Archived

Craig vs Krauss

Read 102053 times
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2011, 05:32:31 am »
I was really looking forward to this debate as I thought Krauss would provide Craig with an a bit of a tussle on at least the second premise of the Kalam, but was disappointed only to hear vague references to quantum gravity models and the work of Hawking. I think I have to agree with the other posts that Krauss really wasn't adequately prepared for this debate; either that or he simply couldn't be bothered!

I'd also add that Krauss came across as overly condescending toward Craig. He really treated Craig as an amateur who knew little about physics or mathematics. Sadly, I think many atheists watching the debate bought into this rhetoric and bluster. I know that my own Physics knowledge falls well short of what's required to have this discussion at the higher level, and it's easy to be tossed to and fro by what you hear. I fear that Krauss' confidence was enough to "win" him the debate in the eyes of those already itching for an atheist win. That said, I think it was fairly apparent to a person reasonably well versed in philosophy that Krauss did a fairly poor job in this debate, it's just a shame that not many of the new atheists are well versed in philosophy!


1

above

  • **
  • 197 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2011, 09:22:27 am »

daniel_m wrote:  That said, I think it was fairly apparent to a person reasonably well versed in philosophy that Krauss did a fairly poor job in this debate, it's just a shame that not many of the new atheists are well versed in philosophy!

That is correct. That is why krauss embarrassed himself in the debate. It was not lack of preparation (although that could have factored in)... It was rather his intellectual ineptitude that was the key factor of him being so terrible.



2

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2011, 04:41:03 pm »
“The other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is that it’s not logical. At least, it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science.  It’s taught us that universe is the way it is whether we like or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he doesn’t like certain ideas.  He doesn’t like the idea of infinity; he doesn’t like the idea of beginning; he doesn’t like the idea of chance. And, in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like the universe in which morality is defined as a [inaudible] rape; it doesn’t make sense to him.  The point is if we continue to rely  on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelan logic, on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall heavier than light objects because they’re heavier, as Aristotle used to think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out. We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible. We have to rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around.  And the universe just simply isn’t sensible.” - Lawrence Krauss

The passage above interested me. Any reactions?

3

Jeff Harris

  • **
  • 272 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2011, 05:03:55 pm »

Hey Stalker,

theowarner wrote:

“The other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is that it’s not logical. At least, it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science.  It’s taught us that universe is the way it is whether we like or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he doesn’t like certain ideas.  He doesn’t like the idea of infinity; he doesn’t like the idea of beginning; he doesn’t like the idea of chance. And, in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like the universe in which morality is defined as a [inaudible] rape; it doesn’t make sense to him.  The point is if we continue to rely  on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelan logic, on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall heavier than light objects because they’re heavier, as Aristotle used to think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out. We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible. We have to rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around.  And the universe just simply isn’t sensible.” - Lawrence Krauss

The passage above interested me.
No kidding! After all, Theo, you (like Krauss) refuse to apply logic. In fact, Krauss says logic is "wrong". But that's not as nearly as stupid as the fact that you think logic is hateful:
Any reactions?

Yeah, will you please get a life, Theo. Stop slandering. And stop stalking Dr. Craig's wikipedia page, ok? And maybe you should listen up on Dr. Craig reply and refutation to Krauss.

4

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2011, 05:08:37 pm »
Fanofdrcraig wrote:
No kidding! After all, Theo, you (like Krauss) refuse to apply logic. In fact, Krauss says logic is "wrong". But that's not as nearly as stupid as the fact that you think logic is hateful: Yeah, will you please get a life, Theo. Stop slandering. And stop stalking Dr. Craig's wikipedia page, ok? And maybe you should listen up on Dr. Craig reply and refutation to Krauss.

Irenic and substantive, Kenny.

5

Ken Chen

  • **
  • 496 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2011, 05:21:51 pm »
He's not Kenny, you moron. I am.

There are no square-circles, Theo.

6

Matt

  • **
  • 309 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2011, 05:23:30 pm »
theowarner wrote:
“The other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is that it’s not logical. At least, it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science.  It’s taught us that universe is the way it is whether we like or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he doesn’t like certain ideas.  He doesn’t like the idea of infinity; he doesn’t like the idea of beginning; he doesn’t like the idea of chance. And, in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like the universe in which morality is defined as a [inaudible] rape; it doesn’t make sense to him.  The point is if we continue to rely  on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelan logic, on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall heavier than light objects because they’re heavier, as Aristotle used to think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out. We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible. We have to rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around.  And the universe just simply isn’t sensible.” - Lawrence Krauss

The passage above interested me. Any reactions?

My reaction when I heard Krauss say this is that he's being dishonest and is using language in a misleading way. Despite the size and complexity of the universe, it is in fact rational, which is why it can be studied and rationally understood. It's why theories and laws can be defined and why they can be used to describe and predict phenomena that goes on inside the universe. Finally, science itself presupposes the value and truth of logic. Before anyone can observe, test, or measure anything, logic first has to be presupposed to be true.

So I don't know... he sounds kind of stupid to me.

7

Jeff Harris

  • **
  • 272 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2011, 05:24:33 pm »

theowarner wrote: Irenic and substantive, Kenny.

Of course it is. But I can't say the same about you, unfortunately. Theo, you're a loser. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror, man.


8

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2011, 05:31:47 pm »
Kenny wrote: He's not Kenny, you moron. I am.

There are no square-circles, Theo.

Hey, Kenny.

Yeah, there are no square-circles.

Anything else that no one's disputing that you'd like to mention?

9

Jeff David

  • **
  • 52 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2011, 05:33:13 pm »
“The other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is that it’s not logical. At least, it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science.  It’s taught us that universe is the way it is whether we like or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he doesn’t like certain ideas.  He doesn’t like the idea of infinity; he doesn’t like the idea of beginning; he doesn’t like the idea of chance. And, in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like the universe in which morality is defined as a [inaudible] rape; it doesn’t make sense to him.  The point is if we continue to rely  on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelan logic, on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall heavier than light objects because they’re heavier, as Aristotle used to think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out. We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible. We have to rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around.  And the universe just simply isn’t sensible.” - Lawrence Krauss
The universe is not illogical. You have to presuppose the uniformity of nature for science to work. I can't believe he can call himself a scientist and say Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic are wrong.

10

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2011, 05:59:08 pm »
JeffDavid wrote:
“The other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is that it’s not logical. At least, it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science.  It’s taught us that universe is the way it is whether we like or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he doesn’t like certain ideas.  He doesn’t like the idea of infinity; he doesn’t like the idea of beginning; he doesn’t like the idea of chance. And, in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like the universe in which morality is defined as a [inaudible] rape; it doesn’t make sense to him.  The point is if we continue to rely  on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelan logic, on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall heavier than light objects because they’re heavier, as Aristotle used to think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out. We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible. We have to rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way around.  And the universe just simply isn’t sensible.” - Lawrence Krauss
The universe is not illogical. You have to presuppose the uniformity of nature for science to work. I can't believe he can call himself a scientist and say Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic are wrong.

I don't think he's saying that "Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic" are wrong. I think he's saying that they have been surpassed by science as a tool as discovery.

11

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2011, 06:00:17 pm »
Fanofdrcraig wrote:

Quote from: theowarner
Irenic and substantive, Kenny.

Of course it is. But I can't say the same about you, unfortunately. Theo, you're a loser. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror, man.


Wow. You think "you're a loser" is irenic and substantive?

If you think that's true, then I'm a little worried about you. Seriously.

12

Jeff David

  • **
  • 52 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2011, 06:19:20 pm »

theowarner wrote:
Quote from: JeffDavid
I don't think he's saying that "Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic" are wrong. I think he's saying that they have been surpassed by science as a tool as discovery.

You didn't listen to the debate, did you? Krauss said, (and this is a direct quote) "...classical logic such as 2+2=5, or 4, it can't equal 5, is wrong."

13

abc

  • ***
  • 1250 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2011, 06:22:10 pm »
JeffDavid wrote:

Quote from: theowarner
Quote from: JeffDavid
I don't think he's saying that "Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic" are wrong. I think he's saying that they have been surpassed by science as a tool as discovery.

You didn't listen to the debate, did you? Krauss said, (and this is a direct quote) "...classical logic such as 2+2=5, or 4, it can't equal 5, is wrong." Judging from what other people are saying here about you, you're not exactly a favorite commentor in this board, are you? (Those "William Lane Craig is not..." videos are just awful, mate). Sorry, but I have to say it:


Well, that seems unfair. Have I done anything to warrant that treatment? It seems to me that I've simply been accused and you've bought the accusation without any evidence.

And frankly, I'm a little offended.

14

Jeff David

  • **
  • 52 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2011, 06:29:40 pm »
theowarner wrote:  
Quote from: JeffDavid

Quote from: theowarner
Quote from: JeffDavid
I don't think he's saying that "Aristotilean logic and peano arthmatic" are wrong. I think he's saying that they have been surpassed by science as a tool as discovery.

You didn't listen to the debate, did you? Krauss said, (and this is a direct quote) "...classical logic such as 2+2=5, or 4, it can't equal 5, is wrong." Judging from what other people are saying here about you, you're not exactly a favorite commentor in this board, are you? (Those "William Lane Craig is not..." videos are just awful, mate). Sorry, but I have to say it:


Well, that seems unfair. Have I done anything to warrant that treatment? It seems to me that I've simply been accused and you've bought the accusation without any evidence.

And frankly, I'm a little offended.

Oops. Well, I did delete that part out. But you quoted it.

Nevertheless, I could care less if I offended people like you. Theo, you are a sickly human being. I can't believe the things you said about WLC. And don't think for a minute that your comments are seen as an honest criticism or assessment of Craig and his works. I do not know how you sleep with yourself at night.