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

#81  Postby VazScep » Aug 30, 2013 6:07 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:What on earth do you mean by "mean"?
>:(
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#82  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 6:08 pm

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
When stripped of empirical verification - useless, but beyond that no. Who cares?

Oh? And is that true? What on earth do you mean by truth?

You're the one using the word, why don't you tell me?

Oh, so it is not true? False? What are you telling me?

You're asking strange questions about words I haven't used. Truth is a word with a definition, that definition doesn't entail it has a referent in reality.
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

#83  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 6:09 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:

How does it?




Offers accounts of modality, existence, truth, universals, and even reality itself.


Like...? We're just looking for one example. One thing metaphysics "explains" (along with the explanation, of course). You can't just point to a bunch of stuff and say, "It explains all that." We're looking for specifics. A specific. Just one.



No, it aims to give accounts of them. It doesn't seek to explain them.

If you want to see those accounts, I can give you links. But a quick search on that Stanford site provides many examples. Search for truth, existence, modality, etc..


How can you give accounts without details and explanation?
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

#84  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 6:10 pm

VazScep wrote:
Scar wrote:You have yet to demonstrate that.
There are only accounts on offer, which help you sleep better at night knowing that the universe is all intelligible. Demonstration requires at least being awake and doing some work, and metaphysicians are rather work shy.



Yeah, because philosophers have produced nothing on metaphysics for the past 2000 years. That thing Kant wrote? That prestigious piece of philosophy? Not really "work". Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc. A whole whack of non-work. Anything else, Vaz?

You get away with comments like those because the bulk of people here don't know any better.
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

#85  Postby lobawad » Aug 30, 2013 6:12 pm

Truth is ought but Love, and butt-love at that.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#86  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 6:13 pm

Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:



Offers accounts of modality, existence, truth, universals, and even reality itself.


Like...? We're just looking for one example. One thing metaphysics "explains" (along with the explanation, of course). You can't just point to a bunch of stuff and say, "It explains all that." We're looking for specifics. A specific. Just one.



No, it aims to give accounts of them. It doesn't seek to explain them.

If you want to see those accounts, I can give you links. But a quick search on that Stanford site provides many examples. Search for truth, existence, modality, etc..




How can you give accounts without details and explanation?



Explanation is not neutral. If I explain x, then that implies x is. I prefer the use of the word 'account'. When you account for, say, causation, you need not grant that it is. It could be taken as a piece of useful fiction.
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

#87  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 6:14 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:

Like...? We're just looking for one example. One thing metaphysics "explains" (along with the explanation, of course). You can't just point to a bunch of stuff and say, "It explains all that." We're looking for specifics. A specific. Just one.



No, it aims to give accounts of them. It doesn't seek to explain them.

If you want to see those accounts, I can give you links. But a quick search on that Stanford site provides many examples. Search for truth, existence, modality, etc..




How can you give accounts without details and explanation?



Explanation is not neutral. If I explain x, then that implies x is. I prefer the use of the word 'account'. When you account for, say, causation, you need not grant that it is. It could be taken as a piece of useful fiction.


Useful fiction. You said it.
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

#88  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 6:16 pm

Theology - useful fiction. Sure, I can go with that. It's useful to a select group of people who desire power.
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

#89  Postby VazScep » Aug 30, 2013 6:22 pm

Animavore wrote:How can you give accounts without details and explanation?
Who cares when no-one's coming asking after the accounts? Other words you can for accounts are "grounds" and "foundations". So what is being asked for here are the foundations of things like truth. I like the word "foundations", because foundations are not inert. They are active. You do not lay them to deal with your insecurities concerning reality. You lay them in order to fucking build something.

I'd wager there's precious little activity in this accounting department.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#90  Postby VazScep » Aug 30, 2013 6:25 pm

Mick wrote:Yeah, because philosophers have produced nothing on metaphysics for the past 2000 years. That thing Kant wrote? That prestigious piece of philosophy? Not really "work". Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc. A whole whack of non-work. Anything else, Vaz?
Oh ffs, Mick. You surely know me by now. Work, for me, is the shit that puts rockets in space, not the stuff that gets you a prestigious publication. That work involves labouring under constraints, which are easy to come by when you get out and start experimenting in the real world. Or if you must content yourself to abstract theorising, you can always knock on the door of a maths department and see how well you tackle the average problem there.
Last edited by VazScep on Aug 30, 2013 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#91  Postby Cito di Pense » Aug 30, 2013 6:28 pm

VazScep wrote:You do not lay them to deal with your insecurities concerning reality.


Insecurities concerning reality? You mean, conspiracy theories? Why do some people get away with elaborate theories about the construction of reality as long as congregations agree to go along with the joke, whilst more idiosyncratic theories leave their adherents taking a time out? It's the difference between saying that you talk directly to God, and that God talks directly to you.
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: 29234
Age: 23
Male

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

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#92  Postby VazScep » Aug 30, 2013 6:34 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:You mean, conspiracy theories?
No, just the delightful fear that when you peer over the edge of the precipice, you see the universe balanced on nothing, sending you rocking back and forth assuring yourself that He's got the whole wide world in his hands. Some of us only go down that road when the why questions are fecund.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#93  Postby lobawad » Aug 30, 2013 6:45 pm

VazScep wrote:
Mick wrote:Yeah, because philosophers have produced nothing on metaphysics for the past 2000 years. That thing Kant wrote? That prestigious piece of philosophy? Not really "work". Berkeley, Locke, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc. A whole whack of non-work. Anything else, Vaz?
Oh ffs, Mick. You surely know me by now. Work, for me, is the shit that puts rockets in space, not the stuff that gets you a prestigious publication.


To be fair, in days sadly long gone philosophers were also scientists, mathmeticians, and doctors. Leibniz's metaphysics are a poetic rendition of his new creation, calculus. Newton wrote about the harmony of the spheres with as a great a vigour as he wrote of physics, and so on. In the golden age of Islam, philosophers were also musicologists, organologists and even musicians of renown. Today, though disarmed, metaphysics retains value, as a handmaiden of artists, a wagging of the weenie which in the right hands I wouldn't dismiss with a shrug of the shoulders.
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#94  Postby lobawad » Aug 30, 2013 6:51 pm

Surely the warm ballistics of the one-uddered cow are not to be completely ignored- is not the milking itself a joy to be shared?

Hey- I think Mick's on to something with this "metaphysics" stuff!
"Never give succor to the mentally ill; it is a bottomless pit."
- William Burroughs
lobawad
 
Name: Cameron Bobro
Posts: 2545

Country: Slovenia
Georgia (ge)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#95  Postby VazScep » Aug 30, 2013 7:50 pm

lobawad wrote:To be fair, in days sadly long gone philosophers were also scientists, mathmeticians, and doctors. Leibniz's metaphysics are a poetic rendition of his new creation, calculus. Newton wrote about the harmony of the spheres with as a great a vigour as he wrote of physics, and so on. In the golden age of Islam, philosophers were also musicologists, organologists and even musicians of renown. Today, though disarmed, metaphysics retains value, as a handmaiden of artists, a wagging of the weenie which in the right hands I wouldn't dismiss with a shrug of the shoulders.
I enjoy and earnestly encourage the poetic waxing of technical accomplishment. Without that, I'm like to shrug my shoulders.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#96  Postby Oldskeptic » Aug 30, 2013 8:14 pm

Mick wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Mick wrote:In the article linked by Shrunk, the author says Krauss stated that science discovered no gods were responsible for the laws of nature. That is false. Final causation and contingency are not even considered by science, let alone its methodological naturalism excludes any such theistic explanations in the first place.


You seem to be saying science hasn't discovered gods because scientists aren't looking for them.
Neither final causation nor contingency can be tested. And, in fact, the former makes no sense in light of evolution since there is no end product. I'm sure it was more plausible when the world was fixed and static but we're, most of us, well beyond that.
So where to look next?


Suppose it is true that final causation and contingency cannot be tested. Presumably, you think falsifiability is necessary. Thus, it follows that science cannot deal with that stuff, but that doesn't imply its non-presence.


Well, let's say that I am a zoologist and my supervisor assigns me to study wild elephant populations in South American forests. I spent twenty years on this project and report that I have found no evidence for elephants in South American forests, so I conclude that there is a very high probability that there are no wild elephant populations in South American forests.

"How can this be?" asks my supervisor, who firmly believes that there are wild elephants in South America. "Parts of South America are perfectly suite for elephants. In fact they seem designed for elephants." My supervisor says, "Just because you didn't find any elephants doesn't imply that they are not there."

I reply that I wasn't looking for elephants only, I was also looking for evidence for elephants, and their simply wasn't any.

"Nonsense," responds my supervisor, "I looked at this teleologicaly, and my conclusion is that one of the final causes of forests in South America has to be elephants."


That said, the abandonment on final causation was not in light of some rebuttal. You have no scientific basis for affirming that. A familiarity with the history science will tell you that much. This was a switch in models. That said, there were plenty of teleological understandings of evolution, and nothing about evolution entails mechanical philosophy alone.


A "mechanical philosophy" is exactly what brought about the theory of evolution. Darwin and others abandoned things like final causes as any form of explanation. There does not need to be a metaphysical final cause where there is no intended goal or designated final outcome.

Now, you could say that I cannot prove that there is no intended goal or designated final outcome for evolution, but that would be not be my burden. It would be sufficient for me to point out that there is no evidence for it. If you want to say that there is an intended goal or a designated final outcome, but there is and can be no evidence for it, then all I can do is point and laugh when you begin to talk about what science can and cannot do.

My fictional supervisor says, as you seemed to do also, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I say, "Bullshit." When a claim is made, but there is no, and has never been any evidence, then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Do you have any evidence that evolution involves any kind of final cause, or are you just going to prattle on about "the stuff that science can't deal with"?
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 63
Male

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#97  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 8:23 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Oh? And is that true? What on earth do you mean by truth?

You're the one using the word, why don't you tell me?

Oh, so it is not true? False? What are you telling me?

You're asking strange questions about words I haven't used. Truth is a word with a definition, that definition doesn't entail it has a referent in reality.


So true, or not?
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

#98  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 9:02 pm

Yes.
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

#99  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 30, 2013 9:39 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:"This video is private"

http://vimeo.com/73280102#at=0

:cheers:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30864
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#100  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 9:43 pm

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

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest