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

Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#1  Postby stillwater » Aug 28, 2013 1:11 am

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

stillwater
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 68
Male

Bulgaria (bg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#2  Postby Tero » Aug 28, 2013 2:13 am

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.
humor http://karireport.blogspot.com/
serious http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

How American politics goes
1 Republicans cut tax, let everything run down to barely working...8 years
2 Democrats fix public spending to normal...8 years
Rinse, repeat.
User avatar
Tero
 
Posts: 1408

Country: USA
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#3  Postby MrFungus420 » Aug 28, 2013 10:59 am

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...
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#4  Postby sturmgewehr » Aug 28, 2013 11:44 am

is this a second debate between them cuz Krauss sucked on the first one.
User avatar
sturmgewehr
 
Posts: 264

Albania (al)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#5  Postby IIzO » Aug 28, 2013 12:08 pm

Any reviews ?
Between what i think , what i want to say ,what i believe i say ,what i say , what you want to hear , what you hear ,what you understand...there are lots of possibilities that we might have some problem communicating.But let's try anyway.
Bernard Werber
User avatar
IIzO
 
Posts: 2182

Country: La France , evidement.
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#6  Postby Shrunk » Aug 28, 2013 2:44 pm

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....
"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

#7  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 12:23 am

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.
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

#8  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 12:25 am

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.
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

#9  Postby Skinny Puppy » Aug 30, 2013 1:55 am

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? :ask:
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 37
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#10  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 8:21 am

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?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44386
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#11  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Aug 30, 2013 8:31 am

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.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6903
Age: 27
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#12  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 12:43 pm

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.
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

#13  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 30, 2013 12:47 pm

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.
"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: 31037
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#14  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 30, 2013 12:51 pm

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.
"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: 31037
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#15  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 30, 2013 12:51 pm

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


"This video is private"
"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: 31037
Age: 31
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#16  Postby Mick » Aug 30, 2013 12:57 pm

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.
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

#17  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 30, 2013 12:58 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?



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.
"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: 31037
Age: 31
Male

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

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#18  Postby Rumraket » Aug 30, 2013 1:09 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?



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.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#19  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 1:18 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.

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.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44386
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig

#20  Postby Animavore » Aug 30, 2013 1:21 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?



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.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44386
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest