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

#401  Postby hackenslash » Dec 24, 2013 8:43 am

Well exactly. Kraig changes his view depending on which bunch of gullible rubes he has as his audience. He accepts evolution, but I know of at least one occasion on which he's defended Young Earth Cretinism in a public debate.

He's a professional liar.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21439
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#402  Postby quas » Dec 24, 2013 11:58 am

hackenslash wrote:but I know of at least one occasion on which he's defended Young Earth Cretinism in a public debate.


Was this in a debate?
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently. -Nietzsche
User avatar
quas
 
Posts: 2774

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#403  Postby hackenslash » Dec 24, 2013 12:10 pm

Can't remember where I came across it.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21439
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#404  Postby Animavore » Dec 24, 2013 12:17 pm

He's definitely defended Intelligent Design before. Can't remember where I came across it either. Probably out the back of a sleazy motel.

I think I also remember reading that the college or university or whatever he resides in has to sign some form that they agree to a set amount of beliefs including that that God created the heaven and earth and all the stupid creatures.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44206
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#405  Postby hackenslash » Dec 24, 2013 12:20 pm

Cheers Ani. That was the trigger I needed:

User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21439
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#406  Postby quas » Dec 24, 2013 4:07 pm

Animavore wrote:I think I also remember reading that the college or university or whatever he resides in has to sign some form that they agree to a set amount of beliefs including that that God created the heaven and earth and all the stupid creatures.


Biola University use to have a promotional banner ad that prides itself in giving students "freedom to reason within the boundaries of Scripture."
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently. -Nietzsche
User avatar
quas
 
Posts: 2774

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#407  Postby Rumraket » Dec 25, 2013 1:49 pm

quas wrote:
Animavore wrote:I think I also remember reading that the college or university or whatever he resides in has to sign some form that they agree to a set amount of beliefs including that that God created the heaven and earth and all the stupid creatures.


Biola University use to have a promotional banner ad that prides itself in giving students "freedom to reason within the boundaries of Scripture."

:rofl: This is what religion does to thought.

What happened to freedom to just reason unconstrainedly?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13211
Age: 39

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#408  Postby John Platko » Dec 25, 2013 5:23 pm

Rumraket wrote:
quas wrote:
Animavore wrote:I think I also remember reading that the college or university or whatever he resides in has to sign some form that they agree to a set amount of beliefs including that that God created the heaven and earth and all the stupid creatures.


Biola University use to have a promotional banner ad that prides itself in giving students "freedom to reason within the boundaries of Scripture."

:rofl: This is what religion does to thought.

What happened to freedom to just reason unconstrainedly?


Nothing, at least not in the good old USA. But you also have the freedom to go to all kinds of "other" schools too.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#409  Postby sturmgewehr » Mar 31, 2014 7:56 pm

is this true.

Last edited by THWOTH on Mar 31, 2014 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added YouTube tag
User avatar
sturmgewehr
 
Posts: 264

Albania (al)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#410  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 31, 2014 8:12 pm



Do some research. Don't expect simple answers to questions such as the one you just asked. Basically, when Craig tells you what one of his opponents has said, he's distorting what one of his opponents has said. Your youtube link is third or fourth hand crap.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 1132708510

You should study the career of the member known as questioner121 on this forum, and you'll get an idea of what I mean. Most of what he writes in response to what atheists tell him consists in distorting what they have told him in order to flatter his intellectual fantasies. This is par for the course in apologetics.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29351
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#411  Postby THWOTH » Mar 31, 2014 8:58 pm

Love the music in the video though. Added a real air of melancholy poignancy to the issues.

Now I need ice cream....
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37109
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#412  Postby sturmgewehr » Mar 31, 2014 10:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:


Do some research. Don't expect simple answers to questions such as the one you just asked. Basically, when Craig tells you what one of his opponents has said, he's distorting what one of his opponents has said. Your youtube link is third or fourth hand crap.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 1132708510

You should study the career of the member known as questioner121 on this forum, and you'll get an idea of what I mean. Most of what he writes in response to what atheists tell him consists in distorting what they have told him in order to flatter his intellectual fantasies. This is par for the course in apologetics.


Yeah I know I saw the discussion and i saw the emails on Reasonable faith and the Emails Vilenkin had written.

I dont know, if Krauss admitted on the debate then OK but if all these things came to light after the debate, that's a bit fishy, still I think Krauss should not have abbridged the email.

Anyways I am still confused by all this inflation thing and what it means and Vilenkin saying that the Universe most probably had a beginning.
User avatar
sturmgewehr
 
Posts: 264

Albania (al)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#413  Postby murshid » Mar 31, 2014 11:27 pm

sturmgewehr wrote:is this true.



The link provided in the video has the full email. Here's a paragraph:

Alexander Vilenkin wrote:I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.


He also wrote this in the same email,

Alexander Vilenkin wrote:The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.

But if the fluctuations are not so wild as to invalidate classical spacetime, the BGV theorem is immune to any possible modifications of Einstein's equations which may be caused by quantum effects.

As I've said elsewhere, I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that what Vilenkin is saying is that we don't know enough to answer the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning. If that's what he is saying then it in no way validates Craig's views on the matter.
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8747
Age: 38
Male

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#414  Postby sturmgewehr » Mar 31, 2014 11:49 pm

murshid wrote:
sturmgewehr wrote:is this true.



The link provided in the video has the full email. Here's a paragraph:

Alexander Vilenkin wrote:I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.


He also wrote this in the same email,

Alexander Vilenkin wrote:The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.

But if the fluctuations are not so wild as to invalidate classical spacetime, the BGV theorem is immune to any possible modifications of Einstein's equations which may be caused by quantum effects.

As I've said elsewhere, I am no expert on this, but it seems to me that what Vilenkin is saying is that we don't know enough to answer the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning. If that's what he is saying then it in no way validates Craig's views on the matter.


Yeah, I know but the problem is now that it is all really confusing, in the last debate with Carroll, he showed Guth saying that the universe is most likely Eternal then on the other hand Vilenkin says that given the available data the Universe most probably had a beginning, I watched the Carroll vs. Craig debate, I think Carroll did great and debunked Craigs argument but in the end all this makes very little sense because I dont know how does the BVG Theorem stand against other Models which describe the Universe as Eternal or something like that, I think Carroll gave this Quantum Eternity Theorem thing which he said was consistent with the data, is it consistent with Inflation?.

Craig accused Carroll that his model violates the second law of TD then Carroll said some more stuff about it and made some other points.
User avatar
sturmgewehr
 
Posts: 264

Albania (al)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#415  Postby Shrunk » Apr 01, 2014 12:26 am

I think the bottom line is that physics and cosmology have yet to accumulate enough evidence to rule out an eternal universe or one with a definite beginning. Craig thinks that his philosophowibble is up to the task and we don't have to wait for the scientists to figure it out.

You may now laugh uproariously....
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#416  Postby murshid » Apr 01, 2014 6:17 pm

Shrunk wrote:I think the bottom line is that physics and cosmology have yet to accumulate enough evidence to rule out an eternal universe or one with a definite beginning. Craig thinks that his philosophowibble is up to the task and we don't have to wait for the scientists to figure it out.

Yes, exactly. We just don't know enough to say whether the universe had a beginning or not. Craig thinks he knows.
.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" – Douglas Adams
User avatar
murshid
 
Name: Murshid
Posts: 8747
Age: 38
Male

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest