Theists often say that without god, morality is just an illusion. But how did they arrive at the conclusion that their god is good? They must have had a prior idea of what is good when they defined their god as good. You cannot call god good without first having an idea of what the word "good" means.
I enjoy both philosophy and science, however, these debates get tiresome. There is no empirical evidence for any divine creator. Period. There is actively evidence against the god of the Bible. This does not convince the masses of Christians and deists and theists. Why are we still debating this? Nothing will convince them. Dr. Craig is very good at two-stepping around the excellent points his opponents make, so why, why, why do they continue to play this game?
Krauss did well to insist on framing the debate scientifically rather than philosophically because Craig made himself look idiotic from a scientific perspective. Repeated appeals to authority: "but this scientists said THIS.." and plain ignorant assertions like "infinity can't really exist" (who the hell can demonstrate this?). His desperate style of argument showed up nicely when he quoted sam harris AGAINST determinism- anyone who's read his work will know that he's actually FOR determinism.
As a scientist myself, I am angered by Dr. Krauss' claim that science has shown us that the universe is not logical (utter fallacy). Considering that he is supposed to be a credible scientist, I would think he were aware of the fact that science is built ENTIRELY on the presupposition that the universe is rational. If it weren't THEN SCIENCE WOULDN'T EXIST. Science is PRECISELY the attempt to make RATIONAL, LOGICAL SENSE and statements of nature's workings, Dr. Krauss!!!!!!!
@intenebris83 If you look up the definitions of both the words "logical" and "rational," not one of them is described as you're making them out to be. However, even if your definition of those terms technically exist, they are subject to change over time. What Krauss means is that what we once thought was logical is not anywhere near to how the universe works. He's using the term subjectively. "As a scientist" yourself, it seems you ought be able to infer that.
@BadLuck765 I looked the definitions up and they seem to fit quite well with what I am saying.
Logic is not "subjective". People can't arbitrarily make up ideas and call them "logical". If Dr. Krauss is using the term subjectively, then he is essentially saying that science is nothing more than a subjective discipline - WHICH IT IS NOT.
Dr. Krauss stated explicitly that science is showing us that the universe is not logical. If it's not, THEN SCIENCE IS A WASTE OF TIME!!!
Also, enough of the facetious, "If God would only write 'I'm here' in the stars." It's so worthless as to be subtracting, as it shows that atheists have no threshold for what they would consider sufficient evidence. Again, such a statement is truly laughable and not worth the breath; even with such a "miraculous" event, it'd IMMEDIATELY be written off as "not being in all languages," or "God need's to work on His penmanship," or "there must be a better, more reasonable and explanatory solution."
@poprockssuck87 Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to believe, only that there is an insufficient lack of evidence -to- believe and, often, that the people who claim belief in God don't know any more about it than anyone who doesn't.
Having everyone refrain from a belief until it is proven seems pretty good to me, though. And if that means massive future belief in God, then I fail to see a problem. Were theories of evolution or gravity any different?
@BadLuck765 Atheism IS naturalism--a positive assertion needing support. It also insinuates that all which can be known and on which a philosophy may be based is the empirical, as it finds only scientific evidence to be of worth.
There's no reason for atheists to hold non-belief over that in a general creator; and since atheism isn't THE default position, AT LEAST agnosticism must be had.
Atheism is impractical, irrational, and unfounded. It goes beyond what is logically sound to "make a point."
@HelplessVictim But they are. To be an "agnostic atheist" (as is the trend, but only with the terms' manipulation) is to say that you don't know or that it can't be known, but that you've an inclination; based on what? Then you admittedly infer from that which isn't there, relying on baseless double-standards: there's no evidence for a creator, or atheism is the default.
To take sides on what you claim is "inacertainable" sans ANY justification is what you'd probably expect from your opposition.
Just because I don't believe the coin landed heads doesn't mean I'm asserting that it fell tails. I don't hold the positive belief for EITHER side, and thus am withholding judgment. Agnostic atheism is as wholly neutral as it gets.
@HelplessVictim So are you then also an a-naturalist as it applies to the origin question? as you aren't "going to pretend like" you know. If so, then the term atheist is an EQUIVALENT, pointless redundancy to agnosticism, as now you're just saying that you don't or can't know, and then that you aren't going to decide. And if not, then you unjustifiably hold a double-standard as to what is sufficient reason for the opposing positions.
As I said, atheism implies naturalism and affirms empiricism.
All dogs are canines, but not all canines are dogs. They aren't equivalent. There might be a gnostic atheist out there, saying he knows for a fact there are no gods. He's not agnostic. He's asserting a positive belief that needs to be backed with evidence.
"Atheist" alone, without either qualifier, is just the lack of belief. There are multiple ways to lack belief.
You could believe a coin is heads, or withhold judgment: either of those falls under a lack of belief it's tails.
@HelplessVictim "withhold[ing] judgment...falls under...lack of belief it's tails." Your position is an unjustified non sequitur.
From agnosticism, ALL that follows is a BELIEF it COULD BE EITHER.
With your analogy: From belief that "heads IS" OR "tails IS", follows absence (lack/non) of belief that "heads IS(N'T)" AND "tails IS(N'T)", meaning that they can't exist/not exist simultaneously.
You state: Non-belief that "heads IS" AND Non-belief that "tails IS", but these aren't the same. JUSTIFY!
"I believe it's tails" and "I don't believe it's heads" aren't the same thing. Seriously think before commenting this time. If I'm withholding judgment, I don't hold the belief either way.
If I flip a coin and don't show you the result, do you believe it's heads? No, you have no reason to. Tails? Nope, just as little reason to hold that belief. You'd be agnostic. Now what if people are defined by whether or not they believe it's heads? You'd still fall into lacking that belief.
@HelplessVictim All one can gather from not knowing which it is (agnosticism) is a belief it MUST be one or the other, as it can't be both nor neither.
From "withholding belief," the only position which directly follows is a belief it COULD BE either, as there's no reason to hold one side over the other. You've yet to justify how this means a "lack of belief" in both but to say that it follows, which it doesn't. That is to say, a lack of verification in either IS NOT a "lack of belief" in both.
Don't dodge. If I don't show the coin, would you assert it's heads?
Well?
Would you?
Having no evidence, you'd have no reason to hold that belief. You would LACK the belief it's heads. The same goes for tails. By withholding judgment, you lack the belief it's either side in particular. Now if we felt like defining you by whether you believe it was heads, you'd be an a-headsist because you don't hold that belief.
Seriously try giving it a modicum of thought this time.
@HelplessVictim In the case of a possible two, mutually exclusive outcomes, to hold no belief in either is naught but agnosticism, meaning that atheism implies a-naturalism IS agnosticism and that specifying "type" is redundant. Thus, atheism defined this way IS exactly agnosticism, requiring no specification. So "gnostic atheist" (meaning IS or CAN BE known) IS atheist if the term holds ANY meaning.
Belief it's tails implies non-belief it's heads; and belief it's heads or tails IS agnosticism.
Let's try something: you actually answer instead of dodging with mental gymnastics.
If I don't show you the coin, do you assert the belief that it's one side in particular ("I say it's heads," / "I say it's tails"), OR do you withhold judgment ("I don't know until I have evidence")?
Let's do this one step at a time. All I need you to do is answer that one question for now--no more confused defensive tangents this time, thanks. Just one or the other, then we can go from there.
@HelplessVictim Withholding belief from BOTH of two mutually exclusive possibilities is exactly agnosticism, meaning that if you redefine atheism to mean ONE of these withholdings--BUT ONE IMPLIES THE OTHER, agnostic atheist is redundant.
With your analogy of belief in the face-up side of a coin, you never mention withholding belief from both, which is implied unless given reason. Consider the possible answers to God's existence to be on the sides of a coin; withholding from both is AGNOSTICISM.
@HelplessVictim Again, your whole argument reduces to an unjustified assertion of atheism being a kind of "default" to exist at all, as nonexistence can NEVER be logically deduced (even in cases of contradiction, e.g. square-circles etc.) without first having uber-omni-universal knowledge.
My claim: Of the four: (a)gnostic (a)theist. gnostic atheist is logically impossible, agnostic atheist IS agnosticism, leaving the two theist positions which are positive assertions that can be logically held.
"Let's do this one step at a time. All I need you to do is answer that one question for now--no more confused defensive tangents this time, thanks. Just one or the other, then we can go from there."
Skepticism of atheists must be founded in disingenuousness, as with their "default" means of justifying their position; they'd have everyone refrain likewise until empirically verified beyond reasonable doubt that a creator exists, absurdly holding that only then could/ought any believe ("but only DEISM"). So they either expect a future influx of belief--given the verification of God's existence (doubtful), or their position insinuates God's nonexistence--as outright declaring this is illogical.
@bustermk2 False dichotomy. It's not philosophy vs. science (as the two are not, generally, opposed, and usually complementary, working together to search for truth). Indeed, philosophy can help science, and science certainly helps philosophy. What this really represents is science-based evidence versus theology (or religious philosophy).
@bustermk2 Science is ONLY empirically descriptive without any means for uncovering and considering the implications OF EVEN ITS OWN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO HUMANITY other than our physical "cause" (function) and constraint.
You and others wrongly conclude that philosophy is only good for "attempting" what we can’t now know definitely, which unjustly assumes we can and will know at some future point and explains not what to do with our lives in the meantime.
@bustermk2 I don't think there is a "battle" between philosophy and science, neither in general nor in this discussion. The topic is evidence for god which falls in the philosophy of religion, be it a scientist arguing or a professional philosopher. also, many special sciences derived from natural philosophy, such as biology from aristotle's categorization of nature. special sciences have concrete axioms, methods, etc. philosophy is more general, but it still answers some questions...
