Evidence for God: William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss (5 of 6) - Concluding Remarks

[eldrinirdle]

Also if I may add an analogy. Let's say the universe had a property called P and a byproduct called Q.

If P = 2 produces EXACTLY 50Q, then is the universe finely tuned to only produce 50Q?

If P = 3 produces EXACTLY 100Q, then is the universe finely tuned to produce only 100Q?

-the list goes on-

Fine tuning is not a valid argument/evidence. There is an infinite number of possible states our universe could have been, and so many so called "fine tuning".

[eldrinirdle]

Claiming that the current state of the universe is so finely tuned to support life fails to captivate me.

Say for example, the matter in a universe had a very slight deficiency of gravitational pull to one another, no life forms would emerge right?

So we could say that that universe is so finely tuned to NOT SUPPORT the development of any life. Simple as that. The argument of fine tuning is a cop out people. Get over it.

[vbirdieb]

Without the information (DNA), for more complicated creatures, needed for exsistence? Where did the first cell get it's DNA information and how would it add information to evolve into something different than what it was already? CAN'T and can't be demonstrated otherwise. Physical Matter doesn't have to be living for there to be a universe, but our exsistence and the fact that we ask the question, can not be answered by science. We are more than the some of our parts and that's obvious!

[OnSugarHill]

Craig is having a big misunderstanding of the difference between "evidence" and "probability". Krauss has to point this out everytime he speaks because Craig's whole argument is predicated on this fallacy. It's like when Craig was claiming that Hitchens claims to be able to show evidence that God does NOT exist, which is a fallacy to ask someone to prove that something doesn't exist.

[drcraigvideos]

@OnSugarHill Apparently, you have no understanding on the importance of Bayes Theorem in light of evidence. There's a difference between proving something and being persuasive about something.

[jemmerx]

So why is it that Krauss, the one you'd expect to talk like a science geek, is far clearer and coherent than the very articulate Craig? I find it ironic that the theoretical physicist is translating for the layman the scientific mish-mash of subjects that the philosopher and theologian lobs at the audience.

I also find it ironic that Craig, the person who rants and raves about logic numerous times, is the only one to ground his entire platform with the lack of it.

[drcraigvideos]

@jemmerx Uh, yeah, Craig should be as logical as Krauss. You know, like how Krauss denied classical logic.

[drcraigvideos]

@InGroove2 *SIGH* He said you CAN'T have physics of non-being because there has to be SOMETHING there for physics to work. Even Krauss admits that by nothing he doesn't mean LITERALLY nothing. Futhermore, Craig says the BEST explanation doesn't need further explanation. If you think 2 needs MORE explanation from 1+1 be my guest. Please, when you listen to Dr. Craig do so without plugging your ears or without having an ADD moment, ok?

[MewCat100]

@drcraigvideos I think you might have misunderstood Krauss. He was stating that classical logic is flawed in terms of classical mechanics vs. quantum mechanics and relativity. His point is that the "common sense" of classical physics (i.e. Newtonian physics) actually isn't correct. It approximates things, but closer inspection shows us that Newtonian physics is incorrect at modeling the universe as a whole. The point Krauss was making was the intuition is often wrong when... CONT

[MewCat100]

@drcraigvideos CONT...we get outside of that which we commonly deal with. We are well suited to making quick, intuitive decisions about speed in the ranges of 0 to 100 mph for instance, but at speeds near that of light, our intuition is completely wrong. That's all he was saying.

[drcraigvideos]

@MewCat100 Well, oh, me oh my, whoever heard that classical logic doesn't apply to quantum physics. How stupid! I mean, you know, if you want to use induction or the law of identity... all not very relevant to science. This Krauss guy is the bomb!

[daniloorbolato]

Krauss will think twice before doing anything like that again!!!

[IR17171717]

@daniloorbolato yea! trying to bring up to date quantum physics to an intellectual debate...fool?

[daniloorbolato]

@IR17171717 What do you mean?

[DigitalvInferno]

You can't get God from Science, and visa versa. Simple as that. You have to choose one.

[drcraigvideos]

@DigitalvInferno Who says you can get God from science? Dr. Craig isn't saying that. There's a lot of things you can't get from science.

[DigitalvInferno]

@drcraigvideos Is that not what Craig is doing? He's talking about the origin and state of the universe.. It sure sounds like science.......

[drcraigvideos]

@DigitalvInferno He would use the origins of the universe to prove upon METAPHYSICAL grounds that God would exist. You cannot prove God's existence with science. God cannot fit into a test tube.

[vas13xtq]

@drcraigvideos So God cant be physically demonstrable?

[drcraigvideos]

@vas13xtq Not in a scientific way. You cannot put God in a test tube. Craig has been saying this over and over again.

[Woodmur]

It is unsurprising that Krauss lost this debate. As he mentioned in his introduction, he is not a professional debater and therefore should not be expected to perform optimally in this type of forum (I share his aversion to debates for the exact reason he gave--their inherent combativeness). However, I was thoroughly surprised by his seeming dearth of preparation for the debate, which was particularly noticeable when the argument from contingency was brought into discussion.

[relarerfhjk]

Was Krauss trying to convert people to Christianity here?

The Universe isn't fine-tuned (even though if we adjusted any of a million constants by less than a fraction of a per cent no life would exist) because "we dont know what other types of life may exist"? Talk about arguing from ignorance!

The gospels were written fifty years after the event? Nope, its actually 30 years! Krauss thinks the multiverse is plausible? And logic doesnt apply to the Universe? Crikey, Krauss are you serious?

[MegaExelo]

@MegaParadox69

I would rather believe the one with more evidence

[dmn22]

@MegaParadox69 Because scientists are bad philosophers, as einstein himself said.

[nymphrenic]

So the laws of physics, according to Krauss, state that that which is not impossible must exist somewhere? If multiverse is true? Wonder what he thinks of the modal ontological argument then.

I'll bet he rejects it, since this whole debate demonstrates that Krauss would rather throw his brain in the trash if keeping it would mean he must think consistently.

Krauss is obnoxiously rude, too. He should stop watching Star Trek, that show has a knack of destroying people's personalities.

[Savage911a]

This debate was supposed to be about evidence for God and Craig didn't offer a shred of evidence. Instead he points to possibility of God as a possible theory. Theories are nice. But if you want to convince someone, you need evidence to back up that theory. I guess though most of Krauss's arugements went over the heads of creationists.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a He offers 4 evidences for an intelligent designer, and 1 evidence for the identity of that designer. I'm not sure if you are willfully deaf, and just ignoring what WLC says, or what is going on. He uses plain English, it's really not difficult to understand and his debate format is very formal, where he outlines his arguments point by point. Maybe have another listen.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence Craig is great at debating because he's makes nonsense sound plausible. But anyone trained in science or having good logical abilities can see that none of his 4 claims are evidence. I will hit all 5 for you now quickly.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Well that doesn't make any sense. Good debaters need to do the opposite of what you say, which is make sound, stable arguments, accessible by laypeople. Not use smoke and mirrors, that would erode any debaters credentials. In addition he wouldn't be so well respected if that was the case, nor would people from the opposing side attend his lectures and participate regularly with him both on and off the debating circuit. You can keep riding that dead horse, but it makes no sense.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence He's respected only in america and among theologons. people who want to believe that christianity (their own religion) is right, will applaud him even though they don't understand his arguements. Craig diverts attention by combing his knowledge of philosophy to label things out of context, often using arguments that could be applied on this he says himself, yet he says so much in so little time, its hard for any debater to pick up all his points.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a I'm not sure if you are purposefully ignoring my comments, but that simply isn't true. He debated Christopher Hitchens, who is from the UK, and who did a pre-debate press conference and spoke very highly of WLC, and also mentioned that his contemporaries wished him luck, something they never did vs other theologian debaters. He also gave the Templeton Foundation Lecture, which was attended by many opposing thinkers, who also respect WLC. So you are simply wrong in this respect.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence I meant among academia, particularily in the sciences and philosophy. Christopher Hitchens is a journalist and contrarian, not really an academic. I'm sure many respect his clever tactfulness and debating ability. but my point was that his supposed fame isn't evidence of credibility.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Well Victor Stenger would be another example, and there are lots more. I just raised Hitchens as he can be watched in the pre-press conference.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence He debates people because he's a debater, but his ideas aren't respected among scientific academia, nothing he'd say would ever be mentioned in a journal of physics or cosmology. Of course members of academia can debate him in public settings like this one, but it doesn't represent a scientific dilema, just a public debate on a social issue. Its not a philosophical debate either, because many philosophers don't actually agree with craig eg AC grayling.

[Savage911a]

@Savage911a Alright I gotta get some work done now, its been a pleasure debating you, take care now.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a We are bordering on the side of the discussion where I feel that mainstream science is heavily secular; there has been numerous verified reports of discrimination against theist scientists. WLC spent 13 years studying time, and has done a lot of work on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he is extremely well published, please see his wikipedia page for over 50 of his books. As to papers, his focus is God, so there is resistance to publishing those ideas in mainstream science journals.

[relarerfhjk]

@Savage911a But your also wrong to say Craig has no respect in academia. That only shows how utterly, painfully, embarassingly ignorant you are. If you knew anything about philosophy (not theology) you would know Craig's is highly-respected in academic circles, to the extent that leading atheist philosophers Quentin Smith and Shelly Kagan have praised him as a great thinkr! His ideas on moral philosophy and philosophy of time have been published in hundreds of leading journals of philosophy

[relarerfhjk]

@Savage911a craig is a renowned philosopher, who has been praised by leading atheist philosophers Quentin Smith and Shelly Kagan...he understands logic a heck of alot better than you (or Krauss, on this evidence)

His five claims are strong evidence for God, I'll swiftly rip apart your objections to them if you want to try and raise them

[01bdbark]

@relarerfhjk Now prove it's the god of the bible. Thats the one, that in any debate you'll get your ass handed to you.

[relarerfhjk]

@01bdbark Are you serious? I can easily prove it is the God of the Bible, and Craig has also argued for this in numerous debates.For a start,as a timeless, immaterial metaphysical ultimate, it must be a single God, which reduces it to the monothetistic (Abrahamic) religions. Secondly, the historical evidence for the ressurection upon which Christianity is based, demolish the evidence for Judaism and Islam (Islam denies the historical fact of Jesus's crucifixion and Judaism rejects his divinty)

[ixamraxi]

There are many monotheistic faiths aside from the Abrahamic ones, from A [such as Aten] to Z [such as Zoroastrianism], you first need to prove that "God" is not theirs. Furthermore, there is NO physical or historical evidence for the resurrection, none. The Bible is not evidence, it is a book of anecdotes, testimonies and claims, none of which can be considered evidence, and all of which was written decades after the -alleged- crucifixion. A book cannot be the sole proof of its contents.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence 1. In this argument, he claims contigent beings require an explanation, ( this is already flawed because its using classical logic where as quantum physics allows for uncaused particles to appear, but lets ignore that), he then claims the universe is contigent (doesnt' prove this) and god is non contingent (he doesn't prove this either, just defines god this way to magically solve his problem), so god created the universe. You could define anything as your answer here,

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Contingent means possible to occur, but not certain. We know contingent *beings* require a cause, because we don't see things appear from nothing. Do you see horses appear from nothing in your living room? The universe is also contingent, because universes don't appear out of nothing, we haven't observed this, so we cannot consider it. Re: God - see contingent beings.

He has explained this logic in numerous debates prior, I assume due to time here he gave precise' versions.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence We do see things appear from "nothing" in quantum mechanics. However Even ignoring that, you failed to explain why universe is contigent, and why its contigent on God. We haven't observed anything about universes created at ALL so we can't say it doesn't appear out of nothing or that it does appear out of nothing. And tell me why GOD, why not something else, like membranes colliding like in string theory. theres no justification for GOD. Its not evidence, itsnot even logic.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Well I am not sure I agree there, 'nothing' in that sense, isn't actually nothing. The quantum vacuum is a sea of particles, and what was observed (if I am thinking of what you are) is that particles borrow energy from that quantum sea of particles, and particles form and dissolve as that energy is transferred. So particles are not actually forming from nothing in the literal sense, but 'nothing' in the quantum sense, which is actually not nothing at all. That was a great sentence.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence I'm glad you said this. You see that quantum sea is everywhere, in the entire universe and beyond it. And if thats true. Then statement "something can't come from nothing" is unfalsifiable because theres is no such thing as nothing therefore you can't emprically prove that statement. IF you disagree and say that the quantum sea is nothing, your stuck with saying a nothing creating something.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a That is a misuse of the term 'nothing'. What WLC means, is that matter does not form, from non-matter. This is observable and falsifiable, hence the horse appearing from nothing analogy. There is obviously such a thing as non-matter as the quantum vacuum is not totally dense, it resembles a sponge, on a cosmic scale. Nothing means no quantum vacuum, no matter, no energy, no particles and from all our observational science, we know that from nothing, nothing comes.

[relarerfhjk]

@Savage911a We don't see something appear from nothing in quantum mechanics.Even a quantum vaccum contains energy. It's not nothing.The Bord-Guth-Villenkim theorem confirms that literally, absolutely nothing existed before the Universe and Big Bang. It is simply impossible for a Universe, containing time, space, matter, energy and the extraordinarily finely-tuned constants necessary to permit life to exist, to pop out of absolutely nothing, with no cause.

This shows how extreme atheists are.

[ixamraxi]

@relarerfhjk - Except that in quantum mechanics events can and do appear to occur before their cause, and so extrapolating that, we could claim that it is possible for the universe to come into existence prior to its cause. Secondly, *absolutely nothing existing* necessarily includes God, and so without a universe, time, space, matter, and energy, you cannot have the God needed to create the universe that necessarily existed before him.

That shows how extreme theists are.

[relarerfhjk]

@ixamraxi Objects dont appear from nothing in quantum mechanics. A quantum vacuum is not nothing it contains energy and particles. So your first argument is wrong. You fail from there.

Absolutely nothing existed doesnt include God, because God has always been conceived of (since Aquinus)as an all-powerful, timeless immaterial being, which is the only thing that could have caused the Universe since time and space did not exist prior to the Universe.You dont even get the theist position

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence the numbering on craigs debate slides are weird. I'll go back to 3

4. objective morals exist according to craig. again he simply asserts this, no evidence provided. In the history of mankind, even people wihtin the same religion don't agree what is moral and not, so wheres his basis for saying these morals exist. He provides none. Objective morals mayexist relative to us as a species but where is the proof?

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a WLC has covered this in the past, perhaps due to time here he didn't. I think he does cover parts, such as we know what the Nazi's did was morally wrong, if objective values exist. If they do not, then subjectively, what the Nazi's did could be called 'good' by their own moral compass, and we would not be right to stop them. As who has moral authority when all is said and done, no one if it's subjective. Only with objective morals can we truly say the Nazi's were evil, for ex.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence If we can only subjectively say the nazi's were wrong, then so be it, you can't change the way things are just to suite your beliefs. We can objectively say they are wrong from a set of principles that we our selves set eg. minimizing harm, but wanting to believe objective morals exists doesn't prove then exists, and even if they exist, it doesn't prove God exists. Therefore objective morals haven't been proven to exist, therefore god isn't proven to exist.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a No objectivity comes from outside our scope of control. We cannot come up with principles, and then claim them as objective. If you say what the Nazi's did was subjectively wrong, then we had no right to stop them. Our subjective morality is not superior to someone elses, they are all equally subjective and equally authoritative. I believe objective morality exists, murdering a child for fun, is wrong. If I believe in that, logically I believe in an objective moral arbiter. ie God.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence Objective morality would exist this way, There are certain things that cause harm and certain things that reduce harm to us as a species. Dropping a nuke on a city does harm, even if someone doesn't agree, it objectively causes harm to use a species. It doesn't matter if everyone on earth disagreed, it still causes harm to us as a species. Thats how it can be objective relative to our species survival. Believing in objective morality doesn't imply an arbiter.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a I have to work now, will reply later. Thanks for the discussion though. :)

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Harm isn't morality, if it were, earthquakes would be morally wrong, but they are a morally neutral event. But even with that aside, if you say causing harm to us as a species is immoral, well I would say on what authority do you claim that? Who are you to determine my morality, or the morality of another culture - some cultures love their neighbors, others eat them - which is your preference? You are trying to assert objective morality, through subjective claims which won't work.

[drcraigvideos]

@tcorp You got me there, so I guess for extremely large values of 1 then 1+1=43985709843750984327509843­275. You're too fast for me, tcorny.

[daylight0912]

@drcraigvideos The largest number 1+1 can equal is 4. 1.9 + 1.9 = 3.8 rounded to 4. Same thing with 2 + 2. 2.49 (rounded to 2) plus 2.49 (rounded to 2) = 4.98 (rounded to 5). Just because he is against YOUR God doesn't mean you shouldn't think properly. I "believe" in God but I don't "know" God exists. No one does. There is NO proof.

[drcraigvideos]

@daylight0912 Well, just because I don't believe in your God of illogic, it doesn't mean that 2+2=5. Last I saw 2 is not the same value as 2.5. Sorry, but you cannot deny peano arithmatic. What's next 0+2=394872308745983274509?

[lormendi]

@drcraigvideos You just don't get it, do ya?

[nymphrenic]

@daylight0912 His shirt should have said 2.49 + 2.49 = 4.98 And Craig should have said 2.0 + 2.0 = 4.

The only reason I say Craig should have added .0 is that he forgot to factor in that braindead atheists would need the obvious spelled out for them.

[nigelsenchez]

I just can't listen to William Lane Craig, even if i try.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@nigelsenchez

"I just can't listen to William Lane Craig, even if i try."

Yes, the excess of dishonest smugness he displays can indeed be extremely grating.

[TheMirabillis]

One of the most idiotic things I hear from athiests on YT.... is when they say that they only accept the evidence. When asking the atheist for the evidence of what they believe in... they can never produce it because they have no evidence !

[guitaristmichael]

I am shocked to see this! Hitchens was not the worst, this man is height of lunacy, who even demonstrated the foolishness of his blind faith that went on to attack "Logic" itself .I am stunned literally how can such so called big "scientists" can dare to come publicly to waste time of WLC, I am sorry after wasting my time listening this j*rk krauss ,unbelievable

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@guitaristmichael

"waste time of WLC"

Craig is the one who continually wastes everybody's time with his self-righteous posturing. Everybody would be well advised to ignore that clown.

[guitaristmichael]

@MomoTheBellyDancer hahhah see this naive kid atheist :D you fanatic atheists gotta be kidding me aren't you?. --- "Why would I believe a philosopher about science rather than a scientist who is an expert in his field?"-- blind appeal to authority, you fanatic blind faithed atheist atleast study and think about the logic reasons before blindly believing in anything anyone tagged as "scientist" claims. I have immense pity on such illiterate so called new atheists for insulting rationality

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@guitaristmichael

"blind appeal to authority"

It's not, since the authority has a base. Scientists who do research ave clearly much more insightful things to say about the subject they study than armchair philosophers, especially if those philosophers display such immense feats of sloppy thinking like Craig does.

"insulting rationality"

The only one insulting rationality is Craig. See the other videos exposing is dishonest and irrational arguments.

[tabrizi79]

Notice that one of the tactics that Krauss used was a constant reference to multiple theories to explain how the universe came out of "nothing". Each time, Krauss went on a tangent,he made sure to obfuscate it with scientific jargon and impress the audience so as to make up for the deficiency of his position. Notice that all of this was REPETITIVELY done so as to try to confuse "non-being" with the technical term "nothing" in physics no matter how many times Craig had to point out this deception

[drcraigvideos]

@MegaParadox69 If you want to think that 2+2=5 (like scientist Krauss) then be my guest.

[caw2caw]

@drcraigvideos did you not realize Krauss was making a joke with the 2+2=5?

[drcraigvideos]

@caw2caw Didyou not realize he said that classical logic such as 2+2=5 is wrong? Why kiss Krauss' butt?

[Randomicity912]

Krauss should stay with a physics. He such a moron that I really can't take him seriously.

[TooManyTights]

Is it just me, or did the rationality and sense of this video rapidly break down somewhere around the 5:44 mark?

[gatogreensleeves]

Ugh. Again, even if there were a necessary element, it would not be necessarily teleological, let alone personal or moral and given the fact that *everything* that lives eventually *dies* and there is no god clearly (and easily) showing itself (as one supposedly did to both believer and non-believer in the OT) what we CAN infer from the way the world works is that even if some kind of teleological Force did exist, it no longer exists. THAT would be more logical that what theists propose here.

[toobsucker]

@gatogreensleeves "There are conservative and libertarian atheists all over"

Yes there are but over 90% of atheists vote liberal. DO a poll

"There are principles behind liberalism, namely you are only as strong as the weakest elementl"

Liberalism is a master slave relationship between the government and the people. It does not allow for the NATURAL principle of rewarding someone according to their ability/effort. This principle puts THE PEOPLE in charge rather the the SLAVE MASTER GOVERNMENT

[toobsucker]

@gatogreensleeves "This was Jesus' philosophy- he and the Apostles were liberal (see the socialism in Acts)"

Incorrect. Jesus never FORCED anyone to give to anyone else by imposing a mandatory "compassion tax". You are told God wants you to help others in need but NEVER is a mandatory tax imposed. You are told you will reap what you sow and its left at that.

Jesus practiced voluntary communism within the church, and churches do that today with out reach programs.



[theismIsBankrupt]

Krauss simply destroyed Craig in his last speech. haha one can almost feel sorry for the poor hack Billy Craig who has no scientific credentials and no cosmologist takes him seriously, yet has the nerve to debate someone like Krauss on current cosmology!

[DigitalDecadence]

@theismIsBankrupt You may wish to watch WLC deliver the Templeton Foundation Seminaar, and see who is in the audience before you say no one takes him seriously. ;) WLC has done a lot of work on the Kalam Cosmological model and a lot of people in cosmology take him quite seriously, attend his lectures, read his literature and comment on it. I encourage you to do some reasearch before making such a silly claim as in your comment.

[toobsucker]

Krauss has FAITH in the multiverse without any reason other than the necessity to explain life because logic dictates the chance of one singularity producing the constants is mathematically ridiculous

Yet he fails to accept the logical inferences that life with varying degrees of intelligence do exist, therefore a God-like intelligence can exist.

Not surprising though considering he also believe random copying errors & selection can write coded languages

[theismIsBankrupt]

@toobsucker "Krauss has FAITH in the multiverse"

nonsense. a multiverse is predicted by both inflationary theory (in almost all of it's versions), and by M-theory.

"Not surprising though considering he also believe random copying errors & selection can write coded languages"

Darwinian evolution driven by random genetic mutations (due mainly to copying errors) acted upon by natural selection is accepted by virtually all biologists.

[toobsucker]

@theismIsBankrupt "nonsense. a multiverse is predicted by both inflationary theory and by M-theory"

You liberal atheists are quite hilarious. There was no prediction of a multiverse until the fine tuning problem became evident. The they scrambled to invent a theory out of necessity

Google "discover magazine multiverse sciences alternative to intelligent creator"

"Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved"

[theismIsBankrupt]

@toobsucker "There was no prediction of a multiverse until the fine tuning problem became evident." I repeat, almost ALL version of inflationary cosmology which was proposed by Allan Guth and others in 1980 predict multiple Universes. M-theory, developed from string theory in the 1990s, also predicts there are parallel universes.

so the suggestion that the Multiverse was proposed just to explain away the fine-tunning is eithe due to ignorance or dishonesty on your part

[toobsucker]

@theismIsBankrupt

The fact that there is NO empirical or verifiable evidence that proves the multiverse does not concern you at all.

Its funny when theists spoke of other dimensions 100 years ago it was considered superstitions nonsense by atheists. However when atheists put a label on it (string theory) and call it SCIENCE, then you will accept it.

[theismIsBankrupt]

@toobsucker "The fact that there is NO empirical or verifiable evidence "

for a theist to demand "empirical or verifiable evidence" is just pathetic. what is the "empirical or verifiable evidence" for your God??

if inflation is proven to be correct by observation, and up to this point there is good evidence in its support, although not conclusive, then that would also constitute evidence for any prediction that inflationaty theory makes, including multiple universes.

[toobsucker]

@theismIsBankrupt "what is the "empirical or verifiable evidence" for your God'

The logical inferences are in place. WE EXIST, therefore other life CAN EXIST, we CO-EXIST with a vast range of intellects, a vast range of intellects can exist throughout the universe

And theists own the deductive logical argument which is 100% accurate

ALL coded languages arise from an intelligence

DNA contains a coded language

The codes in DNA came from an intelligence

IM off line till next Monday

[AR333]

@toobsucker Lol, high school reasoning. Dna containing "coded" language to you actually implies that it was "coded" in the sense of software. Biologists use the word "coded" as physicists use the word "gravity pits" when talking about relativity. These are for purposes of easily grasping, and NOT meant to infer any philosophical or metaphysical conclusion.

