Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

"Has science buried god?" Debate/Discussion in Brisbane on August 7th, 2013

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#41  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 3:35 pm

Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown wrong by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected



You don't know much about final causation, do you? Exactly how much have you read on it?


This much http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology



Wikipedia? Wow. You are really informed.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#42  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 3:36 pm

Animavore wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected?

I could be mistaken, but final causation is different from end-goal?

I don't think so.
Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something. Like the formal cause, this is a controversial type of cause in science. It is commonly claimed that Aristotle's conception of nature is teleological in the sense that he believed that Nature has goals apart from those that humans have. On the other hand, as will be discussed further below, it has also been claimed that Aristotle thought that a telos can be present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence. An example of a passage which is discussed in this context is Physics II.8 (from


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

I see. Well, then I think Mick's right, it can't be falsified. I don't see how speciation would constitute falsification of final causation, you could always go back and rationalize the observation with "Well, the designer wanted somehing else".

This also means final causation loses all predictive and explanatory power, it becomes what I stated earlier, an infinitely compatible but useless ad-hoc rationalization.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#43  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 3:37 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown wrong by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected



You don't know much about final causation, do you? Exactly how much have you read on it?


This much http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology



Wikipedia? Wow. You are really informed.

Your elitist dismissals are equally unimpressive. :roll:
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#44  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:39 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown wrong by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected



You don't know much about final causation, do you? Exactly how much have you read on it?


This much http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology



Wikipedia? Wow. You are really informed.



I'm being facetious. Do you really expect me to go back over all the books I've read over the last fifteen years? You were clearly looking for an opportunity to be dismissive rather than engage.

As usual.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43894
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#45  Postby Shrunk » Aug 30, 2013 3:41 pm

Mick wrote:That depends if the fairy hypothesis is falsifiable or not.

Now whether someone take it seriously or not is another question. But as a matter of logic, you cannot entertain that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable and then go on to deeming it false. That is a classic mistake made by laymen atheists when dealing with creationism.


So if someone were to ask you if your car is run by fairies, how would you respond?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#46  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 3:42 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Animavore wrote:Thinking about it - final cause is falsifiable after all. All we need to do is show one instance of speciation. As, too, is the idea that no final cause exists, which would be shown by all species crystallising and becoming fixed and immutable. So I take back what I said the previous page. I was wrong.

BTW - Cookie for guessing which theory has been falsified and therefore should be rejected?

I could be mistaken, but final causation is different from end-goal?

I don't think so.
Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something. Like the formal cause, this is a controversial type of cause in science. It is commonly claimed that Aristotle's conception of nature is teleological in the sense that he believed that Nature has goals apart from those that humans have. On the other hand, as will be discussed further below, it has also been claimed that Aristotle thought that a telos can be present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence. An example of a passage which is discussed in this context is Physics II.8 (from


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

I see. Well, then I think Mick's right, it can't be falsified. I don't see how speciation would constitute falsification of final causation, you could always go back and rationalize the observation with "Well, the designer wanted somehing else".

This also means final causation loses all predictive and explanatory power, it becomes what I stated earlier, an infinitely compatible but useless ad-hoc rationalization.


Ah! The God that changes his mind. I forgot about Him.

Back to square one.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43894
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#47  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Aug 30, 2013 3:43 pm

Rumraket wrote:Anyway, I watched this discussion. It's not a debate of the kind Craig normally does with multiple rounds of structured rebuttals. Just a more general moderator-guided back and forth.

I like Krauss a lot as an engaging public speaker, educator and popularizer of science. His public lectures are very engaging on the subject of physics and cosmology. But when it comes to his ability to deal with standard theistic crap on morality and the like, he sucks in my opinion. The only thing he did right here was when he exposed Craig's misrepresentations and bullshit in the beginning and pointed out how Craig relies on his audience's lack of training in the subject matters. I've been waiting for someone to call the shithead out on this for a while now, so it was satisfying to see. I can only hope it becomes a common event when Craig debates someone, that they take some time to expose how Craig does these kinds of misrepresentations and underhanded, less than charitable interpretations of his opponents positions often. I'm tired of seeing this charlatan being offered too much undeserved respect.

Anyway, that said, when it comes to defending the atheist viewpoints and responding to standard theistic bullshit on the topics of moral and ethical philosophy, Krauss is pretty crap I'm sorry to say. He spent way too much time being synthetically outraged over nutbaggery Craig's erected in the past about the whole caananites shit, and had laughable non-answers and strange misunderstandings when it came to the points made by Craig and the moderator. The simple fact is that there's much better atheistic answers to these things than whay Krauss came up with, and it was frustrating to listen to his messy rants of only tangential relevance.

This is exactly why I want to see Craig debate someone who has at least comparable expertise in dealing with theistic arguments. Krauss just sort of wings it at an amateurish level, but given his complete lack of experience and training debating this particular subject, he comes off ranting and confused. He rarely made a good point and when he did (like the thing about theological "theories" basically just constituting making shit up to make it fit), didn't know how to carry it effectively through Craig's smokescreens. That takes practice and preparation, none of which Krauss had apparently done.

I only really know of one or two people who has the experience and qualifications to effectively challenge Craig here, and Craig won't debate them. :roll:

On the subject of secular vs theistic morality and ethics, I'd love to see Craig vs Matt Dillahunty or even Richard Carrier.


Yeah I'm not sure why he bothers with arguing ethics. He should plainly state that he spent his life researching cosmology, and hence didn't get much time to consider the ethical implications of the biblical god's existence. He understands much more about the fundamental nature of the universe than any scholar of Jesus resurrection as a result though, so it's damn well worth it.

Maybe it's an American thing, where he feels compelled to stand up for the non religious on every front? I probably would too in a society full of anti abortion wackjobs forever trying to influence politics.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#48  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 3:54 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Mick wrote:That depends if the fairy hypothesis is falsifiable or not.

Now whether someone take it seriously or not is another question. But as a matter of logic, you cannot entertain that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable and then go on to deeming it false. That is a classic mistake made by laymen atheists when dealing with creationism.


So if someone were to ask you if your car is run by fairies, how would you respond?

Didn't you get the memo? Mick doesn't answer questions. I'm compiling a list... it will be epic.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#49  Postby sturmgewehr » Aug 30, 2013 4:09 pm

Animavore wrote:

Ah! The God that changes his mind. I forgot about Him.

Back to square one.


I think God can't change his mind, if u r omniscient and u have all the possible available knowledge and info u would simply make the most rational and logical decisions, changing ur mind would entail irrationality.
User avatar
sturmgewehr
 
Posts: 264

Albania (al)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#50  Postby Shrunk » Aug 30, 2013 4:21 pm

I haven't watched the video, and I'm not sure I will, but Jerry Coyne has posted an excerpt on his blog that seems germane to our (or, at least, my) current discussion:

[Interviewer]: What is your best evidence there is no God, and what’s the best evidence there is a God?

Craig: Well, I would say that the best evidence that there is a God is that the hypothesis that God exists explains a wide range of the data of human experience that’s very diverse. So it’s an extremely powerful hypothesis. It gives you things like an explanation of the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, of intelligent life. But also the presence of mind in the cosmos, an objective foundation for moral values and duties, and things of that sort—it’s a wide range of data that makes sense on a theistic worldview.


See, that's exactly the kind of argument that could support the existence of my automotive fairies. True, standard materialistic auto engineering can answer most questions, but not all of them.

Why did my gas line rupture today, and not two days ago? Fairies.

What is causing that knocking sound that I hear every time I drive, but which seems to disappear whenever I take the car to the garage so the mechanic can hear it? Fairies.

And so on.

Clearly, the existence of automotive fairies is also a hypothesis that explains a wide range of the data that’s very diverse.

And that's the strongest argument Craig has for God. The same argument that can be used to demonstrate that there are fairies living in your intake manifold.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#51  Postby Shrunk » Aug 30, 2013 4:31 pm

Shrunk wrote:I haven't watched the video, and I'm not sure I will, but Jerry Coyne has posted an excerpt on his blog that seems germane to our (or, at least, my) current discussion:

[Interviewer]: What is your best evidence there is no God, and what’s the best evidence there is a God?

Craig: Well, I would say that the best evidence that there is a God is that the hypothesis that God exists explains a wide range of the data of human experience that’s very diverse. So it’s an extremely powerful hypothesis. It gives you things like an explanation of the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, of intelligent life. But also the presence of mind in the cosmos, an objective foundation for moral values and duties, and things of that sort—it’s a wide range of data that makes sense on a theistic worldview.


See, that's exactly the kind of argument that could support the existence of my automotive fairies. True, standard materialistic auto engineering can answer most questions, but not all of them.

Why did my gas line rupture today, and not two days ago? Fairies.

What is causing that knocking sound that I hear every time I drive, but which seems to disappear whenever I take the car to the garage so the mechanic can hear it? Fairies.

And so on.

Clearly, the existence of automotive fairies is also a hypothesis that explains a wide range of the data that’s very diverse.

And that's the strongest argument Craig has for God. The same argument that can be used to demonstrate that there are fairies living in your intake manifold.


BTW, isn't this just what's known as "The God of the gaps" argument? That's the best evidence?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#52  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 4:35 pm

sturmgewehr wrote:
Animavore wrote:

Ah! The God that changes his mind. I forgot about Him.

Back to square one.


I think God can't change his mind, if u r omniscient and u have all the possible available knowledge and info u would simply make the most rational and logical decisions, changing ur mind would entail irrationality.

In that case the theist simply rationalizes that whatever happens is what god wanted all along. So it doesn't matter that species change over time, god planned for that to happen. It's been his plan since day one. That's the thing about ad-hoc reasoning, it can be bend to fit everything. Always ad-hoc though, Mick can never ever predict anything of value.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#53  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 4:37 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Shrunk wrote:I haven't watched the video, and I'm not sure I will, but Jerry Coyne has posted an excerpt on his blog that seems germane to our (or, at least, my) current discussion:

[Interviewer]: What is your best evidence there is no God, and what’s the best evidence there is a God?

Craig: Well, I would say that the best evidence that there is a God is that the hypothesis that God exists explains a wide range of the data of human experience that’s very diverse. So it’s an extremely powerful hypothesis. It gives you things like an explanation of the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, of intelligent life. But also the presence of mind in the cosmos, an objective foundation for moral values and duties, and things of that sort—it’s a wide range of data that makes sense on a theistic worldview.


See, that's exactly the kind of argument that could support the existence of my automotive fairies. True, standard materialistic auto engineering can answer most questions, but not all of them.

Why did my gas line rupture today, and not two days ago? Fairies.

What is causing that knocking sound that I hear every time I drive, but which seems to disappear whenever I take the car to the garage so the mechanic can hear it? Fairies.

And so on.

Clearly, the existence of automotive fairies is also a hypothesis that explains a wide range of the data that’s very diverse.

And that's the strongest argument Craig has for God. The same argument that can be used to demonstrate that there are fairies living in your intake manifold.


BTW, isn't this just what's known as "The God of the gaps" argument? That's the best evidence?

Yep.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#54  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 5:15 pm

God 'explains' a wide range of things in the same way homeopathy 'cures' a long list of ailments.

Craig. Get in the fucking sack.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43894
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#55  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 5:20 pm

sturmgewehr wrote:
Animavore wrote:

Ah! The God that changes his mind. I forgot about Him.

Back to square one.


I think God can't change his mind, if u r omniscient and u have all the possible available knowledge and info u would simply make the most rational and logical decisions, changing ur mind would entail irrationality.


I count at least four assumptions in that sentence.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43894
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#56  Postby Shrunk » Aug 30, 2013 5:24 pm

The main point, as I see it, is that science makes no claims to be able to explain everything, yet is still able to explain a great number of things. Whereas metaphysics claim to "explain" everything, but seem to explain nothing.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#57  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 5:31 pm

Exactly.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#58  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 5:41 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Mick wrote:That depends if the fairy hypothesis is falsifiable or not.

Now whether someone take it seriously or not is another question. But as a matter of logic, you cannot entertain that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable and then go on to deeming it false. That is a classic mistake made by laymen atheists when dealing with creationism.


So if someone were to ask you if your car is run by fairies, how would you respond?


" i don't think so."
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#59  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 5:42 pm

Shrunk wrote:The main point, as I see it, is that science makes no claims to be able to explain everything, yet is still able to explain a great number of things. Whereas metaphysics claim to "explain" everything, but seem to explain nothing.



You don't have a clue what metaphysics is, do you?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#60  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 5:43 pm

Shrunk wrote:The main point, as I see it, is that science makes no claims to be able to explain everything, yet is still able to explain a great number of things. Whereas metaphysics claim to "explain" everything, but seem to explain nothing.


And conversely - I can't think of one thing which needs a "metaphysical explanation". Yet the amount of things I can add an "metaphysical explanation" to is precisely everything.

Funny that.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43894
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests