oppy is much better thinker atheist that kraus and dawkins. and very humble also unlike the new atheist dawkins, the late hitchens and especially krauss who are insulting arrogant and hateful in every debate. and because of krause egoistic and arrogance, he ends up lying to science in this debate in front of the audience just toppush his ideology of atheism. such a shame for krauss. even oppy just laugh at krauss.
I don't think Krauss kicked Craig's ass. If you observe their exchanges, I think we can all agree that Craig was being extremely courteous towards Krauss by letting him interrupt him incessantly. Craig also gives Krauss the benefit of the doubt in setting definitions(definition of science), and he doesn't force Krauss to respond to his arguments (eg. fine tuning argument). Craig is simply soft spoken, but I picked up the logic of what he's saying. In fact, I admire Craig for being gracious in his patience towards Krauss, who clearly wants all the talk time to himself.
***** Perhaps you might be right about Craig having a fixed and rigid mindset, but until Lawrence allows Craig to finish his point, it's honestly quite hard to tell who has the stronger case. According to the dictionary, an example of a tautology would be the terms "widow woman", in other words, a needless repetition of ideas. Could you give some examples of Craig making such mistakes?
***** I agree with you, in most of Craig's debates that I have seen, the cases he dishes out tend to be really long, and it's hard for his opponents to successfully destroy every one of them given the time frame. However, in this case, Lawrence interrupts Craig before he can completely finish a point. An argument that's only allowed to be uttered halfway always sounds silly. It's only after we've finished speaking that our case can legitimately be tackled. I'm not saying Lawrence should let Craig dish out 5 to 6 points before he interrupts, but perhaps just 1 point?
***** William Lane Craig on Lawrence Krauss' Endless Interruptions here is a video that shows the frequency that Lawrence interrupted Craig. It's flabbergasting, the interrupts usually come just after Craig finishes one or two sentences. He hardly had the opportunity to follow through with most of his points.
Yes Craig is soft spoken, yes he allows Krauss to do most of the talking and you know why, because he has too, Lawrence Krauss is a world renowned physicist, he actually is an expert on things that really do exist, Craig is a theolgian and despite all of his study and research is entire knowledge is based on "faith", not actual facts, he believes in god because he "wants" to believe the christian god exists.Don't try and put him in the same league as Krauss.
Storm Hawk You have got to be kidding, right? Krauss is not a "world renowned" physicist, Steven Weinberg, John Wheeler, Richard Feynman and Christopher Isham. They were world renowned physicists, (just to name a few) And I find it very hard to take your criticism of Craig seriously, when you're so blissfully unaware that his primary field of research is philosophy. When you look to physicists who don't have this anti-religious ridden agenda, like for example George Ellis (Which sources, such as Scientific American tell us, is widely considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology) he praises Craig for his knowledge of science.
Krauss: I know there is no God, and any belief in God is unreasonable! Craig: It is more likely that there is a God than otherwise. Krauss: How can you say, "I know! I know!" about anything? Uncertainty is wondrous, and I am so clever and wise for celebrating this and being open-minded.
Why should the Christian faith be truer than any other? Isn't it strange that so many religions are absolute? I can't understand why people want to believe in something that is based entirely on claims. The world would be much more moral if more people were atheists...
Graham Oppy did a great job as a moderator. He is *infinitely* more qualified to debate Craig, and I'm sure he was champing at the bit, but he really did a great job. He let the debators express themselves, only chiming in when necessary (such as to keep one particularly obnoxious person from *constantly* interrupting his opponent). Kudos to Oppy, and here's hoping other moderators can learn from his example.
Why not? Moral claims need not be objective to be valid. In the end objective morality in the metaphysical sense is a square circle. Moral just isn't the kind of thing that can logically consistent be described objectively. Even a god cannot change that. Let's say god would have created the universe with an objective morality that is someway identically to his essence (god = the good). Why ought we therefore act in accordance with this one morality? It may be prudent to act in a way that respects the laws of nature or in this case the moral laws of god. But is it morally good?
@@originalblob It absolutely is invalid if you mean that something is actually immoral, rather than just something you don't like. And I don't see how your question shows that morality can't be objective. It does hint at the Euthyphro Dilemma though, which I think Craig had adequately solved. If god *is* what Plato called "the good", then there's no conflict.
@@originalblob *"Moral just isn't the kind of thing that can logically consistent be described objectively."* Can't wait to see your demonstration of that...
Krauss "I love not understanding, thats what is great about science.." That doesn't mean you should assume those who try to understand are inevitably wrong Krauss...
humans make decisions that are under a law a hidden written code and let me tell u there extremely difficult to understand and even harder to observe we in short do things which is the post production of it the corruption of the human being i see u have it present well if the mathematical model for the bible that should be in a mathematical code dont be so quickly to conform to foolish behavior when its clear the bible can be formed into maths but we would never understand.
Assume those who try to understand are inevitably wrong...when does Krauss explicitly assume people that "try to understand" are wrong? What is meant by try to understand?
Religion doesn't "try" to understand, it claims it knows all and it is written in scripture you must follow. There are commandments to run your life by (poorly written by the way) so one is making extraordinary claims with 0 evidence and will never shift it's position. Science is open to learning and improving, that's why technology gets better through learning and iterating. Religion is still stuck with its couple of thousand year old scripture. (What happened for the first 98,000 years of human existence... Apparently god watched... Tsk tsk, there they go again, diying of diseases I made for them, killing and raping eachother.... Hmmm maybe I'll intervene by sending myself, to Sacrafice myself.... To forgive myself for making them sick, which they can't understand.... And if they don't understand me and conform to my religion, they will burn for all eternity since he is a jealous god.... HMMMMM.... Yeah right.
I saw this years ago, before I knew about Graham Oppy and only recently realized he was the moderator. Can’t think of another time I’d prefer the moderator to the debater representing my side.
I must say, out of the 3 debates, this one was my favorite... specifically because of the moderator. It was very satisfying to get to listen to these two debate without the moderator regularly deciding to interject their own opinions, or arbitrarily deciding when the discussion had gone on long enough. While I normally despise the presence of a moderator, this gentleman should be given a huge hand of applause, and I hope to see other moderators in the future follow his example.
Kudos to this moderator for letting the fascinating discussions occur and injecting himself only to ensure the participants didn't talk too much over each other. Great job!
9 ปีที่แล้ว +5
1:32:34 Dr. Craig at least admits he doesn't know Economics. Krauss (who I bet doesn't understand Economics 101) says it isnt a science. What a dumb statement.
It really isnt a science. It uses mathematical models to predict events but these events are dependent on people. The scientific method does not apply to economics either.
Faith offers people simple explanations for things they don't understand. Basically, belief in a god prevents people from thinking for themselves. Don't you see that he is intellectually superior to the believer? By the way, belief in the flat earth has exactly the same amount of evidence as belief in a god. Unfortunately, many believers don't understand the difference between hypotheses and facts.
Krauss is very intelligent and a formidable opponent for Dr. Craig. However, he has zero class and is extremely arrogant. He NEVER lets Dr. Craig finish his statements w/o interrupting multiple times. Even if you disagree, you should have enough class to show proper debate edicate.
I hear the word "ARROGANT" alot from people who are refering to arguments against religion and the disbelives of gods, like its an umbrella to hide under. "How dare he, that ARROGANT humanbeing ,to almost convince us that he is probably right"...
Mårten Skoog If you read my statement, I am NOT talking about his arguments against Dr. Craig. I am referring to his debate "edicate". Even if you disagree with someone, you should at least have enough class to allow them to finish their statements w/o constantly interrupting and using four letter words.
Mobby Wood A debate including scholars should always be respectful, no matter the topic. It is not an high school debate here. So I agree here with Scott that even if I like Krauss, he is some times a bit arrogant in the way he interrupt Craig.
This entire debate could be summarised by listening from 3:52 to about 4:06. If you listen closely, you can hear Krauss mutter "and me" under his breath while Oppy was Introducing Craig. Krauss is a childish attention seeker and this was evident from the get-go. Craig won hands down.
All of you who think WLC is dishonest really need to actually hear WLC's side of the story. It pretty much shows that Krauss was being dishonest in this debate when he misrepresented Vilenkin's work. Vilenkin even confirmed in an email to Dr. Craig that Dr. Craig had represented his work "very accurately".
You are incorrect, here in a post from both Krauss and Vilenkin: "we both agree that the edited version does not distort the content or ideas expressed in the original email at all. Those who are claiming otherwise, including apparently Dr. Craig, are mistaken" facebook.com/permalink.php?id=54809333509&story_fbid=10151721132708510
Then there's a contradiction. Because Vilenkin DID say that Craig portrayed Vilenkin's points "very accurately" that's undeniable, but Krauss' portrayal of Vilenkin's model contradicts Craig's, so which portrayal accurately represents Vilenkin's model if Vilenkin says they both do?
***** I can only say that when Vilenkin said to Craig that Craig had portrayed the BGV theorem "very accurately", he was simply being kind. He did go on to say that the BGV theorem had nothing to do with "proving" the existence of God, which was why Craig used the BGV theorem in the first place. Krauss did not misrepresent Vienkin's work. The edits Krauss made in the e-mail did nothing to distort or misrepresent Vilenkin's remarks. Kruass was making a few points.... 1) Nothing in cosmology about the actual origin of the universe has been proven one way or the other. (Vilkenkin certainly agrees.) 2) A theorem about the origin of the universe that uses classical (relativistic) spacetime (as opposed to a non-classical quantum theory) is likely to be inaccurate. (Vilenkin certainly agrees.) 3) The BGV theorem assumes an ever expanding (never in a state of contraction) universe and that is unproven. (Vilenkin certainly agrees.) Nothing Krauss said was dishonest. He did not misrepresent Vilenkin's work. He did point out certain misrepresentations Craig had made about Vilenkin's work. Vilenkin's comments to Craig were in response to Craig's letter (e-mail?) to Vilenkin, not to anything Craig said at the debate. So what did both Vilenkin and Krauss have to say about Craig's assertion of "misrepresentation and distortion by Krauss about the Vilenkin to Krauss e-mail"? "From me and Alex Vilenkin--sigh- -in muted response to some claims that have been posted by some whose buttons have probably been pushed by being wrong: "In response to the noise regarding the use of an email communication between the two of us in a dialogue with William Lane Craig, there are two relevant points we have decided to make. 1. we both willingly agreed to the request from Dr. Craig to have the full email, which had been edited on the powerpoint slide simply to save time during a 15 minute presentation by Krauss, as there was nothing in the full correspondence that either of us were concerned about sharing. 2. we both agree that the edited version does not distort the content or ideas expressed in the original email at all. Those who are claiming otherwise, including apparently Dr. Craig, are mistaken." - m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=54809333509&story_fbid=10151721132708510 Your accusation that, "It pretty much shows that Krauss was being dishonest in this debate when he misrepresented Vilenkin's work." is 100% wrong.
But Krauss was using his point (number three as you listed) to state that it would give less credibility to a cosmic absolute beginning, but Vilenkin says in his email to Krauss in its entirety: "A possible loophole is that there might be an epoch of contraction prior to the expansion. Models of this sort have been discussed by Aguirre & Gratton and by Carroll & Chen. They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. *It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning*." Perhaps it wasn't dishonesty on Krauss' part, I will concede overconfidence and oversimplification in my accusation, but it still seems as though Krauss' argument that Vilenkin's email somehow offers a possible refutation to an absolute beginning of the universe is simply wrong considering the omitted sentences.
***** The paper that Vilenkin wrote was only referring to 3 possible pre-Big Bang models. Krauss was talking about ALL models, including the rather bazaar quantum time loop hypothesis, that uses quantum mechanics time travel equations to create an infinite loop of time that has a big bang happening, meanwhile other Universes are coming out of that original Universe. This doesn't break the no beginning rule and was not discussed by Vilenkin in his paper.
Krauss loves to have his cake and eat it too, doesn't he? He wants to say there is no objective moral order but at the same time wants to say that certain types of actions or activities are objectively wrong in a moral sense. And yet, he wants to say that all our actions are not our own because he's a determinist. In such a case, none of us are morally accountable for anything we do. It's really rather sad to see such a broken ideology at work.
1. Moral realism does need to be true in order for us to claim that something is wrong and it actually carry objective weight and meaning. Krauss has on more than one occasion expressed that since the world’s religions cannot agree on finer details of what right and wrong is, therefore there is no objective moral order. This is fallacious, but it has been his reasoning. 2. I’ve come across many a physicist who holds to determinism because free will is not something that can be shown to be concrete or physical in nature. Krauss has expressed many times his opinion that we all behave “as if we have free will”, which of course implies that in actuality, we don’t. 3. “We still act as if they are accountable on pragmatic grounds.” That’s a nice way to put it. On an atheistic view, our systems of moral accountability are based on a delusion since in reality, there is no such thing. We may still hold to that system, but not on rational grounds of honesty. In the absence of God, all methods of holding people accountable for their actions are just as much an act of self-deception as many atheists hold theism to be. Pragmatism is a system based on false assumptions if we truly live in a godless reality. Actions very much like rape and murder happen all the time in the animal kingdom without any regrets or social upheaval. If naturalism were true, the human murderers and rapists are simply out of step with the herd, not truly guilty of any real wrongdoing. 4. Atheism is certainly an ideology - one that holds to the view that there is no god. Even the position that “we have not proven our god claim” is itself an ideological position, just not an atheistic one. All that claim brings you to, if it were true, is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is derived from the Greek a-theos ( "no gods") to make athe-ism "belief that there are no gods". Anthony Flew expressed his desire, in 1984, for atheism to be treated AS IF it were merely a lack of belief, knowing this was, in his own words, "unusual". "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false... All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." - Kai Nielson, philosopher and atheist "What if these arguments purporting to establish that God exists are failures? Must we then conclude that God does not exist? No. Lack of supporting reasons or evidence for a proposition does not show that the proposition is false." - Austin Dacey, philosopher and atheist Of course, it really depends on what you mean by “prove”. Do you mean make it so compelling that only those of severe intellectual handicap would not be able to believe it? If that’s the case, then by that line of thinking, you can’t even know what your own birthday is. I’m inclined to agree with John Lennox in saying that the only field in which actual “proof” takes place is in the fields of mathematics and logic. Everything else is simply evidence.
I feel for Dr. Craig. Having to sit on stage for three days, trying to speak but at least 70% of the time, being unable to because you're constantly being interrupted is horrible. There is no conversation to be had with Dr. Krauss. And because that is the case, one finds he's far more close minded than he makes others out to be, sadly.
Yup. People may claim Dr. Craig showed nothing to justify his beliefs and ridicule him for it in the comments - but the funny thing is that they're never impartial enough to think that if what they say is true, maybe (just maybe) it's because he barely had the chance to say anything. I wish Dr. Craig made Krauss explain, on his own, the context and situation surrounding the Caaninites, in detail, since Krauss not only knows so much about it (apparently - enough to claim that Craig's response about it was oh so wrong), but also desired to go off topic so much. Craig doesn't mind speaking to him in detail about Science, so too then, Krauss should have spoken in detail about the religion he so disapproves of. What a laugh that would have been.
***** Good point....... but what if the dogma of your world view requires you to spread the faith to others such as in Christ's great commission? That is the issue the theist cannot get away from that requires them to evangelize................and when they run up against another evangelizing religion like Islam..............look out. I notice Dr. Craig always ends up preaching at the end of his debates about his personal acceptance of Christ and evangelizes that to the audience.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Of course Craig should be interrupted because his beliefs are outdated and have no evidence to be backed up with. Krauss is a “qualified scientist “ who actually studies physics and astrophysics and goes with the evidence. Craig goes on his own gut feelings which are not reliable.
29:00. Krauss, 'The resurrection evidence would not pass muster in a court of law...' Professor Simon Greenleaf, of Harvard Law School . "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.”..
@@BillyJack85 Indeed, and it's dead easy to prove me wrong. All anyone needs to do is provide one, just one, "historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ " and I will reconsider Mr. Greenleaf's argument. Oh, and a book is not a historical fact, by the way.
@@JGM0JGM For that I would suggest looking up Dr Gary Habermas here on TH-cam. It's hard to prove anything conclusively from 2,000 years ago, but we have the historical evidence to say that Jesus's disciples (and non Christians like Paul who were charged with persecuting & killing Christians) believed that they seen Jesus resurrected after His death; and that His missing body caused an uproar in 30AD Jerusalem among authorities. It's actually a fascinating story if you look into it. Jesus's body was being guarded by Roman guards precisely because they didn't want His body to be stolen and claims of His resurrection or divinity to cause an uprising, and His body was still able to go missing. I would highly suggest looking up Dr Habermas. You can always find different interpretations to things... even stuff that happened yesterday... but the life, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ is not without historical evidence, facts or proof. It's all where you're coming from at the end of the day, I guess.
@@BillyJack85 I've read about Habermas' 6 "facts", they are not historical facts, it all boils down to "the bible told me so". The bible is the claim, not evidence for itself. Briefly, here's what Habermas is saying: 1)Jesus died by crucifixion So what? We don't have "historical facts" that this is true, but even if we accept it, how does that lead to resurrection? The manner of death has nothing to do with any alleged resurrection. 2) Jesus' disciples had real experiences that they thought were appearances of Jesus Again, so what? We have stories, but that's it, just stories. None of them are first hand accounts nor eye witness testimonies. The Gospels are anonymous and none of them claim to be witness to the stories they tell. Even Paul goes out of his way to let us know that the Jesus experiences he writes about were not obtained from any man, but straight from Jesus himself, as revelations. If you think this is a historical fact, I can't help you. 3) the disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their message people vision statement
Krauss refuted the cosmological argument by reference to quantum gravity and a possibly past (Dr Craig's words) eternal multiverse And refuted fine tuning by showing that laws and constants can't be considered independently (more so forces and constants) and the probabilities associated with varying one constant at a time is not the same as varying multiple so the hypothetical is moot.
The Most Interesting Man in the World That’s called the Gish Gallop, It’s a common denominator among atheist prophets like Sam Harris & Mr Delete email Information Krauss
I'm an atheist, but Krauss would endear himself to the other side more and perhaps be taken more seriously if he brushed up on his mannerisms. I have a good idea what the more militant atheists would say to that... so spare it.
I enjoy Krauss, even his book a universe from nothing premise you can get something from nothing using quantum mechanics. The problem is he started with something. In his case an "Outside" force acting upon the closed system within that force. I do see your point. He never takes a breath and let's the other side give their view. He should drink that whiskey and relax. It's not like Graig is going to runout in him. It's one reason I like it when the audience ask the question for both sides. It makes it more engaging as these are the people your trying to reach with real answers. Not assumptions, speculation, hearsay, etc.. Because as I see it. The only irrational thing about the universe is that people are irrational no matter how long they been around.
You don't want anyone to disagree with your post and give you nothing but a thumbs up? You're so cute when your ignorant about simple logic. I don't care about the personality of a bus driver, and I appreciate the content of what Krauss had to say in this debate. Maybe you treat physically attractive people with more trust and favor for all I know about what you posted. I will not "spare you".. I don't give a hoot if this does not please you. You don't even get a thumbs down.
Joseph Nordenbrock WTF? I couldn't care less about any thumbs up or thumbs down, not to mention yours. What are you... in grade 8? And who said I didn't want any disagreement with my comment? I too agree with the content of what Krauss has to say, not just in this debate, but most others. I simply stated that Lawrence's mannerisms (body language, interrrupting, personal insuslts, etc) wasn't helping his cause. And whenever reasonable people point this out, I expect (maybe wrongly) the militant atheists to say something to the effect that people of religious faith don't deserve any respect and therefore any of these reactions are understandable, if not welcome. That is the type of response I see all the time, and that was the response I was referring to and could do without. Any other rebuttal is almost welcome, unless it's the type such as yours that make no sense whatsoever.
Claude Rains You misunderstand quantum mechanics, then. The whole point is that the "philosophical" nothing is not in reality, that physical "nothing" is really something. That's the entire point.
***** Because in physics, 'nothing' is just a placeholder term for where there are no atoms. Empty space. You and others dislike this usage of the word 'nothing' and make a random argument based from philosophy, saying that nothing means just that: literally nothing, not even empty space. That type of nothing simply doesn't exist, so it's silly to use it to compare to anything. It's a word argument and a petty one at that.
Its been said that the supreme characteristic of a man who is secure in his beliefs can listen to others and the mark of an intelligent man is that he can explain complex ideas very simply. How can Krauss claim to be both but can do neither?
Your inability to grasp what he's saying is a reflection of your intelligence, not his. Professor Krauss understandably gets annoyed and frustrated with wlc. He kept asking for proof, and asking how he could make claims without knowledge or evidence. He received no answers, just words salad that amounts to nothing. Claims require evidence without it you're making baseless meaningless statements. Theology cannot answer basic biological or cosmological questions. The cognitive dissonance wlc Izard to "prove" "god" exists is embarrassing. The crux being- "the universe came to be so it had to be "god" ". That makes a much sense as saying "we get presents on chritmas, therefore Santa". It's idiotic.
1:02:22 Dr. Krauss admits that the universe appears fine-tuned but doesn't want use that word because people may think it points to Intelligent Design. Seriously? This is what some atheist scientists do. They tweak their arguments to explain away God, rather than accepting facts where they are. Dr. Craig's deduction is correct that the universe has an eternal, transcendent, intelligent, and personal creator. As science elicits the facts, word games will not help anyone hide from Jesus. It is a fruitless endeavor to try to escape from the reality of this life, and that reality is God exists and will judge us all. Follow Acts 2: 38-39 to be saved. Peace to you.
That's the problem when people without a good education think that an argument that only has claims and no scientific findings creates added value. It's no coincidence that most scientists are atheists. Basically, Krauss is completely superior to him intellectually. Do you also believe in the flat earth? The evidence for this is identical to that for a god. It's really sad that you don't understand what facts and claims are.
@@peterstafford4426 Faith offers people simple explanations for things they don't understand. Basically, belief in a god prevents people from thinking for themselves. Don't you see that he is intellectually superior to the believer? By the way, belief in the flat earth has exactly the same amount of evidence as belief in a god. Unfortunately, many believers don't understand the difference between hypotheses and facts.
@@peterstafford4426 That's nothing special. Most people grow up with a belief. It's not your own decision what you believe in. Of course there are also believing scientists. In the past you couldn't have been a scientist without a belief. Back then, knowledge was even tied to belief. Basically, your immediate environment decides what you believe in. As a Christian it's much easier to become an atheist these days than if you were born a Muslim. Do you think you were allowed to reject Christianity and become an atheist 400 years ago?
I fail to see the profundity behind WLC's mathematical argument. Mathematics are a human creation used to explain the world and the way certain things work. It would be like somebody saying "How is it that language explains things around us? How come the universe is capable of being understood and described through language, when we say that something is a tree or a rainbow?" Language didn't exist before we created it, and neither did mathematics, despite the fact that things which DID exist before either were created can be explained by both of them.
"Religion is a phase a species goes through when it evolves enough intelligence to ask profound questions but not enough to answer them." - Bill Flavell
Maybe instead of being a disciple of Bill Flavell you should look into graham oppy (who just so happens to be this debate’s moderator) if you want actual arguments for atheism. Flavell is akin to the new atheists who don’t have much to say philosophically and aren’t taken seriously.
52:18 What Krauss left out was Vilenkin saying "They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning."
So what if he did? The beginning Vilenkin speaks of is NOT the beginning WLC speaks of in the second premise of the Kalam. "Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.” At no point does Vilenkin posit that the BGV theorem proves an ABSOLUTE beginning of the universe. Rather it merely demonstrates that there is an INFLATIONARY (thermodynamic) beginning. Vilenkin's view in no way conflicts with Krauss'. WLC offers the BGV repeatedly as proof of the 2nd premise of the Kalam which claims the universe had an absolute beginning. So it's clear WLC is equivocating when he uses the word beginning in reference to the BGV and Vilenkin's quotes specifically. Furthermore Krauss is correct when he points out that that all the BGV theorem ultimately proves is classical physics (relativity) ultimately falls apart at some point in the past. Granted it inevitably leads to the inflationary beginning of the universe before it falls apart, but prior the planck epoch that we do not have a physics that can intelligently discuss what is going on until we come up with a theory of quantum gravity. That was ultimately Krauss' point until WLC's red herring (along with Krauss' other point that if you violate the >>assumptions
@@windcatcher331 An eternal state for "all reality" - with no beginning, exists in both positions. You are not saying anything different than what WLC and Vilenkin are saying. I think you use "absolute beginning" to refer to the state before the BB. They are not. They refer to the beginning of THIS Universe, Not an "absolute beginning for ALL reality". For WLC "ALL reality" includes GOD, which is timeless and without beginning. Vilenkin, you and cosmology can say the same thing. So? Both are saying the same thing: there is a definite beginning of "the current Universe". A beginning that differentiates the state "prior", to the state "after" the singularity. The state "before" the BB is timeless, with no beginning. But that is irrelevant. The only real problem with Kalam is that it is accepted that the cause of the Universe has only an efficient cause - God, without that of a material cause - ex nihilo. Philosopher Wes Morriston brings up that objection as being "special pleading" since all our experiences involve BOTH. So if you can accept no material cause, why not go one more step "no efficient cause". And I agree with that! I believe that "ex nihilo" is faulty. I think that the position of Easter Orthodoxy relative to Creation (WLC does not belong to that "school of thought) is the correct one - that creation is out of "Divine Energies", distinct from "Divine Essence". So not really "ex nihilo", rather "ex Divine Essence" - a material cause, and an efficient cause: "Divine Essence". Enter Pan-en-theism. Look it up. So in summary: there is no "absolute beginning" for "all reality" - it is timeless /without a beginning for EVERYONE.
@@Adiusa0874 I would like to add that the term Big Bang was a pejorative coined by Fred Hoyle. Even today people still think it means a literal bang, IOW explosion. It didn't. Furthermore many think that the Big Bang theory begins with the expansion of the universe. It does not.
@@windcatcher331 "absolute beginning" has no sense unless you imply "all reality", beyond this Universe. "The Begining of the universe" is sufficient to say. "Absolute" is a modifier that would imply the beginning of something else. And that is what it IS implied since you are talking about a state that is "other" than the state "after the BB". Your claim - if I understand it correctly is: "the universe BEGAN 14+ billion years ago (the "beginning" from premise 2 in KALAM) but there was a timeless state prior to BB (an "absolute beginning" that is timeless, without beginning). Isn't what you and are claiming? If it isn't, can you please rephrase it in a similar form, specifying which "beginning" you refer to? As far as the beginning of this universe, I think that is established since Valenking and cosmology refers to a moment in existence 14+ billion y.a. where this Universe came into existence (in current form). This follows the all-encompassing definition of a beginning: "X begins to exist at T1 iff (i) X exists at T1; (ii) T is either the first time at which X exists or is separated from any time T* < T nondegenerate, temporal interval; (iii) X’s existing at T1 is a tensed fact." "Did this universe exist prior to BB"? The answer is NO. Whatever was "before", was a state of affairs with a different arrangement and different properties. That is what is claimed NOW in cosmology to promote an eternal "absolute beginning". BB is a just term. In current usage, it should just mean "the moment in time 14+bilion years ago when matter and space-time started to exist in current form" 😉 .
Krauss lied about the BGV and the e-mail from Vilenkin. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/misrepresenting-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem
Clear win for Craig. Krauss is out of control and extremely unprofessional and kept having to say something nice after being a complete crazy person for 10 minutes at a time just to not look like a complete ass. Good thing there was a moderator or this would have had zero substance. Craig treated it as a debate and Krauss treated it as a yelling match between a divorcing couple.
The people commenting here are really amazing to me. They actually think Krauss had a single good point in this entire discussion or that he refuted *any* of Craig's arguments.... I'd like to know when this happened. I've watched this discussion twice. What I heard was childish yelling of "How do you know!?" and "we just don't know!", when Craig wasn't claiming to *know* any of these things with certainty any more than Krauss was claiming certainty on his points. Then there was that utterly idiotic question of "why didn't God give calculus to Moses".... I can't believe anyone thinks Krauss did well here. Could someone please point out to me a single good point or cogent refutation that Krauss made in this entire discussion? In *any* of the three discussions, for that matter? Please??
1. science refutes god. see for yourself how it turned out by searching "intelligence squared debate science refutes god." *spoiler alert* he wins the argument.
***** Being able to win a debate against Ian Hutchison and Dinesh D'Souza doesn't prove anything. Name a single good point Krauss made in THIS DISCUSSION WITH CRAIG. Good luck.
You didn't even watch the debate, therefore you are not familiar with the arguments that were utilized within it from either side. Your response doesn't dismiss any of the arguments from the debate, it only demonstrates your capacity to be an ultracrepidarian.
At around 48:00 the moderator asks Krauss if all religious people are unreasonable. Krauss says they are about their particular religious beliefs, but not in general and then goes on to give some reasons why people believe is these magical stories.What he fails to mention and what I see almost everyone fail to recognize, is the emotional component. Beliefs are concepts that are created in our consciousness, or mind, and transcend the spoken word. We humans are emotional creatures and for many, beliefs are more than simply a mental acceptance or a conviction. It is common place for most people to assign emotions or judgment to their beliefs. A person may have such a deep emotional attachment to a belief that they are ready to die, or in some cases, kill for their beliefs. Of course, not all emotional attachments to beliefs are this extreme but most of us have experienced an emotional response to having our beliefs challenged. Having our beliefs challenged can come in many forms such as (to name a few): Verbal disagreements; Seeing or hearing about some action taking place that we don’t agree with; Personal actions that go against our conscience. When we experience these things, the emotions that we’ve attached to our beliefs can become *disturbed* causing us to react emotionally. We may become defensive or even angry due to the disturbance of these emotions. WLC speaks of having emotional issues when he was younger and then finding Chistianity as teenager. Krauss says he originally though WLC was a lying charlatan, but now feels otherwise, that he truly believes the things he says. WLC has extremely strong emotional attachments to these religious beliefs of his and evidence and rational arguments that counter them just don't sink in with him. Most of the atheists reading this were probably theists when they were younger and experienced some strong emotions when going through their deconversion.
Andy Doney Emotions play various roles and I have a feeling what you are referring to is different than what I am. I am not talking about emotional comfort one gets from believing is certain religious doctrine, e.g., thinking that you will live forever in paradise after you die on earth and reuniting with loved ones who are also enduring in paradise. I am referring to the role emotions play with *all* types of beliefs and how they interfere with arguments and evidence that contradicts and criticizes beliefs that have emotional attachments to them. An atheist could have a strong emotional attachment to a belief as well that prevent him/her from recognizing the strength in evidence and argument that is contrary to it. The single biggest factor why fairly intelligent people continue to believe in religious nonsense as adults is because of these emotional attachments I am speaking of. It needs to be recognized and understood more deeply and widely in my opinion.
*_God is the best explanation of ...._* 1. The origin of the universe. 2. The applicability of mathematics to the physical world. 3. The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. 4. Objective moral values and duties in the world. 5. The historical facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus. 6. God can be personally known and experienced.
***** I'm Jewish, the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) works for me. My proof of God is the existence of our human souls. In particular my own soul, that's how I know.
***** We believe we're the chosen people, not superior, just separate. I am mentally ill, you just reminded me to take my meds, *THANKS!* Just here trying to have polite conversations with people who start off with different assumptions than I do. I love the law, I'm an expert at proving and disproving propositions. I follow all the major cases in the law on T.V.
***** Think of the Hebrew Bible as the Seattle Seahawk playbook, it's not for the Kansas City Chiefs. Just like a carnal mind can't understand the things of the spirit, the Gentile mind is not the Jewish mind. Being Jewish makes us (them) inseparable from their/our God. It's an ethno religion, being Jewish. We don't want you to believe in our God unless you convert and become one of us.
***** You're violating Ockham's Razor, you're adding a hypothesis. Epistemological reliabilism is that our basic belief that God exists is evidence of God Himself. We're both believers, it's just in what we're believing that's different. The laws of nature are real and immaterial why not God and our souls?
Really? Craig said that we have testimonies for resurrection 5 years after the event. The first historical references we have of Alexander the Great dates at least 2/3 centuries after he was alive. Who doubts the existence of Alexander on that basis?
I don't deny the EXISTENCE of Jesus and Krauss agrees. Alexander didn't pro-port to walk on water and resurrect. If you want to make claims like that, I need extremely viable video evidence at a bare minimum standard and even that could be substandard as video evidence can be manipulated so easily. I certainly won't accept claims that "this guy saw it 5 years ago". I can't believe you would even argue that point as if it held any meaning whatsoever. Again Jesus probably existed as a man. He HAS YET to be proven as a deity and almost certainly wasn't.
You should just stay on topic. Klauss dismissed Craig's claims because the testimonies wasn't in the same period wich the event had ocuur and, BECAUSE OF THAT, we should disregard these historical claims as reliable sources. That's why I brought the time thing about Alexander. The rest is just you presupposing your own worldview of the impossibility of miracles, when the argument is about inferring the best explanation for these historical events. Or you argue against the historicity of these events, or that there's another better explanation for these events. Just saying that the first historical references of these events was written only five years after, and not at the time of the occurrence, isn't an argument at all. I'm amazed how atheist can't follow simple logical reasoning.
I am off topic? I just said in my initial post that Krauss destroyed any arguments pertaining to RESURRECTION not whether or not he actually existed. Those are two vastly different contentions. I went on to say that historical evidence is much too unreliable to prove something as miraculous as walking from the dead. Just because someone said they saw it 5 years ago doesn't mean it happened. How can you not see this point? Do you not think the evidence for something as bold as a resurrection should be very bold in itself? "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". It is almost certain there was a guy named Jesus that existed and was probably an brilliant speaker. It is almost certain that this man DID NOT come back from the dead or perform any miracles. It is really that simple. But hey, you Christians can keep running in circles trying to prove it, it's not my time you are wasting. Good day.
@@ghostapostle7225 That's the problem when people without a good education think that an argument that only has claims and no scientific findings creates added value. It's no coincidence that most scientists are atheists. Basically, Krauss is completely superior to him intellectually. Do you also believe in the flat earth? The evidence for this is identical to that for a god. It's really sad that you don't understand what facts and claims are.
Evolution explains biology exactly the way you'd expect it to be. We are not fine-tuned animals. It is absolutely more reasonable to believe that Earth is not a system unto itself, and that evolution being just a procedure of physical laws applied to biology, we should NOT suspect that the Universe is fine-tuned but that, like with evolution, we exist in the Universe in our appropriate niche, we are poorly adapted to go outside of that niche, and the survival of our Solar System despite cosmic catastrophes makes it lucky and why the present only seems providential and is not for a fact.
***** Dr. Krauss proved why Jesus as a god or saviour is an absurd notion in his opening statement; by extension, any good argument for Jesus is irrelevant, as it's been established that it is so improbable that he was the son of the "correct" god.
***** Confirmation bias? Isn't William Lane Craig's picture next to that definition in every psychology textbook? You have to be kidding with that comment. lol
Theology never defeats science. Science is based on facts, testable, verifiable evidence. Not blind belief in a story that has been told for eons before christian "god". Do some research, you'll see what a load of garbage all religions are. There is no basis for morality in religion. The arguments that Craig uses as full of cognitive dissonance. Replace "god" with Santa Claus and there is almost nothing to change with his arguments. The strength of an argument is its falsifiability, not wild claims of copies of copies of translations of stories written decades, sometimes centuries after they supposedly happened by people that never witnessed them
It is very difficult to debate theists. You can try to reason with them, but it always comes back to magic with them. They don't need reason or knowledge or rational explanations, and they don't want them.
jordan6030 And because it's more comforting that somehow makes it true? Atheist are not weak minded as to need what Christopher Hitchens calls a "celestial dictator."
Painful reminder that titles and qualifications mean nothing. Krauss may be one of the best theoretical physicists on earth (by what standards remains to be seen), but throughout the debate, he is little more than a stubborn child, who refuses to believe that anyone else could be right and believes his way of seeing the world is the only right one. Guess modern atheist scientists are not so rational after all. Krauss is the perfect example that illustrates knowledge without wisdom is not really anything.
The moderator was obnoxious. We came to listen to Krauss and Craig, not the bald man with an ego. Unfortunately he was just using it to interrupt Craig. He called it his "bullshit alarm" or something. It was pretty pathetic.
Are there any folks from the Krauss camp that would agree he seems a little arrogant and talks down a lot? I'm on WLC's side of the argument, so I could be bias, but it seems Krauss keeps interrupting, condescending, and even disparaging at points...
+BreadBreakers Ministries I think, theists have less faith in existence of God than atheists have in non existence. If someone is atheist they are often so sure that they are right that any other opinion or idea seems idiotic to them and irritates them. While most of the theists are willing to hear any kind of theories.
zura iashvili Yeah, that could be...I have friends I love dearly who claim to be atheists, and I'm not saying all atheists/agnostics are this way, but many of the popular ones that debate come across very arrogant and slanderous, which doesn't help their case. Often they argue in cute sound bites or witty pokes that connect with the audience (like Krauss's erroneous syllogism that ends with WLC engaging in homosexual behavior. However, I find that many of the arguments are void of logical or reasonable thought, and don't stand up to scrutiny or debate.
+BreadBreakers Ministries I think atheist arguments against any organized religion nowadays is pretty good but if we take God as the creator of the universe, just as general concept, then its very likely.
+BreadBreakers Ministries I'd be annoyed too if I was one of the best theoretical physicists on the planet and having a theologian telling me about the science I studied all my life which he knows virtually nothing about. You might say "well Krauss hasn't studied Christian theology" but to compare theology and theoretical physics and in particular quantum theory is just a mute comparison. One is extremely technical and has made mind boggling accurate predictions and another hasn't made any progress in our daily lives.
Why does Kraus refuse to deal with his own (mathematical) frame and the universe and life entities it addresses during the fine tuning free-for-all. I think the focus of the fine tuning argument is the same for Lane-Craig and for Kraus. The introduction of other possible parameters by Kraus did not help Kraus at all! Quite the contrary.
1. What's wrong with Dr. Craig's hands? Is he deformed in some way? 2. If you watched all of this 3-part dialogue, you can tell that Prof. Krauss gradually gained more respect for Dr. Craig as a human being. At the conclusion of the 1st discussion, Krauss was reluctant to even shake WLC's hand. It wouldn't surprise me if these 2 developed a relationship - from a business sense at the very least. 3. The 3rd moderator was by far the best of the 3.
Dr. Krauss talks about how he hates lies and distortions. I don’t know if his own distortions and misrepresentations about Christianity, the Old Testament, were due to his own lack of research, prejudice or if he intended to mislead. When I watched the debates I was then surprised by the number of times he interrupts and then distorts what Dr. Craig was saying. Dr. Craig showed a great deal of patience and restraint in each of these conversations. Some of the distortions I noted: Dionysus and other ancient gods had virgin birth and resurrection myths. This is more of a distortion of history. Many religions changed key stories about their deities through the centuries and from region to region. To show that this is even an argument worth presenting Dr. Krauss would have to show that those portions of ancient myths preceded the biblical accounts. He would also have to show that they were either commonplace before the emergence of Christianity or that there was at least some historical connection. As it is he doesn’t even show that the similarities are close enough to cause any problems. Another distortion is that Dr. Krauss said that on Dr. Craig’s podcasts he says that animals don’t feel pain. I have listened to those podcasts and Dr. Craig presents a commentary on research that gives evidence that animals don’t experience the first person awareness that they are experiencing pain. This is far different than saying that they don’t feel pain. Dr. Krauss also tries to mix an atheistic worldview and a Christian worldview. Note how irrationally hostile Dr. Krauss gets about things he believes are fictional. Under atheism all instances in the bible that talk about God doing or saying something are fictional. Therefore under atheism there shouldn’t be a moral issue of one fictional character (God) harming another fictional character (Canaanites or the people who suffer in hell). It only becomes an issue of morality if the events are true and they are only true under a Jewish or Christian worldview. Both Judaism and Christianity affirm the context that God is the giver and sustainer of life; therefore He has the authority to establish morality and impose judgment on those who violate that morality. Under Christianity God judges people according to what they have done. If a child who hasn’t done anything bad worth judgment they then start a new life with God that is without pain or suffering. If the bible is true that the Canaanites participated in human sacrifice then wouldn’t the child be better off with God instead of with the Canaanites? It looked like Dr. Krauss was just trying to throw as much mud as possible to make some stick. On the other hand Dr. Craig showed the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control).
Belief in a god has just as much evidence as belief in a flat earth. Or do you believe Hogwarts exists because it's written in books? How naive do you have to be to believe in a god? What do you think Christianity was doing 400-500 years ago? If you seriously think that the Christian faith is more harmonious, you should take a look at the history of humanity.
Krauss bullied his way throughout this entire "conversation" his hyper double-speak was draining the aura on the stage. I say God bless Dr. William Craig for putting up with this dip who thinks he's god. You're not Krauss, guess you will learn that one day - I hope soon!
You are awful for wishing death on someone. Really disgusting. Krauss doesn't think he is God. He is humble amongst peers. And it's pretty clear that Craigs arguments can be dismantled withe ease
No he didn’t bully him he just had to correct him constantly in science since Krauss is a scientist and Craig isn’t but likes to think he’s one. Like that know it all at school who can’t be taught anything. People like that need to be corrected.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" -- An impossible question to answer honestly. "Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven... and it makes me wonder..."~Robert Plant "Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence."~Carl Sagan *Atheism is no less faith based than any religion.* Certainty is a harsh mistress... \\][//
He is flawed from the beginning. The way he "interpreted" the question would mean that ancient civilizations were justified in believing gods caused lightning, moved mountains, and pushed the sun around. Just because there are no good explanations yet doesn't mean you can just insert god into the equation when you feel like it. And in this case there already are theories.
Yep. This pretty much summs up the whole debate from the start. Having the best explanation doesn't make that explanation true. The best explanation is the one which work with arguments and evidence accessible at the given period of time. Gods were the best explanation in ancient time. It doesn't anymore. Same with 'intelligent design' and 'fine-tuning of the universe'. Having a stable and ordered environment doesn't mean it has been brought by someones choice. It's still a natural selection, which is omnipresent on any given level, starting from very simple forms of matter. There were probably billions and billions of different forms of matter and their consecutive laws of interaction, but only STABLE ones has remained, and UNSTABLE gone extinct. And the same sentence is true for anything - prime particles, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, lifeforms on earth, celestial objects and their superstructures. More to that, the process never ceased, it still working everywhere, radioactive elements are still unstable and decay fast, unfeasible animals go extinct each minute, oversized planets are consumed or thrown out of their systems into free journey, bloated stars are going boom, unstable galaxies are torn apart by external forces and colliding with each-other creating vast clouds of random stuff. Where the hell they have found the intelligent design in all that? The only 'best explanation' - right in front of their noses. Because they never look further than that.
The fact of the matter is that theists can never win a debate like this simply because they have no argument to begin with no matter how good or bad their opponent may be.
'theists can never win a debate like this simply because they have no argument to begin' Great. I love intellgent atheists. I'm still trying to find one that can give a decent answer to these 2 questions. Go on, you have a go 1 - Please explain how the universe came into being taking into account the absurdity of an infinite regress of causation? 2 - why are the physical constants fine tuned such that they have led to complexity?
If you want an answer to your #1 question...why are you setting up how/what I can or cannot say?...you are basicly asking me to answer what YOU want to hear. If I do not answer your way..you will say my answer is absurd...your question is what is absurd! As science has pretty much decided the universe came into being by "The Big Bang". Theists win alot of these debates...because they have God's truth...atheists have nothing but a buzzer. 2. Really? is this a question? I have a question for you... Why does Krauss act like the Samsonite gorilla in a cage? Being atheist you should be able to give me an answer...right? I may add that faith, hope and love do not go into a test tube...The proof takes a lifetime and is confirmed by witness of the friends and family.
vicachcoup I congratulate you for at least noticing my intelligence. I am not going to attempt to answer your questions because you are way, way behind in your knowledge of this subject. However I suggest you watch the following two videos which should help. To question 1 watch Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" and for question 2 Neil deGrass Tyson's "Fine Tuned Universe?" and others. I suspect you won't watch these videos because you don't want to know the truth and/or you are frightened of it, which is understandable I suppose.
I am not frightened by you or any atheist. As a Christian I cannot understand why you atheists would want to live, die and be forgotten..and then you have the gonads to tell me you are intelligent..HA I, on the otherhand will be resurected... and tho my intelligence is modest, I do not have to show my ignorance by telling people how smart I am ....Here's a news flash..".I aint buyin' it!" My point is this..Long after you are dead and buried and forgotten with your so called intellect....I will have eternity to learn about everything you wish you knew. I win! BTW..it was Craig I wanted to listen to..not that idiot Krauss.
Elaine Powell First of all Elaine I wasn't talking to you, I was responding to vicachcoup and was being facetious in my first sentence because he/she said it sarcastically that I was intelligent. However I will respond to your post. Atheists, like all human beings, don't want to live, die and be forgotten but sadly they have no choice in the matter. Also I would like to know how you "know" you are going to live forever when there is no evidence for it.
Would you interrupt someone that keeps yelling, "THE WORLD IS FLAT!!!!" outside a school yard? Yes? Good. Would you stop every syllable of a person who not only yells "The world is flat!!" but then *also* tells the kids they're going to one day be tortured by this person's imaginary friend if they don't believe? You would interrupt? Great. This person screaming the world is flat outside the school are the same claims of (monothesistic) religion. I'm glad you now see Krauss's reason(s) for interrupting Craig. Craig has every right to his beliefs and to speak his mind. However, that doesn't give him the right to *not* have his beliefs challenged when he professes them in public, and that challenge is especially needed when the claims being made have no evidence supporting them. Krauss may be combative in his delivery, but he's not factually wrong pointing out Craig's flaws, nor is he morally wrong to do so in any way he sees fit as long as he doesn't harm Craig in the process.
ThinkingGeek Man..even if the man is wrong, you still have to let him give his opinion and only after he finishes you can counter what he said...that's called being POLITE :)
Oh, I totally agree Krauss is not polite. I just don't have a huge problem with it as long as what he's saying is accurate. People respond to different types of information exchange. Some prefer calm, polite, well-reasoned facts, like, say, the delivery style of Sam Harris. Some respond to more polemic strategies like Krauss or Hitchens. Consider this: FoxNoise isn't successful at gathering audiences for their accuracy in reporting. They're successful in garnering viewership despite peddling terrible, clearly biased and often false information because their audience is primed to respond to polemical arguments rather than reasoned facts. In short, impoliteness works for some people. The benefit of Dr. Krauss, at least, is that he's (often) factually accurate, so at least the audience is getting good information.
@ 18:48 Really? I think every single person who has a religion can "feel" there god when they believe that much. It doesn't mean that god exists. If that is in fact the case then you have to accept every single god some person believes in because they too can have that feeling.
About 16 minutes in WLC claims that a naturalistic view has no grounds for moral objection to slaughtering children, yet in other talks he argues that his theistic perspective can regard it as acceptable. Makes one cringe.
Craig makes the argument (elsewhere) that the slaughter the children of the Canaanites under the Israelite conquest (if it indeed happened this way, which is debated), could be morally justified if (a) God made a greater good come out of it, such as the salvation of the children who would have otherwise been immersed in a pagan society and come under God's judgment, or (b) that since God is the creator of life, he alone holds the perogative to take life, either directly himself or through the agency of another (Israelites), since on divine command theory (which Craig holds), God has the perogative to command such an act. Both of these are defensible. The point is that God is still the ontological ground of moral values and duties; if God decides to wipe out an entire people group, we cannot judge him with an ontologically independent moral standard since his character (and the divine decrees given based off his character) IS the grounding of all morality. This is the theistic position, and it is consistent. Contrary, on naturalism, morality has evolved - meaning, at one time moral values and duties did not exist and now they do. So what grounds moral values as being individual/culturally independent and thus binding on all people at all times? Who is to say that an individual, group, or the entire human race won't morally evolve in the future as to allow genocide as being an acceptable practice?
WLC argument is misunderstood on this point. His argument is that objective moral do not exist if God does not exist. By objective he means something is true independent of whether people believe it or not.....like say the freezing point of water is a fact regardless of what people believe. On atheism he is saying since there is no God ....there are no objective ground for morality. Morality would be a social invention of man so we get along and survive as a species. So on atheism he believes an atheism cant say something is objectively right or wrong. So in the point your making he is only saying atheists dont have an objective anchor to ground their moral perspective. Furthermore he never advocated the slaughter of children. He like everyone else believes its wrong...but believes he can anchor his moral perspectives in the fact God exists....therefore objective morals exists...so from his view when he says its wrong he has an anchor point for his moral values. He never argues atheists are immoral...only that on atheism they have no anchor point for the moral perspective. WLC and Sam Harris have a great debate on this. You should listen to it.
@@benrcrenshaw85 eurhypryo’s dilemma renders the idea of god given objective morality logically paradoxical. No one in the subsequent two thousand years has managed to come up with a way to answer euthypryo. Thus objective morality is simply a mirage, regardless of whether you believe in a god or not. If god made morality then the supposedly objective morals in the bible are arbitrary, decided by god based on no rational reasoning at all. OTOH if he based his morals on some kind of reasoning then they must be either based on preexisting objective morals or they must be subjective. In the first case he cannot be the creator of all things since morality would’ve had to pre exist him, in the second case he would not be responsible for an objective morality. This is utterly watertight and relies on the much bigger problem of justified true beliefs. Thus we are all stuck in this universe making morality up as we go along. And as soon as we stop reasoning a priori and look at the actual world we live in it should be blindingly obvious that we make it up as we go along.
This is definitely the best of the three dialogues. Very well executed by both speakers and moderator.
11 ปีที่แล้ว +3
If any Christian (as Bill advocates for a single belief) say that Lawrence has lost this debate for Craig, I give up, because this case is already demonstration of a blind, deaf and dumb faith, in which the discussion becomes useless, because you already a priori ignores anything that does not come from Christianity. Craig showed nothing to justify a belief in a particular god or his existence, and Lawrence always tried to remember all the time to Bill the importance of intellectual honesty, that the Bill does not value much. And the name for it called ignorance.
That intellectual honesty was an issue for Dr. Krauss. In the 3 discussions nearly every time he stepped out of science to talk about philosophy or religion it was a misrepresentation of Christianity, Dr. Craig or history. He also tried to show that Dr. Craig doesn't understand science. That proved to be a failure since Dr. Craig regularly checks his points with scientists in the fields he discusses to make sure he is representing the science accurately. Most of the people Dr. Craig quotes are Atheists and Agnostics and Muslims so he isn't just picking material from Christians.
11 ปีที่แล้ว
John Peters You said Krauss committed intellectual dishonesty when he spoke about religion and philosophy, on this point I can agree that Krauss tried to use arguments with issues he does not have much knowledge, but his arguments are not completely wrong, he just did not know how to show examples that demonstrate this effectively, to show the inconsistency of belief in god, and especially the belief on God of Dr. Craig.The other points where you made on intellectual dishonesty of Krauss I'll show what is not.
11 ปีที่แล้ว
Adélio Garbazza II As for the misrepresentation of Christianity, that everybody does, because there is no absolute definition of what Christianity is, if you think you have, then you do not know much about Christianity, and each of these Christian denominations claim that their Christianity is true, and some denominations do not agree with the arguments of Dr. Craig. So we have a problem, how to show what is the true representation of Christianity without evidence, we can not, that's exactly the point Krauss wanted to do, that nothing is rational in theology, in the case of this debate also includes the problem of the existence of Jesus, what he did and what he was, as these details I repeat there is no consensus or certainty, then what we see here is the opinion of Dr. Craig.
11 ปีที่แล้ว
Adélio Garbazza II About Dr. Craig knowledge about science, Krauss did not show that Craig does not understand science, in fact what he showed and said that Craig is choose what is convinient in science to provide support for the assumptions he uses in debates, but this is the error in the argumentation of Craig, because he ignores the rest, including any other explanation for the beginning of the universe, which are many, it is that Krauss is saying. The truth is that nobody knows the origin of the universe, until we know any explanation is possible, but not all are plausible, the explanation of Craig as much as some people do not want to accept borders on fantasy and not change anything if he uses the science of way that is convinient for him. And why it is dishonest because he used too many assumptions, there are many argumentative maneuvers, as in the case of mathematics is the language of nature and the universe, Krauss clearly show that this is an approximate interpretation that man makes about events that happen, therefore the language is not there, we create and is limited to our understanding. When Craig said that, I saw clearly that he does not know or ignores the chaos theory, which clearly shows how his argument is fallacious.
11 ปีที่แล้ว
Adélio Garbazza II Last thing, he uses quotes from Atheists, agnostics and Muslims does not mean anything if he distorts this quote to fit in his belief in Christianity, without proving how this quote validate their arguments. I know that Christian apologists use arguments from various sources, and often, ironically, they use arguments that go directly against the Bible and William L. Craig is one of them, and he shows that in this debate. This is intellectual dishonesty too, and makes clear how he fails to demonstrate the rationality on the belief in Christianity, which is what he advocates.
@ 13:17 - 13:33 Really he says god must exist because the chance of something happening doesnt seem probable? Well life itself is a chance but here we are and here we all accept evolution. The odds of a god far out way the odds of a fine tuned universe happening all on its own, science can prove why we have a fine tuned universe and how it took so damn long to accomplish. Yet there is still no argument proving the existence of a god. I dont understand how he cant feel like a hypocrite saying this.
William Lane Craig seems by far and away the best person to answer the nonsense of atheism. The evidence of this is that every time he corners scientists or atheists they pathetically chicken out by claiming nothing can be proven or known for certain, which is totally unscientific. Further evidence is that he seems to be infinitely patient with the irrationality of atheism. That wisdom is patient with foolishness betrays the mission of winning the fool from his folly. Such is the mission of William Lane Craig, a spokesman for God.
Winning a debate has nothing to do with the truth. Sometimes you are indeed correct and that's fine but if you are wrong, you will actually leave the room soaking in your own ignorance. Because there is a big difference between "being right" and not knowing your wrong. That's the beauty of realizing you made a mistake. It is the moment that an opportunity to grow presents itself.
BEST debate with WLC ever. I had always assumed he was intellectually dishonest -- but Krauss' persuasion is compelling. I also found the method of this debate substantially better, with the one caveat that I'd prefer a judge were the moderator who'd chime in with rules of evidence and admissibility. Krauss uses new arguments from his typical retorts which shows he took seriously and prepared for it -- he's also obviously reading quite a bit of philosophy it'd appear. Do people think voting the video up or down is a vote to the content and not the relevance of the title to the production? What the hell are the thumbs down about?
I love LK but found out later he was caught lying on this debate. You can see it happen around 55min mark. He claimed WLC lied but he in fact was caught lying. I dont know who won the debate but I know he lied on that part. I wish LK would also allow WLC to finish what he is trying to say. He gets so loud and pushy WLC cant respond without him talking over him.
The fine tuning might elude Mr. William Lane Craig, he is clearly not worthy of his title of Dr. What eludes Mr. Craig is the fact that life adapts, life is tuned to the universe, not the other way around.
"life is tuned the universe, not the other way around." This is only partially true. Life adapts to it's environment, however, we have no idea how life came about. There are rules/forces written into the fabric of space-time that operate together harmoniously and routinely transform unorganized matter in the form of molecular clouds into organized matter in the form of solar systems. Certain planets/moons within these solar systems then give rise to life, which then becomes more numerous, diversified, complex and even sentient. Perhaps there are rules/forces at work that are yet undiscovered which cause life to occur as they cause stars, planets, moons, elements and everything else to occur. Considering the nature of the rules/forces we do know, the way they operate together and the highly creative effect they have on matter/energy, it is reasonable to assume a probable (not certain) intelligent agent(s) who designed them. However, claiming this agency is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc., is not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to assume that is highly probable. The nature of forces is to cause energy and matter to move in a certain direction, which forms particular patterns. This is not mysterious and requires no intelligent agency. We shouldn't be so dogmatic that we dismiss anything which is un probable, as Craig tends to. Unprobable does not equal impossible. We can, however, make informed decisions about which possibilities are the most likely to be true
revo1974 You can't put probabilities on unknowns (or unknowables). Doing so anyway is unreasonable. In order to know the probability of a created universe, you have to know how many universes were created and how many were not, then do the math. THAT would enable you to say any given universe had a probability of design, and what that probability is. Just looking at natural laws in the natural world does not enable you to say anything about a "probable" designer. All the evidence thus far suggests a designed universe is impossible. We have no examples of a designed universe, and one example of one that has thus far no indication of being designed when it should if it is.
hexum7 I didn't say "highly probable", I said "probable" as in likely but uncertain. The origin of these rules/forces *is* mysterious. They demand an explanation. Knowledge coupled with reasoning allows us to reach abstract conclusions about what may be. In my opinion design is a superior explanation to chance or necessity.
greyeyed123 "You can't put probabilities on unknowns (or unknowables). Doing so anyway is unreasonable." Do we *know* of any life forms existing in the universe other than here on planet earth? No. If I was to say, "I think alien life in our universe is probable", would I be in the wrong? No. I am using the word probable in the same fashion. "All the evidence thus far suggests a designed universe is impossible." What evidence is that? "We have no examples of a designed universe, and one example of one that has thus far no indication of being designed when it should if it is." We have no examples of universes that derive from chance or necessity either, including our own. All we can do (at this time) is couple the knowledge of the universe we have with reasoning and try to draw a conclusion. We can make an inference to the best explanation using abductive reasoning. Knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the universe tells us that all effects are either a result of necessity or contingency, Either they had to be the way they are (necessity) or then did not (contingency). Contingency can be broken down into chance (random process) or design (intelligent guided/directed process). I submit that the best explanation is design.
They don't because it's owned by Catholics but the tomb of Jesus was the tomb of one of the Pharisees. That was explained in early church history. Regardless even Christians are skeptical for irrational reasons such as someone they don't like owns a valuable site.
And, of course, Krauss has to mock God by referring to Him as an "invisible man." This cheap insult shows Krauss' indignation against the supernatural.
The vast majority of the world believes in God, and for good reason: blind chance simply cannot account for what we observe. Your insults and anger won't change that one iota.
If it's not due to design, and it's not due to physical necessity (which is necessarily true), then it must be due to chance. The fact that you can't stop insulting me shows that you're being influenced by emotion. And I'm not arguing that God exists because a lot of people believe in Him. I'm saying that people believe in God because there are no good reasons to believe that atheism/naturalism is true. There are good reasons to believe that God exists. People aren't convinced because they don't want to be convinced.
Physical necessity is impossible since absolutely nothing existed. Scientists have ulterior motives, as do everyday atheists. For if there is a God, that means there might be accountability to God. And that is unacceptable. I'd love to know where you got that 14% figure from. You're not convinced by the arguments for God because you DON'T want to be convinced. It's not ludicrous that there is a Creator. It's ludicrous to believe that this universe is due to chance. That's ridiculous beyond measure. You don't think that a book could write itself or that a painting could paint itself, so how could a universe form itself? It couldn't, there had to be a Designer. You have a subconscious bias against God, and that's your prerogative. But your belief in naturalism is absolutely not a rational viewpoint, and it contradicts much science and observation.
+terminat1 I think the 14% that Oners82 mentioned was from here: commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371 It is an statistical survey, you can check the credentials of it by yourself. And belief is not something you simply pick and choose using only volition, it is actually something complex and worth studying more before you say something like that. For instance, I would like to believe in the supernatural and the existence of any deity at all, but at the moment I don't have sufficient evidence to lean towards any belief in both of them. Even though in the past I had sufficient evidence in my own perspective, by learning more knowledge about science, philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and the bible I came to the conclusion (rather I like it or not) and realization that I do not believe anymore. Do you believe that I had a choice in this case?
Allow me to point out that Vilenkin emailed Craig informing him that he represented his views on the BGV theorem "very accurately". You'll discover that Krauss omitted a VERY important line in Vilenkin's email which reads: “It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent TO A BEGINNING”. Krauss told the audience that the omitted stuff was "technical". So, in other words, Krauss lied/insulted the audience. Finally, Vilenkin furnished Craig with the unabridged version of his email to Krauss. You'll be surprised to discover that it is Krauss who misrepresented Vilenkin's views. This is disturbing since it comes from a scientist who cries out for honesty, transparency, full disclosure. I think Krauss is a very knowledgable scientist. However, this misrepresentation has left a stain on his public reputation. You can see the entire email correspondence at: reasonablefaith(dot)org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem
Andy Smith Yes Andy, that's the sentence I used. Craig is well known for his strict debate rules. He insists on going first so that he can use his rebuttal time to explain that his opponent didn't use their opening statement to attack his arguments and therefore they are all unquestioned. He also continues to use arguments that have been debunked for decades, which is especially ignorant and dishonest because he always uses the same argument by opening with "I'm going to interpret this question to mean" and then twists every question into the same debate over and over. This is simply because he believes absent of evidence. That's not me talking, Craig said it himself: Interview with Dr. William Lane Craig: Handling Doubt He would rather listen to the voice in his head over evidence. William Lane Craig was ranked in the top 15 researchers in his field.....what "research" would they be doing exactly? It's not like you can test anything they can think up. Also, next time say WHO put him in the top 15. Meanwhile: "Krauss is one of the few living physicists referred to by Scientific American as a "public intellectual", and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012 he was awarded the National Science Board's Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the US." Krauss also wrote another 10 scientific papers this year alone, between of course making a movie...that Craig never saw yet critiqued. Craig on the other hand is coming in at a lowly 0. So no matter how accomplished you are as a religious philosopher a scientist will always trump you, because they are actually doing some useful. So congratulations on being in the "top 15" of a field that doesn't effect anything. So if you want to try and use one of Craig's pathetic excuses for an argument then by all means I would love to debunk it. I know it's more your style to avoid the evidence I just presented and shit sling but maybe you'll grow a brain and some balls in the next few days.
HobbsO I'll hear your intellectual objections to the Kalam. Let's focus on ONE objection at a time. For each objection, please provide clear and consice evidence or logical reasoning that debunks it. Furthermore, please be explicit to which premise(s) you are attempting to show is/are false. If you have evidence for your claim or objection, please provide references to the scholarly peer-reviewed scientific papers and/or quotes from physicists to support your evidence and claims? This way I can verify them. Please be aware that virtually every cosmologist today claims that the universe had a beginning. Lastly, leave the ad hominum insults behind. OK?
At 1:05:17 begins the total deconstruction of Craig's contention. The "logic" of Criag's argument is indeed airtight. But building the logic of any argument is the easy part. The problem for Dr. Craig is that his entire argument is built on outrageously overstated and outright faulty premises. These premises make assumption for the purpose of supporting his argument. That's faulty reasoning. Nothing more need be debated at that part, because the argument now fails. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." This is quite simply the mother of all unjustified assumptions baked into a premise. This premise is void.
What is William Lane Craig doing on a stage debating Krauss about theoretical physics? I suppose he'll want to debate Dawkins about evolutionary biology and Harris about neuroscience next. He's a christian apologist, and knows just enough about these issues to appear competent to lay people and pawn himself off as knowledgeable.
By that same token what's a physicist doing on stage debating whether God exists or not? He might as well debate a real historian on the history the US monetary system and the banking and corporate control of both the Republican and Democrat parties and the illusion of the 2 party system in the US. He could use a bit of an education on that subject.
Brett M, physics used to be philosophy, Metaphysics 1a is by Aristotle. He lived a long time before the field of physics was invented. If physics was the pinnacle of intertheoretic reduction and after Dawkins forfeited a debate to Dr. Craig then Oxford would have pitted three of their best God hating physics dons in a cage match, 3 on 1, against Dr. Craig instead of 3 of their best God hating philosopher dons, 3 on 1, against Dr. Craig, the debate that actually happened. We all knew then who the Champion is and we & Oxford realized in order to take this guy down we're going to need to marshal our forces. Have you ever seen a 3 on 1 debate before? Philosophy is at the pinnacle, that's why Dr. Craig is not afraid of Lawrence Krauss. btw, Krauss is talking about my Jewish relatives who wrote the Bible and we represent 24% of Nobel Prize winners and most of us won those in the field of physics. What Krauss doesn't have is a doctorate of divinity, he needs to be silent on God if your complaint against Dr. Craig has any validity of a person arguing outside the bounds of their schooling.
1) Most of that paragraph didn't make much sense to me so I'll just reply to what I think you are trying to say. You seem to think of debate as a WWE cage match between 2 opposing forces with a clear victor. Debate is about the exchange of ideas. It's about finding out which ideas are better, which are more justifiable, which have more supporting evidence, and perhaps which one's should be discarded in favor of better ideas. 2) You're right, Krauss doesn't have a doctorate of divinity, but I also think we have 2 very different conceptions of what a dr of divinity is. If a god does not exist then no one has a dr of divinity and it would be properly termed a dr of jewish mythology. If any religion other than mainstream christianity is right then Craig also doesn't have a dr. div because his conception of the nature of god is so far off as to be worthless. The only way Krauss wouldn't belong on the stage is if Craig's version of god does exist, Craig is rationally justified in believing he exists and thinks Krauss should also believe, and Krauss is making uneducated factual claims about the nature of this god without justifiable reasoning.
Brett M 1) Then Dawkins should have participated in the debate instead of waging a flame ware from his blog everyday for a year against Dr. Craig. Didn't read 2).
+Denchanter357 - C'mon man, surely you can watch these debates and see who was interested in an actual exchange and who simply wanted to shout the other person down. I'm sure you want to defend your guy here, but let's be honest about what went down. It's really a shame. If Krauss really wanted to reach theists, he went about it totally wrong! You're not going to change anyone's mind by being an insufferable know-it-all who refuses to even listen to the other side. I just listened to Craig's debate with Victor Stinger and Krauss could learn much from Stinger about defending your position with conviction rather than just acting like a jerk.
One thing this debate shows is that the debate can be greatly enhanced by the knowledge and experience of the moderator. During this debate I also saw Krauss become a little more humble and nuanced than usual.
"When Dr. Craig tells me that historians/theologians/scholars of the BIble all accept that the resurrection happened, it reminds me of alien abduction experts who say that all alien abduction experts say people were abducted by aliens!" Bingo!
@@trumpbellend6717 Your comment actually made me laugh. Well-played. I will say though, I'd still have money left over for a book on avoiding logical fallacies. Do you have Krauss's mailing address?
Laurence won’t shut his mouth. He has a bad habit of interrupting, and its frustrating to even listen to this because he doesn’t even let Craig finish a sentence before he belligerently interrupts time and time again. The moderator needs to moderate. This is why formal debate is necessary, because Laurence won’t shut his cake hole because all he wants to hear is himself.
Krauss was really having a discussion with himself. I mean, Dr. Craig wasn’t afforded a chance to fully expand any response to any of the questions Krauss posed to him. In a case like that, how do you even tell if Craig is irrational if you won’t even hear his attempt at rationality?
I love krauss he is the most entertaining to listen to since the late and very great hitchens, i always smile when i see him getting annoyed that people just arent taking in what he is telling them. He is deff one of the greatest minds in our time.
The thing is with the fine tuned argument is that it assumes that only life in the form we find on earth is the only kind of life that could exist. The "life permitting range" applies to our form of life, if the value changed then for all we know another form of life could arise
Fine tuning is such a BS argument. How can this universe be "fine tuned" for life when our existence is so fragile that at any time we can be wiped off from existence, heck we can only live in such a tiny part of our planet. All of this points even more to us just existing randomly. If "fine tuning" was true there'd be more life around and we can just live in space and eat radiation for breakfast. Now thats what I can call a fine tuned universe made specifically for life to exist.
As humans we focus on either/or rather than and/both. The Universe is its Own Creator; the Creator and the Creator being one and the same both transcendent and immanent. Difficult for humans to understand as and/both is not part of our experience in our dual system where it is always either/or. Consciousness: non-vibratory; then creation from Motion: Vibratory; movement; time; change; past, present, future; beginning, end. But what is transcendent does not end only its expression as a nightly dream may end but the dreamer is awake. The Dreamer and the Dream are One and the Same.
@@ALavin-en1kr Well, for me personally, belief in a god has the same value as belief in a flat earth. There is no evidence for either, just allegations, but believers feel attacked when you show them how irrational their belief is. Maybe people will start to question why they believe in the Christian god and not in Allah or Zeus. I think education is extremely important, as is the willingness to question things instead of filling in the gaps in knowledge with faith. It is no coincidence that more intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than less intelligent people. Do you know what time is? I have the feeling that you don't understand basic things. And that's why you think there must be a creator, but what if time doesn't pass?
@@AcidGubba The universe has been named God by some, you can think of it as just the universe or as God, it is your choice. There is the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ in philosophy; what exactly is consciousness? There has been reductive psychologies which have attempted to devalue consciousness, mind, and human reason by reducing the human to a mindless entity driven by behaviors. The worst of these was the Behaviorism of the past mid-century by B.F. Skinner whose reductive psychology was roundly defeated by a number of factors. N. Chomsky was one opponent who roundly defeated it. Biologists and Sociobiologists are still trying to extrapolate their discipline of biology to be the totality of human nature; limiting the human to biology and its drives, ignoring consciousness. mind, and reason. They never give up in attempting to reduce the human to biology alone, but their defeat in the last century still holds. Patricia Churchland is the latest to attempt to resurrect ‘the human as biology only trope’ but again it is gaining little traction, thankfully, because it is reductive and stupid, ignoring human consciousness and reason; the human from its own prototype, not from the prototype of a different species. The fact that ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ is being debated today proves we have moved past the stupidity of behaviorism but it still attempts to raise its ugly head although there is zero interest in its premise today, thankfully; science has advanced too far for Behaviorism to gain any traction. Churchland is an outlier in her view today; the world has moved on.
The Fine-Tuning thing is too problematic to be taken that seriously. As Krauss pointed out around 58:00 it would be surprising to find ourselves in a universe in which we "could not" exist. In other words, in a universe in which the laws of physics would seem to preclude our existence or aspects of our nature. Craig jumps on Krauss about this and says that that would be a contradiction, but saying this means he failed to grasp the point. The point is that our existence and qualities conform to the laws of physics, which _implies_ that they are a *product* OF the laws of physics, and _not_ a product of something ELSE (like a god) that MADE the laws of physics. Think about it. If we were beings of a significantly different nature that were capable of _breaking_ what seemed to be physical laws and constraints, we could not appeal to natural laws for our existence. If we could, for instance, simply float around in the sky or space at will, with no wings for example, with no ability to generate thrust or lift, but we saw, as we see now, that all other creatures and objects on Earth could _not_ do that and had to manipulate _physical principles_ to achieve flight, then we could still derive all the same physical laws, but see that, for some arbitrary reason, they just don't apply to us. That would be strange and somewhat inexplicable by natural law. Or imagine if the body structure of a human were such that it should be completely crushed by gravity, but we still found ourselves living in such an environment. That would be something that is scientifically inexplicable and one could suggest with some plausibility that there is some other force or reason that we would be able to exist in an environment where it seems that, physically, we should not be able to exist. But instead what we see is that nothing like this actually is the case. Instead we see that we exist in highly specific conditions out of a vast universe of impossible environs. It's much more consistent and logical to invoke the anthropic principle to explain all this and say we are the product of natural physical laws than it is to try to argue that fine-tuning is the explanation.
George Faraj Do you know the best examples of fine-tuning? The primordial vacuum was fine-tuned to like 10 to the 500th power for I think over 50 constants and quantities. i think christopher hitchens believed the fine-tuning argument is the most convincing argument the theists have in support of theism, and believed it is convincing. "in recent decades, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the big bang were fine tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension." - WLC.
jon keene The fine-tuning argument is not evidence towards a designer. At best, it's an interesting fact. But a universe in which intelligent life exists is obviously going to have the properties to produce and support life. It would be very surprising if this would not be the case.
George Faraj "A universe in which intelligent life exists is obviously going to have the properties to produce and support life." It seems as though this statement contains a presupposition that we must have a universe in which intelligent life exists.
I would say that tries reaaaaaaaally hard. I guess he is a good example of true believer...too bad that this is exactly the opposite of what a scientist is. His "rational evidences" are hilarious.
Yes Lawrence I agree, our behaviour is deterministic in the sense that our subconscious makes all our decisions while we have the experience of making a conscious choice! It makes you wonder who we really are!
Oppy vs WLC is the debate we REALLY need
fax
th-cam.com/video/8WE1y00bwCU/w-d-xo.html
oppy is much better thinker atheist that kraus and dawkins. and very humble also unlike the new atheist dawkins, the late hitchens and especially krauss who are insulting arrogant and hateful in every debate. and because of krause egoistic and arrogance, he ends up lying to science in this debate in front of the audience just toppush his ideology of atheism. such a shame for krauss. even oppy just laugh at krauss.
Sure thing bud🤣
I don't think Krauss kicked Craig's ass. If you observe their exchanges, I think we can all agree that Craig was being extremely courteous towards Krauss by letting him interrupt him incessantly. Craig also gives Krauss the benefit of the doubt in setting definitions(definition of science), and he doesn't force Krauss to respond to his arguments (eg. fine tuning argument). Craig is simply soft spoken, but I picked up the logic of what he's saying. In fact, I admire Craig for being gracious in his patience towards Krauss, who clearly wants all the talk time to himself.
***** Perhaps you might be right about Craig having a fixed and rigid mindset, but until Lawrence allows Craig to finish his point, it's honestly quite hard to tell who has the stronger case. According to the dictionary, an example of a tautology would be the terms "widow woman", in other words, a needless repetition of ideas. Could you give some examples of Craig making such mistakes?
***** I agree with you, in most of Craig's debates that I have seen, the cases he dishes out tend to be really long, and it's hard for his opponents to successfully destroy every one of them given the time frame. However, in this case, Lawrence interrupts Craig before he can completely finish a point. An argument that's only allowed to be uttered halfway always sounds silly. It's only after we've finished speaking that our case can legitimately be tackled. I'm not saying Lawrence should let Craig dish out 5 to 6 points before he interrupts, but perhaps just 1 point?
***** William Lane Craig on Lawrence Krauss' Endless Interruptions here is a video that shows the frequency that Lawrence interrupted Craig. It's flabbergasting, the interrupts usually come just after Craig finishes one or two sentences. He hardly had the opportunity to follow through with most of his points.
Yes Craig is soft spoken, yes he allows Krauss to do most of the talking and you know why, because he has too, Lawrence Krauss is a world renowned physicist, he actually is an expert on things that really do exist, Craig is a theolgian and despite all of his study and research is entire knowledge is based on "faith", not actual facts, he believes in god because he "wants" to believe the christian god exists.Don't try and put him in the same league as Krauss.
Storm Hawk You have got to be kidding, right? Krauss is not a "world renowned" physicist, Steven Weinberg, John Wheeler, Richard Feynman and Christopher Isham. They were world renowned physicists, (just to name a few) And I find it very hard to take your criticism of Craig seriously, when you're so blissfully unaware that his primary field of research is philosophy. When you look to physicists who don't have this anti-religious ridden agenda, like for example George Ellis (Which sources, such as Scientific American tell us, is widely considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology) he praises Craig for his knowledge of science.
Krauss: I know there is no God, and any belief in God is unreasonable!
Craig: It is more likely that there is a God than otherwise.
Krauss: How can you say, "I know! I know!" about anything? Uncertainty is wondrous, and I am so clever and wise for celebrating this and being open-minded.
when does he specifically say 'there is no God. I know that'?
Why should the Christian faith be truer than any other? Isn't it strange that so many religions are absolute? I can't understand why people want to believe in something that is based entirely on claims. The world would be much more moral if more people were atheists...
Graham Oppy did a great job as a moderator. He is *infinitely* more qualified to debate Craig, and I'm sure he was champing at the bit, but he really did a great job. He let the debators express themselves, only chiming in when necessary (such as to keep one particularly obnoxious person from *constantly* interrupting his opponent). Kudos to Oppy, and here's hoping other moderators can learn from his example.
"There is no such thing as an objective moral ought!... but it's immoral what religion is doing!"
Why not? Moral claims need not be objective to be valid. In the end objective morality in the metaphysical sense is a square circle. Moral just isn't the kind of thing that can logically consistent be described objectively. Even a god cannot change that. Let's say god would have created the universe with an objective morality that is someway identically to his essence (god = the good). Why ought we therefore act in accordance with this one morality? It may be prudent to act in a way that respects the laws of nature or in this case the moral laws of god. But is it morally good?
@@originalblob It absolutely is invalid if you mean that something is actually immoral, rather than just something you don't like.
And I don't see how your question shows that morality can't be objective. It does hint at the Euthyphro Dilemma though, which I think Craig had adequately solved. If god *is* what Plato called "the good", then there's no conflict.
@@originalblob *"Moral just isn't the kind of thing that can logically consistent be described objectively."*
Can't wait to see your demonstration of that...
And that statement is backed by argument, logic, and reason, rather than blind faith to authority. So it's totally consistent.
@@Demonizer5134 It's not consistent to say that there is no objective right or wrong, and also that someone else is objectively morally wrong, no.
Krauss "I love not understanding, thats what is great about science.." That doesn't mean you should assume those who try to understand are inevitably wrong Krauss...
humans make decisions that are under a law a hidden written code and let me tell u there extremely difficult to understand and even harder to observe we in short do things which is the post production of it the corruption of the human being i see u have it present well if the mathematical model for the bible that should be in a mathematical code dont be so quickly to conform to foolish behavior when its clear the bible can be formed into maths but we would never understand.
Assume those who try to understand are inevitably wrong...when does Krauss explicitly assume people that "try to understand" are wrong? What is meant by try to understand?
Religion doesn't "try" to understand, it claims it knows all and it is written in scripture you must follow. There are commandments to run your life by (poorly written by the way) so one is making extraordinary claims with 0 evidence and will never shift it's position. Science is open to learning and improving, that's why technology gets better through learning and iterating. Religion is still stuck with its couple of thousand year old scripture. (What happened for the first 98,000 years of human existence... Apparently god watched... Tsk tsk, there they go again, diying of diseases I made for them, killing and raping eachother.... Hmmm maybe I'll intervene by sending myself, to Sacrafice myself.... To forgive myself for making them sick, which they can't understand.... And if they don't understand me and conform to my religion, they will burn for all eternity since he is a jealous god.... HMMMMM.... Yeah right.
But they are wrong, all religions are equally wrong, and pathetic!
I saw this years ago, before I knew about Graham Oppy and only recently realized he was the moderator. Can’t think of another time I’d prefer the moderator to the debater representing my side.
Krauss is a mean dude, he's scrappy. Not too rhetorically skilled, but obviously he argues well thanks to the elite physics background.
Lane Craig-"All the evidence points to a beginning"
Krauss-" ummm umm no no!"
lies
I must say, out of the 3 debates, this one was my favorite... specifically because of the moderator. It was very satisfying to get to listen to these two debate without the moderator regularly deciding to interject their own opinions, or arbitrarily deciding when the discussion had gone on long enough. While I normally despise the presence of a moderator, this gentleman should be given a huge hand of applause, and I hope to see other moderators in the future follow his example.
Kudos to this moderator for letting the fascinating discussions occur and injecting himself only to ensure the participants didn't talk too much over each other. Great job!
1:32:34 Dr. Craig at least admits he doesn't know Economics. Krauss (who I bet doesn't understand Economics 101) says it isnt a science. What a dumb statement.
It really isnt a science. It uses mathematical models to predict events but these events are dependent on people. The scientific method does not apply to economics either.
It's a social science. N00b
thank God this moderator was chill and actually let them talk.
He’s not, he’s super tense. He’s unable to just sit back and not assume a role
@@musicaltnature2910 Well he has the right to be intense. he is Dr. Graham Oppy, arguably the best contemporary atheistic philosopher of religion.
Why couldn't the discussion have just been between Oppy and Craig? That would have been awesome.
Krauss is insufferable
Well gladly they do have a discussion between them now!! About Mathematics and God .
Because they both agree belief in God is reasonable
Faith offers people simple explanations for things they don't understand. Basically, belief in a god prevents people from thinking for themselves. Don't you see that he is intellectually superior to the believer? By the way, belief in the flat earth has exactly the same amount of evidence as belief in a god. Unfortunately, many believers don't understand the difference between hypotheses and facts.
Krauss is very intelligent and a formidable opponent for Dr. Craig. However, he has zero class and is extremely arrogant. He NEVER lets Dr. Craig finish his statements w/o interrupting multiple times. Even if you disagree, you should have enough class to show proper debate edicate.
Krauss is a personable and very funny fellow. I don't know where you get your opinions from.
I hear the word "ARROGANT" alot from people who are refering to arguments against religion and the disbelives of gods, like its an umbrella to hide under. "How dare he, that ARROGANT humanbeing ,to almost convince us that he is probably right"...
Mårten Skoog If you read my statement, I am NOT talking about his arguments against Dr. Craig. I am referring to his debate "edicate". Even if you disagree with someone, you should at least have enough class to allow them to finish their statements w/o constantly interrupting and using four letter words.
Scott Williams
Well it is a debate, and if the debaters get a bit eager and so on... whats the BIG issue here??
Mobby Wood
A debate including scholars should always be respectful, no matter the topic. It is not an high school debate here. So I agree here with Scott that even if I like Krauss, he is some times a bit arrogant in the way he interrupt Craig.
This entire debate could be summarised by listening from 3:52 to about 4:06.
If you listen closely, you can hear Krauss mutter "and me" under his breath while Oppy was Introducing Craig.
Krauss is a childish attention seeker and this was evident from the get-go. Craig won hands down.
All of you who think WLC is dishonest really need to actually hear WLC's side of the story. It pretty much shows that Krauss was being dishonest in this debate when he misrepresented Vilenkin's work. Vilenkin even confirmed in an email to Dr. Craig that Dr. Craig had represented his work "very accurately".
You are incorrect, here in a post from both Krauss and Vilenkin:
"we both agree that the edited version does not distort the content or ideas expressed in the original email at all. Those who are claiming otherwise, including apparently Dr. Craig, are mistaken"
facebook.com/permalink.php?id=54809333509&story_fbid=10151721132708510
Then there's a contradiction. Because Vilenkin DID say that Craig portrayed Vilenkin's points "very accurately" that's undeniable, but Krauss' portrayal of Vilenkin's model contradicts Craig's, so which portrayal accurately represents Vilenkin's model if Vilenkin says they both do?
*****
I can only say that when Vilenkin said to Craig that Craig had portrayed the BGV theorem "very accurately", he was simply being kind.
He did go on to say that the BGV theorem had nothing to do with "proving" the existence of God, which was why Craig used the BGV theorem in the first place.
Krauss did not misrepresent Vienkin's work. The edits Krauss made in the e-mail did nothing to distort or misrepresent Vilenkin's remarks.
Kruass was making a few points....
1) Nothing in cosmology about the actual origin of the universe has been proven one way or the other. (Vilkenkin certainly agrees.)
2) A theorem about the origin of the universe that uses classical (relativistic) spacetime (as opposed to a non-classical quantum theory) is likely to be inaccurate. (Vilenkin certainly agrees.)
3) The BGV theorem assumes an ever expanding (never in a state of contraction) universe and that is unproven. (Vilenkin certainly agrees.)
Nothing Krauss said was dishonest. He did not misrepresent Vilenkin's work. He did point out certain misrepresentations Craig had made about Vilenkin's work.
Vilenkin's comments to Craig were in response to Craig's letter (e-mail?) to Vilenkin, not to anything Craig said at the debate.
So what did both Vilenkin and Krauss have to say about Craig's assertion of "misrepresentation and distortion by Krauss about the Vilenkin to Krauss e-mail"?
"From me and Alex Vilenkin--sigh-
-in muted response to some claims that have been posted by some whose buttons have probably been pushed by being wrong:
"In response to the noise regarding the use of an email communication between the two of us in a dialogue with William Lane Craig, there are two relevant points we have decided to make.
1. we both willingly agreed to the request from Dr. Craig to have the full email, which had been edited on the powerpoint slide simply to save time during a 15 minute presentation by Krauss, as there was nothing in the full correspondence that either of us were concerned about sharing.
2. we both agree that the edited version does not distort the content or ideas expressed in the original email at all. Those who are claiming otherwise, including apparently Dr. Craig, are mistaken."
- m.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=54809333509&story_fbid=10151721132708510
Your accusation that, "It pretty much shows that Krauss was being dishonest in this debate when he misrepresented Vilenkin's work." is 100% wrong.
But Krauss was using his point (number three as you listed) to state that it would give less credibility to a cosmic absolute beginning, but Vilenkin says in his email to Krauss in its entirety: "A possible loophole is that there might be an epoch of contraction prior to the expansion. Models of this sort have been discussed by Aguirre & Gratton and by Carroll & Chen. They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. *It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning*." Perhaps it wasn't dishonesty on Krauss' part, I will concede overconfidence and oversimplification in my accusation, but it still seems as though Krauss' argument that Vilenkin's email somehow offers a possible refutation to an absolute beginning of the universe is simply wrong considering the omitted sentences.
*****
The paper that Vilenkin wrote was only referring to 3 possible pre-Big Bang models. Krauss was talking about ALL models, including the rather bazaar quantum time loop hypothesis, that uses quantum mechanics time travel equations to create an infinite loop of time that has a big bang happening, meanwhile other Universes are coming out of that original Universe.
This doesn't break the no beginning rule and was not discussed by Vilenkin in his paper.
Krauss loves to have his cake and eat it too, doesn't he? He wants to say there is no objective moral order but at the same time wants to say that certain types of actions or activities are objectively wrong in a moral sense. And yet, he wants to say that all our actions are not our own because he's a determinist. In such a case, none of us are morally accountable for anything we do. It's really rather sad to see such a broken ideology at work.
Oners82 Well, thanks for substantiating that claim.
1. Moral realism does need to be true in order for us to claim that something is wrong and it actually carry objective weight and meaning. Krauss has on more than one occasion expressed that since the world’s religions cannot agree on finer details of what right and wrong is, therefore there is no objective moral order. This is fallacious, but it has been his reasoning.
2. I’ve come across many a physicist who holds to determinism because free will is not something that can be shown to be concrete or physical in nature. Krauss has expressed many times his opinion that we all behave “as if we have free will”, which of course implies that in actuality, we don’t.
3. “We still act as if they are accountable on pragmatic grounds.” That’s a nice way to put it. On an atheistic view, our systems of moral accountability are based on a delusion since in reality, there is no such thing. We may still hold to that system, but not on rational grounds of honesty. In the absence of God, all methods of holding people accountable for their actions are just as much an act of self-deception as many atheists hold theism to be. Pragmatism is a system based on false assumptions if we truly live in a godless reality. Actions very much like rape and murder happen all the time in the animal kingdom without any regrets or social upheaval. If naturalism were true, the human murderers and rapists are simply out of step with the herd, not truly guilty of any real wrongdoing.
4. Atheism is certainly an ideology - one that holds to the view that there is no god. Even the position that “we have not proven our god claim” is itself an ideological position, just not an atheistic one. All that claim brings you to, if it were true, is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is derived from the Greek a-theos ( "no gods") to make athe-ism "belief that there are no gods". Anthony Flew expressed his desire, in 1984, for atheism to be treated AS IF it were merely a lack of belief, knowing this was, in his own words, "unusual".
"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false... All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." - Kai Nielson, philosopher and atheist
"What if these arguments purporting to establish that God exists are failures? Must we then conclude that God does not exist? No. Lack of supporting reasons or evidence for a proposition does not show that the proposition is false." - Austin Dacey, philosopher and atheist
Of course, it really depends on what you mean by “prove”. Do you mean make it so compelling that only those of severe intellectual handicap would not be able to believe it? If that’s the case, then by that line of thinking, you can’t even know what your own birthday is. I’m inclined to agree with John Lennox in saying that the only field in which actual “proof” takes place is in the fields of mathematics and logic. Everything else is simply evidence.
+Tyrone Barnes (SycrosD4) you are a total moron.
Bumble Weaver Excellent refutation.
I decided that your ignorance wasn't worth the effort... I even regret wasting the energy for this response, you don't deserve it.
I feel for Dr. Craig. Having to sit on stage for three days, trying to speak but at least 70% of the time, being unable to because you're constantly being interrupted is horrible. There is no conversation to be had with Dr. Krauss. And because that is the case, one finds he's far more close minded than he makes others out to be, sadly.
Yup. People may claim Dr. Craig showed nothing to justify his beliefs and ridicule him for it in the comments - but the funny thing is that they're never impartial enough to think that if what they say is true, maybe (just maybe) it's because he barely had the chance to say anything.
I wish Dr. Craig made Krauss explain, on his own, the context and situation surrounding the Caaninites, in detail, since Krauss not only knows so much about it (apparently - enough to claim that Craig's response about it was oh so wrong), but also desired to go off topic so much. Craig doesn't mind speaking to him in detail about Science, so too then, Krauss should have spoken in detail about the religion he so disapproves of. What a laugh that would have been.
***** Good point....... but what if the dogma of your world view requires you to spread the faith to others such as in Christ's great commission?
That is the issue the theist cannot get away from that requires them to evangelize................and when they run up against another evangelizing religion like Islam..............look out.
I notice Dr. Craig always ends up preaching at the end of his debates about his personal acceptance of Christ and evangelizes that to the audience.
When people talk shit it's difficult not to interrupt!
Craig's a fucking moron, deserves anything he gets.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Of course Craig should be interrupted because his beliefs are outdated and have no evidence to be backed up with. Krauss is a “qualified scientist “ who actually studies physics and astrophysics and goes with the evidence. Craig goes on his own gut feelings which are not reliable.
29:00. Krauss, 'The resurrection evidence would not pass muster in a court of law...'
Professor Simon Greenleaf, of Harvard Law School .
"According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.”..
Greenleaf is wrong.
@@JGM0JGM Well that settles it then.
@@BillyJack85 Indeed, and it's dead easy to prove me wrong. All anyone needs to do is provide one, just one, "historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ " and I will reconsider Mr. Greenleaf's argument. Oh, and a book is not a historical fact, by the way.
@@JGM0JGM For that I would suggest looking up Dr Gary Habermas here on TH-cam. It's hard to prove anything conclusively from 2,000 years ago, but we have the historical evidence to say that Jesus's disciples (and non Christians like Paul who were charged with persecuting & killing Christians) believed that they seen Jesus resurrected after His death; and that His missing body caused an uproar in 30AD Jerusalem among authorities. It's actually a fascinating story if you look into it. Jesus's body was being guarded by Roman guards precisely because they didn't want His body to be stolen and claims of His resurrection or divinity to cause an uprising, and His body was still able to go missing. I would highly suggest looking up Dr Habermas. You can always find different interpretations to things... even stuff that happened yesterday... but the life, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ is not without historical evidence, facts or proof. It's all where you're coming from at the end of the day, I guess.
@@BillyJack85 I've read about Habermas' 6 "facts", they are not historical facts, it all boils down to "the bible told me so". The bible is the claim, not evidence for itself. Briefly, here's what Habermas is saying:
1)Jesus died by crucifixion
So what? We don't have "historical facts" that this is true, but even if we accept it, how does that lead to resurrection? The manner of death has nothing to do with any alleged resurrection.
2) Jesus' disciples had real experiences that they thought were appearances of Jesus
Again, so what? We have stories, but that's it, just stories. None of them are first hand accounts nor eye witness testimonies. The Gospels are anonymous and none of them claim to be witness to the stories they tell. Even Paul goes out of his way to let us know that the Jesus experiences he writes about were not obtained from any man, but straight from Jesus himself, as revelations. If you think this is a historical fact, I can't help you.
3) the disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their message
people
vision
statement
Krauss refuted the cosmological argument by reference to quantum gravity and a possibly past (Dr Craig's words) eternal multiverse
And refuted fine tuning by showing that laws and constants can't be considered independently (more so forces and constants) and the probabilities associated with varying one constant at a time is not the same as varying multiple so the hypothetical is moot.
Krauss loves to interrupt.
***** with pissing points and kassam style rocket attacks of "arguments"
***** Krauss is a complete A-Hole. Does not have the class of a Christopher Hitchens, Matt Dillahunty or Sam Harris
Craig's lies deserve to be interrupted.
Yes, it is annoying to listen to liars.
The Most Interesting Man in the World That’s called the Gish Gallop, It’s a common denominator among atheist prophets like Sam Harris & Mr Delete email Information Krauss
I'm an atheist, but Krauss would endear himself to the other side more and perhaps be taken more seriously if he brushed up on his mannerisms. I have a good idea what the more militant atheists would say to that... so spare it.
I enjoy Krauss, even his book a universe from nothing premise you can get something from nothing using quantum mechanics. The problem is he started with something. In his case an "Outside" force acting upon the closed system within that force.
I do see your point. He never takes a breath and let's the other side give their view. He should drink that whiskey and relax. It's not like Graig is going to runout in him.
It's one reason I like it when the audience ask the question for both sides. It makes it more engaging as these are the people your trying to reach with real answers. Not assumptions, speculation, hearsay, etc.. Because as I see it. The only irrational thing about the universe is that people are irrational no matter how long they been around.
You don't want anyone to disagree with your post and give you nothing but a thumbs up? You're so cute when your ignorant about simple logic. I don't care about the personality of a bus driver, and I appreciate the content of what Krauss had to say in this debate. Maybe you treat physically attractive people with more trust and favor for all I know about what you posted. I will not "spare you".. I don't give a hoot if this does not please you. You don't even get a thumbs down.
Joseph Nordenbrock WTF?
I couldn't care less about any thumbs up or thumbs down, not to mention yours. What are you... in grade 8? And who said I didn't want any disagreement with my comment? I too agree with the content of what Krauss has to say, not just in this debate, but most others.
I simply stated that Lawrence's mannerisms (body language, interrrupting, personal insuslts, etc) wasn't helping his cause. And whenever reasonable people point this out, I expect (maybe wrongly) the militant atheists to say something to the effect that people of religious faith don't deserve any respect and therefore any of these reactions are understandable, if not welcome. That is the type of response I see all the time, and that was the response I was referring to and could do without. Any other rebuttal is almost welcome, unless it's the type such as yours that make no sense whatsoever.
Claude Rains You misunderstand quantum mechanics, then.
The whole point is that the "philosophical" nothing is not in reality, that physical "nothing" is really something. That's the entire point.
***** Because in physics, 'nothing' is just a placeholder term for where there are no atoms. Empty space.
You and others dislike this usage of the word 'nothing' and make a random argument based from philosophy, saying that nothing means just that: literally nothing, not even empty space.
That type of nothing simply doesn't exist, so it's silly to use it to compare to anything. It's a word argument and a petty one at that.
Its been said that the supreme characteristic of a man who is secure in his beliefs can listen to others and the mark of an intelligent man is that he can explain complex ideas very simply. How can Krauss claim to be both but can do neither?
Your inability to grasp what he's saying is a reflection of your intelligence, not his. Professor Krauss understandably gets annoyed and frustrated with wlc. He kept asking for proof, and asking how he could make claims without knowledge or evidence. He received no answers, just words salad that amounts to nothing. Claims require evidence without it you're making baseless meaningless statements. Theology cannot answer basic biological or cosmological questions. The cognitive dissonance wlc Izard to "prove" "god" exists is embarrassing. The crux being- "the universe came to be so it had to be "god" ". That makes a much sense as saying "we get presents on chritmas, therefore Santa". It's idiotic.
1:02:22 Dr. Krauss admits that the universe appears fine-tuned but doesn't want use that word because people may think it points to Intelligent Design. Seriously? This is what some atheist scientists do. They tweak their arguments to explain away God, rather than accepting facts where they are. Dr. Craig's deduction is correct that the universe has an eternal, transcendent, intelligent, and personal creator. As science elicits the facts, word games will not help anyone hide from Jesus. It is a fruitless endeavor to try to escape from the reality of this life, and that reality is God exists and will judge us all. Follow Acts 2: 38-39 to be saved. Peace to you.
No you idiot because something looks like something doesn't mean it is.
That's the problem when people without a good education think that an argument that only has claims and no scientific findings creates added value. It's no coincidence that most scientists are atheists. Basically, Krauss is completely superior to him intellectually. Do you also believe in the flat earth? The evidence for this is identical to that for a god. It's really sad that you don't understand what facts and claims are.
Great discussion. Two freakishly smart guys going at it. Neutral moderator. Really enjoyed this! Thanks for posting.
Calling Craig freakishly smart is quite a stretch. You instantly lose intelligence and credibility when you vehemently defend religion. Sorry.
They are very smart, but are no more qualified than anyone else when it comes to talking about God.
@@peterstafford4426 Faith offers people simple explanations for things they don't understand. Basically, belief in a god prevents people from thinking for themselves. Don't you see that he is intellectually superior to the believer? By the way, belief in the flat earth has exactly the same amount of evidence as belief in a god. Unfortunately, many believers don't understand the difference between hypotheses and facts.
@@AcidGubba The scientist who came up with the idea for the big bang was a Roman Catholic priest.
@@peterstafford4426 That's nothing special. Most people grow up with a belief. It's not your own decision what you believe in. Of course there are also believing scientists. In the past you couldn't have been a scientist without a belief. Back then, knowledge was even tied to belief. Basically, your immediate environment decides what you believe in. As a Christian it's much easier to become an atheist these days than if you were born a Muslim. Do you think you were allowed to reject Christianity and become an atheist 400 years ago?
Was hoping for Dr. Krauss to say 'Inconceivable' just once!
I heard that voice and thought of the same thing.
"to claim we know the answer is to overstate the argument"
I fail to see the profundity behind WLC's mathematical argument. Mathematics are a human creation used to explain the world and the way certain things work. It would be like somebody saying "How is it that language explains things around us? How come the universe is capable of being understood and described through language, when we say that something is a tree or a rainbow?" Language didn't exist before we created it, and neither did mathematics, despite the fact that things which DID exist before either were created can be explained by both of them.
"Religion is a phase a species goes through when it evolves enough intelligence to ask profound questions but not enough to answer them." - Bill Flavell
Maybe instead of being a disciple of Bill Flavell you should look into graham oppy (who just so happens to be this debate’s moderator) if you want actual arguments for atheism. Flavell is akin to the new atheists who don’t have much to say philosophically and aren’t taken seriously.
52:18 What Krauss left out was Vilenkin saying "They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning."
So what if he did? The beginning Vilenkin speaks of is NOT the beginning WLC speaks of in the second premise of the Kalam.
"Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.”
At no point does Vilenkin posit that the BGV theorem proves an ABSOLUTE beginning of the universe. Rather it merely demonstrates that there is an INFLATIONARY (thermodynamic) beginning. Vilenkin's view in no way conflicts with Krauss'. WLC offers the BGV repeatedly as proof of the 2nd premise of the Kalam which claims the universe had an absolute beginning. So it's clear WLC is equivocating when he uses the word beginning in reference to the BGV and Vilenkin's quotes specifically.
Furthermore Krauss is correct when he points out that that all the BGV theorem ultimately proves is classical physics (relativity) ultimately falls apart at some point in the past. Granted it inevitably leads to the inflationary beginning of the universe before it falls apart, but prior the planck epoch that we do not have a physics that can intelligently discuss what is going on until we come up with a theory of quantum gravity. That was ultimately Krauss' point until WLC's red herring (along with Krauss' other point that if you violate the >>assumptions
@@windcatcher331
An eternal state for "all reality" - with no beginning, exists in both positions.
You are not saying anything different than what WLC and Vilenkin are saying.
I think you use "absolute beginning" to refer to the state before the BB.
They are not. They refer to the beginning of THIS Universe, Not an "absolute beginning for ALL reality".
For WLC "ALL reality" includes GOD, which is timeless and without beginning. Vilenkin, you and cosmology can say the same thing. So?
Both are saying the same thing: there is a definite beginning of "the current Universe".
A beginning that differentiates the state "prior", to the state "after" the singularity.
The state "before" the BB is timeless, with no beginning.
But that is irrelevant.
The only real problem with Kalam is that it is accepted that the cause of the Universe has only an efficient cause - God, without that of a material cause - ex nihilo. Philosopher Wes Morriston brings up that objection as being "special pleading" since all our experiences involve BOTH. So if you can accept no material cause, why not go one more step "no efficient cause".
And I agree with that! I believe that "ex nihilo" is faulty.
I think that the position of Easter Orthodoxy relative to Creation (WLC does not belong to that "school of thought) is the correct one - that creation is out of "Divine Energies", distinct from "Divine Essence". So not really "ex nihilo", rather "ex Divine Essence" - a material cause, and an efficient cause: "Divine Essence". Enter Pan-en-theism. Look it up.
So in summary: there is no "absolute beginning" for "all reality" - it is timeless /without a beginning for EVERYONE.
@@Adiusa0874 I never used the term "all reality." Vilenkin does not state that the BVG theorem proves >>natural reality>inflationary epoch
@@Adiusa0874 I would like to add that the term Big Bang was a pejorative coined by Fred Hoyle. Even today people still think it means a literal bang, IOW explosion. It didn't. Furthermore many think that the Big Bang theory begins with the expansion of the universe. It does not.
@@windcatcher331
"absolute beginning" has no sense unless you imply "all reality", beyond this Universe.
"The Begining of the universe" is sufficient to say. "Absolute" is a modifier that would imply the beginning of something else.
And that is what it IS implied since you are talking about a state that is "other" than the state "after the BB".
Your claim - if I understand it correctly is: "the universe BEGAN 14+ billion years ago (the "beginning" from premise 2 in KALAM) but there was a timeless state prior to BB (an "absolute beginning" that is timeless, without beginning).
Isn't what you and are claiming?
If it isn't, can you please rephrase it in a similar form, specifying which "beginning" you refer to?
As far as the beginning of this universe, I think that is established since Valenking and cosmology refers to a moment in existence 14+ billion y.a. where this Universe came into existence (in current form).
This follows the all-encompassing definition of a beginning: "X begins to exist at T1 iff (i) X exists at T1; (ii) T is either the first time at which X exists or is separated from any time T* < T nondegenerate, temporal interval; (iii) X’s existing at T1 is a tensed fact."
"Did this universe exist prior to BB"? The answer is NO. Whatever was "before", was a state of affairs with a different arrangement and different properties. That is what is claimed NOW in cosmology to promote an eternal "absolute beginning".
BB is a just term. In current usage, it should just mean "the moment in time 14+bilion years ago when matter and space-time started to exist in current form" 😉 .
Krauss sure got nervous when they started looking at Vilenkin's email. Busted.
Krauss lied about the BGV and the e-mail from Vilenkin. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/misrepresenting-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem
Clear win for Craig. Krauss is out of control and extremely unprofessional and kept having to say something nice after being a complete crazy person for 10 minutes at a time just to not look like a complete ass. Good thing there was a moderator or this would have had zero substance. Craig treated it as a debate and Krauss treated it as a yelling match between a divorcing couple.
The people commenting here are really amazing to me. They actually think Krauss had a single good point in this entire discussion or that he refuted *any* of Craig's arguments.... I'd like to know when this happened. I've watched this discussion twice. What I heard was childish yelling of "How do you know!?" and "we just don't know!", when Craig wasn't claiming to *know* any of these things with certainty any more than Krauss was claiming certainty on his points. Then there was that utterly idiotic question of "why didn't God give calculus to Moses".... I can't believe anyone thinks Krauss did well here. Could someone please point out to me a single good point or cogent refutation that Krauss made in this entire discussion? In *any* of the three discussions, for that matter? Please??
Have you rejected the hypothesis that you are too stupid to recognize the brilliance of his arguments?
*****
Name one.
1. science refutes god.
see for yourself how it turned out by searching "intelligence squared debate science refutes god."
*spoiler alert* he wins the argument.
*****
Being able to win a debate against Ian Hutchison and Dinesh D'Souza doesn't prove anything. Name a single good point Krauss made in THIS DISCUSSION WITH CRAIG. Good luck.
You didn't even watch the debate, therefore you are not familiar with the arguments that were utilized within it from either side. Your response doesn't dismiss any of the arguments from the debate, it only demonstrates your capacity to be an ultracrepidarian.
never read youtube comments, it just shows how confused people are
Krauss doesn't believe because God doesn't fit into his idea of god
this is the case for most who deny
do u know God and r u sure tell me about him
Do you also believe in the flat earth? The evidence for this is identical to that of your God.
At around 48:00 the moderator asks Krauss if all religious people are unreasonable. Krauss says they are about their particular religious beliefs, but not in general and then goes on to give some reasons why people believe is these magical stories.What he fails to mention and what I see almost everyone fail to recognize, is the emotional component.
Beliefs are concepts that are created in our consciousness, or mind, and transcend the spoken word. We humans are emotional creatures and for many, beliefs are more than simply a mental acceptance or a conviction. It is common place for most people to assign emotions or judgment to their beliefs.
A person may have such a deep emotional attachment to a belief that they are ready to die, or in some cases, kill for their beliefs. Of course, not all emotional attachments to beliefs are this extreme but most of us have experienced an emotional response to having our beliefs challenged. Having our beliefs challenged can come in many forms such as (to name a few):
Verbal disagreements;
Seeing or hearing about some action taking place that we don’t agree with;
Personal actions that go against our conscience.
When we experience these things, the emotions that we’ve attached to our beliefs can become *disturbed* causing us to react emotionally. We may become defensive or even angry due to the disturbance of these emotions.
WLC speaks of having emotional issues when he was younger and then finding Chistianity as teenager. Krauss says he originally though WLC was a lying charlatan, but now feels otherwise, that he truly believes the things he says. WLC has extremely strong emotional attachments to these religious beliefs of his and evidence and rational arguments that counter them just don't sink in with him.
Most of the atheists reading this were probably theists when they were younger and experienced some strong emotions when going through their deconversion.
Andy Doney
Emotions play various roles and I have a feeling what you are referring to is different than what I am. I am not talking about emotional comfort one gets from believing is certain religious doctrine, e.g., thinking that you will live forever in paradise after you die on earth and reuniting with loved ones who are also enduring in paradise.
I am referring to the role emotions play with *all* types of beliefs and how they interfere with arguments and evidence that contradicts and criticizes beliefs that have emotional attachments to them.
An atheist could have a strong emotional attachment to a belief as well that prevent him/her from recognizing the strength in evidence and argument that is contrary to it.
The single biggest factor why fairly intelligent people continue to believe in religious nonsense as adults is because of these emotional attachments I am speaking of. It needs to be recognized and understood more deeply and widely in my opinion.
*_God is the best explanation of ...._*
1. The origin of the universe.
2. The applicability of mathematics to the physical world.
3. The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
4. Objective moral values and duties in the world.
5. The historical facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
6. God can be personally known and experienced.
***** I'm Jewish, the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) works for me.
My proof of God is the existence of our human souls. In particular my own soul, that's how I know.
***** We believe we're the chosen people, not superior, just separate.
I am mentally ill, you just reminded me to take my meds, *THANKS!*
Just here trying to have polite conversations with people who start off with different assumptions than I do. I love the law, I'm an expert at proving and disproving propositions. I follow all the major cases in the law on T.V.
***** Think of the Hebrew Bible as the Seattle Seahawk playbook, it's not for the Kansas City Chiefs. Just like a carnal mind can't understand the things of the spirit, the Gentile mind is not the Jewish mind.
Being Jewish makes us (them) inseparable from their/our God. It's an ethno religion, being Jewish. We don't want you to believe in our God unless you convert and become one of us.
***** You're violating Ockham's Razor, you're adding a hypothesis. Epistemological reliabilism is that our basic belief that God exists is evidence of God Himself.
We're both believers, it's just in what we're believing that's different. The laws of nature are real and immaterial why not God and our souls?
***** What I'm saying is that you believing that you don't have beliefs is just a belief of yours.
At around 1:15:20 Krauss absolutely demolishes Craig's belief in the resurrection.
Really? Craig said that we have testimonies for resurrection 5 years after the event. The first historical references we have of Alexander the Great dates at least 2/3 centuries after he was alive. Who doubts the existence of Alexander on that basis?
I don't deny the EXISTENCE of Jesus and Krauss agrees. Alexander didn't pro-port to walk on water and resurrect. If you want to make claims like that, I need extremely viable video evidence at a bare minimum standard and even that could be substandard as video evidence can be manipulated so easily. I certainly won't accept claims that "this guy saw it 5 years ago". I can't believe you would even argue that point as if it held any meaning whatsoever. Again Jesus probably existed as a man. He HAS YET to be proven as a deity and almost certainly wasn't.
You should just stay on topic. Klauss dismissed Craig's claims because the testimonies wasn't in the same period wich the event had ocuur and, BECAUSE OF THAT, we should disregard these historical claims as reliable sources. That's why I brought the time thing about Alexander.
The rest is just you presupposing your own worldview of the impossibility of miracles, when the argument is about inferring the best explanation for these historical events.
Or you argue against the historicity of these events, or that there's another better explanation for these events. Just saying that the first historical references of these events was written only five years after, and not at the time of the occurrence, isn't an argument at all.
I'm amazed how atheist can't follow simple logical reasoning.
I am off topic? I just said in my initial post that Krauss destroyed any arguments pertaining to RESURRECTION not whether or not he actually existed. Those are two vastly different contentions. I went on to say that historical evidence is much too unreliable to prove something as miraculous as walking from the dead. Just because someone said they saw it 5 years ago doesn't mean it happened. How can you not see this point? Do you not think the evidence for something as bold as a resurrection should be very bold in itself? "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". It is almost certain there was a guy named Jesus that existed and was probably an brilliant speaker. It is almost certain that this man DID NOT come back from the dead or perform any miracles. It is really that simple. But hey, you Christians can keep running in circles trying to prove it, it's not my time you are wasting. Good day.
@@ghostapostle7225 That's the problem when people without a good education think that an argument that only has claims and no scientific findings creates added value. It's no coincidence that most scientists are atheists. Basically, Krauss is completely superior to him intellectually. Do you also believe in the flat earth? The evidence for this is identical to that for a god. It's really sad that you don't understand what facts and claims are.
Evolution explains biology exactly the way you'd expect it to be. We are not fine-tuned animals.
It is absolutely more reasonable to believe that Earth is not a system unto itself, and that evolution being just a procedure of physical laws applied to biology, we should NOT suspect that the Universe is fine-tuned but that, like with evolution, we exist in the Universe in our appropriate niche, we are poorly adapted to go outside of that niche, and the survival of our Solar System despite cosmic catastrophes makes it lucky and why the present only seems providential and is not for a fact.
Students shared "i" Am will say, LORD all scattered noises can see so clearly coming from in front of thee! Gratitude and Honor
Two brilliant debaters. Dr Craig was the victor in my opinion.
God didn't appear. Krauss wins by default.
***** Dr. Krauss proved why Jesus as a god or saviour is an absurd notion in his opening statement; by extension, any good argument for Jesus is irrelevant, as it's been established that it is so improbable that he was the son of the "correct" god.
***** Confirmation bias? Isn't William Lane Craig's picture next to that definition in every psychology textbook? You have to be kidding with that comment. lol
***** Please watch his debate with Bart Ehrman. His resurrection claims are completely unsubstantiated.
Theology never defeats science. Science is based on facts, testable, verifiable evidence. Not blind belief in a story that has been told for eons before christian "god". Do some research, you'll see what a load of garbage all religions are. There is no basis for morality in religion. The arguments that Craig uses as full of cognitive dissonance. Replace "god" with Santa Claus and there is almost nothing to change with his arguments. The strength of an argument is its falsifiability, not wild claims of copies of copies of translations of stories written decades, sometimes centuries after they supposedly happened by people that never witnessed them
It is very difficult to debate theists. You can try to reason with them, but it always comes back to magic with them. They don't need reason or knowledge or rational explanations, and they don't want them.
The atheist position is worse than magic, Krauss says it all came out of 'nothing' atleast theism has the magician!
jordan6030
And because it's more comforting that somehow makes it true? Atheist are not weak minded as to need what Christopher Hitchens calls a "celestial dictator."
Krauss says he needs scientific proof for everything. God is all around us and he doesn't see it.
Bs
Cause he needs scientific proof dude
I'm getting bored with the God debate.
I mean, when will it end ?
Painful reminder that titles and qualifications mean nothing. Krauss may be one of the best theoretical physicists on earth (by what standards remains to be seen), but throughout the debate, he is little more than a stubborn child, who refuses to believe that anyone else could be right and believes his way of seeing the world is the only right one. Guess modern atheist scientists are not so rational after all. Krauss is the perfect example that illustrates knowledge without wisdom is not really anything.
You haven't watched enough of Krauss to describe him like that.
+robby rensenbrink please, the man brought an airhorn to the first debate.
President Sunday I couldn't sit through the first because of that insufferable moderator, who is probably the reason for his use of the airhorn.
The moderator was obnoxious. We came to listen to Krauss and Craig, not the bald man with an ego.
Unfortunately he was just using it to interrupt Craig. He called it his "bullshit alarm" or something. It was pretty pathetic.
Are there any folks from the Krauss camp that would agree he seems a little arrogant and talks down a lot? I'm on WLC's side of the argument, so I could be bias, but it seems Krauss keeps interrupting, condescending, and even disparaging at points...
+BreadBreakers Ministries I think, theists have less faith in existence of God than atheists have in non existence. If someone is atheist they are often so sure that they are right that any other opinion or idea seems idiotic to them and irritates them. While most of the theists are willing to hear any kind of theories.
zura iashvili Yeah, that could be...I have friends I love dearly who claim to be atheists, and I'm not saying all atheists/agnostics are this way, but many of the popular ones that debate come across very arrogant and slanderous, which doesn't help their case. Often they argue in cute sound bites or witty pokes that connect with the audience (like Krauss's erroneous syllogism that ends with WLC engaging in homosexual behavior. However, I find that many of the arguments are void of logical or reasonable thought, and don't stand up to scrutiny or debate.
+BreadBreakers Ministries I think atheist arguments against any organized religion nowadays is pretty good but if we take God as the creator of the universe, just as general concept, then its very likely.
+BreadBreakers Ministries I'd be annoyed too if I was one of the best theoretical physicists on the planet and having a theologian telling me about the science I studied all my life which he knows virtually nothing about. You might say "well Krauss hasn't studied Christian theology" but to compare theology and theoretical physics and in particular quantum theory is just a mute comparison. One is extremely technical and has made mind boggling accurate predictions and another hasn't made any progress in our daily lives.
+markwest1987 it would be really interesting documentary to watch, what would world be like without any religions.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe exists. Therefore the universe has a cause. Therefore the cause of the universe is Elmo.
Ridiculous circular reasoning
Why does Kraus refuse to deal with his own (mathematical) frame and the universe and life entities it addresses during the fine tuning free-for-all. I think the focus of the fine tuning argument is the same for Lane-Craig and for Kraus. The introduction of other possible parameters by Kraus did not help Kraus at all! Quite the contrary.
I think Krauss made only one mistake.... when he said WLC isn't a liar. I still think he is.
88Keyz102 Someone’s butt hurt that atheism is not true
@@Convexhull210 Atheism is not a religion. It's really unbelievable how believers don't understand what atheism means.
1. What's wrong with Dr. Craig's hands? Is he deformed in some way?
2. If you watched all of this 3-part dialogue, you can tell that Prof. Krauss gradually gained more respect for Dr. Craig as a human being. At the conclusion of the 1st discussion, Krauss was reluctant to even shake WLC's hand. It wouldn't surprise me if these 2 developed a relationship - from a business sense at the very least.
3. The 3rd moderator was by far the best of the 3.
I know it's an extremely low blow, but I'll say it anyway, (referring to William Lane Craig's hands): SOME "DESIGN"!
Johanna040713
here i was thinking he suffers from a little anxiety
That's how I tell Craig is making a bad argument, his hands are in that funky position [I call it the claw]
oneznzeroz that is so very childish of you
about your first point. My wild guess is Parkinson's disease. Old Age isn't for sissies as my grandmother used to say.
Dr. Krauss talks about how he hates lies and distortions. I don’t know if his own distortions and misrepresentations about Christianity, the Old Testament, were due to his own lack of research, prejudice or if he intended to mislead. When I watched the debates I was then surprised by the number of times he interrupts and then distorts what Dr. Craig was saying. Dr. Craig showed a great deal of patience and restraint in each of these conversations.
Some of the distortions I noted:
Dionysus and other ancient gods had virgin birth and resurrection myths. This is more of a distortion of history. Many religions changed key stories about their deities through the centuries and from region to region. To show that this is even an argument worth presenting Dr. Krauss would have to show that those portions of ancient myths preceded the biblical accounts. He would also have to show that they were either commonplace before the emergence of Christianity or that there was at least some historical connection. As it is he doesn’t even show that the similarities are close enough to cause any problems.
Another distortion is that Dr. Krauss said that on Dr. Craig’s podcasts he says that animals don’t feel pain. I have listened to those podcasts and Dr. Craig presents a commentary on research that gives evidence that animals don’t experience the first person awareness that they are experiencing pain. This is far different than saying that they don’t feel pain.
Dr. Krauss also tries to mix an atheistic worldview and a Christian worldview. Note how irrationally hostile Dr. Krauss gets about things he believes are fictional. Under atheism all instances in the bible that talk about God doing or saying something are fictional. Therefore under atheism there shouldn’t be a moral issue of one fictional character (God) harming another fictional character (Canaanites or the people who suffer in hell). It only becomes an issue of morality if the events are true and they are only true under a Jewish or Christian worldview. Both Judaism and Christianity affirm the context that God is the giver and sustainer of life; therefore He has the authority to establish morality and impose judgment on those who violate that morality. Under Christianity God judges people according to what they have done. If a child who hasn’t done anything bad worth judgment they then start a new life with God that is without pain or suffering. If the bible is true that the Canaanites participated in human sacrifice then wouldn’t the child be better off with God instead of with the Canaanites?
It looked like Dr. Krauss was just trying to throw as much mud as possible to make some stick. On the other hand Dr. Craig showed the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control).
Belief in a god has just as much evidence as belief in a flat earth. Or do you believe Hogwarts exists because it's written in books? How naive do you have to be to believe in a god?
What do you think Christianity was doing 400-500 years ago? If you seriously think that the Christian faith is more harmonious, you should take a look at the history of humanity.
Mr. Krauss only shoots at a wall ,shooting each brick, but not one falls off ... he hasnt put one paper of fact on the table ...just attacks the wall
Krauss bullied his way throughout this entire "conversation" his hyper double-speak was draining the aura on the stage. I say God bless Dr. William Craig for putting up with this dip who thinks he's god. You're not Krauss, guess you will learn that one day - I hope soon!
You are awful for wishing death on someone. Really disgusting. Krauss doesn't think he is God. He is humble amongst peers. And it's pretty clear that Craigs arguments can be dismantled withe ease
No he didn’t bully him he just had to correct him constantly in science since Krauss is a scientist and Craig isn’t but likes to think he’s one. Like that know it all at school who can’t be taught anything. People like that need to be corrected.
I just got here and I'm going to give the decision to Krause up front without watching the vid...just being me.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" -- An impossible question to answer honestly.
"Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven... and it makes me wonder..."~Robert Plant
"Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence."~Carl Sagan
*Atheism is no less faith based than any religion.*
Certainty is a harsh mistress...
\\][//
Dude .. psychedelics can be fun and enlightening you have to come down sometime...lol
The plant quote is classic...
He is flawed from the beginning. The way he "interpreted" the question would mean that ancient civilizations were justified in believing gods caused lightning, moved mountains, and pushed the sun around. Just because there are no good explanations yet doesn't mean you can just insert god into the equation when you feel like it. And in this case there already are theories.
Yep. This pretty much summs up the whole debate from the start. Having the best explanation doesn't make that explanation true. The best explanation is the one which work with arguments and evidence accessible at the given period of time. Gods were the best explanation in ancient time. It doesn't anymore.
Same with 'intelligent design' and 'fine-tuning of the universe'. Having a stable and ordered environment doesn't mean it has been brought by someones choice. It's still a natural selection, which is omnipresent on any given level, starting from very simple forms of matter. There were probably billions and billions of different forms of matter and their consecutive laws of interaction, but only STABLE ones has remained, and UNSTABLE gone extinct. And the same sentence is true for anything - prime particles, subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, lifeforms on earth, celestial objects and their superstructures.
More to that, the process never ceased, it still working everywhere, radioactive elements are still unstable and decay fast, unfeasible animals go extinct each minute, oversized planets are consumed or thrown out of their systems into free journey, bloated stars are going boom, unstable galaxies are torn apart by external forces and colliding with each-other creating vast clouds of random stuff.
Where the hell they have found the intelligent design in all that? The only 'best explanation' - right in front of their noses. Because they never look further than that.
The fact of the matter is that theists can never win a debate like this simply because they have no argument to begin with no matter how good or bad their opponent may be.
'theists can never win a debate like this simply because they have no argument to begin'
Great. I love intellgent atheists.
I'm still trying to find one that can give a decent answer to these 2 questions. Go on, you have a go
1 - Please explain how the universe came into being taking into account the absurdity of an infinite regress of causation?
2 - why are the physical constants fine tuned such that they have led to complexity?
If you want an answer to your #1 question...why are you setting up how/what I can or cannot say?...you are basicly asking me to answer what YOU want to hear. If I do not answer your way..you will say my answer is absurd...your question is what is absurd!
As science has pretty much decided the universe came into being by "The Big Bang".
Theists win alot of these debates...because they have God's truth...atheists have nothing but a buzzer.
2. Really? is this a question?
I have a question for you...
Why does Krauss act like the Samsonite gorilla in a cage? Being atheist you should be able to give me an answer...right?
I may add that faith, hope and love do not go into a test tube...The proof takes a lifetime and is confirmed by witness of the friends and family.
vicachcoup I congratulate you for at least noticing my intelligence. I am not going to attempt to answer your questions because you are way, way behind in your knowledge of this subject. However I suggest you watch the following two videos which should help. To question 1 watch Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" and for question 2 Neil deGrass Tyson's "Fine Tuned Universe?" and others. I suspect you won't watch these videos because you don't want to know the truth and/or you are frightened of it, which is understandable I suppose.
I am not frightened by you or any atheist. As a Christian I cannot understand why you atheists would want to live, die and be forgotten..and then you have the gonads to tell me you are intelligent..HA
I, on the otherhand will be resurected... and tho my intelligence is modest, I do not have to show my ignorance by telling people how smart I am ....Here's a news flash..".I aint buyin' it!"
My point is this..Long after you are dead and buried and forgotten with your so called intellect....I will have eternity to learn about everything you wish you knew.
I win!
BTW..it was Craig I wanted to listen to..not that idiot Krauss.
Elaine Powell First of all Elaine I wasn't talking to you, I was responding to vicachcoup and was being facetious in my first sentence because he/she said it sarcastically that I was intelligent. However I will respond to your post. Atheists, like all human beings, don't want to live, die and be forgotten but sadly they have no choice in the matter. Also I would like to know how you "know" you are going to live forever when there is no evidence for it.
I think Krauss is rude, he keeps interrupting Craig.
Would you interrupt someone that keeps yelling, "THE WORLD IS FLAT!!!!" outside a school yard? Yes? Good.
Would you stop every syllable of a person who not only yells "The world is flat!!" but then *also* tells the kids they're going to one day be tortured by this person's imaginary friend if they don't believe? You would interrupt? Great.
This person screaming the world is flat outside the school are the same claims of (monothesistic) religion.
I'm glad you now see Krauss's reason(s) for interrupting Craig.
Craig has every right to his beliefs and to speak his mind. However, that doesn't give him the right to *not* have his beliefs challenged when he professes them in public, and that challenge is especially needed when the claims being made have no evidence supporting them.
Krauss may be combative in his delivery, but he's not factually wrong pointing out Craig's flaws, nor is he morally wrong to do so in any way he sees fit as long as he doesn't harm Craig in the process.
ThinkingGeek Man..even if the man is wrong, you still have to let him give his opinion and only after he finishes you can counter what he said...that's called being POLITE :)
Oh, I totally agree Krauss is not polite. I just don't have a huge problem with it as long as what he's saying is accurate.
People respond to different types of information exchange. Some prefer calm, polite, well-reasoned facts, like, say, the delivery style of Sam Harris. Some respond to more polemic strategies like Krauss or Hitchens.
Consider this: FoxNoise isn't successful at gathering audiences for their accuracy in reporting. They're successful in garnering viewership despite peddling terrible, clearly biased and often false information because their audience is primed to respond to polemical arguments rather than reasoned facts.
In short, impoliteness works for some people. The benefit of Dr. Krauss, at least, is that he's (often) factually accurate, so at least the audience is getting good information.
Lawrence "I wrote a paper" Krauss FTW
@ 18:48
Really? I think every single person who has a religion can "feel" there god when they believe that much. It doesn't mean that god exists. If that is in fact the case then you have to accept every single god some person believes in because they too can have that feeling.
About 16 minutes in WLC claims that a naturalistic view has no grounds for moral objection to slaughtering children, yet in other talks he argues that his theistic perspective can regard it as acceptable. Makes one cringe.
Theists won't admit this but they embrace the "might makes right" line of thought.
Craig makes the argument (elsewhere) that the slaughter the children of the Canaanites under the Israelite conquest (if it indeed happened this way, which is debated), could be morally justified if (a) God made a greater good come out of it, such as the salvation of the children who would have otherwise been immersed in a pagan society and come under God's judgment, or (b) that since God is the creator of life, he alone holds the perogative to take life, either directly himself or through the agency of another (Israelites), since on divine command theory (which Craig holds), God has the perogative to command such an act. Both of these are defensible. The point is that God is still the ontological ground of moral values and duties; if God decides to wipe out an entire people group, we cannot judge him with an ontologically independent moral standard since his character (and the divine decrees given based off his character) IS the grounding of all morality. This is the theistic position, and it is consistent. Contrary, on naturalism, morality has evolved - meaning, at one time moral values and duties did not exist and now they do. So what grounds moral values as being individual/culturally independent and thus binding on all people at all times? Who is to say that an individual, group, or the entire human race won't morally evolve in the future as to allow genocide as being an acceptable practice?
Ben Crenshaw Great points, Ben. I'm glad someone understands. Just because God gave you life does not mean he owes you 90 healthy years.
WLC argument is misunderstood on this point. His argument is that objective moral do not exist if God does not exist. By objective he means something is true independent of whether people believe it or not.....like say the freezing point of water is a fact regardless of what people believe. On atheism he is saying since there is no God ....there are no objective ground for morality. Morality would be a social invention of man so we get along and survive as a species. So on atheism he believes an atheism cant say something is objectively right or wrong. So in the point your making he is only saying atheists dont have an objective anchor to ground their moral perspective. Furthermore he never advocated the slaughter of children. He like everyone else believes its wrong...but believes he can anchor his moral perspectives in the fact God exists....therefore objective morals exists...so from his view when he says its wrong he has an anchor point for his moral values. He never argues atheists are immoral...only that on atheism they have no anchor point for the moral perspective. WLC and Sam Harris have a great debate on this. You should listen to it.
@@benrcrenshaw85 eurhypryo’s dilemma renders the idea of god given objective morality logically paradoxical. No one in the subsequent two thousand years has managed to come up with a way to answer euthypryo.
Thus objective morality is simply a mirage, regardless of whether you believe in a god or not. If god made morality then the supposedly objective morals in the bible are arbitrary, decided by god based on no rational reasoning at all. OTOH if he based his morals on some kind of reasoning then they must be either based on preexisting objective morals or they must be subjective. In the first case he cannot be the creator of all things since morality would’ve had to pre exist him, in the second case he would not be responsible for an objective morality.
This is utterly watertight and relies on the much bigger problem of justified true beliefs. Thus we are all stuck in this universe making morality up as we go along. And as soon as we stop reasoning a priori and look at the actual world we live in it should be blindingly obvious that we make it up as we go along.
This is definitely the best of the three dialogues. Very well executed by both speakers and moderator.
If any Christian (as Bill advocates for a single belief) say that Lawrence has lost this debate for Craig, I give up, because this case is already demonstration of a blind, deaf and dumb faith, in which the discussion becomes useless, because you already a priori ignores anything that does not come from Christianity. Craig showed nothing to justify a belief in a particular god or his existence, and Lawrence always tried to remember all the time to Bill the importance of intellectual honesty, that the Bill does not value much. And the name for it called ignorance.
That intellectual honesty was an issue for Dr. Krauss. In the 3 discussions nearly every time he stepped out of science to talk about philosophy or religion it was a misrepresentation of Christianity, Dr. Craig or history. He also tried to show that Dr. Craig doesn't understand science. That proved to be a failure since Dr. Craig regularly checks his points with scientists in the fields he discusses to make sure he is representing the science accurately. Most of the people Dr. Craig quotes are Atheists and Agnostics and Muslims so he isn't just picking material from Christians.
John Peters You said Krauss committed intellectual dishonesty when he spoke about religion and philosophy, on this point I can agree that Krauss tried to use arguments with issues he does not have much knowledge, but his arguments are not completely wrong, he just did not know how to show examples that demonstrate this effectively, to show the inconsistency of belief in god, and especially the belief on God of Dr. Craig.The other points where you made on intellectual dishonesty of Krauss I'll show what is not.
Adélio Garbazza II As for the misrepresentation of Christianity, that everybody does, because there is no absolute definition of what Christianity is, if you think you have, then you do not know much about Christianity, and each of these Christian denominations claim that their Christianity is true, and some denominations do not agree with the arguments of Dr. Craig. So we have a problem, how to show what is the true representation of Christianity without evidence, we can not, that's exactly the point Krauss wanted to do, that nothing is rational in theology, in the case of this debate also includes the problem of the existence of Jesus, what he did and what he was, as these details I repeat there is no consensus or certainty, then what we see here is the opinion of Dr. Craig.
Adélio Garbazza II About Dr. Craig knowledge about science, Krauss did not show that Craig does not understand science, in fact what he showed and said that Craig is choose what is convinient in science to provide support for the assumptions he uses in debates, but this is the error in the argumentation of Craig, because he ignores the rest, including any other explanation for the beginning of the universe, which are many, it is that Krauss is saying. The truth is that nobody knows the origin of the universe, until we know any explanation is possible, but not all are plausible, the explanation of Craig as much as some people do not want to accept borders on fantasy and not change anything if he uses the science of way that is convinient for him. And why it is dishonest because he used too many assumptions, there are many argumentative maneuvers, as in the case of mathematics is the language of nature and the universe, Krauss clearly show that this is an approximate interpretation that man makes about events that happen, therefore the language is not there, we create and is limited to our understanding. When Craig said that, I saw clearly that he does not know or ignores the chaos theory, which clearly shows how his argument is fallacious.
Adélio Garbazza II Last thing, he uses quotes from Atheists, agnostics and Muslims does not mean anything if he distorts this quote to fit in his belief in Christianity, without proving how this quote validate their arguments. I know that Christian apologists use arguments from various sources, and often, ironically, they use arguments that go directly against the Bible and William L. Craig is one of them, and he shows that in this debate. This is intellectual dishonesty too, and makes clear how he fails to demonstrate the rationality on the belief in Christianity, which is what he advocates.
@ 13:17 - 13:33
Really he says god must exist because the chance of something happening doesnt seem probable? Well life itself is a chance but here we are and here we all accept evolution. The odds of a god far out way the odds of a fine tuned universe happening all on its own, science can prove why we have a fine tuned universe and how it took so damn long to accomplish. Yet there is still no argument proving the existence of a god. I dont understand how he cant feel like a hypocrite saying this.
William Lane Craig seems by far and away the best person to answer the nonsense of atheism. The evidence of this is that every time he corners scientists or atheists they pathetically chicken out by claiming nothing can be proven or known for certain, which is totally unscientific. Further evidence is that he seems to be infinitely patient with the irrationality of atheism. That wisdom is patient with foolishness betrays the mission of winning the fool from his folly. Such is the mission of William Lane Craig, a spokesman for God.
If all physical reality began to exist, there could be no physical cause. There must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial agency.
Circular reasoning, that’s the best you’ve got?🤣
Craig telling Prof. Krauss "I hope you keep your mind open for evidences" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's so funny about that? Everyone has confirmation bias.
Winning a debate has nothing to do with the truth. Sometimes you are indeed correct and that's fine but if you are wrong, you will actually leave the room soaking in your own ignorance. Because there is a big difference between "being right" and not knowing your wrong. That's the beauty of realizing you made a mistake. It is the moment that an opportunity to grow presents itself.
BEST debate with WLC ever. I had always assumed he was intellectually dishonest -- but Krauss' persuasion is compelling. I also found the method of this debate substantially better, with the one caveat that I'd prefer a judge were the moderator who'd chime in with rules of evidence and admissibility. Krauss uses new arguments from his typical retorts which shows he took seriously and prepared for it -- he's also obviously reading quite a bit of philosophy it'd appear.
Do people think voting the video up or down is a vote to the content and not the relevance of the title to the production? What the hell are the thumbs down about?
I love LK but found out later he was caught lying on this debate. You can see it happen around 55min mark. He claimed WLC lied but he in fact was caught lying. I dont know who won the debate but I know he lied on that part. I wish LK would also allow WLC to finish what he is trying to say. He gets so loud and pushy WLC cant respond without him talking over him.
The fine tuning might elude Mr. William Lane Craig, he is clearly not worthy of his title of Dr. What eludes Mr. Craig is the fact that life adapts, life is tuned to the universe, not the other way around.
"life is tuned the universe, not the other way around."
This is only partially true. Life adapts to it's environment, however, we have no idea how life came about.
There are rules/forces written into the fabric of space-time that operate together harmoniously and routinely transform unorganized matter in the form of molecular clouds into organized matter in the form of solar systems. Certain planets/moons within these solar systems then give rise to life, which then becomes more numerous, diversified, complex and even sentient. Perhaps there are rules/forces at work that are yet undiscovered which cause life to occur as they cause stars, planets, moons, elements and everything else to occur.
Considering the nature of the rules/forces we do know, the way they operate together and the highly creative effect they have on matter/energy, it is reasonable to assume a probable (not certain) intelligent agent(s) who designed them. However, claiming this agency is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc., is not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to assume that is highly probable. The nature of forces is to cause energy and matter to move in a certain direction, which forms particular patterns. This is not mysterious and requires no intelligent agency. We shouldn't be so dogmatic that we dismiss anything which is un probable, as Craig tends to. Unprobable does not equal impossible. We can, however, make informed decisions about which possibilities are the most likely to be true
revo1974 You can't put probabilities on unknowns (or unknowables). Doing so anyway is unreasonable. In order to know the probability of a created universe, you have to know how many universes were created and how many were not, then do the math. THAT would enable you to say any given universe had a probability of design, and what that probability is. Just looking at natural laws in the natural world does not enable you to say anything about a "probable" designer. All the evidence thus far suggests a designed universe is impossible. We have no examples of a designed universe, and one example of one that has thus far no indication of being designed when it should if it is.
hexum7
I didn't say "highly probable", I said "probable" as in likely but uncertain.
The origin of these rules/forces *is* mysterious. They demand an explanation. Knowledge coupled with reasoning allows us to reach abstract conclusions about what may be. In my opinion design is a superior explanation to chance or necessity.
greyeyed123 "You can't put probabilities on unknowns (or unknowables). Doing so anyway is unreasonable."
Do we *know* of any life forms existing in the universe other than here on planet earth? No. If I was to say, "I think alien life in our universe is probable", would I be in the wrong? No. I am using the word probable in the same fashion.
"All the evidence thus far suggests a designed universe is impossible."
What evidence is that?
"We have no examples of a designed universe, and one example of one that has thus far no indication of being designed when it should if it is."
We have no examples of universes that derive from chance or necessity either, including our own.
All we can do (at this time) is couple the knowledge of the universe we have with reasoning and try to draw a conclusion. We can make an inference to the best explanation using abductive reasoning.
Knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the universe tells us that all effects are either a result of necessity or contingency, Either they had to be the way they are (necessity) or then did not (contingency). Contingency can be broken down into chance (random process) or design (intelligent guided/directed process).
I submit that the best explanation is design.
How is it possible that he believes that historical accounts that Jesus tomb was empty yet no historical account of where Jesus tomb is.
+mk17173n actually there is a church built on the tomb of Jesus.
+Michael Munguia funny since no christians accept that.
They don't because it's owned by Catholics but the tomb of Jesus was the tomb of one of the Pharisees. That was explained in early church history. Regardless even Christians are skeptical for irrational reasons such as someone they don't like owns a valuable site.
And in the gospels the Pharisee mentions that he'll give up his tomb for Jesus.
Krauss seems very angry cause he can't figure it out..Men of intelligence think they know it all. Narcissist.
And, of course, Krauss has to mock God by referring to Him as an "invisible man." This cheap insult shows Krauss' indignation against the supernatural.
"Invisible man" is used in a pejorative sense, of course.
God is Spirit. He is not a physical person, as humankind is.
The vast majority of the world believes in God, and for good reason: blind chance simply cannot account for what we observe.
Your insults and anger won't change that one iota.
If it's not due to design, and it's not due to physical necessity (which is necessarily true), then it must be due to chance.
The fact that you can't stop insulting me shows that you're being influenced by emotion.
And I'm not arguing that God exists because a lot of people believe in Him. I'm saying that people believe in God because there are no good reasons to believe that atheism/naturalism is true. There are good reasons to believe that God exists.
People aren't convinced because they don't want to be convinced.
Physical necessity is impossible since absolutely nothing existed.
Scientists have ulterior motives, as do everyday atheists. For if there is a God, that means there might be accountability to God. And that is unacceptable. I'd love to know where you got that 14% figure from.
You're not convinced by the arguments for God because you DON'T want to be convinced.
It's not ludicrous that there is a Creator. It's ludicrous to believe that this universe is due to chance. That's ridiculous beyond measure. You don't think that a book could write itself or that a painting could paint itself, so how could a universe form itself? It couldn't, there had to be a Designer.
You have a subconscious bias against God, and that's your prerogative. But your belief in naturalism is absolutely not a rational viewpoint, and it contradicts much science and observation.
+terminat1 I think the 14% that Oners82 mentioned was from here:
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371
It is an statistical survey, you can check the credentials of it by yourself.
And belief is not something you simply pick and choose using only volition, it is actually something complex and worth studying more before you say something like that. For instance, I would like to believe in the supernatural and the existence of any deity at all, but at the moment I don't have sufficient evidence to lean towards any belief in both of them. Even though in the past I had sufficient evidence in my own perspective, by learning more knowledge about science, philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and the bible I came to the conclusion (rather I like it or not) and realization that I do not believe anymore. Do you believe that I had a choice in this case?
Look how much more sensible mature respectful and formal William is compared to Lawrence.
Yet he's still wrong. I don't care if he's bloody king respectful himself. He is judged on his arguments and those arguments are poor.
Allow me to point out that Vilenkin emailed Craig informing him that he represented his views on the BGV theorem "very accurately". You'll discover that Krauss omitted a VERY important line in Vilenkin's email which reads: “It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent TO A BEGINNING”. Krauss told the audience that the omitted stuff was "technical". So, in other words, Krauss lied/insulted the audience. Finally, Vilenkin furnished Craig with the unabridged version of his email to Krauss. You'll be surprised to discover that it is Krauss who misrepresented Vilenkin's views. This is disturbing since it comes from a scientist who cries out for honesty, transparency, full disclosure. I think Krauss is a very knowledgable scientist. However, this misrepresentation has left a stain on his public reputation.
You can see the entire email correspondence at:
reasonablefaith(dot)org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem
You mean delusional and ignorant?
Andy Smith
Yes Andy, that's the sentence I used. Craig is well known for his strict debate rules. He insists on going first so that he can use his rebuttal time to explain that his opponent didn't use their opening statement to attack his arguments and therefore they are all unquestioned. He also continues to use arguments that have been debunked for decades, which is especially ignorant and dishonest because he always uses the same argument by opening with "I'm going to interpret this question to mean" and then twists every question into the same debate over and over. This is simply because he believes absent of evidence. That's not me talking, Craig said it himself:
Interview with Dr. William Lane Craig: Handling Doubt
He would rather listen to the voice in his head over evidence.
William Lane Craig was ranked in the top 15 researchers in his field.....what "research" would they be doing exactly? It's not like you can test anything they can think up. Also, next time say WHO put him in the top 15. Meanwhile: "Krauss is one of the few living physicists referred to by Scientific American as a "public intellectual", and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012 he was awarded the National Science Board's Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the US."
Krauss also wrote another 10 scientific papers this year alone, between of course making a movie...that Craig never saw yet critiqued. Craig on the other hand is coming in at a lowly 0. So no matter how accomplished you are as a religious philosopher a scientist will always trump you, because they are actually doing some useful.
So congratulations on being in the "top 15" of a field that doesn't effect anything.
So if you want to try and use one of Craig's pathetic excuses for an argument then by all means I would love to debunk it. I know it's more your style to avoid the evidence I just presented and shit sling but maybe you'll grow a brain and some balls in the next few days.
HobbsO I'll hear your intellectual objections to the Kalam. Let's focus on ONE objection at a time. For each objection, please provide clear and consice evidence or logical reasoning that debunks it. Furthermore, please be explicit to which premise(s) you are attempting to show is/are false. If you have evidence for your claim or objection, please provide references to the scholarly peer-reviewed scientific papers and/or quotes from physicists to support your evidence and claims? This way I can verify them. Please be aware that virtually every cosmologist today claims that the universe had a beginning. Lastly, leave the ad hominum insults behind. OK?
So many fallacies from Krauss in this debate. Craig won this debate.
At 1:05:17 begins the total deconstruction of Craig's contention. The "logic" of Criag's argument is indeed airtight. But building the logic of any argument is the easy part. The problem for Dr. Craig is that his entire argument is built on outrageously overstated and outright faulty premises. These premises make assumption for the purpose of supporting his argument. That's faulty reasoning.
Nothing more need be debated at that part, because the argument now fails.
"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God."
This is quite simply the mother of all unjustified assumptions baked into a premise. This premise is void.
What is William Lane Craig doing on a stage debating Krauss about theoretical physics? I suppose he'll want to debate Dawkins about evolutionary biology and Harris about neuroscience next. He's a christian apologist, and knows just enough about these issues to appear competent to lay people and pawn himself off as knowledgeable.
By that same token what's a physicist doing on stage debating whether God exists or not? He might as well debate a real historian on the history the US monetary system and the banking and corporate control of both the Republican and Democrat parties and the illusion of the 2 party system in the US. He could use a bit of an education on that subject.
Exactly. WLC knows more about science including cosmology than Krauss knows about philosophy. He doesn't seem to know any.
Brett M, physics used to be philosophy, Metaphysics 1a is by Aristotle. He lived a long time before the field of physics was invented. If physics was the pinnacle of intertheoretic reduction and after Dawkins forfeited a debate to Dr. Craig then Oxford would have pitted three of their best God hating physics dons in a cage match, 3 on 1, against Dr. Craig instead of 3 of their best God hating philosopher dons, 3 on 1, against Dr. Craig, the debate that actually happened. We all knew then who the Champion is and we & Oxford realized in order to take this guy down we're going to need to marshal our forces. Have you ever seen a 3 on 1 debate before? Philosophy is at the pinnacle, that's why Dr. Craig is not afraid of Lawrence Krauss. btw, Krauss is talking about my Jewish relatives who wrote the Bible and we represent 24% of Nobel Prize winners and most of us won those in the field of physics. What Krauss doesn't have is a doctorate of divinity, he needs to be silent on God if your complaint against Dr. Craig has any validity of a person arguing outside the bounds of their schooling.
1) Most of that paragraph didn't make much sense to me so I'll just reply to what I think you are trying to say. You seem to think of debate as a WWE cage match between 2 opposing forces with a clear victor. Debate is about the exchange of ideas. It's about finding out which ideas are better, which are more justifiable, which have more supporting evidence, and perhaps which one's should be discarded in favor of better ideas.
2) You're right, Krauss doesn't have a doctorate of divinity, but I also think we have 2 very different conceptions of what a dr of divinity is. If a god does not exist then no one has a dr of divinity and it would be properly termed a dr of jewish mythology. If any religion other than mainstream christianity is right then Craig also doesn't have a dr. div because his conception of the nature of god is so far off as to be worthless. The only way Krauss wouldn't belong on the stage is if Craig's version of god does exist, Craig is rationally justified in believing he exists and thinks Krauss should also believe, and Krauss is making uneducated factual claims about the nature of this god without justifiable reasoning.
Brett M 1) Then Dawkins should have participated in the debate instead of waging a flame ware from his blog everyday for a year against Dr. Craig.
Didn't read 2).
Krauss: "Honesty, Full Disclosure!"
Also Krauss: "I don't wanna show the full Vilenkin email because then you'll know I'm lying."
+Denchanter357 - C'mon man, surely you can watch these debates and see who was interested in an actual exchange and who simply wanted to shout the other person down. I'm sure you want to defend your guy here, but let's be honest about what went down. It's really a shame. If Krauss really wanted to reach theists, he went about it totally wrong! You're not going to change anyone's mind by being an insufferable know-it-all who refuses to even listen to the other side. I just listened to Craig's debate with Victor Stinger and Krauss could learn much from Stinger about defending your position with conviction rather than just acting like a jerk.
One thing this debate shows is that the debate can be greatly enhanced by the knowledge and experience of the moderator. During this debate I also saw Krauss become a little more humble and nuanced than usual.
1:02:09 "I'm sorry Bill, you just don't get the physics, you're out of your depth here".
Pretty much sums it up.
"When Dr. Craig tells me that historians/theologians/scholars of the BIble all accept that the resurrection happened, it reminds me of alien abduction experts who say that all alien abduction experts say people were abducted by aliens!"
Bingo!
If I had a dime for every time Krauss interrupted Craig
You would be able to go buy a science book and educate yourself 😜
@@trumpbellend6717 Your comment actually made me laugh. Well-played. I will say though, I'd still have money left over for a book on avoiding logical fallacies. Do you have Krauss's mailing address?
@@ryanrogers7595 I'm sure he won't expect any money, he will just send you his no charge dear
Laurence won’t shut his mouth. He has a bad habit of interrupting, and its frustrating to even listen to this because he doesn’t even let Craig finish a sentence before he belligerently interrupts time and time again. The moderator needs to moderate. This is why formal debate is necessary, because Laurence won’t shut his cake hole because all he wants to hear is himself.
Krauss was really having a discussion with himself. I mean, Dr. Craig wasn’t afforded a chance to fully expand any response to any of the questions Krauss posed to him. In a case like that, how do you even tell if Craig is irrational if you won’t even hear his attempt at rationality?
I love krauss he is the most entertaining to listen to since the late and very great hitchens, i always smile when i see him getting annoyed that people just arent taking in what he is telling them. He is deff one of the greatest minds in our time.
Did Lawrence krauss not lie and make a fool of himself?
Hmmmm, 914 Likes, 44 Dislikes. 44 chistians watched this I guess.
The thing is with the fine tuned argument is that it assumes that only life in the form we find on earth is the only kind of life that could exist. The "life permitting range" applies to our form of life, if the value changed then for all we know another form of life could arise
Krauss acts like a spoiled brat who does this just to get attention.
55:00 Lawrence and his tactics exposed.
Lol I love how Lawrence Krauss is a badass and slumps in his chair like that, while the William Lane Craig sits up all proper. :)
much thanks to the City Bible Forum for putting these talks on
Krauss effectively wiped Craig off the map when it came down to the physics portion.
Fine tuning is such a BS argument. How can this universe be "fine tuned" for life when our existence is so fragile that at any time we can be wiped off from existence, heck we can only live in such a tiny part of our planet. All of this points even more to us just existing randomly. If "fine tuning" was true there'd be more life around and we can just live in space and eat radiation for breakfast. Now thats what I can call a fine tuned universe made specifically for life to exist.
The more I watch it seems that Krauss is a very angry man because he doesn't believe in God.
Knock Knock..
Who's there?
It's Jesus, let me in...
Why?
I have to save you
From what?
From what l'm gonna do to you if you dont let me in
@@AcidGubba. Your comment is stupid. Someone who was crucified to promote the importance and value of peace is going to do something to you?
As humans we focus on either/or rather than and/both. The Universe is its Own Creator; the Creator and the Creator being one and the same both transcendent and immanent. Difficult for humans to understand as and/both is not part of our experience in our dual system where it is always either/or. Consciousness: non-vibratory; then creation from Motion: Vibratory; movement; time; change; past, present, future; beginning, end. But what is transcendent does not end only its expression as a nightly dream may end but the dreamer is awake. The Dreamer and the Dream are One and the Same.
@@ALavin-en1kr Well, for me personally, belief in a god has the same value as belief in a flat earth. There is no evidence for either, just allegations, but believers feel attacked when you show them how irrational their belief is. Maybe people will start to question why they believe in the Christian god and not in Allah or Zeus. I think education is extremely important, as is the willingness to question things instead of filling in the gaps in knowledge with faith. It is no coincidence that more intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than less intelligent people.
Do you know what time is? I have the feeling that you don't understand basic things. And that's why you think there must be a creator, but what if time doesn't pass?
@@AcidGubba The universe has been named God by some, you can think of it as just the universe or as God, it is your choice. There is the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ in philosophy; what exactly is consciousness? There has been reductive psychologies which have attempted to devalue consciousness, mind, and human reason by reducing the human to a mindless entity driven by behaviors. The worst of these was the Behaviorism of the past mid-century by B.F. Skinner whose reductive psychology was roundly defeated by a number of factors. N. Chomsky was one opponent who roundly defeated it. Biologists and Sociobiologists are still trying to extrapolate their discipline of biology to be the totality of human nature; limiting the human to biology and its drives, ignoring consciousness. mind, and reason. They never give up in attempting to reduce the human to biology alone, but their defeat in the last century still holds. Patricia Churchland is the latest to attempt to resurrect ‘the human as biology only trope’ but again it is gaining little traction, thankfully, because it is reductive and stupid, ignoring human consciousness and reason; the human from its own prototype, not from the prototype of a different species. The fact that ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ is being debated today proves we have moved past the stupidity of behaviorism but it still attempts to raise its ugly head although there is zero interest in its premise today, thankfully; science has advanced too far for Behaviorism to gain any traction. Churchland is an outlier in her view today; the world has moved on.
The Fine-Tuning thing is too problematic to be taken that seriously. As Krauss pointed out around 58:00 it would be surprising to find ourselves in a universe in which we "could not" exist. In other words, in a universe in which the laws of physics would seem to preclude our existence or aspects of our nature. Craig jumps on Krauss about this and says that that would be a contradiction, but saying this means he failed to grasp the point.
The point is that our existence and qualities conform to the laws of physics, which _implies_ that they are a *product* OF the laws of physics, and _not_ a product of something ELSE (like a god) that MADE the laws of physics.
Think about it. If we were beings of a significantly different nature that were capable of _breaking_ what seemed to be physical laws and constraints, we could not appeal to natural laws for our existence. If we could, for instance, simply float around in the sky or space at will, with no wings for example, with no ability to generate thrust or lift, but we saw, as we see now, that all other creatures and objects on Earth could _not_ do that and had to manipulate _physical principles_ to achieve flight, then we could still derive all the same physical laws, but see that, for some arbitrary reason, they just don't apply to us. That would be strange and somewhat inexplicable by natural law. Or imagine if the body structure of a human were such that it should be completely crushed by gravity, but we still found ourselves living in such an environment. That would be something that is scientifically inexplicable and one could suggest with some plausibility that there is some other force or reason that we would be able to exist in an environment where it seems that, physically, we should not be able to exist. But instead what we see is that nothing like this actually is the case. Instead we see that we exist in highly specific conditions out of a vast universe of impossible environs. It's much more consistent and logical to invoke the anthropic principle to explain all this and say we are the product of natural physical laws than it is to try to argue that fine-tuning is the explanation.
"All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior.
William Lane Craig is a mammal."
LOL!!!
So not true...
Debunks everything evolutionist believe.... about evolution
WLC continues to use outdated and easily-refuted arguments. Unsurprising.
Okay, and you based that on what? Plz, tell us at least a few example...
I base that on the multiple debates I've watched from him. Did you watch the video? The fine-tuning argument is ridiculous, for example.
George Faraj Do you know the best examples of fine-tuning? The primordial vacuum was fine-tuned to like 10 to the 500th power for I think over 50 constants and quantities. i think christopher hitchens believed the fine-tuning argument is the most convincing argument the theists have in support of theism, and believed it is convincing.
"in recent decades, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the big bang were fine tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension." - WLC.
jon keene The fine-tuning argument is not evidence towards a designer. At best, it's an interesting fact. But a universe in which intelligent life exists is obviously going to have the properties to produce and support life. It would be very surprising if this would not be the case.
George Faraj "A universe in which intelligent life exists is obviously going to have the properties to produce and support life."
It seems as though this statement contains a presupposition that we must have a universe in which intelligent life exists.
Dr. Craig is a LEGEND
I would say that tries reaaaaaaaally hard. I guess he is a good example of true believer...too bad that this is exactly the opposite of what a scientist is. His "rational evidences" are hilarious.
even as an atheist i cant help but like WLC, but especially because larry is kind of annoying. 54:50 still makes me laugh
Yes Lawrence I agree, our behaviour is deterministic in the sense that our subconscious makes all our decisions while we have the experience of making a conscious choice! It makes you wonder who we really are!