Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Lawrence Krauss is a moron

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
(39:55 - 41:45):

The idea that God, the creator and sustainer of the universe and all of its laws, could not provisionally suspend these laws in order to act freely, is completely absurd. Nevertheless, Lawrence asserts that the laws of nature studied by science must be assumed to be inviolable even when dealing with a being such as God. One does not have to believe in God to see how ridiculous that is. Nor, as Lawrence claims, does one have to assume that the laws of nature are inviolable in order to do science, for such violations are not properly contained within the area studied by science to begin with.

Why does anyone take this guy seriously?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
He believes in the immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, omnipotent, transcendent, and inviolable laws...
Even David Hume, the guy who made naturalism popular, wouldn't go to that far...

The main difference is that he adds the characteristics of "random" and "zero-IQ" , and Theists have "wise" and "intelligent".

"The man of science is a poor philosopher." - Albert Einstein

I wonder if Lawrence learned what a logical argument is, how to construct it, and how to attack it. (He seems to concede that logic is not retarded and evil around the end of his Australia debates with William Lane Craig)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 12:58:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 8:28:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:


I wonder if Lawrence learned what a logical argument is, how to construct it, and how to attack it. (He seems to concede that logic is not retarded and evil around the end of his Australia debates with William Lane Craig)

rofl
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 5:51:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:23:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(39:55 - 41:45):

The idea that God, the creator and sustainer of the universe and all of its laws, could not provisionally suspend these laws in order to act freely, is completely absurd. Nevertheless, Lawrence asserts that the laws of nature studied by science must be assumed to be inviolable even when dealing with a being such as God. One does not have to believe in God to see how ridiculous that is. Nor, as Lawrence claims, does one have to assume that the laws of nature are inviolable in order to do science, for such violations are not properly contained within the area studied by science to begin with.

Why does anyone take this guy seriously?

I don't understand how he proposes that we assume them to be inviolable when they're empirical theories like any other.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 11:06:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 5:51:31 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:23:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(39:55 - 41:45):

The idea that God, the creator and sustainer of the universe and all of its laws, could not provisionally suspend these laws in order to act freely, is completely absurd. Nevertheless, Lawrence asserts that the laws of nature studied by science must be assumed to be inviolable even when dealing with a being such as God. One does not have to believe in God to see how ridiculous that is. Nor, as Lawrence claims, does one have to assume that the laws of nature are inviolable in order to do science, for such violations are not properly contained within the area studied by science to begin with.

Why does anyone take this guy seriously?

I don't understand how he proposes that we assume them to be inviolable when they're empirical theories like any other.

He's philosophically illiterate, that's why.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 8:38:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 7:26:02 PM, Sargon wrote:
I certainly don't think any physicist is a moron.

I don't think Lawrence is a moron in the sense that he is below average in intelligence. I just think he's quite susceptible to bone-headed foolishness.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist? I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 7:42:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:23:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
(39:55 - 41:45):

The idea that God, the creator and sustainer of the universe and all of its laws, could not provisionally suspend these laws in order to act freely, is completely absurd. Nevertheless, Lawrence asserts that the laws of nature studied by science must be assumed to be inviolable even when dealing with a being such as God. One does not have to believe in God to see how ridiculous that is. Nor, as Lawrence claims, does one have to assume that the laws of nature are inviolable in order to do science, for such violations are not properly contained within the area studied by science to begin with.

Why does anyone take this guy seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHA LAWRENCE KRAUS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHAAAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAHAHAHHESAPHILOSOPERYEAHRGITHAHAHAHHA
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them. I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 2:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.

You have yet to prove the existence of this so-called God of yours with any evidence. You're doing the equivalent of a child saying "Yeah, but what if.....". You postulate this omnipotent, supernatural being based on no evidence yet call others moronic. Your entire thesis is based on your religious indoctrination and your desire to believe that there is something beyond death.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 2:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 2:16:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.

You have yet to prove the existence of this so-called God of yours with any evidence. You're doing the equivalent of a child saying "Yeah, but what if.....". You postulate this omnipotent, supernatural being based on no evidence yet call others moronic. Your entire thesis is based on your religious indoctrination and your desire to believe that there is something beyond death.

lolwut. I never intended to prove God. Even an atheist can appreciate how ridiculous Lawrence Krauss' assumptions were.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 2:21:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 2:19:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:16:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.

You have yet to prove the existence of this so-called God of yours with any evidence. You're doing the equivalent of a child saying "Yeah, but what if.....". You postulate this omnipotent, supernatural being based on no evidence yet call others moronic. Your entire thesis is based on your religious indoctrination and your desire to believe that there is something beyond death.

lolwut. I never intended to prove God. Even an atheist can appreciate how ridiculous Lawrence Krauss' assumptions were.

Apparently not, though we can easily see how unfounded yours are.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 4:11:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 2:21:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:19:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:16:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.

You have yet to prove the existence of this so-called God of yours with any evidence. You're doing the equivalent of a child saying "Yeah, but what if.....". You postulate this omnipotent, supernatural being based on no evidence yet call others moronic. Your entire thesis is based on your religious indoctrination and your desire to believe that there is something beyond death.

lolwut. I never intended to prove God. Even an atheist can appreciate how ridiculous Lawrence Krauss' assumptions were.

Apparently not, though we can easily see how unfounded yours are.

I'm an atheist and I don't appreciate your speaking for me.

Lawrence Krauss's arguments are not particularly convincing. I went to his debate with William Lane Craig in Melbourne a while back and was thoroughly unimpressed.

Dylan on the other hand has not made any arguments for god here, just pointed out the flaws in a particular argument (or rather assumption) against. The name calling is childish yes, but so is your insistence that he is making arguments that he is not.

I'd rather you didn't include me in this conflict.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 4:11:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 2:21:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:19:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:16:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.

You have yet to prove the existence of this so-called God of yours with any evidence. You're doing the equivalent of a child saying "Yeah, but what if.....". You postulate this omnipotent, supernatural being based on no evidence yet call others moronic. Your entire thesis is based on your religious indoctrination and your desire to believe that there is something beyond death.

lolwut. I never intended to prove God. Even an atheist can appreciate how ridiculous Lawrence Krauss' assumptions were.

Apparently not, though we can easily see how unfounded yours are.

I'm an atheist and I don't appreciate your speaking for me.

Lawrence Krauss's arguments are not particularly convincing. I went to his debate with William Lane Craig in Melbourne a while back and was thoroughly unimpressed.

Dylan on the other hand has not made any arguments for god here, just pointed out the flaws in a particular argument (or rather assumption) against. The name calling is childish yes, but so is your insistence that he is making arguments that he is not.

I'd rather you didn't include me in this conflict.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 10:39:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 4:11:09 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:21:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:19:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:16:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:01:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 12:32:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/15/2014 5:28:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/14/2014 4:36:41 PM, dhardage wrote:
Why, because he chooses not to swallow religion as a reason for things to exist?

...No, because of the reasons mentioned in the OP.

I'd look deeply into a mirror before choosing to apply that perjorative to another human being.

Okay, moron.

I see you are still calling names like a child. Well, I guess that's all I should expect.


Well, it's quite moronic to completely disregard the OP as in the case of your response.

There are no recorded instances of the laws of physics changing, no evidence it ever happened, and no evidence of any supernatural being that could, would, or did change any of them.

If by "recorded instances", you mean persistent and distinct deviation from the laws of physics thus amenable to the scientific method, then yes. But that does not establish the impossibility of such deviations, especially when in the context of God. The idea that miracles are impossible because physical laws appear to be inviolable amounts to an a priori rejection of God (since he is not bound by the laws of physics by definition), and completely ignores the problem of induction. Such an assertion is simply unjustifiable.

I submit it is the act of an immature mind to accept something that has no evidence to support it just because someone else said to.

You have yet to prove the existence of this so-called God of yours with any evidence. You're doing the equivalent of a child saying "Yeah, but what if.....". You postulate this omnipotent, supernatural being based on no evidence yet call others moronic. Your entire thesis is based on your religious indoctrination and your desire to believe that there is something beyond death.

lolwut. I never intended to prove God. Even an atheist can appreciate how ridiculous Lawrence Krauss' assumptions were.

Apparently not, though we can easily see how unfounded yours are.

I'm an atheist and I don't appreciate your speaking for me.

Lawrence Krauss's arguments are not particularly convincing. I went to his debate with William Lane Craig in Melbourne a while back and was thoroughly unimpressed.

Dylan on the other hand has not made any arguments for god here, just pointed out the flaws in a particular argument (or rather assumption) against. The name calling is childish yes, but so is your insistence that he is making arguments that he is not.

I'd rather you didn't include me in this conflict.

It was not I that made the comment about atheists in general, I simply replied in kind. Dylan has implied god on several occasions and tried to use the presence of some supernatural being as the cause for the universe and that is an unproven assumption. If he chooses not to answer, that will be his decision. The only person who dragged you into this conflict was you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 1:55:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 8:28:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
He believes in the immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, omnipotent, transcendent, and inviolable laws...
Even David Hume, the guy who made naturalism popular, wouldn't go to that far...

The main difference is that he adds the characteristics of "random" and "zero-IQ" , and Theists have "wise" and "intelligent".

"The man of science is a poor philosopher." - Albert Einstein

But that's a philosophical statement... From a man of science lol


I wonder if Lawrence learned what a logical argument is, how to construct it, and how to attack it. (He seems to concede that logic is not retarded and evil around the end of his Australia debates with William Lane Craig)
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 4:10:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 10:39:17 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 4:11:09 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I'm an atheist and I don't appreciate your speaking for me.

Lawrence Krauss's arguments are not particularly convincing. I went to his debate with William Lane Craig in Melbourne a while back and was thoroughly unimpressed.

Dylan on the other hand has not made any arguments for god here, just pointed out the flaws in a particular argument (or rather assumption) against. The name calling is childish yes, but so is your insistence that he is making arguments that he is not.

I'd rather you didn't include me in this conflict.

It was not I that made the comment about atheists in general,
At 11/17/2014 2:21:29 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 11/17/2014 2:19:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
lolwut. I never intended to prove God. Even an atheist can appreciate how ridiculous Lawrence Krauss' assumptions were.
Apparently not, though we can easily see how unfounded yours are.
Emphasis is mine.

I simply replied in kind. Dylan has implied god on several occasions and tried to use the presence of some supernatural being as the cause for the universe and that is an unproven assumption.
All true but not the purpose of this thread as set out in the OP, which I humbly submit was to bash Lawrence Krauss (who is not entirely undeserving, though I think calling him a moron is a bit harsh).

f you don't want to consider the conversational context that's fine but I will call you out on it (which you can ignore if you choose).

If he chooses not to answer, that will be his decision. The only person who dragged you into this conflict was you.
Every time an atheist says something like this it further entrenches the idea that theists and atheists are in opposition to each other.

I am an atheist, I do not oppose theists. I don't like that many theists feel as if I am opposed to them, the responsibility for that falls on both sides.

You included me with your language, I chose not to stand by and be included. That purpose has been served now so unless you want to engage on this further I'll leave you to your argument (though I would submit that both of you are going about it in a way that is just going to further antagonise each other and lead nowhere)

Did you find my request impolite?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 1:51:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 1:55:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/31/2014 8:28:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
He believes in the immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, omnipotent, transcendent, and inviolable laws...
Even David Hume, the guy who made naturalism popular, wouldn't go to that far...

The main difference is that he adds the characteristics of "random" and "zero-IQ" , and Theists have "wise" and "intelligent".

"The man of science is a poor philosopher." - Albert Einstein

But that's a philosophical statement... From a man of science lol

Takes one to know one ;) . Dunno man, I've heard he used to read philosophy books or something.

I wonder if Lawrence learned what a logical argument is, how to construct it, and how to attack it. (He seems to concede that logic is not retarded and evil around the end of his Australia debates with William Lane Craig)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 1:55:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/31/2014 8:28:28 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
He believes in the immaterial, invisible, eternal, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, omnipotent, transcendent, and inviolable laws...
Even David Hume, the guy who made naturalism popular, wouldn't go to that far...

The main difference is that he adds the characteristics of "random" and "zero-IQ" , and Theists have "wise" and "intelligent".

"The man of science is a poor philosopher." - Albert Einstein

But that's a philosophical statement... From a man of science lol


I wonder if Lawrence learned what a logical argument is, how to construct it, and how to attack it. (He seems to concede that logic is not retarded and evil around the end of his Australia debates with William Lane Craig)

Doesn't that just further justify his point? ;)