[toobsucker]

@AR333 "Dna containing "coded" language to you actually implies that it was "coded" in the sense of software....and NOT meant to infer any philosophical or metaphysical conclusion"

Yes DNA and RNA contain MULTIPLE coded languages. This is well known now

Google "Functional specificity among ribosomal proteins regulates gene expression PUBMED"

And why would I equate complex specific information as "philosophical or metaphysical" when CODES are considered neither philosophical or metaphysical?

[Draugh39]

@toobsucker

Your argument is full of holes: (LF = logical fallacy of type "X")

"ALL coded languages arise from an intelligence". ( LF, "Begging the question" and is unsupported.)

"DNA contains a coded language." (LF, "Accident" and "Sweeping generalization")

"The codes in DNA came from an intelligence" ( LF, "Affirming the Consequent", "Post hoc ergo propter hoc")

So this is what you call a theist logical argument?! you have 100% record in logical falalcies though....

[toobsucker]

@Draugh39 "ALL coded languages arise from an intelligence". ( LF, "Begging the question" and is unsupported.)"

You seriously need a logic 101 course.

"Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims to be proving"

I do not have to ASSUME all coded languages arise from an intelligence. Because I KNOW this to be true.

There are NO logical fallacies in deductive logic, LF are contained in inductive logic (the scientific method)

Deductive logic is 100%

[toobsucker]

@Draugh39 ""DNA contains a coded language." (LF, "Accident" and "Sweeping generalization")

LOL. Yes the MULTIPLE OVERLAPPING coded languages (Trifonov (1989) up to 12 codes) was an accident of random copying errors & selection even though simple logic and all the evidence says its impossible.

"Sweeping generalization"? Your responses do not match my claims. It appears you are just mimicking some "catch phrases" you heard other atheists use.

ALL DNA contain code(s) its NOT a generalization

[theismIsBankrupt]

@toobsucker "However when atheists put a label on it (string theory) and call it SCIENCE, then you will accept it. "

no, I don't "accept" it. there's no evidence of it yet. and there's been some debate whether it's really science. I simply pointed out that it predicts other dimentions, incuding other Universes, so the 'multiverse' hasn't been adopted bc of the fine-tunning arg.

not to mention that the first multiverse hypothesis came out of QM: the so called "Many Worlds interpretaion"

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@toobsucker

"The fact that there is NO empirical or verifiable evidence that proves the multiverse does not concern you at all."

The multiverse is a reasonable hypothesis, based on the evidence we have. In no way can it be called reasonable to invoke gods of any kind. That notion is simply superfluous.

[DigitalDecadence]

@MomoTheBellyDancer The notion would be superfluous if there was no reasonable evidence to think that such a being may exist, and was just an ad-hoc assertion. The multiverse hypothesis doesn't actually 'solve' anything, it's explanatory power is almost totally nullified by how many subsequent questions it raises. So we have something with evidence, and something with no evidence ( and no impact even if it was true ), the only reason you would except the latter, is bias. 2+2=5? Go for it. ;)

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@DigitalDecadence

"just an ad-hoc assertion"

The god-hypothesis is ad hoc, no matter how you view it.

"it's explanatory power is almost totally nullified by how many subsequent questions it raises:

And invoking a god doesn't raise any questions? You still have to explain where that god comes from. You're just adding an extra layer of complexity. The multiverse hypothesis at least builds on known evidence.

"2+2=5"

For sufficiently large values of 2.

[DigitalDecadence]

@MomoTheBellyDancer I don't think you understand 'ad-hoc'. The God hypothesis wasn't created for any specific purpose, it came about from evidence. The multiverse however is the opposites - there is no evidence, it has been suggested for one specific purpose, to solve the issue of fine-tuning, which ironically it doesn't solve either, it just pushes it back a step. No one needs to explain where God came from, God is an uncreated being, it's actually what the Hebrew word for God's name means.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence The god hypothesis was created to test the existence of a certain entity that caught on early in mankinds history that some people still can't let go of. No logical deductions lead the conclusion of god, they lead to questions needing answers, not presupposed answers.The multiverse theory orginated from theoretical physics in trying to unify gravity into the quantum mechanics. It has nothing to do with solving fine-tuning...

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Well that sounds nice, but your view doesn't conform to any of the evidence surrounding, in particular my religion, Christianity. WLC raises 4 evidences which lead directly to a logical inference of an intelligent designer to our reality. The 5th identifies the designer. So whilst your words may sound good, they fall apart like most non-theists when under scrutiny. If you don't accept the evidence, that's fine, but don't pretend there isn't any.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence I won't pretend that you don't think there is any evidence, but I won't pretend that I think there is any evidence either. None of his 4 logical deductions are actually evidence that would satisfy even the most liberal scientific tests. They are merely philopsophical deductions of possibilities that really are akin to the same possibility that theres a purple unicorn drinking tea with a mongoose on pluto.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Well actually WLC's views are in line with mainstream science, so I don't see how you can possibly say they would fail even liberal tests. However your purple unicorn analogy undermines your claims to understand scientific method. That analogy is ad-hoc and contrived, there is a difference between contrived and inferred. Contrived is created for a purpose, whereas inferred is *realised* from evidence. God is not contrived, but inferred, magical pink invisible things are ad-hoc.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence No they aren't. mainstream science. No peerreviewed paper ever says anything along the lines of "god is answer". INstead they all explain things naturally. Craig quote mines to make back up his points. I'm in neuroscience, theres not a shred of evidence that a mind is independent of the brain. That view (called dualism) is taught regulary in undergraduate and even highschool classes as outdated baseless historical perspectives. God IS contrived.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Neither WLC, or myself in fact, mean that science postulates God as an answer, what instead is said by WLC, is that his views, ie the models, evidences and so forth, all conform to A) Scientific scrutiny, and B) Scientific knowledge as of the present day. His arguments are, all apart from 5 I believe, religiously neutral statements.  That's what is meant when he says they conform to mainstream science.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence They don't follow A or B because most of his arguements aren't falisifiable thus unscientific. Being non specific to a specific religion doesn't make it conform to mainstream science. To suggest that a god exists without inferring so from evidence is Bias, and even if its not christian, muslim, etc, its still a bias. A religiously neutral statement can't refer to God because God is a religious idea.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Ok back. I'm not sure how you can say that since the very first thing WLC puts up on the projector, is a hypothesis on probability which is a footnote to his arguments, 1->5. So it's easy to falsify any of them, simply by proving an antecedent as false. In the real world falsifiability isn't so clean. But we don't need to go there as WLC's arguments are all falsifiable. The topic wasn't 'Does God Exist?' recall, but is there evidence. *That* evidence can be religiously neutral.

[Savage911a]

@Savage911a 2. He claims the universe had a cause, And lets grant him that since I don't disgree. Then he concludes that its God. Why god? why not random quantum fluctuations like stephen hawkings explained in his version of m-theory. Theres no evidence for god, but m-theory has coherent math behind it and makes accurate predictions still being confirmed today. Why not something else, he doesn't justify his necessity for god so this isn't evidence, it isn't even a good deduction.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a You keep saying that there is no evidence for God, but that isn't true. There is, I can't keep letting you get away with just stating that like it's a fact, when it's one of the most hotly debated topics in the world. If there was simple no evidence, then there would be no question, and thus, no debate. So whilst we may not agree where the evidence leads, there IS evidence, and I feel it leads to an intelligent designer, it doesn't need to be God at this stage.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence Its not hottly debated in the scientific community where people actually study reality empirically. Socially, there is a debate because we evolved as a species that adopted religion as a cultural mean, and because we are human, people will defend their beliefs for psychological, emotional, and evolutionary reasons, but the science on this topic is one sided. No evidence for god. This evidence you claim is too weak, there are many things you'd also have to accept at that level.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Religion isn't science, so I see no reason why it would be debated in that circuit, however science doesn't have a monopoly on reality, so it's not the only circuit where a topic gains gravitas. Science usually deals in religiously neutral hypotheses but to say science is universal on the fact that there is no evidence for God, is just silly, as you can easily disprove that looking at all the theistic scientists and evolutionists who draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence Fine tuning is non-sense. Craig cites statistics that this universe is improbable because they universial constants are large and can't even vary by a hairline. Does he prove anywhere that these values are variable? Even an undergraduate in science learns from a second year stats course that you can't do statistics with a sample of 1. We have one 1 universe with certain constants, and until you prove that these values could've varied and by how much, any use of stats is moot.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a Of course the values are variable, that's the most ridiculous notion I've heard. Read about the cosmological constant to see some of the math that goes into working out these values. If the starting conditions were altered even minutely, the values would be totally different. No scientist, theistic or otherwise, has ever raised this objection. There is a reason why undergraduates *are* undergraduates, it's because they have a lot more studying to do... ;)

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence ... Wow you failed math hard didn't you my friend. We vary the variables when we do calculations on paper, but the actual possibility of these variables ACTUALLY VARYING in REAL LIFE is impossible to demostrate without identifing either other universes that exist or the mechanism by which universes are created. If we prove there are actual other universes with variable constants, then that proves that eventually a life permitting universe with exist. So you lose anyways =)

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a No I'm actually a programmer and use math everyday. Do you know why they are called variables, it's because they can *vary*... Do you know why these things are called constants? It's because they do not vary, even though they *can* vary. The starting conditions of the universe determine the constants in the universe, and for ours to fall into this range that permits our life, is perceived as being finely tuned. I would suggest reading about quarks to see this variation in effect.

[Savage911a]

@DigitalDecadence Your just contradicted yourself. They are called constants because they don't vary. then you say they "can" vary. These variables are set from the start of the universe and have not been shown to vary ever. Thats why they are called "constants" like you just said. You still have to prove these can vary and then how much by showing us another universe in which they do vary or show us mathetically how.

