One of the discussions where Lawrence Krauss exposed the dishonesty and disingeniousness of William Lane Craig.

I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

stillwater wrote:One of the discussions where Lawrence Krauss exposed the dishonesty and disingeniousness of William Lane Craig.

Hell, WLC does that himself every time he opens his mouth...

is this a second debate between them cuz Krauss sucked on the first one.

Any reviews ?

IIzO wrote:Any reviews ?

There's a summary here, from someone who seems to be a Christian but is pretty evenhanded in his appraisal:

http://eternitainment.com/2013/08/10/co ... uried-god/

TBH, what that suggests to me is that there are likely better uses of my time than watching the debate....

Tero wrote:I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

Um. He deploys many more arguments.

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.

That’s a long video to watch, I may do it, I just don’t have 2 hours to spare right now.

Perhaps someone who’s watched it can tell me...

Did WLC “talk” god into existence yet?

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?

Mick wrote:

Tero wrote:I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

Um. He deploys many more arguments.

And on top of all those arguments, is the personal feeling of god's existence, which trumps any successful counter arguments.

There is definitely much more than the first cause, i agree.

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.

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.

Mick wrote:

Tero wrote:I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

Um. He deploys many more arguments assertions.

FIFY.

Shrunk wrote:

IIzO wrote:Any reviews ?

There's a summary here, from someone who seems to be a Christian but is pretty evenhanded in his appraisal:

http://eternitainment.com/2013/08/10/co ... uried-god/

TBH, what that suggests to me is that there are likely better uses of my time than watching the debate....

This bit damages the author's credibility:

Following that, Krauss restated his commitment to honesty and transparency, before presenting some instances where Craig has supposedly misrepresented others. This segment in fact had no relevance to the central topic. The move was out of a politician’s playbook, playing the man and not the argument.

Attacking an opponents previous statements on their disengenuous nature is not a personal attack and eery much a play on their arguments.

stillwater wrote:One of the discussions where Lawrence Krauss exposed the dishonesty and disingeniousness of William Lane Craig.

"This video is private"

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?

Here's what's odd. You said that final causation cannot be tested, and yet apyou also said that evolution has no "
End product" . But if final causation cannot be tested, you cannot say evolution has no 'end product', since that could be affirmed only if it were testable.

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?

Here's what's odd. You said that final causation cannot be tested, and yet apyou also said that evolution has no "
End product" . But if final causation cannot be tested, you cannot say evolution has no 'end product', since that could be affirmed only if it were testable.

Nonsense. Evolution has no end product since it's not a concious process. There is no goal and hence no end product.

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?

Here's what's odd. You said that final causation cannot be tested, and yet apyou also said that evolution has no "
End product" . But if final causation cannot be tested, you cannot say evolution has no 'end product', since that could be affirmed only if it were testable.

Meaningless gibberish. One need only understand the process of evolution and it becomes obvious why it doesn't have an end-product.

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.

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.

Yes. Falsibility is necessary if you want your arguments to be worth any more than those people on Ancient Aliens who think they have a case because we can't prove that aliens didn't build the pyramids. Because, and let's be honest here, when all is said and done, for all the arguments theists present, when pushed, they all resort and lead back to absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is the corner you stand so against staunchly with your back toward.

Also, nothing in evolution entails anything more than a mechanical explanation. Sure you can add your own wispy, ill-defined metaphysical addendum but they all amount to tinsel on the evolutionary tree.

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?

Here's what's odd. You said that final causation cannot be tested, and yet apyou also said that evolution has no "
End product" . But if final causation cannot be tested, you cannot say evolution has no 'end product', since that could be affirmed only if it were testable.

You only have to look at people's children to know there is no end product.