@bustermk2 or do you wish to commit a simple ad hominem fallacy? you are a philosopher, so your view is wrong, you are a scientist, so your view is right. you are black/gay/female/communist, so your view must be wrong... also, many philosophers "battle" for correct bases of sciences, mathematicians terribly failed at defining some main objects of their study, numbers, and philosophers first put mathematics on a solid basis... also, for us atheists your statement is a little insulting
@bustermk2 cause it calls into question the sincerity of numerous atheist philosophers who argued for the validity of scientific discovery and against religious indoctrination...
It's funny how you can cherry pick a "BOOK" (written by "MEN") and plug it any where you want at will. Lets see, The Lord of the Rings (Also a "BOOK" writen by a "MAN" years ago) also says that all the elves will die but will be reborn on middle earth. So that must be true as well according to you. LOL The bible is a mere book written by men in the past. I repeat written by "MEN". So if a profesional debater (william lane craig) defends the lord of the rings, would it also make it true?
I could have told Krauss that you can never win against beleivers. Like the black knight in monty python you can cut all of the knights arms and legs off and he still crys out, "Tis but a scratch!"
What bliss believers have in remaining ignorant. I wish all we needed to do to explain science was to prove the irrationality of god. Believers love to sow doubt by having no understanding the natural sciences but they never explain god other that to indicate that he is hiding in the gaps of complicated things.
@drcraigvideos.. Yes that is my point. They have adapted what was thought to be true by Christians for that time so that it would fit with current scientific theory. Creationism adopts the 'if we can't beat them, join them attitude'. With the emergence of science in America in the mid 20th century, there was no place for god, so creationism was invented as a feeble attempt to assimilate science with Christianity.
@scoey84 So, it was your point that not all Christians were creationists for 2000 years? At least that was my point. Look, there were plenty of theistic evolutionists that pre-dated and post-dated Darwin. Please, try to be fair okay?
lol this is silly.....there is a long 2000 year history of Christianity so this "creationism was invented to assimilate science" crap is a myth. The fact of the matter is, it has been almost 100 years since we discovered that the universe had a beginning and as long as the physical universe had a beginning you cant logically use a naturalistic model to explain that beginning...so modern cosmology is on the side of theist, not naturalist.
No matter how many times science proves Christianity or any other religion wrong, they will always find a way to adapt or modify their beliefs so that can keep believing that a God exists. For example, I think it is such a cop out that for almost 2000 years Christians believed the story of Genesis was the true story of the origins of the universe, but now in light of scientific discoveries, they believe Genesis is some kind of metaphor and was never meant to be taken literally. Sad...
@scoey84 If you look back to the catechetical school of Alexandria you'll find that the allegoric exegesis was practiced by people like Saint Clement and Origen. Even before that, the jewish philosopher Philo - a great influence on the Alexandrians - already practiced this type of interpretation based on the Old Testament and greek philosophy. Agustine, one of the greatest christian philosophers of all time, did, in the fifth century, also the same thing... So you're pretty much wrong...
@drcraigvideos... You obviously have a whole lot of man love for WLC. I agree that there should have been a preliminary vote as there is always going to be a bias based on how many people in the audience are theists and how many are atheists. I don't know where this debate was taken, but I am assuming America, which is about 75% Christian, so I doubt it was a balanced audience. In no way did Krauss get creamed, when I saw it I was sure It was going to be a landslide in favour of Krauss.
Dude its not about man love, its about who is putting forth the best argument for their position....Krauss did horrible in this debate and he is not on the intellect level of WLC despite his background in physics. Craig seems to do well against physicists, because he already whooped Vic Stenger...Krauss seemed as if he didnt prepare for this debate and he didnt even understand Craig's argument from contingency..so you can cheer lead for him all you want..it doesnt do him any justice..
@drcraigvideos Hmm, I take it then that there was a large christian contingent in the audience. I wonder what the results would have been if a preliminary vote had also been taken, Oxford-style.
Also, I wanted to congratulate you for opening your videos for comments.
@drcraigvideos And sponsored by CCC, who, I'm sure, did their best to get their crew there, while secularists were probably more concerned with the location of the nearest keg party. All I'm saying is that if there were a preliminary vote taken, my guess(and obviously that's all it is) is that the early vote would have favored Dr. Craig even more heavily.
@BLJazzman Well, if you think atheists would rather go to a "keg party" than to hear an intellectual debate where you have to use your brain then that's your claim. If that was the case, then it's no wonder Krauss got creamed.
@Lightfeatherwing ... okay. But Krauss REALLY believes 2+2 can equal 5. If one listens to the debate, they'll know that. Call it a parody if you want but he actually made an argument for it.
@Matt1128Y I know! Let's add an infinite quantity of marbles to an infinite quantity of marbles and punch it in and we get WOOP WOOOP Warning This Does Not Compute Warning This Does Not Compute WarninDoes N WarnNot ....fizzle ...pop ...
Well I suppose that if you accept the claims of bronze age goat herders as valid, then there's evidence for lots of gods actually. I mean Jesus wasn't even the first god to raise from the dead after 3 days. So yeah, lots of evidence out there for gods...if you believe the word of ignorant superstitious people. Muhammad rode into space on a horse, of course of course and Jesus flew unassisted into space. The evidence for these two events is equal.
@AirplaneRider Wow -- you really like strawman arguments don't you? And what evidence do you have that would suggest a bronze-age goatherder has less VERACITY than anyone else? Is there something inherently dishonest about the Bronze Age, or about goatherders? Or is it that you just don't think before you parrot other people's nonsense?
@ihatehavingausername Krauss is fully aware that he can't rebut the airtight logic of Craig, so he resorts to trying to prove that logic is unreliable. How does he do that? By using logic. But if he achieves his goal of proving logic unreliable, his argument necessarily fails. He applies a reductio ad absurdum on himself. Atheists always resort to this sophistry in one way or another, and somehow don't know or care that, thinking themselves wise, they are always shooting themselves in the foot.
@catbarf You don't know what classical logic is, do you? Judging from your response you don't even know what you're talking about. Sorry, it's an impossibility to deny the law of identity. And as Dr. Craig says to deny logic is to presume logic because you think that's the logical thing to do!
@catbarf Have you ever heard of necessary truths? You cannot deny classical logic and do science. Would you then say that the law of identity is wrong? You cannot deny peano arithmatic. Would you say that 1+1=938769823475904735987436908743508974235087?
Quantum logic does not quantum irrationality and stupidity.
@GMunny5 He's not being arbitrary about God as the answer for the infinite. There is no special pleading. Something to think about it: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc
@GMunny5 I know you posted this ages ago, but if there -is- a God, it can be argued (though not proven, which is what the debate should be about) that a God does not have to play by the "rules".
What you've asked is a good question, but it doesn't make God's existence any more or less likely or plausible. Ultimately, there's insufficient evidence for believing God, but no reason to be -certain- of his nonexistence as well.
@GMunny5 You really are a dumb, dumb human being. Infinite has both qualitative and quantitative meanings I would explain it to you but the concept is so basic that any attempt to simplify would only render the basic idea (which you fail to grasp) more difficult and hence beyond your pathetic cognitive capabilities.
@GMunny5 If God created the Universe and the laws and logic that applies to it, then why would he himself be limited by these same limits. God is not considered a physical part of this universe, God is beyond physical. He's transcendant.
@GMunny5 I'm guessing he would say 'god is not part of this universe' ^^ I think we would be arrogant to claim there is no god, but i doubt we need to be seen as arrogant if we claim there is no personal god. The universe may very well be the a 'representation' of some infinite 'beings' 'infinite imagination'. To then go further and antropomorphise that being/entity/eternal mind, is logically unsound. If there are strings, someone/something might be playing them :p It's not logically impossible
Krauss preformed poorly, but this is undoubtedly due to his inexperience with debating. If he was a professional debater as Craig is, he could've held is own very well.
@RonBurgundy161 Actually, Krauss has debate a few times before. Not nearly as much as Craig of course. But Krauss didn't even do decently in this debate. His opening remarks were painfully bad.
@drcraigvideos "But Krauss didn't even do decently in this debate. His opening remarks were painfully bad"
says the supporter of a professional hack, whom no cosmologist or physicist would take seriously, and whose cosmological arguments are dismissed out of hand (otherwise it wouldn't be the case that almost all cosmologists are atheists, would it?), while Lawrence Krauss is one of the most prominent and respected scientists in the U.S.
@godIsALieOne Are you kidding me? This is the reasoning that atheists come up with? Who cares what a majority of Cosmologist think about the existence of God. That isn't their expertise. The question of God is a philosophical one. And like Einstein said and Krauss showed "the man of science is a poor philosopher."
@KBrimstone I don't know where you are getting these weird ideas that scientists are not experts on what science tells. The members of the National Academy of Sciences are the people who actually make the discoveries. The discoverers say they see no evidence for God in what they discovered. Craig says he is better at interpreting their discoveries than 90% of them. He sounds like one of those faith healers who say "Don't listen to doctors. They don't know what they are talking about. Just pray"
@AD6043 No Bud. A Scientist deal with the natural world via empirical data. Dr. Craig isn't arguing the data. What he says most scientists agree on. He is right along the mainstream of science. How ever when it comes to what the data means. You don't turn to cosmologists you go to philosophy (you know the study of metaphysics, logic, etc)
Well as a Eminent philosopher we are right in Dr. Craig's expertise.
@KBrimstone let me tell you why faith healers disagree with doctors on what is healthy medicine. it is not because they interpret medical data better but because they don't understand the real medicine. Likewise, Craig deviates from scientists on what scientific data means because he doesn't understand it. He is far from mainstream science as Krauss clearly showed to the audience.
@AD6043 Really? What exactly did Dr Craig say tat "deviats from mainstream science"
Please enlighten me.
Becuase I heard the same debate and Doctor Craig used mainstream science and quoted scientists for his data. He only then applied philosophical principles (certainly your not going to try to tell a well respected philosopher he is wrong on philosophy are you?)