[DigitalDecadence]

@Savage911a It's not a contradiction. These values can be anything on a large large scale, some scientists even calculated the scale that some of these values can be, based on the starting energy and matter in the cosmological model they were working from. So the constants could theorhetically be any of those values, but they ended up being a specific one. That value, once established, does not change, hence why they are called constants.

[toobsucker]

@MomoTheBellyDancer "The multiverse is a reasonable hypothesis, based on the evidence we have. In no way can it be called reasonable to invoke gods of any kind. That notion is simply superfluous"

There is NO EVIDENCE for multiple universes.

Do you realize science does not even know what is in own own solar system, yet they know what lies beyond the universe?

Actually what is unreasonable is you making the positive assertion there can be NO God-like intellects in the universe.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@toobsucker

"NO EVIDENCE for multiple universes."

But it's a reasonable hypothesis, based on the evidence we do have. There are other good candidates, but gods are not among them.

"science does not even know what is in own own solar system"

You mean, aside from the sun, (dwarf) planets, moons, asteroids and comets.

"the positive assertion there can be NO God"

I am not asserting anything like that. I am simply saying that there is no evidence for one. Try reading for comprehension.

[toobsucker]

@MomoTheBellyDancer "You mean, aside from the sun, (dwarf) planets, moons, asteroids and comets"

Yes I meant everything thats in our solar system. New discoveries are happening all the time

"I am not asserting anything like that. I am simply saying that there is no evidence for one. Try reading for comprehension."

I comprehend reading well. It seems you do not comprehend your own posts

"In no way can it be called reasonable to invoke gods of any kind. That notion is simply superfluous"

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@toobsucker

"New discoveries are happening all the time"

So? Are you claiming we will discover some god lurking within the Oort cloud or something like that?

"I comprehend reading well."

But you clearly don't comprehend what you read.

"In no way can it be called reasonable to invoke gods of any kind."

You're proving my point. Where do I assert there is no god? I simply say that we don't NEED any gods to explain how the universe works.

[toobsucker]

@MomoTheBellyDancer "So? Are you claiming we will discover some god lurking within the Oort cloud or something like that"

No Im claiming its currently impossible to know what is beyond our own universe.

"But you clearly don't comprehend what you read"

I said you make a POSITIVE ASSERTION God does not exist. you said in response "I am not asserting anything like that"

Your logic fails. IF you are making a positive assertion in naturalism, you are ALSO making a positive assertion in NO I.D.

[toobsucker]

@MomoTheBellyDancer

You need to learn basic logic. Most atheists (liberals) have no idea about logical absolutes, they make decisions based on feelings

If I tell you I came to a T in the road and turned right. DO you realize I am positively asserting more than "I just turned right". I am also positively asserting I did NOT turn left or go backwards.

If I flip a coin and say ITS HEADS. Im ALSO saying its NOT TAILS.

I have positively asserted BOTH things at the same time

[Savage911a]

@toobsucker We understand basic logic. We understand if better than you. We also understand the value of classical logic is ridiculously limited in describing empirical data because classical logic is an emergent system of logic based on the biases of man and his senses while empirical data is based on the actual properties of the universe. Sorry but you guys just don't understand this stuff.

[toobsucker]

@Savage911a "We understand basic logic. We understand if better than you. We also understand the value of classical logic is ridiculously limited in describing empirical data because classical logic is an emergent system of logic based on the biases of man and his senses"

The empirical DATA & deductive logic (which is 100& accurate) tell us RANDOMNESS & SELECTION can not build successively upon previous information as needed in the genome. intelligent foresight is needed for this information

[toobsucker]

@theismIsBankrupt "Darwinian evolution driven by random genetic mutations (due mainly to copying errors) acted upon by natural selection is accepted by virtually all biologists"

This is true. However you must know there is ZERO DATA at the molecular level that suggests this is possible let alone plausible

[Naoumish]

@RyanEaster91

Maybe heeh2 is saying that morality under theism is just a dictatorial system, the arbitrary whim of God - as much as we want to call it "good", He can say one minute that killing is wrong, only to have His people smite the Amalekites the next.

What's worse is that the moral argument is self-defeating. Why would god's nature be morally good, if he did exist? Because we chose to define god's nature as morally good to begin with? Then it would be subjective - it refutes itself.

[talkingtoothpick]

if your curious about how one goes about accounting defining Morality from a naturalists view point and want at least an introduction to it, you should go watch the Shelly Kagan debate with WLC. Its on youtube.

[Birdieupon]

Krauss just LOVES equivocating on "nothing"!

[RyanEaster91]

That was a poor rebuttal on Krauss's part , especially on the morality issue. We would know it from common sense, huh? Seems like he is agreeing that there is an inherit sense of right and wrong. Plus he wasn't talking about the Judea-Christian God with his example, but rather someone's subjective morality.

[heeh2]

@RyanEaster91

The morality issue is one of the things you guys have a hard time understanding, I've noticed....

[RyanEaster91]

@heeh2

I am not trying to be disrespectful or start an argument. I am genuinely curious for you to explain how you think morality operates? Is it objective or purely subjective? Thanks.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@RyanEaster91

"how you think morality operates?"

Homo sapiens is a social species.