked with many in my career, would say exactly what you are saying. We medicate those individuals and they get better.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""is indistinguishable from delusion"" you might be right, but yet again you might be wrong; the fact is that you will never know, at least not in this life.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""How do you know god is a spirit"" That one is simpler to answer than what you might think, is right in genesis 1:2 (which by the way if correctly interpreted match pre and post BB events). ""What are you referring to regarding the big bang"" There is a BB documentary named: "what happened before the big bang" which actually was striking to see the newer notion physicists have now that there was a cause for the BB and there's active research in that direction. (continue)
@dejesusluisx Okay, you can't use the bible as a reference because you said it had to be interpreted. Sorry, but pointing to that is a cop-out when you have already said you don't rely on the bible for your knowledge of god.
@DrKnowsMore1 "you can't use the bible as a reference because you said it had to be interpreted." of course, and that's exactly what I'm doing, interpreting the metaphors.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""regarding the big bang"" continue... I know, as I said, through God's revelation, that this origin will finally turn out to be related to waves and energy. The details are for me to discuss with specialists in the field, so for now, I'll leave it there.
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who are working on the track, but are unaware of the impending disaster Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track. Unfortunately, there is a single person working on that track. Is it good to flip the switch or evil? Is it good to leave the switch as it is or evil?
@DrKnowsMore1 In your example, you action will kill one person, but the inaction would kill five. That's a no win situation, is like declaring war when you were attacked, a necessary evil, but is evil nonetheless. Since both situations are evil, any intelligent person, either believer or not, would flip the switch, which is the lesser of the two. I would probably flip it and confess after. The only good alternative in that scenario would be to warn the five people and not to flip it.
@dejesusluisx So you have actively killed a man. That is evil. You have tried to skirt the question, but I'm simply not going to allow it. Your inaction doesn't kill anyone, only your action does. Your action prevents 5 deaths and causes 1. Your inaction does not cause any deaths and does not prevent any. Are you saying that you would choose to act to kill an innocent man?
@DrKnowsMore1 ""Your inaction doesn't kill anyone"" Not acting when needed is a sin, as I said, both are evils. Not acting to save lives when you can is a sin of omission, is evil, you can even stretch that to turning your back to someone you hate when they're drowning, or if you are a doctor, and you see a skin condition that could be cancer in someone you despise and you say nothing. When confronted with two evils, you choose the lesser evil. As I said, I would confess later.
@dejesusluisx Of course it is a no win situation. The point, however, is how can you determine that one action is better than another? How is it that you have determined that it is morally superior to kill one man actively? What is the objective moral standard of good and evil that tells you it is "right" to have done what you did?
You have clearly made a choice, based on moral grounds. So, why is that choice more moral (i.e. more good) than the other? What criteria do you use to judge?
@DrKnowsMore1 "What criteria do you use to judge?" The same objective criteria I mentioned earlier, that something we could call good (in this case, less evil) is something we would want anyone to say or do anytime and/or acting contrary so selfish instinct. As far as I'm concerned, I would like for anyone, under the exact same conditions, to do exactly as I did. That's pretty objective the way I see it. In this case, you selfish animal instinct will suggest you to do nothing, and you're acting.
@dejesusluisx So your criteria for judgement is that you act as you would want others to act? There is nothing objective about that. You still have failed to provide any support for your contention that there is some objective standard by which to judge good and evil. You have only offered some vague notion that taking action to kill one person, if it saves five others, is somehow more moral than remaining uninvolved. What if that one person were a child, how would you decide then?
@dejesusluisx You have, as of yet, not provided any criteria by which to make these judgements. You claim, instead that it is objective for others to do as you do. That is 100% subjective, and you cannot argue otherwise. An objective standard cannot come from within an individual.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""An objective standard cannot come from within an individual."" That's why one of the criteria is going contrary to selfish animal instincts. God's plan and desire is for us to become 100% human, to negate our selfish instincts. Since the dawn of civilization we have been widening our circle of love to include more and more people. Living the message (Christ) is the next step, but atheism negates this next logical step, so atheism is a step back in our fulfillment as 100% humans.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""your criteria for what "objective" means are quite wrong"" could you please tell me where is wrong, so I can learn? I thought an objective test would require some behavior anyone from any cultural background could follow it without any bias. If you know what your selfish instincts are, and you know what the contrary actions would be and you would want anyone anytime to do that, then you would know you're doing good; doesn't matter who you are or where you live. Where that fails?
@dejesusluisx Objective means that it has to have definition and meaning independent of the human mind, at least to the extent that we can prove such a thing. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are objective because they don't require humans to be present in order to function. Morality, on the other hand, has no basis outside of human perception. Without humans, morality does not exist.
It seems that it is an over-simplification to state that working contrary to selfish instinct is...CONT
@DrKnowsMore1 "meaning independent of the human mind"" philosophically, nothing has a meaning independent of the human mind, but that is another story. I know what you say, but you need to consider we are dealing with morality and morality in inherently human, as you also had implied. You just want it to be equal and unbiased for all humans, regardless their background. So, the solution of the problem, to be called objective, need to just serve that basic premise and not be absolutely objective
@dejesusluisx CONT...always good. Are you saying that no good can come from selfish behavior ever? It seems that you would have to say that in order for your paradigm to withstand scrutiny. However, I can point to specific instances where following one's selfish motives has the most beneficial impact on others. Thus, your theory really does not hold.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""specific instances where following one's selfish motives has the most beneficial impact on others"" I would love to hear your examples, since they will serve to test the premise, just keep in mind that the most beneficial impact on others might not necessarily mean something good by definition. For example: no one can call good the death of Bin Ladden although it has the most beneficial impact on others.
@DrKnowsMore1 ""Are you saying that no good can come from selfish behavior ever?"" from our selfish animal behavior, no. That is why I propose that as an objective rule.
@DrKnowsMore1 Continue...""An objective standard cannot come from within an individual."" Going contrary to selfish animal instincts is objective since we know what the instincts of a rational animal are: selfishness, greed, self preservation, materialism, narcissism, me, me, me. That is why fasting is such a powerful weapon and always fostered in the Bible as a way to please God and grow spiritually it goes against one of our strongest selfish instincts.
@dejesusluisx Finally, I would take issue with your argument that God is the source of all good. Assuming you believe in the Christian god (you are on a debate between a Christian apologist and a physicist after all) then you must admit that god himself is not always good. The only alternative to that is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. After all, murdering is wrong according the 10 commandments and yet god has murdered millions. Envy is also wrong, but god is jealous. Paradox!
@MewCat100 "you must admit that god himself is not always good" God is always good, He can't be anything else, is not in His nature. God haven't murdered anyone, people do. The Bible references of God commanding to murder are just excuses made by people promoting their own agendas throughout Biblical history. If God's anthropomorphic attributes described in the Bible are what prevents you from believing, then I welcome you to look for the truth. Goat herders living 4,000 yr ago didn't understand
the thing (to my mind)is that if you believe in myths and stories coming to us from centuries ago you are a naive and under developed human being no matter how many phds you've got.not believing in scientific facts and what they have shown us so far just seems incredibly ignorant.
@rouzbehazshab There are no scientific facts disputing God's existence. There are very good logical arguments to disprove the notion of an anthropomorphic God; but today only fundamentalists have that notion. Dr. Craig actually use scientific facts to support his views. You are only seen what you want to see. Open your eyes.
@rouzbehazshab You're a bit of an idiot though arent you, in making that comment? Francis S Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, is a devout Christian- is he incredibly ignorant? John Polkinghorne, one of the discoverers of the quark, a very prominent physicist, is he ignorant of science? Simon Conway Morris, the palaeontologist? Paul Davies? Kenneth R Miller?
@rouzbehazshab Francis S Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, is a devout Christian- is he incredibly ignorant? John Polkinghorne, one of the discoverers of the quark, a very prominent physicist, is he ignorant of science? Simon Conway Morris, the palaeontologist? Paul Davies? Kenneth R Miller?
@BlueTusk1 micheal jackson was a sensational singer. he performed for huge crowds... does that make him a very social person? a very normal person? If they truely believe in christianity, it's likely they just follow the religion because it's 'expected' of them. I know how people are looked at in some communities for not attending the 'proper faith', especially in the USA.
@BlueTusk1 kenneth miller literally wrote a book about how true evolution is. convince the other billion christians to be his kind of christian and ill be a happy guy
I'm sorry to say that Lawrence Krauss did not perform well in this debate. From my point of view it was a case of - ppp = ppp
Piss poor planning equals piss poor performance and Craig's point about "There is no 'physics' of non-being" was not adequately addressed. That's not to say that his argument "I got something from 'truly' nothing means God did it" has any real merit but I would have expected a physics Guru to do a lot better.
to break down the argument submitted between 1:30 - 1:50 . I'd like to share a quote by one of the worlds brightest minds.. "God did not create evil, evil is just the absence of God in a person" ~ Albert Einstein
to break down the argument submitted between 1:30 - 1:50 . I'd like to share a quote by one of the worlds brightest minds.. "God did not create evil, evil is just the absence of God in a person" ~ Albert Einstein
to break down the argument submitted between 1:30 - 1:50 . I'd like to share a quote by one of the worlds brightest minds.. "God did not create evil, evil is just the absence of God in a person" ~ Albert Einstein
@smokylover14 And I'd like to share a quotation from truthorfiction.co m: "There is no evidence that this exchange [with Albert Einstein] ever took place. This eRumor has circulated without Einstein's name and someone added it to a version that started circulating in the summer of 2004."
Krauss: The resurrection “is a historical claim that, Dr. Craig says, some historians seem to accept.”
Craig never said such a thing. Krauss needs to start paying attention.
Amazing how in his post-debate article he accused Craig of twisting his words when he (Krauss) did it constantly (specially in his post-debate article!).
BTW, You can read Krauss' post-debate article and Craig’s response to it on reasonablefaith . org
And what would make me an independent thinker? Oh, I know! Thinking more like YOU, right?
Hilarious.
Actually, let me tell you what an independent thinker is:
An independent thinker is one who reaches his own conclusions and respects those who disagree; someone who embraces his own convictions regardless of what others believe. And one that doesn’t care at all about what arrogant people like you, who try to bully those who disagree with their opinions, may think or say.
If you are referring to Krauss’ idea that Craig said the resurrection “is a historical claim that, Dr. Craig says, some historians seem to accept,” well, he did not say that, period. It is a fabrication, or a lack of paying attention on Krauss’ part.
Regarding other debates, also not true—I have seen them all. But if you can provide exact debate and time, I’ll be happy to retract my statement. I do hope you can back up or retract yours as well.
First, I have seen the Ehrman debate and Craig never says the resurrection is a historical claim that secular historians accept.
Second, you come out of nowhere, tell me Craig has made that claim, not one, but “SEVERAL” times; then refuse to provide proof for your statement. And you call ME lazy? Please.
The fact is you cannot back up your statement, can you?
But the fact is that repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. The burden of proof is on you. So provide it, or have the decency to retract your statement.
And just in case you missed it the first time, the link you provided does NOT contain your imagined quotes (of course, if I’m mistaken, you can just point me to the actual “several” quotes).
@IndepndntThinker Since you're too lazy or dumb (both?) to do it yourself, here. WLC quotes from the debate we are discussing. "For now, I want to sketch briefly how a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection might look... This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. As we’ll see, it’s agreed to by most scholars" Your username is quite funny.
So you’re bringing the insults! A sure sign of a winning argument.
No, Craig NEVER says that the conclusion, that Jesus resurrected, is “uncontroversial.” He says the OPPOSITE: that such conclusion “IS controversial” as the best explanation for the historical evidence (3:45 min.)
The evidence ITSELF (the burial, the empty tomb, etc.) is what is “uncontroversial” (and that’s what your out-of-context quote referred to—from about 3:20 min) NOT the conclusion that Jesus rose up.
@IndepndntThinker Actually, in this quote WLC states that the empty tomb and reappearance of a resurrected jesus is historically factual. "And, as I said from N. T. Wright, he would say that the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus are
just as certain as the death of Caesar Augustus in AD 14 or even the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
And even if you think that’s an exaggeration, I think they are far better attested than many other
events in ancient history which are commonly accepted as historical."
“…in this quote WLC states that the empty tomb and reappearance of a resurrected jesus is historically factual.”
*SIGHT* You really need to start paying attention. Craig says the REPORTS of the postmortem appearances are believed to be genuine by most historians. In other words, historians tend to agree that Paul, for example, actually SAID/BELIEVED he had seen Jesus. And they also tend to agree that the tomb was found empty.
@IndepndntThinker My argument from the beginning was that WLC did indeed claim that the resurrection was agreed to be fact by many historians. This has been proven in clear English by quoting WLC himself. If you feel the need to continue I suggest you take the argument to your local pastor as I do not enjoy bickering with delusional twats.
Of course you don’t enjoy having your statements proven wrong.
I’m still waiting for you to show me the “SEVERAL” occasions Craig says the resurrection is a historical claim that secular historians accept. He quoted M.T. Wright, right. So what? Did he say all/most/“MANY” historians (as you just suggested) agree with him?
Of course NOT.
He did the OPPOSITE of what you erroneously claimed by going out of his way to say his conclusion IS “controversial” among historians.
@IndepndntThinker Take a step back, check out Qualiasoups channel, educate yourself and stop preaching shit no one cares about. Even though you're wrong, assuming WLC is only stating that it's true some people said in the past they 'saw jesus' post-mortem it doesn't mean anything relevant to rational thinking or historical evidence. This is common among theists, using strawman arguments to trick people like you. There are a lot of reports of alien abductions, even recently -> aliens exist.
You started this chat with a condescending attitude. You accused WLC of claiming in “SEVERAL” debates that “many” historians accept the resurrection as historical fact. I asked you to back up your claim. Your evidence? A quote that said the OPPOSITE of what you claimed. Yet you turn around and insult MY intelligence?? And you think it is me who is diluted!
I can understand why you now want to change the subject, but sorry, I’ve wasted enough time with you
@IndepndntThinker Krauss said that he said it's a historical claim that many historians accept. WLC says that there are 4 facts that many historians accept. These four steps include the death of jesus and after his appearance afterwards. This is called being resurrected. You can't say 4 steps of him dying/reviving do not = resurrection. I'm sorry I've proven you wrong, get over it .
Krauss does seem to believe there is evidence for a Creator (Listen from around 3:55 min): “I actually think Deism (the possible existence of a divine intelligence) is not an implausible postulate… it could be—the Universe is an amazing place. The possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible… and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe.”
Krauss is a liar. He atacks philosophy (even though science is based on philosophy) he denies classical logic,yet uses logic to make his argument!! He denies paeno arithmetic by telling lies.When he says "large values of 2" he means 2.5 which isnt a large value of 2! Krauss calls a quantum vaccuum "nothing" when it isnt...it contains energy! He says different life might be able to survive with different constants which is nonsense we wouldnt even have galazies or planets with untuned constants!
Krauss was referring to the type of logic craig was using...and he followed it up with..if we still thought of the world in the logic as craig has used..we would still think that a big heavy ball falls faster than smaller marble....but alas....we tested the theory and craig's old logic was proven wrong....
To me the only big difference between a believer and a non-believer is this: "Here is something we dont understand" and the believer jumps to the conclusion that there must be a God. And the non-believer says: Why? How do you make that leap? You are trying to explain something unknown with something even more unknown, and you have no evidence for it. You might THINK you have evidence, but you dont, because if you had, we would not have this discussion,
Its hard not to feel sorry for Krauss! Craig attacks him like a fucking piranha, just ruthlesssly tearing his arguments to shreds. Poor old Krauss should stick to formulating equations for gravity and stay away from philosophical questions. He clearly isnt equipped for this sort of thing.
@relarerfhjk philosophy is not equal to truth. I might make up a philosophy that the universe is actually a proton in an atom in another universe and then i use some physics to back up my philosophy, but that does not mean its true or more likely than anything else? So saying that philosophy is better than real physical evidence is just retarded. The most reasonable thing you can do is to stick with what we can know, and investigate that which we dont yet understand and not jump to conclusions.
@deffan84 You have contradicted yourself and already lost the argument with that first post. Science cant exist without philosophical truths, because the laws of logic which science uses, and the criteria for evidence all come from philosophy, science is permeated with philosophical assumptions without which it wouldnt make sense. You cant deny the existence of classical logic (as Krauss did in this debate) while using logic to do so! Its a contradiction
@relarerfhjk I said philosophy is not equal to truth by itself. You use philosophy+science to figure something out. You cant just use philosophy alone - this was my point. Especially when you make a "leap of faith" as drCraig does (all the time) when he meets a "?" in our current understanding then immediately states that there must be a God, but he does not stop there! He keeps on saying its the Christian God, and that Jesus was resurrected, i mean... what kind of leap is that, really?
@deffan84 But I agree with that, and so does Craig. The arguments Craig uses for the probability of the existence of God utilise a combination of science (to provide the facts) and classical logic (from philosophy) to work out the best explanation of those scientific facts. The fact of fine-tuning cannot be explained by chance or by necessity, so it is most probably explained by design. Craig explains Jesus's ressurection is the best explanation of the 4 historical facts about his death
Faith and delusion share the exact same definition. WLC is either delusional or a con man. Either way none of his arguments are compelling, logical, or honest.Great job Dr. Krause at presenting arguments that not only made sense but were honest!!
" So, once you get rid of your bias against the possibility of miracles..." Brilliant. We should calculate miracles in all our possibility equations explaining why things happen. Why not?
Can anyone tell me where I can learn more about how the energy of empty space limits the number of finite calculations we can perform? That sounds really interesting.
I love xtians that go around claiming all this "evidence" for god and that atheists have more faith. The bible even proclaims that you have believe by faith not evidence. I don't understand why xtians even try to prove god. If I believed in a deity that said you have to come to him through faith, then I would take the deity at their word, and not worry about evidence. Thank god I'm not stupid enough to do something like that :p
Krauss had some good points when it came to probability not necessarily equaling good evidence, and the lack of evidence for people being able to rise from the dead, but overall his points have been very shallow and he clearly doesn't understand philosophy. As for Craig, I don't fully agree with any of his arguments, for reasons that were not mentioned in this debate, but he defended them extremely well and he was extremely polite. In the end if I had to declare a winner, it would be WLC.
@reasonintheright Your calling my argument a strawman is a strawman. If you actually read what I wrote I still conceded the joke, but it's stupid because he denied peano arithmatic and logic. Thereby contradicting himself. Why are so many atheists scared to see the truth: watch?v=so0TOp1GMQE
Thanks, did not know that was a real term, thought he just made it up like most of everything Craig says. I thought it was more BS like how he refers to Atheism as If was giving positive answers for claims, like when he says "Atheism says ...".
@Darkpassenger2 Craig makes up most of what he says? Perhaps the problem is with you. Do you have a problem with listening? Maybe I don't agree with everything Craig says, yet he quotes other people endlessly in establishing his arguments. "...thought he just made it up like most of everything Craig says." You're wrong on both points.
@drcraigvideos You really didn't post that did you? Smug and Weak. Listen to what Krauss really said and then do a subsequent search on the internet. Then you will have the context upon which he made the statement...
@wvbishop Well, jumping jelly beans. He said that 2+2=5 for "extremely high values" of 2. Yessireebob, 2.5 is an EXTERMELY HIGH VALUE OF 2. Sure, doesn't beat 2.9 though, does it? Seriously, if he was a good scientist, he'd say 2.5+2.5=5. Is that so hard to do?
@faerincolfer Hint: It still doesn't equal 5. Also, 2.5 is not exactly what you call an "extermely high value of 2." It's simple say "2+2=4." He's suppose to be a scientist, right?
It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
@reasonintheright He actually said that "exteremely high values" of 2 (please, 2.5 is not exactly an exteremely high value, ya know), then 2+2=5. Look, he's a scientist. Would it kill him to say 2+2=4? And as a scientist he should be technical. Thus maybe it'd be best if his shirt said 2.5+2.5=5. But if you'd like to wear a shirt branded with 2+2=5, then be my guest. I'm not going to deny the axioms of peano arithmatic.
@reasonintheright But hes still using classical logical.... to which he says that classical logic isn't enough..... which is a contradiction. .... pointless
@MrVistaCruiser Pay attention to the question of the debate buddy. It's called "is there evidence for God's existence" and not "does God exist?". The point is whether or not God’s existence is more probable given the existence of contingent beings, the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, etc. than it would have been without these facts. It's as simple as that.
Another one-sided debate. It seems like Dr. Craig is finally starting to show some irritation at the ignorance of the adherents to scientism he regularly debates.
Craig makes a great point here: evidence ranges over a broader area than merely science. When atheists demand that theists PROVE (and by that they mean scientifically demonstrate) that God exists, theists don't do it. They can't do it. Atheists think this means that God must not exist. But that's a mistake because of course evidence is not equivalent to scientific evidence. The category is much broader and atheists would do well to recognize that.
@esizzle2005 we do recognize it's not scientific evidence, the other forms of evidence are based on rules of logic which also have been inconclusive. The difference is that most atheists don't say "there is no god" they say "there probably is no god" because becoming atheist requires that you try to destroy most cognitive dissonance and recognizing the one thing that seems to help the most "science" they then notice that science will never claim a 100% assertion so you just have to apply that.
@chesterdjester then perhaps your audio player (sound card) has a fault and has got stuck. Because he not repeating himself on my laptop. He is being very responsive and dealing with the actual questions asked of him etc.
@allan3141 Oh, the "I don't know so I'm better than both sides argument." Well, I have taken philosophy class which is basically schools of logic and throughout the entire thing Dr. Craig repeats his arguments asserting they are true and talks about parts of science he isn't versed in. Then Krauss explains these parts of science (him being a astrophysicist and all) and explains why no one in science claims we haven't figured it out yet but we never imply something supernatural.
@allan3141 "Well I really can't see that you are being fair. I kind of consider myself in some respects seated between both camps, unbias" No one is unbias. And the 2+2=5 is a math joke about how all real world math has some form of rounding that we can't escape. Just like 2.5 +2.5 = 5 the 2.5 is an extremely large value of two. Mostly this is done really far into the decimal or we just use fractions. So if you were confused by that, you were confused by satire. I actually have that shirt he had
@allan3141 Everyone always has some form of bias towards one side or the other, the only things you can defend this with is knowing the rules of logic. And yes, he was joking. Dr. Craig said something about 2+2=5 earlier in the debate and then mentioned infinity, Krauss knowing a joke related to that mentioned it and then went on to talk about how physicists use infinity to do math. He only talked about it for like 2 minutes in the second video.
@chesterdjester are you being objective here? Krauss said, "2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2. Now that is extremely important because in fact classical logic which says, '2 + 2 = 4 it can’t equal 5' is wrong. Mathematicians and physicist know that for extremely large values of numbers you have to change the rules." He is not joking. Rounding does not fit the context, rounding does not change the rules of classical logic nor does it render the universe "really weird."
@allan3141 I did, it's not so much about 2+2=5 he's trying to explain the properties of infinity and why classical logic doesn't work. I don't expect some one on the internet to understand math using infinity but he has a Ph.D on astrophysics. When some one with those kinds of credentials says something about Math (which what you do to become a physicist) you can guarantee he's an authority on the subject and just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean some one else doesn't.
@allan3141 I'm just in college but surely you've seen 2+2=5 before this debate. Appeal to an authority is not a shifting ground, I do know Krauss's credentials and Craigs. I can't be certain of yours but I'll trust you on it, I don't understand why you don't get the joke though.
1:41
Craig is wrong. The validity of the strongest version of the POE (which is probably John Mackie's) wouldn't put a dent in Christianity. The "greatest possible being" conception of God is a Scholastic innovation. The property of omnibenevolence, or infinite goodness, or whatever, is not a term you will find mentioned in any of the early ecumenical councils. Christians are not required to accept that God is "omnibenevolent" to be in His good graces. So it's a premise Christians can deny.
scottvska 4 weeks ago
Where can I find something to read about "the maximum number of possible calculations"?
mindauggas 4 months ago
@mindauggas Go to Wikipedia's "Probability" page, there are many references and book titles and people listed. I tried to help you out, maybe I did a horrid job. :/
UrbanFury12 4 months ago
I think Lawrence Krauss looks uncomfortable. You can tell he is not a professional debater.
scoobyxl 6 months ago
"infinity cannot be translated into the real world." Yes, it can. Krauss just explained 10 seconds earlier. Physics uses infinities *all the time*. Krauss explained the example of residue calculus and Complex Analysis.
chuckinator0 7 months ago
I appreciate Lawrence Krauss. He is a great physicist and a phenomenal educator. I had the chance to take a course with him when he was at Case and it was mind-expanding. I understand the joke 2+2 = 5. It really is just a joke, but it is one that only someone who has studied relativity and QM would find entertaining.
The debate was quite good, but I did feel as if the two really were not addressing each other at all. They were just making their own points and ignoring each other.
DrKnowsMore 7 months ago
Moral epistemology - moral values should be based on the following principles: what we call good is a negation of our selfish animal instincts (ego) and/or be something that you would want everyone to say or do anytime.God's commandments meet the criteria, any other thing we call good should too. The absence of good is what we call evil, the same way the absence of light is darkness and God is the source of all good.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Absence of good is not evil, you are committing a faulty analogy fallacy. Good and evil are subjective terms. That is to say, they can be applied differently in different situations. For instance, petting my cat is good, not petting my cat is not evil. Light is a physical entity per se. Darkness is not a physical entity, it is a description of state of a physical system. You are mixing laymen terms with scientific terms and committing a second fallacy of equivocation.
MewCat100 7 months ago
@MewCat100 "Good and evil are subjective terms" The point I'm making is they aren't subjective. There are two types of actions: consequential and inconsequential. Inconsequential action are of no concern, they are not to be qualified as good or evil (like petting your cat). Consequential actions can be qualified and we call good those that are contrary to our selfish animal instincts and/or we want everyone to say or do anytime. I'm afraid you're getting too technical and missing the point.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx I see your point about consequential/inconsequential. Is it possible that there are consequential actions that can be interpreted though? For instance, there is a lot riding on the president's decision to start a war. Let's take Iraq for instance. Some would say it was good and others would say evil. Some would say it is evil to remain idol while children in Africa starve. Others would say people who do just that (most Americans) are good. What is your take on these issues?
DrKnowsMore 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore To start a war is always evil, because what is you are a person living in the country to be attacked? What if your child were to die from an attack? When you start a war you follow your selfish animal instincts. ""to remain idol while children in Africa starve"" is evil if you can do something about it and decide, thinking selfishly, that you won't. Capitalism is evil, and so are most governments. If you send all troops to Africa and wage war on hunger, everybody wins.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx I'm not sure that everyone would agree with you that starting a war is always evil. In fact, there are times in the bible that god commands people to start wars. If god is the source of all morality, then there must be times that it is "good" to start wars if god has condoned it.
I do, however, agree that ending hunger in Africa and everywhere else for that matter is a noble goal.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""there are times in the bible that god commands people to start wars"" I'm aware of it, but in the Bible, there is always a fine line between what God commands and what people of those times attributed to God commands but where their own plans instead. Remember the Bible was written by men, not by God. Starting wars are evil, always have and always will, now having said that, there are necessary evils in the world, like defeating Germany in ww2.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx So if the bible is so unreliable, how can you trust that anything it has to say is true? Also, I have another question for you regarding the good/evil hypothesis. You may have heard it, but let's see where it goes. I'll put it in another reply as it is long.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""how can you trust that anything it has to say is true?"" The Bible isn't a book you take for a light reading and that's it. You need to study it, find references, interpretations for the passages and spiritual guidance. Precisely the reason for 30,000+ Christian sects is people interpreting the Bible at will; history has proven Luther wrong.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx That is my point. You have no reliable evidence that god exists, so why do you believe?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""You have no reliable evidence that god exists"" I do, and the evidence is personal. If you see a flying saucer landing in your backyard, would you say you have reliable evidence for their existence? I'm sure you would believe too, regardless what others might think about it. The point is salvation is an individual business, so is irrelevant a collective evidence. I have a video named "atheism vs self programming brain" where I show one of the arguments that motivated me to look.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx I understand your point about personal experience. Here would be my two thoughts on that topic:
1. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That is why we use the scientific method. Our senses can be easily tricked (optical illusions, auditory illusions, slight of hand, etc.). There is no reason to believe that any eye-witness is correct without corroborating evidence.
2. Why would your personal experience of god being something to convince anyone else of his existence?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""we use the scientific method"" of course but the scientific method can't be used to measure abstract things or to examine conscious being without their consent. God is a conscious entity and therefore can't be studied the same way you study a tangible object. You need God's consent, and God won't consent that because faith would be gone. We don't perceive by our senses, we perceive by our brain and since it's our soul or consciousness what will be saved, our senses are irrelevant
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx I'm afraid that this entire reply simply does not make sense. It is possible to apply the scientific method to many things, including the study of conscious beings. It may not be ethical to study conscious beings without their consent, but it is still possible to do so.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""Why would your personal experience of god being something to convince anyone else of his existence"" Is not my goal to convince anyone, my goal is for people to look further. I can't convince anyone, no one can, people have to convince themselves as free agents. I was a non-believer scientist and my life was transformed, is my guest that the arguments that helped me might be good enough for others to initiate their quest.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Okay, fine. You are reasonable about this.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx By the way, I do take the Bible for a light read. I do that will all works of fiction. How can claim there is any objective moral standard when you cannot produce any such standard from the only work you have that speaks of your god?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "when you cannot produce any such standard" The commandments are pretty inclusive and if those weren't enough, Christ summarized them in loving God with all your heart and your proximus as He loved us (who gave his life for us). This mean you have to be one with God; how?, by living the message, and the message is Christ (the verb became flesh). Loving your proximus means all becoming one body. Christ came because men couldn't understand the message and unfortunately we still don't
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx The commandments are incredibly inconclusive when it comes to morality. They make no mention of rape and neither does Jesus. They say nothing about molesting children and neither does Jesus. They don't say anything about domestic violence and neither does Jesus (though other parts of the bible seem to encourage it). They say nothing of the evils of slavery, though the bible seems to condone it.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "The commandments are incredibly inconclusive" They are is you consider them as a literal checklist. But if you understand the real meaning of just one commandment: love God above all things, and you put it in practice you don't have to have a checklist. When you really and truly love someone, you become one with that person, you know how this person think and feels, you know what pleases them and respects it. If you are one in God consciousness, you won't harm anyone, guaranteed.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Once again, you are interpreting the bible, which means it is not reliable. If it is open to interpretation, then it is not a reliable source of information.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "you are interpreting the bible" I don't base my faith in how reliable is it, I base my faith in the inspiration I have received from the Holy Spirit. Even if the Bible didn't exists that won't prove God didn't. To be honest, the Bible's depiction of God in an anthropomorphic being is actually more a liability than a blessing for the 21st century and beyond. The problem is that God could not be understood in any other form by ancient goat herders; therefore we need to interpret it.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Fair enough. It seems that your notion of god is really a Christian paradigm so much as your own thoughts. Tell me, if you were asked to present evidence that god exists, what would you offer? Also, do you believe that those who do not believe in god are going to hell? Do you believe in hell for that matter?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "were asked to present evidence that god exists" the only evidence is our own existence, watch the video "atheism vs self programming brain" so you can understand where I'm coming from. There can't be any other evidence, because if there were, faith would be gone. "are going to hell" hell is just the absence of God as darkness is the absence of light, the only problem is that you are conscious. I don't believe in hell as often described, and I have personal evidence for my beliefs
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Seems we are going in circles here. Your argument is, in essence, that you believe because you believe correct? Further, if there were more evidence you would stop believing because faith would no longer be required?
So I get to spend eternity alive and just without god? That sounds good to me since I've been doing it with few problems for several decades now.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""That sounds good to me since I've been doing it with few problems for several decades now."" alone? in the darkness? without feeling your body or having any senses? remembering all your sins, problems and mistakes? with an overwhelming anxiety?. Good luck.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""open to interpretation"" God is depicted in the Bible as light, and light is energy, propagating through waves; God is a spirit and a spirit is an immaterial being, energy. Physicists agree that anything originating the BB must have been some sort of energy or a collision or waves. Genesis place the spirit of God moving through the waters, and water represent waves. A Menorah was ordered by God for the temple, and a Menorah depicts a half wave. Metaphors needs interpretation.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx How do you know all of these attributes of god? How do you know god is a spirit? What makes you think that any such being exists? What are you referring to regarding the big bang?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""How do you know all of these attributes of god"" personal revelation, I know it sounds absurd, but God gave me a sort of "papal seal" for me (and the right people) to understand this concept was real. The papal seal was a theory which physicist often describe as a theory of everything, it explains the duality of particles, electromagnetism and gravity in a simple concept that a 10 yr old can understand. I just haven't found the right people to work on it though. continue....
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx You understand that what you are expressing (personal revelation and all) is indistinguishable from delusion. With no external evidence, it is not possible to determine if what you are experiencing is real or delusion. Schizophrenics, I have worked with many in my career, would say exactly what you are saying. We medicate those individuals and they get better.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""is indistinguishable from delusion"" you might be right, but yet again you might be wrong; the fact is that you will never know, at least not in this life.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""How do you know god is a spirit"" That one is simpler to answer than what you might think, is right in genesis 1:2 (which by the way if correctly interpreted match pre and post BB events). ""What are you referring to regarding the big bang"" There is a BB documentary named: "what happened before the big bang" which actually was striking to see the newer notion physicists have now that there was a cause for the BB and there's active research in that direction. (continue)
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Okay, you can't use the bible as a reference because you said it had to be interpreted. Sorry, but pointing to that is a cop-out when you have already said you don't rely on the bible for your knowledge of god.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "you can't use the bible as a reference because you said it had to be interpreted." of course, and that's exactly what I'm doing, interpreting the metaphors.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""regarding the big bang"" continue... I know, as I said, through God's revelation, that this origin will finally turn out to be related to waves and energy. The details are for me to discuss with specialists in the field, so for now, I'll leave it there.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Okay, you are crazy, you just proved it. You're not discussing shit with specialists in the field you loon. We're done.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who are working on the track, but are unaware of the impending disaster Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track. Unfortunately, there is a single person working on that track. Is it good to flip the switch or evil? Is it good to leave the switch as it is or evil?
What do you think?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 In your example, you action will kill one person, but the inaction would kill five. That's a no win situation, is like declaring war when you were attacked, a necessary evil, but is evil nonetheless. Since both situations are evil, any intelligent person, either believer or not, would flip the switch, which is the lesser of the two. I would probably flip it and confess after. The only good alternative in that scenario would be to warn the five people and not to flip it.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx So you have actively killed a man. That is evil. You have tried to skirt the question, but I'm simply not going to allow it. Your inaction doesn't kill anyone, only your action does. Your action prevents 5 deaths and causes 1. Your inaction does not cause any deaths and does not prevent any. Are you saying that you would choose to act to kill an innocent man?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""Your inaction doesn't kill anyone"" Not acting when needed is a sin, as I said, both are evils. Not acting to save lives when you can is a sin of omission, is evil, you can even stretch that to turning your back to someone you hate when they're drowning, or if you are a doctor, and you see a skin condition that could be cancer in someone you despise and you say nothing. When confronted with two evils, you choose the lesser evil. As I said, I would confess later.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Of course it is a no win situation. The point, however, is how can you determine that one action is better than another? How is it that you have determined that it is morally superior to kill one man actively? What is the objective moral standard of good and evil that tells you it is "right" to have done what you did?
You have clearly made a choice, based on moral grounds. So, why is that choice more moral (i.e. more good) than the other? What criteria do you use to judge?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "What criteria do you use to judge?" The same objective criteria I mentioned earlier, that something we could call good (in this case, less evil) is something we would want anyone to say or do anytime and/or acting contrary so selfish instinct. As far as I'm concerned, I would like for anyone, under the exact same conditions, to do exactly as I did. That's pretty objective the way I see it. In this case, you selfish animal instinct will suggest you to do nothing, and you're acting.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx So your criteria for judgement is that you act as you would want others to act? There is nothing objective about that. You still have failed to provide any support for your contention that there is some objective standard by which to judge good and evil. You have only offered some vague notion that taking action to kill one person, if it saves five others, is somehow more moral than remaining uninvolved. What if that one person were a child, how would you decide then?
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx You have, as of yet, not provided any criteria by which to make these judgements. You claim, instead that it is objective for others to do as you do. That is 100% subjective, and you cannot argue otherwise. An objective standard cannot come from within an individual.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""An objective standard cannot come from within an individual."" That's why one of the criteria is going contrary to selfish animal instincts. God's plan and desire is for us to become 100% human, to negate our selfish instincts. Since the dawn of civilization we have been widening our circle of love to include more and more people. Living the message (Christ) is the next step, but atheism negates this next logical step, so atheism is a step back in our fulfillment as 100% humans.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Sorry, but your criteria for what "objective" means are quite wrong. I think we are done with this discussion. Take care.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""your criteria for what "objective" means are quite wrong"" could you please tell me where is wrong, so I can learn? I thought an objective test would require some behavior anyone from any cultural background could follow it without any bias. If you know what your selfish instincts are, and you know what the contrary actions would be and you would want anyone anytime to do that, then you would know you're doing good; doesn't matter who you are or where you live. Where that fails?
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Objective means that it has to have definition and meaning independent of the human mind, at least to the extent that we can prove such a thing. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are objective because they don't require humans to be present in order to function. Morality, on the other hand, has no basis outside of human perception. Without humans, morality does not exist.
It seems that it is an over-simplification to state that working contrary to selfish instinct is...CONT
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 "meaning independent of the human mind"" philosophically, nothing has a meaning independent of the human mind, but that is another story. I know what you say, but you need to consider we are dealing with morality and morality in inherently human, as you also had implied. You just want it to be equal and unbiased for all humans, regardless their background. So, the solution of the problem, to be called objective, need to just serve that basic premise and not be absolutely objective
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx CONT...always good. Are you saying that no good can come from selfish behavior ever? It seems that you would have to say that in order for your paradigm to withstand scrutiny. However, I can point to specific instances where following one's selfish motives has the most beneficial impact on others. Thus, your theory really does not hold.
DrKnowsMore1 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""specific instances where following one's selfish motives has the most beneficial impact on others"" I would love to hear your examples, since they will serve to test the premise, just keep in mind that the most beneficial impact on others might not necessarily mean something good by definition. For example: no one can call good the death of Bin Ladden although it has the most beneficial impact on others.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 ""Are you saying that no good can come from selfish behavior ever?"" from our selfish animal behavior, no. That is why I propose that as an objective rule.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore1 Continue...""An objective standard cannot come from within an individual."" Going contrary to selfish animal instincts is objective since we know what the instincts of a rational animal are: selfishness, greed, self preservation, materialism, narcissism, me, me, me. That is why fasting is such a powerful weapon and always fostered in the Bible as a way to please God and grow spiritually it goes against one of our strongest selfish instincts.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@dejesusluisx Finally, I would take issue with your argument that God is the source of all good. Assuming you believe in the Christian god (you are on a debate between a Christian apologist and a physicist after all) then you must admit that god himself is not always good. The only alternative to that is to admit that objective moral values do not exist. After all, murdering is wrong according the 10 commandments and yet god has murdered millions. Envy is also wrong, but god is jealous. Paradox!
MewCat100 7 months ago
@MewCat100 "you must admit that god himself is not always good" God is always good, He can't be anything else, is not in His nature. God haven't murdered anyone, people do. The Bible references of God commanding to murder are just excuses made by people promoting their own agendas throughout Biblical history. If God's anthropomorphic attributes described in the Bible are what prevents you from believing, then I welcome you to look for the truth. Goat herders living 4,000 yr ago didn't understand
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
the thing (to my mind)is that if you believe in myths and stories coming to us from centuries ago you are a naive and under developed human being no matter how many phds you've got.not believing in scientific facts and what they have shown us so far just seems incredibly ignorant.
rouzbehazshab 7 months ago 12
@rouzbehazshab That's not a nice thing to say about Dr. Krauss. Leave him alone! He's a human being. He believe that 2+2=5!
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos only sometimes.... you know, for "high values of 2".....
xnothingbutthetruth 5 months ago
@drcraigvideos *for extremely large values of 2. There's a difference.
ApatheticOmniscience 4 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss 2
@ApatheticOmniscience Then don't call it "2". Call it 2.5 and such. Sorry, but 2+2 can never equal 5. A one-year old would know that.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
@rouzbehazshab There are no scientific facts disputing God's existence. There are very good logical arguments to disprove the notion of an anthropomorphic God; but today only fundamentalists have that notion. Dr. Craig actually use scientific facts to support his views. You are only seen what you want to see. Open your eyes.
dejesusluisx 7 months ago
@rouzbehazshab You're a bit of an idiot though arent you, in making that comment? Francis S Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, is a devout Christian- is he incredibly ignorant? John Polkinghorne, one of the discoverers of the quark, a very prominent physicist, is he ignorant of science? Simon Conway Morris, the palaeontologist? Paul Davies? Kenneth R Miller?
BlueTusk1 6 months ago
@rouzbehazshab Francis S Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project, is a devout Christian- is he incredibly ignorant? John Polkinghorne, one of the discoverers of the quark, a very prominent physicist, is he ignorant of science? Simon Conway Morris, the palaeontologist? Paul Davies? Kenneth R Miller?
BlueTusk1 6 months ago 5
@BlueTusk1 micheal jackson was a sensational singer. he performed for huge crowds... does that make him a very social person? a very normal person? If they truely believe in christianity, it's likely they just follow the religion because it's 'expected' of them. I know how people are looked at in some communities for not attending the 'proper faith', especially in the USA.
devilzown11 2 months ago
@BlueTusk1 kenneth miller literally wrote a book about how true evolution is. convince the other billion christians to be his kind of christian and ill be a happy guy
ericfeinberg28 2 weeks ago
I'm sorry to say that Lawrence Krauss did not perform well in this debate. From my point of view it was a case of - ppp = ppp
Piss poor planning equals piss poor performance and Craig's point about "There is no 'physics' of non-being" was not adequately addressed. That's not to say that his argument "I got something from 'truly' nothing means God did it" has any real merit but I would have expected a physics Guru to do a lot better.
Penndennis 7 months ago
@Penndennis I think you may have missed Krauss's points then.
MewCat100 7 months ago
Krauss makes some good points @ around 3:57. Seems like he's more of an agnostic than an atheist.
jackdav34 8 months ago
to break down the argument submitted between 1:30 - 1:50 . I'd like to share a quote by one of the worlds brightest minds.. "God did not create evil, evil is just the absence of God in a person" ~ Albert Einstein
smokylover14 9 months ago
to break down the argument submitted between 1:30 - 1:50 . I'd like to share a quote by one of the worlds brightest minds.. "God did not create evil, evil is just the absence of God in a person" ~ Albert Einstein
smokylover14 9 months ago
to break down the argument submitted between 1:30 - 1:50 . I'd like to share a quote by one of the worlds brightest minds.. "God did not create evil, evil is just the absence of God in a person" ~ Albert Einstein
smokylover14 9 months ago
@smokylover14 And I'd like to share a quotation from truthorfiction.co m: "There is no evidence that this exchange [with Albert Einstein] ever took place. This eRumor has circulated without Einstein's name and someone added it to a version that started circulating in the summer of 2004."
trollforlife 8 months ago
Krauss: The resurrection “is a historical claim that, Dr. Craig says, some historians seem to accept.”
Craig never said such a thing. Krauss needs to start paying attention.
Amazing how in his post-debate article he accused Craig of twisting his words when he (Krauss) did it constantly (specially in his post-debate article!).
BTW, You can read Krauss' post-debate article and Craig’s response to it on reasonablefaith . org
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker
You are anything but an "Indepndnt Thinker"
AtheistToothFairy 9 months ago
And what would make me an independent thinker? Oh, I know! Thinking more like YOU, right?
Hilarious.
Actually, let me tell you what an independent thinker is:
An independent thinker is one who reaches his own conclusions and respects those who disagree; someone who embraces his own convictions regardless of what others believe. And one that doesn’t care at all about what arrogant people like you, who try to bully those who disagree with their opinions, may think or say.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy
In other words, I doubt you know much about independent thought; otherwise, you wouldn’t be attacking me just because we disagree.
So don’t bother me, because—one more thing—independent thinkers don’t like talking to close-minded people like you.
Good night.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker Craig has said that many times, in SEVERAL of his debates. Good try, though.
Kosiguru 9 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss
@Kosiguru
If you are referring to Krauss’ idea that Craig said the resurrection “is a historical claim that, Dr. Craig says, some historians seem to accept,” well, he did not say that, period. It is a fabrication, or a lack of paying attention on Krauss’ part.
Regarding other debates, also not true—I have seen them all. But if you can provide exact debate and time, I’ll be happy to retract my statement. I do hope you can back up or retract yours as well.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker ?v=AjOSNj97_gk Please, educate yourself.
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru
You can't back up your statement? Ok, I see. No problem.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker I gave you a link to his opening argument where he states this several times. Don't be lazy.
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru
First, I have seen the Ehrman debate and Craig never says the resurrection is a historical claim that secular historians accept.
Second, you come out of nowhere, tell me Craig has made that claim, not one, but “SEVERAL” times; then refuse to provide proof for your statement. And you call ME lazy? Please.
The fact is you cannot back up your statement, can you?
Good try, though.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker Yes, he does. Good try, though.
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru
You’re hilarious.
But the fact is that repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. The burden of proof is on you. So provide it, or have the decency to retract your statement.
And just in case you missed it the first time, the link you provided does NOT contain your imagined quotes (of course, if I’m mistaken, you can just point me to the actual “several” quotes).
Good day.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker Since you're too lazy or dumb (both?) to do it yourself, here. WLC quotes from the debate we are discussing. "For now, I want to sketch briefly how a historical case for Jesus’ resurrection might look... This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial. As we’ll see, it’s agreed to by most scholars" Your username is quite funny.
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru
So you’re bringing the insults! A sure sign of a winning argument.
No, Craig NEVER says that the conclusion, that Jesus resurrected, is “uncontroversial.” He says the OPPOSITE: that such conclusion “IS controversial” as the best explanation for the historical evidence (3:45 min.)
The evidence ITSELF (the burial, the empty tomb, etc.) is what is “uncontroversial” (and that’s what your out-of-context quote referred to—from about 3:20 min) NOT the conclusion that Jesus rose up.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker Actually, in this quote WLC states that the empty tomb and reappearance of a resurrected jesus is historically factual. "And, as I said from N. T. Wright, he would say that the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus are
just as certain as the death of Caesar Augustus in AD 14 or even the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
And even if you think that’s an exaggeration, I think they are far better attested than many other
events in ancient history which are commonly accepted as historical."
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru
“…in this quote WLC states that the empty tomb and reappearance of a resurrected jesus is historically factual.”
*SIGHT* You really need to start paying attention. Craig says the REPORTS of the postmortem appearances are believed to be genuine by most historians. In other words, historians tend to agree that Paul, for example, actually SAID/BELIEVED he had seen Jesus. And they also tend to agree that the tomb was found empty.
You need to listen to things in context.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker My argument from the beginning was that WLC did indeed claim that the resurrection was agreed to be fact by many historians. This has been proven in clear English by quoting WLC himself. If you feel the need to continue I suggest you take the argument to your local pastor as I do not enjoy bickering with delusional twats.
Kosiguru 9 months ago
Of course you don’t enjoy having your statements proven wrong.
I’m still waiting for you to show me the “SEVERAL” occasions Craig says the resurrection is a historical claim that secular historians accept. He quoted M.T. Wright, right. So what? Did he say all/most/“MANY” historians (as you just suggested) agree with him?
Of course NOT.
He did the OPPOSITE of what you erroneously claimed by going out of his way to say his conclusion IS “controversial” among historians.
Good bye
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago 4
@IndepndntThinker Take a step back, check out Qualiasoups channel, educate yourself and stop preaching shit no one cares about. Even though you're wrong, assuming WLC is only stating that it's true some people said in the past they 'saw jesus' post-mortem it doesn't mean anything relevant to rational thinking or historical evidence. This is common among theists, using strawman arguments to trick people like you. There are a lot of reports of alien abductions, even recently -> aliens exist.
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru - Let’s see:
You started this chat with a condescending attitude. You accused WLC of claiming in “SEVERAL” debates that “many” historians accept the resurrection as historical fact. I asked you to back up your claim. Your evidence? A quote that said the OPPOSITE of what you claimed. Yet you turn around and insult MY intelligence?? And you think it is me who is diluted!
I can understand why you now want to change the subject, but sorry, I’ve wasted enough time with you
Good day
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
@IndepndntThinker Krauss said that he said it's a historical claim that many historians accept. WLC says that there are 4 facts that many historians accept. These four steps include the death of jesus and after his appearance afterwards. This is called being resurrected. You can't say 4 steps of him dying/reviving do not = resurrection. I'm sorry I've proven you wrong, get over it .
Kosiguru 9 months ago
@Kosiguru
Sure.
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
Krauss does seem to believe there is evidence for a Creator (Listen from around 3:55 min): “I actually think Deism (the possible existence of a divine intelligence) is not an implausible postulate… it could be—the Universe is an amazing place. The possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible… and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe.”
IndepndntThinker 9 months ago
See Krauss respond to, “How do you know that we can only know by empirical, falsifiable evidence. Can you prove this empirically?”
MAC20105 9 months ago
Krauss is a liar. He atacks philosophy (even though science is based on philosophy) he denies classical logic,yet uses logic to make his argument!! He denies paeno arithmetic by telling lies.When he says "large values of 2" he means 2.5 which isnt a large value of 2! Krauss calls a quantum vaccuum "nothing" when it isnt...it contains energy! He says different life might be able to survive with different constants which is nonsense we wouldnt even have galazies or planets with untuned constants!
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk
Krauss was referring to the type of logic craig was using...and he followed it up with..if we still thought of the world in the logic as craig has used..we would still think that a big heavy ball falls faster than smaller marble....but alas....we tested the theory and craig's old logic was proven wrong....
robbylafont 9 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss
To me the only big difference between a believer and a non-believer is this: "Here is something we dont understand" and the believer jumps to the conclusion that there must be a God. And the non-believer says: Why? How do you make that leap? You are trying to explain something unknown with something even more unknown, and you have no evidence for it. You might THINK you have evidence, but you dont, because if you had, we would not have this discussion,
deffan84 9 months ago
Its hard not to feel sorry for Krauss! Craig attacks him like a fucking piranha, just ruthlesssly tearing his arguments to shreds. Poor old Krauss should stick to formulating equations for gravity and stay away from philosophical questions. He clearly isnt equipped for this sort of thing.
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk philosophy is not equal to truth. I might make up a philosophy that the universe is actually a proton in an atom in another universe and then i use some physics to back up my philosophy, but that does not mean its true or more likely than anything else? So saying that philosophy is better than real physical evidence is just retarded. The most reasonable thing you can do is to stick with what we can know, and investigate that which we dont yet understand and not jump to conclusions.
deffan84 9 months ago
@deffan84 You have contradicted yourself and already lost the argument with that first post. Science cant exist without philosophical truths, because the laws of logic which science uses, and the criteria for evidence all come from philosophy, science is permeated with philosophical assumptions without which it wouldnt make sense. You cant deny the existence of classical logic (as Krauss did in this debate) while using logic to do so! Its a contradiction
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
@relarerfhjk I said philosophy is not equal to truth by itself. You use philosophy+science to figure something out. You cant just use philosophy alone - this was my point. Especially when you make a "leap of faith" as drCraig does (all the time) when he meets a "?" in our current understanding then immediately states that there must be a God, but he does not stop there! He keeps on saying its the Christian God, and that Jesus was resurrected, i mean... what kind of leap is that, really?
deffan84 9 months ago
@deffan84 But I agree with that, and so does Craig. The arguments Craig uses for the probability of the existence of God utilise a combination of science (to provide the facts) and classical logic (from philosophy) to work out the best explanation of those scientific facts. The fact of fine-tuning cannot be explained by chance or by necessity, so it is most probably explained by design. Craig explains Jesus's ressurection is the best explanation of the 4 historical facts about his death
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
Wow, dr Craig really rips this physicist to shreds here
relarerfhjk 9 months ago
Faith and delusion share the exact same definition. WLC is either delusional or a con man. Either way none of his arguments are compelling, logical, or honest.Great job Dr. Krause at presenting arguments that not only made sense but were honest!!
iaov 9 months ago
On both sides there was a maddening tenancy for the questioners to direct their questions at the wrong speakers.
DrOman5596 9 months ago
" So, once you get rid of your bias against the possibility of miracles..." Brilliant. We should calculate miracles in all our possibility equations explaining why things happen. Why not?
marco054 10 months ago
Comment removed
marco054 10 months ago
Can anyone tell me where I can learn more about how the energy of empty space limits the number of finite calculations we can perform? That sounds really interesting.
Liaomiao 10 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss
I love xtians that go around claiming all this "evidence" for god and that atheists have more faith. The bible even proclaims that you have believe by faith not evidence. I don't understand why xtians even try to prove god. If I believed in a deity that said you have to come to him through faith, then I would take the deity at their word, and not worry about evidence. Thank god I'm not stupid enough to do something like that :p
painlessguy 10 months ago
Krauss had some good points when it came to probability not necessarily equaling good evidence, and the lack of evidence for people being able to rise from the dead, but overall his points have been very shallow and he clearly doesn't understand philosophy. As for Craig, I don't fully agree with any of his arguments, for reasons that were not mentioned in this debate, but he defended them extremely well and he was extremely polite. In the end if I had to declare a winner, it would be WLC.
Jayoung1000 10 months ago
Comment removed
mathkills 11 months ago
@reasonintheright Your calling my argument a strawman is a strawman. If you actually read what I wrote I still conceded the joke, but it's stupid because he denied peano arithmatic and logic. Thereby contradicting himself. Why are so many atheists scared to see the truth: watch?v=so0TOp1GMQE
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@Matt1128Y
Thanks, did not know that was a real term, thought he just made it up like most of everything Craig says. I thought it was more BS like how he refers to Atheism as If was giving positive answers for claims, like when he says "Atheism says ...".
Darkpassenger2 11 months ago
@Darkpassenger2 What does Atheism say?
Courteousness 10 months ago
@Darkpassenger2 Craig makes up most of what he says? Perhaps the problem is with you. Do you have a problem with listening? Maybe I don't agree with everything Craig says, yet he quotes other people endlessly in establishing his arguments. "...thought he just made it up like most of everything Craig says." You're wrong on both points.
Damonferal 9 months ago
@lilannsul
No clue how you come to such a conclusion, but from what I've seen, Krauss made a complete ass of himself in this debate.
And I'm a fan of his work!
SmalltimR 11 months ago
@lilannsul Uhm, yeah, Krauss is so above 5th graders like William Lane Craig that Krauss believes 2+2=5. You're too fast for us, lilannsul.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos You really didn't post that did you? Smug and Weak. Listen to what Krauss really said and then do a subsequent search on the internet. Then you will have the context upon which he made the statement...
wvbishop 11 months ago
@wvbishop Well, jumping jelly beans. He said that 2+2=5 for "extremely high values" of 2. Yessireebob, 2.5 is an EXTERMELY HIGH VALUE OF 2. Sure, doesn't beat 2.9 though, does it? Seriously, if he was a good scientist, he'd say 2.5+2.5=5. Is that so hard to do?
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos Hint: 2.4+2.4=4.8
faerincolfer 11 months ago
@faerincolfer Hint: It still doesn't equal 5. Also, 2.5 is not exactly what you call an "extermely high value of 2." It's simple say "2+2=4." He's suppose to be a scientist, right?
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
Comment removed
reasonintheright 11 months ago
It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
reasonintheright 11 months ago 21
@reasonintheright He actually said that "exteremely high values" of 2 (please, 2.5 is not exactly an exteremely high value, ya know), then 2+2=5. Look, he's a scientist. Would it kill him to say 2+2=4? And as a scientist he should be technical. Thus maybe it'd be best if his shirt said 2.5+2.5=5. But if you'd like to wear a shirt branded with 2+2=5, then be my guest. I'm not going to deny the axioms of peano arithmatic.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos For some reason I keep getting an error when putting in my response.
reasonintheright 11 months ago
@reasonintheright But hes still using classical logical.... to which he says that classical logic isn't enough..... which is a contradiction. .... pointless
StarRonKid 10 months ago
He said "scientism" . Really.
Darkpassenger2 11 months ago
@MrVistaCruiser Pay attention to the question of the debate buddy. It's called "is there evidence for God's existence" and not "does God exist?". The point is whether or not God’s existence is more probable given the existence of contingent beings, the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, etc. than it would have been without these facts. It's as simple as that.
tabrizi79 11 months ago
I suppose that Lawrence Krauss also thinks that 2 + 2 = 0 for quantum amounts of 2 that could equate to large amounts of nothing?..
inthedaysofnoah 11 months ago
@inthedaysofnoah LOL!
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
Another one-sided debate. It seems like Dr. Craig is finally starting to show some irritation at the ignorance of the adherents to scientism he regularly debates.
nbtrap 11 months ago
Krauss has to be the worst adversary Craig has ever met. Complete moron.
DazedSpy2 11 months ago
Craig makes a great point here: evidence ranges over a broader area than merely science. When atheists demand that theists PROVE (and by that they mean scientifically demonstrate) that God exists, theists don't do it. They can't do it. Atheists think this means that God must not exist. But that's a mistake because of course evidence is not equivalent to scientific evidence. The category is much broader and atheists would do well to recognize that.
esizzle2005 11 months ago
@esizzle2005 we do recognize it's not scientific evidence, the other forms of evidence are based on rules of logic which also have been inconclusive. The difference is that most atheists don't say "there is no god" they say "there probably is no god" because becoming atheist requires that you try to destroy most cognitive dissonance and recognizing the one thing that seems to help the most "science" they then notice that science will never claim a 100% assertion so you just have to apply that.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
Two very smart men.
zee24 11 months ago
I think Dr Krauss must have taken a course in using Stawman arguments. He was brilliant at it.
Dexiclecom 11 months ago
wow... Craig sounds like a parrot throughout this whole thing.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
@chesterdjester If you have met a parrot that sounds like that then you had better stop smoking pot!
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 first off, pot doesn't do that, and secondly Dr. Craig kept saying the same thing over and over
chesterdjester 11 months ago
@chesterdjester then perhaps your audio player (sound card) has a fault and has got stuck. Because he not repeating himself on my laptop. He is being very responsive and dealing with the actual questions asked of him etc.
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 I meant throughout the debate, not so much this video. This was the last video I watched and was just kind of posting my thoughts on it.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
@chesterdjester well I really can't see that you are being fair. I kind of consider myself in some respects seated between both camps, so unbias.
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 Oh, the "I don't know so I'm better than both sides argument." Well, I have taken philosophy class which is basically schools of logic and throughout the entire thing Dr. Craig repeats his arguments asserting they are true and talks about parts of science he isn't versed in. Then Krauss explains these parts of science (him being a astrophysicist and all) and explains why no one in science claims we haven't figured it out yet but we never imply something supernatural.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 "Well I really can't see that you are being fair. I kind of consider myself in some respects seated between both camps, unbias" No one is unbias. And the 2+2=5 is a math joke about how all real world math has some form of rounding that we can't escape. Just like 2.5 +2.5 = 5 the 2.5 is an extremely large value of two. Mostly this is done really far into the decimal or we just use fractions. So if you were confused by that, you were confused by satire. I actually have that shirt he had
chesterdjester 11 months ago
@chesterdjester why is no one unbias?! He was not joking! Listen to what he said afterwards. He was serious.
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 Everyone always has some form of bias towards one side or the other, the only things you can defend this with is knowing the rules of logic. And yes, he was joking. Dr. Craig said something about 2+2=5 earlier in the debate and then mentioned infinity, Krauss knowing a joke related to that mentioned it and then went on to talk about how physicists use infinity to do math. He only talked about it for like 2 minutes in the second video.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
@chesterdjester are you being objective here? Krauss said, "2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2. Now that is extremely important because in fact classical logic which says, '2 + 2 = 4 it can’t equal 5' is wrong. Mathematicians and physicist know that for extremely large values of numbers you have to change the rules." He is not joking. Rounding does not fit the context, rounding does not change the rules of classical logic nor does it render the universe "really weird."
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 It is still about rounding... Look up the phrase on the internet, it's not a new concept, trust me, Google is God.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
Comment removed
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 I did, it's not so much about 2+2=5 he's trying to explain the properties of infinity and why classical logic doesn't work. I don't expect some one on the internet to understand math using infinity but he has a Ph.D on astrophysics. When some one with those kinds of credentials says something about Math (which what you do to become a physicist) you can guarantee he's an authority on the subject and just because you can't comprehend it doesn't mean some one else doesn't.
chesterdjester 11 months ago
@chesterdjester your arguments are getting worse, now invoking various fallicies and shifting ground.
I really did not want to say, as it really should not matter, but I am a mathematician, and teach it for a living along with physics occasionally.
allan3141 11 months ago
@allan3141 I'm just in college but surely you've seen 2+2=5 before this debate. Appeal to an authority is not a shifting ground, I do know Krauss's credentials and Craigs. I can't be certain of yours but I'll trust you on it, I don't understand why you don't get the joke though.
chesterdjester 11 mont