Krauss has done plenty of debates and public speaking events. He's up there in the "A List" who are called on to debate people like Michael Behe and other ID theorists. Plus, when he got onto talking physics he demonstrated that he's more than capable of being articulate and communicating what he knows.
He doesn't do it as much as Craig, of course, but that only means Craig may have a bit more experience in time-keeping and succintness. Krauss can do rhetoric (e.g. "nothing" is unstable).
I am amazed that Dr. Krauss mistakes predictability w/illogic. He actually laid logic out as not applicable to quantum mechanics. I'm just stunned. Logic is self-evident and for anyone to deny logic is simple an adherence to a aprior denial of God.
@SimpleMan7718 Quantum mechanics doesn't conform to logic. Logic is the analyses of inference, and inference is drawing a conclusion from the existing evidence. If we apply common logic to quantum mechanics, we are incorrect about 90% of the time through experimentation, because our conclusions on existing evidence are most of the time wrong. Just look at the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, no one would've concluded that consciousness effects the wave/particle duality of a photon.
@RonBurgundy161 wrong, quantum mechanics conforms to logic. Perhaps no to intuition but is completely logical in its arguments and findings. Yes the "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment" is completely mind blowing, but no they are not illogical.
No, consciousness doesn't affect the particle duality, it's the measurement what interferes with the wave. And no, sorry, no, that Chopra's crap is absolutely wrong.
@Carutsu I'm arguing semantics. Logic presupposes a conclusion based on evidence, quantum mechanics completely obliterates our original conclusions in most cases. Therefore, quantum mechanics is illogical. Only after experimentation can quantum mechanics possibly conform to logic, which wasn't the argument.
You should see Yoon-Ho Kim's discussion on the delayed quantum eraser.
@RonBurgundy161 I stand corrected on the application of logic to quantum mechanics however the point still stands that his comments on predictability are an argument from incredulity and that laws do apply to quantum mechanics. Perhaps the reason for this is that we are applying laws that apply elsewhere do not work in the quantum field. On a side note, correct me if I am wrong but gravity does affect light? Memory is escaping me and you seem to know a thing or two about physics.
@RonBurgundy161 Again, it is confusing predictability with logical inference. So we are not able to predict where they are, perhaps because we do not know all the variables. Another possibility is that we are applying laws that apply elsewhere but do not work in the quantum field for reasons we have yet to ascertain. Did the experiment show an effect or a perception of effect? I believe there is still a little confusion surrounding that topic.
@drcraigvideos Hopefully that turns out. I'm pretty sure Craig won, but I'm curious about the margin. If and when you find out, would you mind posting a bulletin or even a video to let the rest of us know? Thanks in advance.
My point is, you cannot define a substraction-like operation on just any class of objects in a coherant way. But this has no bearing on the actual or possible existence of the objects of this class.
Of course I agree that the world has a finite past, but mainly because God revealed it. I just have a problem with this particular argument.
@2000deg Could you specify a little bit why you have a problem? Just curious..and I think I disagree ehh you can subtract 2 dogs minus dog right? Because that is a coherant statement...you should really read Craigs, "Kalam Cosmological Argument", it goes through all of this in excruciating detail I thought I was going to poke my eyes out hahah!
@2000deg But another thing on infinity, in finite numbers, the principle holds that a part is not greater than a whole, right? But thats not so in infinity, they define it that it cannot be that way for infinity, but mathematicians given no real reason why it isn't that way...I think its because to make the operations usable you have to change certain rules.
Ok, so if you conceed that they are incoherant concepts than how could they be allowed to exist in reality? Its like the smell of green, IS that a real concept? Of course not! ...And Brouwer denied the infinite.....I am honestly quite baffeled that someone would defend the concept of the infinite...I mean besides being obviously intuitively wrong, its also hopelessly contradictory like when you subtract infinity minus infinity, you get different results. btw I am a Christian as well
"Brouwer made it clear, as I think beyond any doubt, that there is no evidence supporting the belief in the existential character of the totality of all natural numbers" A proponent of original intuitionism
@Lion0fyudah "Dog minus clock is incoherant" infinity minus infinity is incoherant "time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated." dogs, cats and clocks the otherhand are coherant and can be enumerated. "Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments. " ...subtract dogs, cats and clocks.
---
"intuitionists have had included some of the best mathematicians in the world" Well, they have Brouwer, and thats it.
"And btw, are you a Christian? Just curious " Yes, of course.
When the Aristotelians speak of the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes (I supose that the Arab who invented the kalam argument was a aristotelian), they have something completly different in mind, than a regress in time. Most ancients and even the scholastics either believed in an ethernal world or at least thought it possible. What they mean is an impossibility of an infinite regress of metaphysical sustaining causes. And this makes complete sense.
Dr Craig should drop the "impossibility of actual infinite"-argument. If infinity involved self-contradictory properties, it would have been useless in mathematics. Besides: if you ask what is "infinity minus infinity" you have first to appropriately define the terms "infinity" and "minus". Subtraction is normaly only defined for finite numbers. You can define it for infinity, but then you will not get a single valued relation.
@2000deg You don't seem to understand that Dr. Craig is saying an actual infinite does not exist in the universe. It's only an abstract idea is where it exists. He doesn't deny that.
@drcraigvideos I concede that this whole argument is hard to grasp for me. In another place he brings the example of Hilberts hotel. But what this shows is just that an actual number of infinitly many things leads to counterintuitive results, but not to contradictions. You cannot deduce a contradiction out of it. But if there is no contradiction, why shouldnt it be possible? After all, Gods power, knowledge and beeing is without limit, that is: he is an actualy infinite beeing.
@2000deg The, uh, "counterintuitive results" are contradictions, genius. Hilbert's Hotel proves that if you have an actual infinite number of rooms, and if you move one guest to another room for an incoming guest, it leads to contradictions: watch?v=lobeX6ft6PA. God is not a concrete person, an infinite is not a problem for Him: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc
@drcraigvideos If it is a contradiction then the whole of modern mathematics rests on a contradiction. You cannot build a mathematical theory on a contradiction. The principles that are in play in Hilberts Hotel can be applied to the set of natural numbers. There is no contradiction! This whole argument is just a fallacy. A 2nd semester student of mathematics can see this.
---
What does this mean God is not a "concrete person"? Is he an "abstract" person or what? This is nonsense.
@2000deg "If it is a contradiction then the whole of modern mathematics rests on a contradiction." SIGH* Hilbert's Hotel has to do with the physical universe, not abstract ideas. An actual infinite can exist, but it cannot exist within the universe. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
God is an immaterial and spaceless Being: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c
@drcraigvideos I have watched: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc Here is the problem. "Gods knowledge is infinite" means that for every proposition God knows whether it is true or false. Now, there is an infinite number of propositions. This means that God knows an infinite number of things. Further: Gods power is without limit=God can do anything that is intrinsically possible. There is infinite number of intrinsically possible things. (Side-question: is an infinity of possible things actual?)
@drcraigvideos "The, uh, "counterintuitive results" are contradictions, genius"
HAHA you're so embarrassingly ignorant that you are a 100% prove your God doesn't exist: he would never create a moron like you
almost all of QM is counter-intuitive, FOOL. yet, it's the most tested and verified theory in physics. Krauss spent some time during the debate to illustrate just how counter-intuitive QM is with the Double-Slit Experiment, but it went right past your god-infected brain, didn't it
@2000deg There are certain principles in set theory and trans-finite numbers that had to be formed just to keep infinity as a usable concept in math. For example, they don't use subtraction or division. But in the real world you CAN subtract things and take them away or divide them up. Mathemeticians know this, they are aware that infinity in math is an abstraction, and does not hold in reality. Only platonists hold that infinity exists in reality, and there are BIG problems with platonism.
@Lion0fyudah In the real world you cant subtract a cat from a dog. So what? What does this prove? Just because you cannot define a substraction-like operation on a class of objects proves that these objects dont exist?
@2000deg YES because you can subtract in the real world! you can still divide up a cat into parts, you cannot do so in infinity, moreover, it cannot exist by sequence and events, like 1,2,3,4,5......you will never reach infinity and even more powerful aleph0 (which is how infinity is defined) has no prior number directly before it, so you can never bridge the gap to infinity, things are only potentially infinite as in, stretching on forever in one direction
@Lion0fyudah Moreover, PARTS of mathematics uses infinities and in addition to the mathematicians agreeing that its an abstraction and not something that exists in reality, and powerful group of mathematicians named intuitionists hold Cantorian mathematics with disdain and say it is not real math and reject infinities. So even among mathateticians infinities are not fully accepted
@Lion0fyudah Intuitionists are a small minority of mathematicians (5% at best), far from powerful or influential. As a Christian you dont want to assosiate yourself with their principles. Their epistemology excludes the possibility of knowing God. They deny the axiom of excluded middle. Thats the pecularity of their mathematics. Certainly interesting in certain respects, but worthless for the real world.
@2000deg First of all, intuitionists have had included some of the best mathematicians in the world from several continents and countries, so though being small they do have clout. And you can't throw the baby out with the bath water, just because they have some silly principles dosen't mean they are wrong about infinity, in fact, I think they are right. And btw, are you a Christian? Just curious
@Lion0fyudah Aleph0 is just the first infinite cardinal. Its not the definition of infinity. There is aleph1, aleph2 etc...
Now show me your definition of "substraction" so that "dog minus cat" "dog minus clock" "cat minus five" makes sense.
There is an actual infinite: Gods powers. Lets take more mundane example: A simple, finite line consists of infinite number of parts. It is even possible to give an enumaration of a all parts of certain partitions of that line.
@2000deg Dude what you have just said is completely irrelevant! Besides just showing more absurdities with infinity i.e, aleph0, aleph 1, apleph2, you have not responded to the point that infinity can NEVER be reached because it has no number that precedes it! Dog minus clock is incoherant, time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated. Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments.
@Lion0fyudah "Dog minus clock is incoherant" Infinity minus infinity is incoherant. "time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated." Dogs, cats and clocks are on the other coherant and can be enumerated. "Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments. "
@Lion0fyudah "Dog minus clock is incoherant" infinity minus infinity is incoherant "time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated." dogs, cats and clocks on the otherhand are coherant and can be enumerated. "Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments." ..or dogs, cats and clocks.
@2000deg A line has a potentially infinite number of parts so that it can be divide forever but not an actual infinite, you will never end, never reach infinity. Gods powers are not infinite in that sense, they only have no limit, but even Gods powers have limits, for example God cannot do the logically impossible
I was there XD XD. I have to say Craig clearly won this debate. Krauss seems to be clearly committed to atheistic explanations of the universe in spite of his so called openness to go wherever the evidence leads.
He does not hold to scientism but he does hold to scientism. The universe is fine tuned but its not fine tuned. We have to accept the universe the way it is whether we like it or not, but we don't have to accept the universe the way it is if we don't like the fact it points to God. Does Krauss have any idea what he was saying in this debate?
It would be interesting to know if Krauss considers there to be evidence of Multiverse? As near the end he says that to directly determine if other universes exist is not possible. Thus according to what he says to Craig that if it can not be falsified it is not evidence. Thus multivese cannot be used by Krouss to support atheism since it is non falsifiable.
@stephjh2006 Exactly. I was wondering why Craig didn't hit him on this fact directly throughout the debate, but as it turns out, he didn't have to. Krauss admitted himself that there is no, and can be no, evidence for a multiverse.
Oh dear... 7 minutes in and Craig starts with a strawman about science. Scientific hypotheses aren't about "more probable" between two arbitrary options but about whether evidence leads to possibilities. Is there any evidence that leads to deities? If not, then no deity hypothesis. Also, a null hypotheses is essential: how could we test for "no deity"? You can't just consider evidence "for a deity", you need to consider the null hypothesis.
I'd be surprised if it's not all downhill from here.
I wish Krauss would have nailed his ass on arguing for deism instead of christianity though. You cannot sit there and say "well the universe needed a creator" and then not draw distinct connections DIRECTLY to the abrahamic god and/or jesus directly and STILL consider yourself a "CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC". Sorry, you are a "DEIST APOLOGETIC" so stop saying 'And thus, the bible is correct' or, essentially, 'Universe needed creator and this proves Jesus...' no. That makes NO sense.
@YourBrainOnReligion Craig argues the characteristics of God in other debates and lectures, which he dose a good job on. Craig is focusing on the evidence that a God exists, the only link in this debate he makes between the deity behind the universe and Jesus is in the resurrection, suggesting that this creates a link between the deity and Jesus. It is a debate and so is limited, Craig has to focus on a broad range and so summarises more than expands, see his lectures for expansion
@stephjh2006 lol, wrong. Craig has no evidence to prove god so all he can do is resort to coming up with tricky philosophical arguments that are too complex for the average layman to dissect and understand why it's wrong. All he is doing is exploiting the ignorance of anyone dumb enough to trust such a dishonest person. The man admitted to Richard Dawkins that no evidence in the world would ever change his mind. That is the EPITOME of being intellectually dishonest.
@YourBrainOnReligion LOL Dr. Craig won this debate. It so obvious it's stark. The topic was; Are there any evidence for God's existence. Under the classical (and widely held by epidemiologists) understanding of the word evidence. The problem was that Kruass ( a philosophical illiterate) wasn't familiar with probability calculus. As I'm sure neither are you. It's sad that any person can watch this debate and come to any other conclusion.
@KBrimstone Epidemiologists? People who study the spread of illness are now also joining in on the debate? I think you mean epistemologists. There is also no "epistemological definition of evidence" either. It doesn't require a special definition. It's very simple: an argument is NEVER evidence. An argument an abstract statement, it is not something TANGIBLE which can be tested at all. In short: You are in no position to judge Dr. Krauss' intellectual prowess whatsoever. Ya WLC won... rofl.
@KBrimstone I'm not proposing scientism, hahaha... "scientism" is the NORM - it's how the world operates now. Where do you think technology came from? Good arguments? Or is it the result of well thought out hypothesis that were repeatedly put to the test to finally determine ACTUAL, DEMONSTRABLE truth? Furthermore, where do you think the internet came from? Divine inspiration? Or is it the product of the hard work and dedication of hundreds upon hundreds of great thinkers??
@KBrimstone Absolutely. How is it rational to believe something you can't empirically prove? Do you believe there is a 1,000 pound diamond in your back yard? Why or why not?
@KBrimstone "So how did you come to believe the statement "you can only believe what can empirically verified?""
I didn't come to "believe" it, it proven. You christians seem to really have a problem with understanding epistemology. You cannot KNOW something without proof and you cannot be justified in believing something without compelling reason. They are two entirely different concepts.
@YourBrainOnReligion nonsense. Let me ask you, Do you have knowledge of the statement "you can only believe what can empirically verified" of beleif?
@KBrimstone P.S. If you're not going to answer a very simple question like "where did the internet come from? divine inspiration or scientific testing?" you're obviously far too comfortable being dishonest. You know the only answer is "scientific testing" which reveals how stupid your whole argument is. Name one thing besides the bible that has been created or invented solely courtesy of divine inspiration? Just one.
Spoiler: You can't, because none exist. So what's OBV more beneficial?
Theists often say that without god, morality is just an illusion. But how did they arrive at the conclusion that their god is good? They must have had a prior idea of what is good when they defined their god as good. You cannot call god good without first having an idea of what the word "good" means.
JohannMint 1 month ago
He said science makes rape ok. He is a monster.
LiberalsUtopian 4 months ago
I enjoy both philosophy and science, however, these debates get tiresome. There is no empirical evidence for any divine creator. Period. There is actively evidence against the god of the Bible. This does not convince the masses of Christians and deists and theists. Why are we still debating this? Nothing will convince them. Dr. Craig is very good at two-stepping around the excellent points his opponents make, so why, why, why do they continue to play this game?
Hannahdabeast 4 months ago
Krauss did well to insist on framing the debate scientifically rather than philosophically because Craig made himself look idiotic from a scientific perspective. Repeated appeals to authority: "but this scientists said THIS.." and plain ignorant assertions like "infinity can't really exist" (who the hell can demonstrate this?). His desperate style of argument showed up nicely when he quoted sam harris AGAINST determinism- anyone who's read his work will know that he's actually FOR determinism.
chizwoz 5 months ago
Now im sure smart people are really dumb. Thanx dr kraus ur the dumbest
jonathancooper1988 6 months ago
As a scientist myself, I am angered by Dr. Krauss' claim that science has shown us that the universe is not logical (utter fallacy). Considering that he is supposed to be a credible scientist, I would think he were aware of the fact that science is built ENTIRELY on the presupposition that the universe is rational. If it weren't THEN SCIENCE WOULDN'T EXIST. Science is PRECISELY the attempt to make RATIONAL, LOGICAL SENSE and statements of nature's workings, Dr. Krauss!!!!!!!
intenebris83 6 months ago
I guess that means Dr. Krauss is out of job!!!!!
intenebris83 6 months ago
@intenebris83 maybe you should write him a letter.
visualkei72 6 months ago
@intenebris83 If you look up the definitions of both the words "logical" and "rational," not one of them is described as you're making them out to be. However, even if your definition of those terms technically exist, they are subject to change over time. What Krauss means is that what we once thought was logical is not anywhere near to how the universe works. He's using the term subjectively. "As a scientist" yourself, it seems you ought be able to infer that.
BadLuck765 6 months ago
@BadLuck765 I looked the definitions up and they seem to fit quite well with what I am saying.
Logic is not "subjective". People can't arbitrarily make up ideas and call them "logical". If Dr. Krauss is using the term subjectively, then he is essentially saying that science is nothing more than a subjective discipline - WHICH IT IS NOT.
Dr. Krauss stated explicitly that science is showing us that the universe is not logical. If it's not, THEN SCIENCE IS A WASTE OF TIME!!!
intenebris83 5 months ago
Comment removed
intenebris83 6 months ago
Also, enough of the facetious, "If God would only write 'I'm here' in the stars." It's so worthless as to be subtracting, as it shows that atheists have no threshold for what they would consider sufficient evidence. Again, such a statement is truly laughable and not worth the breath; even with such a "miraculous" event, it'd IMMEDIATELY be written off as "not being in all languages," or "God need's to work on His penmanship," or "there must be a better, more reasonable and explanatory solution."
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
@poprockssuck87 Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to believe, only that there is an insufficient lack of evidence -to- believe and, often, that the people who claim belief in God don't know any more about it than anyone who doesn't.
Having everyone refrain from a belief until it is proven seems pretty good to me, though. And if that means massive future belief in God, then I fail to see a problem. Were theories of evolution or gravity any different?
BadLuck765 6 months ago
@BadLuck765 Atheism IS naturalism--a positive assertion needing support. It also insinuates that all which can be known and on which a philosophy may be based is the empirical, as it finds only scientific evidence to be of worth.
There's no reason for atheists to hold non-belief over that in a general creator; and since atheism isn't THE default position, AT LEAST agnosticism must be had.
Atheism is impractical, irrational, and unfounded. It goes beyond what is logically sound to "make a point."
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
I guess no one ever told you nearly all atheists are agnostics too? The terms aren't mutually exclusive.
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim But they are. To be an "agnostic atheist" (as is the trend, but only with the terms' manipulation) is to say that you don't know or that it can't be known, but that you've an inclination; based on what? Then you admittedly infer from that which isn't there, relying on baseless double-standards: there's no evidence for a creator, or atheism is the default.
To take sides on what you claim is "inacertainable" sans ANY justification is what you'd probably expect from your opposition.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
Agnostic=I don't know either way.
Atheist=I'm not going to pretend like I do.
(NOT mutually exclusive)
If you think they are, try saying the same here:
"I don't know which side the coin landed on."
"I don't hold the belief it's heads."
Just because I don't believe the coin landed heads doesn't mean I'm asserting that it fell tails. I don't hold the positive belief for EITHER side, and thus am withholding judgment. Agnostic atheism is as wholly neutral as it gets.
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim So are you then also an a-naturalist as it applies to the origin question? as you aren't "going to pretend like" you know. If so, then the term atheist is an EQUIVALENT, pointless redundancy to agnosticism, as now you're just saying that you don't or can't know, and then that you aren't going to decide. And if not, then you unjustifiably hold a double-standard as to what is sufficient reason for the opposing positions.
As I said, atheism implies naturalism and affirms empiricism.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
All dogs are canines, but not all canines are dogs. They aren't equivalent. There might be a gnostic atheist out there, saying he knows for a fact there are no gods. He's not agnostic. He's asserting a positive belief that needs to be backed with evidence.
"Atheist" alone, without either qualifier, is just the lack of belief. There are multiple ways to lack belief.
You could believe a coin is heads, or withhold judgment: either of those falls under a lack of belief it's tails.
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim "withhold[ing] judgment...falls under...lack of belief it's tails." Your position is an unjustified non sequitur.
From agnosticism, ALL that follows is a BELIEF it COULD BE EITHER.
With your analogy: From belief that "heads IS" OR "tails IS", follows absence (lack/non) of belief that "heads IS(N'T)" AND "tails IS(N'T)", meaning that they can't exist/not exist simultaneously.
You state: Non-belief that "heads IS" AND Non-belief that "tails IS", but these aren't the same. JUSTIFY!
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
"I believe it's tails" and "I don't believe it's heads" aren't the same thing. Seriously think before commenting this time. If I'm withholding judgment, I don't hold the belief either way.
If I flip a coin and don't show you the result, do you believe it's heads? No, you have no reason to. Tails? Nope, just as little reason to hold that belief. You'd be agnostic. Now what if people are defined by whether or not they believe it's heads? You'd still fall into lacking that belief.
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim All one can gather from not knowing which it is (agnosticism) is a belief it MUST be one or the other, as it can't be both nor neither.
From "withholding belief," the only position which directly follows is a belief it COULD BE either, as there's no reason to hold one side over the other. You've yet to justify how this means a "lack of belief" in both but to say that it follows, which it doesn't. That is to say, a lack of verification in either IS NOT a "lack of belief" in both.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
Don't dodge. If I don't show the coin, would you assert it's heads?
Well?
Would you?
Having no evidence, you'd have no reason to hold that belief. You would LACK the belief it's heads. The same goes for tails. By withholding judgment, you lack the belief it's either side in particular. Now if we felt like defining you by whether you believe it was heads, you'd be an a-headsist because you don't hold that belief.
Seriously try giving it a modicum of thought this time.
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim In the case of a possible two, mutually exclusive outcomes, to hold no belief in either is naught but agnosticism, meaning that atheism implies a-naturalism IS agnosticism and that specifying "type" is redundant. Thus, atheism defined this way IS exactly agnosticism, requiring no specification. So "gnostic atheist" (meaning IS or CAN BE known) IS atheist if the term holds ANY meaning.
Belief it's tails implies non-belief it's heads; and belief it's heads or tails IS agnosticism.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
Let's try something: you actually answer instead of dodging with mental gymnastics.
If I don't show you the coin, do you assert the belief that it's one side in particular ("I say it's heads," / "I say it's tails"), OR do you withhold judgment ("I don't know until I have evidence")?
Let's do this one step at a time. All I need you to do is answer that one question for now--no more confused defensive tangents this time, thanks. Just one or the other, then we can go from there.
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim Withholding belief from BOTH of two mutually exclusive possibilities is exactly agnosticism, meaning that if you redefine atheism to mean ONE of these withholdings--BUT ONE IMPLIES THE OTHER, agnostic atheist is redundant.
With your analogy of belief in the face-up side of a coin, you never mention withholding belief from both, which is implied unless given reason. Consider the possible answers to God's existence to be on the sides of a coin; withholding from both is AGNOSTICISM.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim Again, your whole argument reduces to an unjustified assertion of atheism being a kind of "default" to exist at all, as nonexistence can NEVER be logically deduced (even in cases of contradiction, e.g. square-circles etc.) without first having uber-omni-universal knowledge.
My claim: Of the four: (a)gnostic (a)theist. gnostic atheist is logically impossible, agnostic atheist IS agnosticism, leaving the two theist positions which are positive assertions that can be logically held.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@HelplessVictim Formally:
(~)B = (non)belief, H=heads, T=tails, => = implies. ^=and, v=or.
Agnosticism is B(H v T).
You say, B(H v T) => ~B(H) ^ ~B(T), and that this nonbelief in, say, heads means that agnostic and agnostic atheist are distinct .
But ~B(H) ^ ~B(T) => ~B(H) => B(T) v B(H v T); i.e. nonbelief in heads is either belief in tails or belief in heads or tails.
~B(T) ^ [B(T) v B(H v T)] => B(H v T); disjunctive syllogism
Thus agnosticism and your definition of atheism are EQUIVALENT.
poprockssuck87 6 months ago
@poprockssuck87
I guess you didn't read this part:
"Let's do this one step at a time. All I need you to do is answer that one question for now--no more confused defensive tangents this time, thanks. Just one or the other, then we can go from there."
...did you?
HelplessVictim 6 months ago
Skepticism of atheists must be founded in disingenuousness, as with their "default" means of justifying their position; they'd have everyone refrain likewise until empirically verified beyond reasonable doubt that a creator exists, absurdly holding that only then could/ought any believe ("but only DEISM"). So they either expect a future influx of belief--given the verification of God's existence (doubtful), or their position insinuates God's nonexistence--as outright declaring this is illogical.
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
Landslide victory for Craig.
9pt9 7 months ago
In the battle of philosophy vs science ... Science always wins.
All Craig's double talk means nothing. Philosophy is good at asking questions but it is useless for finding answers.
bustermk2 7 months ago 9
@bustermk2 Uh, yeah, the law of identity in philosophy can't answer a thing, huh? Get real: watch?v=vxJQe_FefxY
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@bustermk2 False dichotomy. It's not philosophy vs. science (as the two are not, generally, opposed, and usually complementary, working together to search for truth). Indeed, philosophy can help science, and science certainly helps philosophy. What this really represents is science-based evidence versus theology (or religious philosophy).
gyniest 7 months ago
@bustermk2 Science is ONLY empirically descriptive without any means for uncovering and considering the implications OF EVEN ITS OWN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO HUMANITY other than our physical "cause" (function) and constraint.
You and others wrongly conclude that philosophy is only good for "attempting" what we can’t now know definitely, which unjustly assumes we can and will know at some future point and explains not what to do with our lives in the meantime.
How are those for "winning answers"?
poprockssuck87 7 months ago
@bustermk2 I don't think there is a "battle" between philosophy and science, neither in general nor in this discussion. The topic is evidence for god which falls in the philosophy of religion, be it a scientist arguing or a professional philosopher. also, many special sciences derived from natural philosophy, such as biology from aristotle's categorization of nature. special sciences have concrete axioms, methods, etc. philosophy is more general, but it still answers some questions...
Jackies1979 5 months ago
@bustermk2 or do you wish to commit a simple ad hominem fallacy? you are a philosopher, so your view is wrong, you are a scientist, so your view is right. you are black/gay/female/communist, so your view must be wrong... also, many philosophers "battle" for correct bases of sciences, mathematicians terribly failed at defining some main objects of their study, numbers, and philosophers first put mathematics on a solid basis... also, for us atheists your statement is a little insulting
Jackies1979 5 months ago
@bustermk2 cause it calls into question the sincerity of numerous atheist philosophers who argued for the validity of scientific discovery and against religious indoctrination...
Jackies1979 5 months ago
@bustermk2 And this is a philosophycal claim. :)
NewWaysMusic 4 months ago
@Buggz2
It's funny how you can cherry pick a "BOOK" (written by "MEN") and plug it any where you want at will. Lets see, The Lord of the Rings (Also a "BOOK" writen by a "MAN" years ago) also says that all the elves will die but will be reborn on middle earth. So that must be true as well according to you. LOL The bible is a mere book written by men in the past. I repeat written by "MEN". So if a profesional debater (william lane craig) defends the lord of the rings, would it also make it true?
Th3Grid 8 months ago
I could have told Krauss that you can never win against beleivers. Like the black knight in monty python you can cut all of the knights arms and legs off and he still crys out, "Tis but a scratch!"
b991228 8 months ago
What bliss believers have in remaining ignorant. I wish all we needed to do to explain science was to prove the irrationality of god. Believers love to sow doubt by having no understanding the natural sciences but they never explain god other that to indicate that he is hiding in the gaps of complicated things.
b991228 8 months ago
Comment removed
Scoze84 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos.. Yes that is my point. They have adapted what was thought to be true by Christians for that time so that it would fit with current scientific theory. Creationism adopts the 'if we can't beat them, join them attitude'. With the emergence of science in America in the mid 20th century, there was no place for god, so creationism was invented as a feeble attempt to assimilate science with Christianity.
scoey84 9 months ago 4
@scoey84 So, it was your point that not all Christians were creationists for 2000 years? At least that was my point. Look, there were plenty of theistic evolutionists that pre-dated and post-dated Darwin. Please, try to be fair okay?
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@scoey84
lol this is silly.....there is a long 2000 year history of Christianity so this "creationism was invented to assimilate science" crap is a myth. The fact of the matter is, it has been almost 100 years since we discovered that the universe had a beginning and as long as the physical universe had a beginning you cant logically use a naturalistic model to explain that beginning...so modern cosmology is on the side of theist, not naturalist.
Buggz21 9 months ago
No matter how many times science proves Christianity or any other religion wrong, they will always find a way to adapt or modify their beliefs so that can keep believing that a God exists. For example, I think it is such a cop out that for almost 2000 years Christians believed the story of Genesis was the true story of the origins of the universe, but now in light of scientific discoveries, they believe Genesis is some kind of metaphor and was never meant to be taken literally. Sad...
scoey84 9 months ago 6
@scoey84 Christians didn't believe in creationism for 2000 years.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos
99.9% of them sure as hell did!
chizwoz 5 months ago
@scoey84 If you look back to the catechetical school of Alexandria you'll find that the allegoric exegesis was practiced by people like Saint Clement and Origen. Even before that, the jewish philosopher Philo - a great influence on the Alexandrians - already practiced this type of interpretation based on the Old Testament and greek philosophy. Agustine, one of the greatest christian philosophers of all time, did, in the fifth century, also the same thing... So you're pretty much wrong...
GiuseppeCunha 2 months ago
Comment removed
scoey84 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos... You obviously have a whole lot of man love for WLC. I agree that there should have been a preliminary vote as there is always going to be a bias based on how many people in the audience are theists and how many are atheists. I don't know where this debate was taken, but I am assuming America, which is about 75% Christian, so I doubt it was a balanced audience. In no way did Krauss get creamed, when I saw it I was sure It was going to be a landslide in favour of Krauss.
scoey84 9 months ago
@scoey84
Dude its not about man love, its about who is putting forth the best argument for their position....Krauss did horrible in this debate and he is not on the intellect level of WLC despite his background in physics. Craig seems to do well against physicists, because he already whooped Vic Stenger...Krauss seemed as if he didnt prepare for this debate and he didnt even understand Craig's argument from contingency..so you can cheer lead for him all you want..it doesnt do him any justice..
Buggz21 9 months ago
So, how did the vote turn out?
BLJazzman 9 months ago
@BLJazzman If you go to the debate's website, Dr. Craig won by a large margin.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos Hmm, I take it then that there was a large christian contingent in the audience. I wonder what the results would have been if a preliminary vote had also been taken, Oxford-style.
Also, I wanted to congratulate you for opening your videos for comments.
BLJazzman 9 months ago
@BLJazzman The debate was held at a secular university. Look, it doesn't take a genius to realize that Craig creamed Krauss.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos And sponsored by CCC, who, I'm sure, did their best to get their crew there, while secularists were probably more concerned with the location of the nearest keg party. All I'm saying is that if there were a preliminary vote taken, my guess(and obviously that's all it is) is that the early vote would have favored Dr. Craig even more heavily.
BLJazzman 9 months ago
@BLJazzman Well, if you think atheists would rather go to a "keg party" than to hear an intellectual debate where you have to use your brain then that's your claim. If that was the case, then it's no wonder Krauss got creamed.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@drcraigvideos
This is my third time watching this debate and every time it looks worse for Krauss...so i think the word "creamed" is a very modest term lol
Buggz21 9 months ago
"(best of all, you get to see Krauss unbutton his Oxford shirt to reveal a T-shirt that says "2+2=5"! "
Thats not really weird at all, if one has read the book 1984 from which he got the phrase "2+2=5" from.
Lightfeatherwing 9 months ago
@Lightfeatherwing ... okay. But Krauss REALLY believes 2+2 can equal 5. If one listens to the debate, they'll know that. Call it a parody if you want but he actually made an argument for it.
drcraigvideos 9 months ago
@Matt1128Y I know! Let's add an infinite quantity of marbles to an infinite quantity of marbles and punch it in and we get WOOP WOOOP Warning This Does Not Compute Warning This Does Not Compute WarninDoes N WarnNot ....fizzle ...pop ...
GospelHouseKat 10 months ago
it's called new atheism for a reason: old school atheists don't want to be embarassed by anti-theists
IloveYOUviruses 10 months ago
Well I suppose that if you accept the claims of bronze age goat herders as valid, then there's evidence for lots of gods actually. I mean Jesus wasn't even the first god to raise from the dead after 3 days. So yeah, lots of evidence out there for gods...if you believe the word of ignorant superstitious people. Muhammad rode into space on a horse, of course of course and Jesus flew unassisted into space. The evidence for these two events is equal.
AirplaneRider 10 months ago
@AirplaneRider Wow -- you really like strawman arguments don't you? And what evidence do you have that would suggest a bronze-age goatherder has less VERACITY than anyone else? Is there something inherently dishonest about the Bronze Age, or about goatherders? Or is it that you just don't think before you parrot other people's nonsense?
GospelHouseKat 10 months ago
@ihatehavingausername Krauss is fully aware that he can't rebut the airtight logic of Craig, so he resorts to trying to prove that logic is unreliable. How does he do that? By using logic. But if he achieves his goal of proving logic unreliable, his argument necessarily fails. He applies a reductio ad absurdum on himself. Atheists always resort to this sophistry in one way or another, and somehow don't know or care that, thinking themselves wise, they are always shooting themselves in the foot.
GospelHouseKat 10 months ago
@catbarf You don't know what classical logic is, do you? Judging from your response you don't even know what you're talking about. Sorry, it's an impossibility to deny the law of identity. And as Dr. Craig says to deny logic is to presume logic because you think that's the logical thing to do!
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
@catbarf Have you ever heard of necessary truths? You cannot deny classical logic and do science. Would you then say that the law of identity is wrong? You cannot deny peano arithmatic. Would you say that 1+1=938769823475904735987436908743508974235087?
Quantum logic does not quantum irrationality and stupidity.
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
Craig seems to be using special pleading logical fallacies with regard to the infinite concept.
If the universe cannot be infinite due to contradictions, then how can God in the same respect...?
GMunny5 10 months ago 19
@GMunny5 He's not being arbitrary about God as the answer for the infinite. There is no special pleading. Something to think about it: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc
drcraigvideos 10 months ago
@GMunny5 I know you posted this ages ago, but if there -is- a God, it can be argued (though not proven, which is what the debate should be about) that a God does not have to play by the "rules".
What you've asked is a good question, but it doesn't make God's existence any more or less likely or plausible. Ultimately, there's insufficient evidence for believing God, but no reason to be -certain- of his nonexistence as well.
BadLuck765 6 months ago
@GMunny5 You really are a dumb, dumb human being. Infinite has both qualitative and quantitative meanings I would explain it to you but the concept is so basic that any attempt to simplify would only render the basic idea (which you fail to grasp) more difficult and hence beyond your pathetic cognitive capabilities.
TBOTSS 5 months ago
@GMunny5 If God created the Universe and the laws and logic that applies to it, then why would he himself be limited by these same limits. God is not considered a physical part of this universe, God is beyond physical. He's transcendant.
TheAntiochus 5 months ago
@TheAntiochus Sure that makes sense as an idea, but why should I believe it's actually true?
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
@GMunny5 I'm guessing he would say 'god is not part of this universe' ^^ I think we would be arrogant to claim there is no god, but i doubt we need to be seen as arrogant if we claim there is no personal god. The universe may very well be the a 'representation' of some infinite 'beings' 'infinite imagination'. To then go further and antropomorphise that being/entity/eternal mind, is logically unsound. If there are strings, someone/something might be playing them :p It's not logically impossible
devilzown11 4 months ago
If the 90 percent of scientists Dr. Krauss speaks of are as irratinal as he is no wonder they don't believe in God.
MrEhud77 10 months ago 2
I had to fix the audio and upload it myself!
Poleschs 10 months ago
Krauss preformed poorly, but this is undoubtedly due to his inexperience with debating. If he was a professional debater as Craig is, he could've held is own very well.
RonBurgundy161 11 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 I am a pretty good bowler, but if I was great basketball player I could probably be in the NBA?
MrNeotheist 11 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Actually, Krauss has debate a few times before. Not nearly as much as Craig of course. But Krauss didn't even do decently in this debate. His opening remarks were painfully bad.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos "But Krauss didn't even do decently in this debate. His opening remarks were painfully bad"
says the supporter of a professional hack, whom no cosmologist or physicist would take seriously, and whose cosmological arguments are dismissed out of hand (otherwise it wouldn't be the case that almost all cosmologists are atheists, would it?), while Lawrence Krauss is one of the most prominent and respected scientists in the U.S.
get a life, moron
godIsALieOne 10 months ago
@godIsALieOne Are you kidding me? This is the reasoning that atheists come up with? Who cares what a majority of Cosmologist think about the existence of God. That isn't their expertise. The question of God is a philosophical one. And like Einstein said and Krauss showed "the man of science is a poor philosopher."
KBrimstone 10 months ago
@KBrimstone I don't know where you are getting these weird ideas that scientists are not experts on what science tells. The members of the National Academy of Sciences are the people who actually make the discoveries. The discoverers say they see no evidence for God in what they discovered. Craig says he is better at interpreting their discoveries than 90% of them. He sounds like one of those faith healers who say "Don't listen to doctors. They don't know what they are talking about. Just pray"
AD6043 10 months ago
@AD6043 No Bud. A Scientist deal with the natural world via empirical data. Dr. Craig isn't arguing the data. What he says most scientists agree on. He is right along the mainstream of science. How ever when it comes to what the data means. You don't turn to cosmologists you go to philosophy (you know the study of metaphysics, logic, etc)
Well as a Eminent philosopher we are right in Dr. Craig's expertise.
KBrimstone 10 months ago
@KBrimstone let me tell you why faith healers disagree with doctors on what is healthy medicine. it is not because they interpret medical data better but because they don't understand the real medicine. Likewise, Craig deviates from scientists on what scientific data means because he doesn't understand it. He is far from mainstream science as Krauss clearly showed to the audience.
AD6043 10 months ago
@AD6043 Really? What exactly did Dr Craig say tat "deviats from mainstream science"
Please enlighten me.
Becuase I heard the same debate and Doctor Craig used mainstream science and quoted scientists for his data. He only then applied philosophical principles (certainly your not going to try to tell a well respected philosopher he is wrong on philosophy are you?)
KBrimstone 10 months ago
Comment removed
godIsALieOne 10 months ago
Comment removed
godIsALieOne 10 months ago
@Ron
Krauss has done plenty of debates and public speaking events. He's up there in the "A List" who are called on to debate people like Michael Behe and other ID theorists. Plus, when he got onto talking physics he demonstrated that he's more than capable of being articulate and communicating what he knows.
He doesn't do it as much as Craig, of course, but that only means Craig may have a bit more experience in time-keeping and succintness. Krauss can do rhetoric (e.g. "nothing" is unstable).
Birdieupon 10 months ago
Would it be possible to swap out the bad audio in the video for the MP3 audio you have here?
Crosshair84 11 months ago
@Crosshair84 I'm thinking about doing that. However, it's going to take a while.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
Comment removed
godIsALieOne 10 months ago
I am amazed that Dr. Krauss mistakes predictability w/illogic. He actually laid logic out as not applicable to quantum mechanics. I'm just stunned. Logic is self-evident and for anyone to deny logic is simple an adherence to a aprior denial of God.
SimpleMan7718 11 months ago
@SimpleMan7718 Quantum mechanics doesn't conform to logic. Logic is the analyses of inference, and inference is drawing a conclusion from the existing evidence. If we apply common logic to quantum mechanics, we are incorrect about 90% of the time through experimentation, because our conclusions on existing evidence are most of the time wrong. Just look at the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, no one would've concluded that consciousness effects the wave/particle duality of a photon.
RonBurgundy161 11 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 wrong, quantum mechanics conforms to logic. Perhaps no to intuition but is completely logical in its arguments and findings. Yes the "delayed choice quantum eraser experiment" is completely mind blowing, but no they are not illogical.
No, consciousness doesn't affect the particle duality, it's the measurement what interferes with the wave. And no, sorry, no, that Chopra's crap is absolutely wrong.
Carutsu 11 months ago
@Carutsu I'm arguing semantics. Logic presupposes a conclusion based on evidence, quantum mechanics completely obliterates our original conclusions in most cases. Therefore, quantum mechanics is illogical. Only after experimentation can quantum mechanics possibly conform to logic, which wasn't the argument.
You should see Yoon-Ho Kim's discussion on the delayed quantum eraser.
RonBurgundy161 11 months ago
@RonBurgundy161
quantum mechanics do not disobey the laws of logic. I'm guessing you're not to familiar with logic.
KBrimstone 11 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 I stand corrected on the application of logic to quantum mechanics however the point still stands that his comments on predictability are an argument from incredulity and that laws do apply to quantum mechanics. Perhaps the reason for this is that we are applying laws that apply elsewhere do not work in the quantum field. On a side note, correct me if I am wrong but gravity does affect light? Memory is escaping me and you seem to know a thing or two about physics.
SimpleMan7718 11 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Again, it is confusing predictability with logical inference. So we are not able to predict where they are, perhaps because we do not know all the variables. Another possibility is that we are applying laws that apply elsewhere but do not work in the quantum field for reasons we have yet to ascertain. Did the experiment show an effect or a perception of effect? I believe there is still a little confusion surrounding that topic.
SimpleMan7718 11 months ago
Wow, two of the heaviest hitters duking it out in a debate. I could not be more excited!
SimpleMan7718 11 months ago
When and Where can we find out the results of this debate?
SLBS1234 11 months ago
@SLBS1234 Don't know. But I would love to see the results. Actually, I emailed one of the administrators. Maybe he'll know the answer.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos Hopefully that turns out. I'm pretty sure Craig won, but I'm curious about the margin. If and when you find out, would you mind posting a bulletin or even a video to let the rest of us know? Thanks in advance.
SLBS1234 11 months ago
My point is, you cannot define a substraction-like operation on just any class of objects in a coherant way. But this has no bearing on the actual or possible existence of the objects of this class.
Of course I agree that the world has a finite past, but mainly because God revealed it. I just have a problem with this particular argument.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg Could you specify a little bit why you have a problem? Just curious..and I think I disagree ehh you can subtract 2 dogs minus dog right? Because that is a coherant statement...you should really read Craigs, "Kalam Cosmological Argument", it goes through all of this in excruciating detail I thought I was going to poke my eyes out hahah!
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@2000deg But another thing on infinity, in finite numbers, the principle holds that a part is not greater than a whole, right? But thats not so in infinity, they define it that it cannot be that way for infinity, but mathematicians given no real reason why it isn't that way...I think its because to make the operations usable you have to change certain rules.
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
Ok, so if you conceed that they are incoherant concepts than how could they be allowed to exist in reality? Its like the smell of green, IS that a real concept? Of course not! ...And Brouwer denied the infinite.....I am honestly quite baffeled that someone would defend the concept of the infinite...I mean besides being obviously intuitively wrong, its also hopelessly contradictory like when you subtract infinity minus infinity, you get different results. btw I am a Christian as well
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah "btw I am a Christian as well" I thought so ;)
2000deg 11 months ago
"Brouwer made it clear, as I think beyond any doubt, that there is no evidence supporting the belief in the existential character of the totality of all natural numbers" A proponent of original intuitionism
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah "Dog minus clock is incoherant" infinity minus infinity is incoherant "time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated." dogs, cats and clocks the otherhand are coherant and can be enumerated. "Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments. " ...subtract dogs, cats and clocks.
---
"intuitionists have had included some of the best mathematicians in the world" Well, they have Brouwer, and thats it.
"And btw, are you a Christian? Just curious " Yes, of course.
2000deg 11 months ago
Strictly speaking the dont deny it. They are agnostic to it.
2000deg 11 months ago
What's with the jazz music about 1:38:00 in?
SycrosD4 11 months ago
When the Aristotelians speak of the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes (I supose that the Arab who invented the kalam argument was a aristotelian), they have something completly different in mind, than a regress in time. Most ancients and even the scholastics either believed in an ethernal world or at least thought it possible. What they mean is an impossibility of an infinite regress of metaphysical sustaining causes. And this makes complete sense.
2000deg 11 months ago
Dr Craig should drop the "impossibility of actual infinite"-argument. If infinity involved self-contradictory properties, it would have been useless in mathematics. Besides: if you ask what is "infinity minus infinity" you have first to appropriately define the terms "infinity" and "minus". Subtraction is normaly only defined for finite numbers. You can define it for infinity, but then you will not get a single valued relation.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg LOL. Reread what you just typed.
KBrimstone 11 months ago
@2000deg You don't seem to understand that Dr. Craig is saying an actual infinite does not exist in the universe. It's only an abstract idea is where it exists. He doesn't deny that.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos I concede that this whole argument is hard to grasp for me. In another place he brings the example of Hilberts hotel. But what this shows is just that an actual number of infinitly many things leads to counterintuitive results, but not to contradictions. You cannot deduce a contradiction out of it. But if there is no contradiction, why shouldnt it be possible? After all, Gods power, knowledge and beeing is without limit, that is: he is an actualy infinite beeing.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg The, uh, "counterintuitive results" are contradictions, genius. Hilbert's Hotel proves that if you have an actual infinite number of rooms, and if you move one guest to another room for an incoming guest, it leads to contradictions: watch?v=lobeX6ft6PA. God is not a concrete person, an infinite is not a problem for Him: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos If it is a contradiction then the whole of modern mathematics rests on a contradiction. You cannot build a mathematical theory on a contradiction. The principles that are in play in Hilberts Hotel can be applied to the set of natural numbers. There is no contradiction! This whole argument is just a fallacy. A 2nd semester student of mathematics can see this.
---
What does this mean God is not a "concrete person"? Is he an "abstract" person or what? This is nonsense.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg "If it is a contradiction then the whole of modern mathematics rests on a contradiction." SIGH* Hilbert's Hotel has to do with the physical universe, not abstract ideas. An actual infinite can exist, but it cannot exist within the universe. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
God is an immaterial and spaceless Being: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
@drcraigvideos I have watched: watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc Here is the problem. "Gods knowledge is infinite" means that for every proposition God knows whether it is true or false. Now, there is an infinite number of propositions. This means that God knows an infinite number of things. Further: Gods power is without limit=God can do anything that is intrinsically possible. There is infinite number of intrinsically possible things. (Side-question: is an infinity of possible things actual?)
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg "Now, there is an infinite number of propositions." You just begged the question.
drcraigvideos 11 months ago
Comment removed
godIsALieOne 10 months ago 2
Comment removed
godIsALieOne 10 months ago
@drcraigvideos "The, uh, "counterintuitive results" are contradictions, genius"
HAHA you're so embarrassingly ignorant that you are a 100% prove your God doesn't exist: he would never create a moron like you
almost all of QM is counter-intuitive, FOOL. yet, it's the most tested and verified theory in physics. Krauss spent some time during the debate to illustrate just how counter-intuitive QM is with the Double-Slit Experiment, but it went right past your god-infected brain, didn't it
godIsALieOne 10 months ago 5
@2000deg There are certain principles in set theory and trans-finite numbers that had to be formed just to keep infinity as a usable concept in math. For example, they don't use subtraction or division. But in the real world you CAN subtract things and take them away or divide them up. Mathemeticians know this, they are aware that infinity in math is an abstraction, and does not hold in reality. Only platonists hold that infinity exists in reality, and there are BIG problems with platonism.
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah In the real world you cant subtract a cat from a dog. So what? What does this prove? Just because you cannot define a substraction-like operation on a class of objects proves that these objects dont exist?
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg YES because you can subtract in the real world! you can still divide up a cat into parts, you cannot do so in infinity, moreover, it cannot exist by sequence and events, like 1,2,3,4,5......you will never reach infinity and even more powerful aleph0 (which is how infinity is defined) has no prior number directly before it, so you can never bridge the gap to infinity, things are only potentially infinite as in, stretching on forever in one direction
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah Moreover, PARTS of mathematics uses infinities and in addition to the mathematicians agreeing that its an abstraction and not something that exists in reality, and powerful group of mathematicians named intuitionists hold Cantorian mathematics with disdain and say it is not real math and reject infinities. So even among mathateticians infinities are not fully accepted
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah Intuitionists are a small minority of mathematicians (5% at best), far from powerful or influential. As a Christian you dont want to assosiate yourself with their principles. Their epistemology excludes the possibility of knowing God. They deny the axiom of excluded middle. Thats the pecularity of their mathematics. Certainly interesting in certain respects, but worthless for the real world.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg First of all, intuitionists have had included some of the best mathematicians in the world from several continents and countries, so though being small they do have clout. And you can't throw the baby out with the bath water, just because they have some silly principles dosen't mean they are wrong about infinity, in fact, I think they are right. And btw, are you a Christian? Just curious
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah Aleph0 is just the first infinite cardinal. Its not the definition of infinity. There is aleph1, aleph2 etc...
Now show me your definition of "substraction" so that "dog minus cat" "dog minus clock" "cat minus five" makes sense.
There is an actual infinite: Gods powers. Lets take more mundane example: A simple, finite line consists of infinite number of parts. It is even possible to give an enumaration of a all parts of certain partitions of that line.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg Dude what you have just said is completely irrelevant! Besides just showing more absurdities with infinity i.e, aleph0, aleph 1, apleph2, you have not responded to the point that infinity can NEVER be reached because it has no number that precedes it! Dog minus clock is incoherant, time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated. Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments.
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah "Dog minus clock is incoherant" Infinity minus infinity is incoherant. "time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated." Dogs, cats and clocks are on the other coherant and can be enumerated. "Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments. "
2000deg 11 months ago
@Lion0fyudah "Dog minus clock is incoherant" infinity minus infinity is incoherant "time on the otherhand is coherant and can be enumerated." dogs, cats and clocks on the otherhand are coherant and can be enumerated. "Thus you would be able to subtract and add moments." ..or dogs, cats and clocks.
2000deg 11 months ago
@2000deg A line has a potentially infinite number of parts so that it can be divide forever but not an actual infinite, you will never end, never reach infinity. Gods powers are not infinite in that sense, they only have no limit, but even Gods powers have limits, for example God cannot do the logically impossible
Lion0fyudah 11 months ago
I have never heard such shitty arguments before krauss should sign up for comedy.
If god said rape was moraly correct would you agree with him?!?! What the hell haha
"I think it's funny how so people think being a scientist somehow means they're well-educated..."
Couldn't agree more.
Stianchez 11 months ago
I was there XD XD. I have to say Craig clearly won this debate. Krauss seems to be clearly committed to atheistic explanations of the universe in spite of his so called openness to go wherever the evidence leads.
lockdown260 11 months ago
He does not hold to scientism but he does hold to scientism. The universe is fine tuned but its not fine tuned. We have to accept the universe the way it is whether we like it or not, but we don't have to accept the universe the way it is if we don't like the fact it points to God. Does Krauss have any idea what he was saying in this debate?
evangelical1 11 months ago
It would be interesting to know if Krauss considers there to be evidence of Multiverse? As near the end he says that to directly determine if other universes exist is not possible. Thus according to what he says to Craig that if it can not be falsified it is not evidence. Thus multivese cannot be used by Krouss to support atheism since it is non falsifiable.
stephjh2006 11 months ago
@stephjh2006 Exactly. I was wondering why Craig didn't hit him on this fact directly throughout the debate, but as it turns out, he didn't have to. Krauss admitted himself that there is no, and can be no, evidence for a multiverse.
THISISBRENTINOKINAWA 11 months ago
Oh dear... 7 minutes in and Craig starts with a strawman about science. Scientific hypotheses aren't about "more probable" between two arbitrary options but about whether evidence leads to possibilities. Is there any evidence that leads to deities? If not, then no deity hypothesis. Also, a null hypotheses is essential: how could we test for "no deity"? You can't just consider evidence "for a deity", you need to consider the null hypothesis.
I'd be surprised if it's not all downhill from here.
Aaron1975melbourne 11 months ago 2
@Aaron1975melbourne You're a little rusty on what a strawman is, huh?
TooManyTights 11 months ago
These atheistic "scientists" are merely fulfilling Romans 1.
coffinperson 11 months ago
I wish Krauss would have nailed his ass on arguing for deism instead of christianity though. You cannot sit there and say "well the universe needed a creator" and then not draw distinct connections DIRECTLY to the abrahamic god and/or jesus directly and STILL consider yourself a "CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC". Sorry, you are a "DEIST APOLOGETIC" so stop saying 'And thus, the bible is correct' or, essentially, 'Universe needed creator and this proves Jesus...' no. That makes NO sense.
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion Craig argues the characteristics of God in other debates and lectures, which he dose a good job on. Craig is focusing on the evidence that a God exists, the only link in this debate he makes between the deity behind the universe and Jesus is in the resurrection, suggesting that this creates a link between the deity and Jesus. It is a debate and so is limited, Craig has to focus on a broad range and so summarises more than expands, see his lectures for expansion
stephjh2006 11 months ago
@stephjh2006 lol, wrong. Craig has no evidence to prove god so all he can do is resort to coming up with tricky philosophical arguments that are too complex for the average layman to dissect and understand why it's wrong. All he is doing is exploiting the ignorance of anyone dumb enough to trust such a dishonest person. The man admitted to Richard Dawkins that no evidence in the world would ever change his mind. That is the EPITOME of being intellectually dishonest.
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago 2
@YourBrainOnReligion LOL Dr. Craig won this debate. It so obvious it's stark. The topic was; Are there any evidence for God's existence. Under the classical (and widely held by epidemiologists) understanding of the word evidence. The problem was that Kruass ( a philosophical illiterate) wasn't familiar with probability calculus. As I'm sure neither are you. It's sad that any person can watch this debate and come to any other conclusion.
KBrimstone 11 months ago
@KBrimstone Epidemiologists? People who study the spread of illness are now also joining in on the debate? I think you mean epistemologists. There is also no "epistemological definition of evidence" either. It doesn't require a special definition. It's very simple: an argument is NEVER evidence. An argument an abstract statement, it is not something TANGIBLE which can be tested at all. In short: You are in no position to judge Dr. Krauss' intellectual prowess whatsoever. Ya WLC won... rofl.
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion If a argument makes something more probable then not it counts as evidence. This is what epistemologists agree on.
You are proposing scientism.
By tangible you mean empirical?
KBrimstone 11 months ago
@KBrimstone I'm not proposing scientism, hahaha... "scientism" is the NORM - it's how the world operates now. Where do you think technology came from? Good arguments? Or is it the result of well thought out hypothesis that were repeatedly put to the test to finally determine ACTUAL, DEMONSTRABLE truth? Furthermore, where do you think the internet came from? Divine inspiration? Or is it the product of the hard work and dedication of hundreds upon hundreds of great thinkers??
Yes empirical.
YourBrainOnReligion 11 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion "I'm not proposing scientism, hahaha... "scientism" is the NORM - it's how the world operates now."
Wow.
Let me make sure I got this straight. Are you saying you can only know what can be scientifically proven?
KBrimstone 11 months ago
@KBrimstone Answer my questions and they will inherently answer your own questions.
Where did the internet come from? Divine inspiration or scientific testing?
YourBrainOnReligion 10 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion I don't see how it's relevant. Do you think it's rational to believe only what can be empirically verified?
KBrimstone 10 months ago
@KBrimstone Absolutely. How is it rational to believe something you can't empirically prove? Do you believe there is a 1,000 pound diamond in your back yard? Why or why not?
YourBrainOnReligion 10 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion "Absolutely. How is it rational to believe something you can't empirically prove?"
Finally an answer. So how did you come to believe the statement "you can only believe what can empirically verified?"
That's not a scientific statement. It's a philosophical one.
So I guess you're not rational to believe ""you can only believe what can empirically verified"
Self defeating. Look it up
KBrimstone 10 months ago
@KBrimstone "So how did you come to believe the statement "you can only believe what can empirically verified?""
I didn't come to "believe" it, it proven. You christians seem to really have a problem with understanding epistemology. You cannot KNOW something without proof and you cannot be justified in believing something without compelling reason. They are two entirely different concepts.
Justified Knowledge=Based on conclusive evidence
Justified Belief=Based on sound argument
Get it?
YourBrainOnReligion 10 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion nonsense. Let me ask you, Do you have knowledge of the statement "you can only believe what can empirically verified" of beleif?
If so what is the "conclusive" evidence?
Remember it's gotta be empirical.
I'll wait......
KBrimstone 10 months ago
@KBrimstone P.S. If you're not going to answer a very simple question like "where did the internet come from? divine inspiration or scientific testing?" you're obviously far too comfortable being dishonest. You know the only answer is "scientific testing" which reveals how stupid your whole argument is. Name one thing besides the bible that has been created or invented solely courtesy of divine inspiration? Just one.
Spoiler: You can't, because none exist. So what's OBV more beneficial?
YourBrainOnReligion 10 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion What arguement? I asked a question. You do know the difference between an arguement and a question don't you?
KBrimstone 10 months ago