Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Krauss & Craig - Evidence for God?

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 12:09:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Using unitedandy's terminology Craig mauled Krauss - it wasn't even a fair fight.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 12:27:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ah, I was planning to watch this debate a moment ago!
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 2:19:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 12:09:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Using unitedandy's terminology Craig mauled Krauss - it wasn't even a fair fight.

I have to agree, he essentially thought he was there to debate empirical evidence for God and even at that he seemed unsure, not confident, and had none of the passion, humor, insight and intelligence he has displayed in his presentations. He also seemed to be frank to be spiteful at times taking barbs at Craig who as always remained professional and respectful.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 2:32:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 2:25:15 PM, tkubok wrote:

Its too bad that William lane craig is full of cr@p once you actually look at his arguments.

The thing is you actually have to be able to show that, not just assert it.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 3:47:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 2:25:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
Its too bad that William lane craig is full of cr@p once you actually look at his arguments.

Says the guy who thinks that he came up with a rigorous proof for moral relativism.

"Acceptable = Good, and therefore it can be both Good, and bad. Therefore it is relative. ..... [I]f we were living in nazi germany, that would be good. Therefore, morality is relative. QED" - tkubok
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 3:50:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 3:47:37 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/2/2011 2:25:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
Its too bad that William lane craig is full of cr@p once you actually look at his arguments.

Says the guy who thinks that he came up with a rigorous proof for moral relativism.

"Acceptable = Good, and therefore it can be both Good, and bad. Therefore it is relative. ..... [I]f we were living in nazi germany, that would be good. Therefore, morality is relative. QED" - tkubok

I never said rigorous proof. But its still a valid argument as to how morality is relative.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 4:09:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 3:50:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2011 3:47:37 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/2/2011 2:25:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
Its too bad that William lane craig is full of cr@p once you actually look at his arguments.

Says the guy who thinks that he came up with a rigorous proof for moral relativism.

"Acceptable = Good, and therefore it can be both Good, and bad. Therefore it is relative. ..... [I]f we were living in nazi germany, that would be good. Therefore, morality is relative. QED" - tkubok

I never said rigorous proof. But its still a valid argument as to how morality is relative.

lol
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 4:42:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ouch.
I was looking forward to this debate but was incedibly disappointed.
First round Krauss uses logic to refute logic....
That was profoundly .....stupid....
Craig was right to deal with that professionally and point to the absurdity of it.
Also in first round Krauss tries to marginalize probability calculus??
Incredibly foolish.
Also he stands off as a Hardline athiest up to this debate, but in this debate points to being a pragmatic agnostic? When did that change?

Craig even handled the scientific models with far more deftness than Krauss.
Krauss is either a larger idiot when discussing these models or he is deliberately twisting the implications and the values achieved by these models. (He could also be completely unfamiliar with those specific models, but unwilling to concede that in the debate. I, after all, do not expect him to know all models he has not personally worked with).

Either way Krauss could not hack it when encountering a person who knew more about the science than he did. He only appealed to "being a friend of" the theorists.

Krauss might be able to do better math, but he is seriously miscontruing the implications of those theorums.

Also After all of the prep time as the third round showed, still Krauss did not understand the Objective Moral Values argument or even the nature of the Historicity of Christ concepts.

Final point - Krauss redifining what Nothing is based upon Physical nothingness models in all of his works was beat up by Craig on Ex Nihlo....

I was severely disappointed. It was entertaining though to Watch Craig take the wind out of this guys sails. Especially as he did not pick up the same "Illogical Universe" argument for the second round or even in the summary, especially when spending so much time on it.
He clearly felt foolish in round two from Craigs rebuke.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 5:43:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 5:34:07 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
OK. It felt a lot more like a mauling by the end. Craig is a smart guy. He has my respect.

I think what happened here is you saw one person have a very well developed argument and another who put an untested and untried speech out for the first time. What surprised me was that Craig's arguments are very well known, Krauss however appeared to not research this at all and just expect to talk about empirical evidence and felt he could shoot from the hip - which he could if it was just that simple a question.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 5:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 5:43:37 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/2/2011 5:34:07 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
OK. It felt a lot more like a mauling by the end. Craig is a smart guy. He has my respect.

I think what happened here is you saw one person have a very well developed argument and another who put an untested and untried speech out for the first time. What surprised me was that Craig's arguments are very well known, Krauss however appeared to not research this at all and just expect to talk about empirical evidence and felt he could shoot from the hip - which he could if it was just that simple a question.

Agreed. Krauss didn't look as if he had put much effort in. He seemed fairly intellectually arrogant.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 5:52:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 5:45:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:

Agreed. Krauss didn't look as if he had put much effort in. He seemed fairly intellectually arrogant.

I would assume he is of the mindset that he in vastly superior to Craig in that respect, and while he may be, it surely was not demonstrated. Even the DS experiment which he could give free speech, any u-grad could, I don't think anyone not familiar with it would understand it or what the purpose was. I was really looking forward to this and it seems he thought he was going to be debating an alien nut.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 7:42:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:32:53 PM, Jay_Walk wrote:
classical logic is wrong, 2 + 2 = 5!

I found the argument by Krauss to be absurd here, he noted it was true for large values of 2. It is of course true, but only for small values of 5. Derp.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:04:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 5:52:37 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/2/2011 5:45:28 PM, Thaddeus wrote:

Agreed. Krauss didn't look as if he had put much effort in. He seemed fairly intellectually arrogant.

I would assume he is of the mindset that he in vastly superior to Craig in that respect, and while he may be, it surely was not demonstrated. Even the DS experiment which he could give free speech, any u-grad could, I don't think anyone not familiar with it would understand it or what the purpose was. I was really looking forward to this and it seems he thought he was going to be debating an alien nut.

Speaking from a whole lot of experience myself can say that it happens more regularly than comfortable to admit where the atheist/agnostic/"rationalist"/"skeptic" just automatically assumes their opponent is brain-dead and stupid just because they are religious. That can lead to perception of arrogance to roll off them in waves and it especially leaves them being caught flat-footed when they do finally catch on that they aren't just facing some random street preacher screaming incoherent things at them. I think a bit of that was on display in Krauss here.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 4:03:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:59:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Though the "objective moral truths" argument makes me laugh.

I'm not sure about it myself but if moral properties are non-natural properties, I guess..
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 4:05:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 9:27:08 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Who won this debate?



Craig hands down. Not just saying that because I'm a theist. I'm happy to say that I agree with Quentin Smith more than I do William Lane Craig.

I was really blown away by Krauss' awfulness. He had this attitude like "philosophy is stupid, this is just a waste of my time, science is way better, this debate is stupid, I'm too good for this, etc., etc., etc." In fact, I believe he actually said some of those things...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:21:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 4:03:02 AM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 4/3/2011 2:59:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Though the "objective moral truths" argument makes me laugh.

I'm not sure about it myself but if moral properties are non-natural properties, I guess..

I'm a moral nihilist, so I actually hold that moral truths don't exist. :P
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:31:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 8:21:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

I'm a moral nihilist, so I actually hold that moral truths don't exist. :P

And you are a theist as well?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:37:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:59:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Though the "objective moral truths" argument makes me laugh.

But how did Krauss respond to this, he threw back the expected "well if God is moral and moral is God then moral is arbitrary", and when Craig returned with divine command theory Krauss was essentially stuck.

It reminded me of how Dawkins responds to God with "Oh yeah, well what caused God then." and then smugly believes he has refuted the argument which is that a necessary uncaused agent is existent so his question is ignorant of the issue.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:57:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 3:50:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2011 3:47:37 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 4/2/2011 2:25:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
Its too bad that William lane craig is full of cr@p once you actually look at his arguments.

Says the guy who thinks that he came up with a rigorous proof for moral relativism.

"Acceptable = Good, and therefore it can be both Good, and bad. Therefore it is relative. ..... [I]f we were living in nazi germany, that would be good. Therefore, morality is relative. QED" - tkubok

I never said rigorous proof. But its still a valid argument as to how morality is relative.

I hope there is more to it, because what is quoted here isn't even logically coherent.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:02:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 8:37:21 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/3/2011 2:59:31 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Though the "objective moral truths" argument makes me laugh.

But how did Krauss respond to this, he threw back the expected "well if God is moral and moral is God then moral is arbitrary", and when Craig returned with divine command theory Krauss was essentially stuck.

Divine Command isn't really a good response, though. That's just the other prong of the dilemma, inasmuch as morality being contingent upon divine command makes it arbitrary. Though, that's more of an outside argument than a point brought up in the debate.

It reminded me of how Dawkins responds to God with "Oh yeah, well what caused God then." and then smugly believes he has refuted the argument which is that a necessary uncaused agent is existent so his question is ignorant of the issue.

Actually, I think that's a good response. If the argument is that all existents have causes, including the universe, and that God must be the cause, denying that God is himself exempt from causality seems to create a problem. A kind of special pleading.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 9:07:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 8:59:38 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Nope. Atheist.

Yeah, but his argument is based on theism. He in fact gives the same argument for God as someone using the ideal social contract like Shelly.