# Craig vs Krauss

#### Bill McEnaney

• 2986 Posts
##### Re: 2+2=5, Logic, and Youtube Atheists
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2016, 11:44:49 pm »
If "2" named a variable in a computer program, the value of "2" could be 2.5.   I don't know of any programming language where a digit can name a variable.  But "Two," "two," and "TWO" certainly can.  A yes, in some programming languages, case does matter.  So, in them the value of "two" can differ from the value of "TWO."  In the C programming language, for example, you can write:

Two = 2;
two = 5;
TWO = Two + two;

And what will you get when the computer prints the value of TWO?  You'll get 7.

1

#### Charity4All

• 2 Posts
##### Re: 2+2=5, Logic, and Youtube Atheists
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2019, 06:31:02 pm »
Despite his rude behavior otherwise, I thought his joke about 2+2=5 for very large values of 2 was funny.

2

#### Der Chemiker

• passionate scientist and follower of Jesus
• 25 Posts
##### Re: 2+2=5, Logic, and Youtube Atheists
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2020, 05:41:17 am »
First of all: I didn't watch the enitre debate, I just saw the video the 2+2=5 scene in a shortcut.
I don't unterstand the point of Krauss. What was he trying to show us with his t-shirt 2+2=5?
If he wants to disrespect logic and philosophy, it backfires against himself because science itself is based on logic.
It ended up in a laughing crowd and Krauss embarassing himself.
"The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein." Psalms 111:2

3

#### jayceeii

• 820 Posts
##### Re: 2+2=5, Logic, and Youtube Atheists
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2020, 01:55:41 pm »
First of all: I didn't watch the enitre debate, I just saw the video the 2+2=5 scene in a shortcut.
I don't unterstand the point of Krauss. What was he trying to show us with his t-shirt 2+2=5?
If he wants to disrespect logic and philosophy, it backfires against himself because science itself is based on logic.
It ended up in a laughing crowd and Krauss embarassing himself.
I found this response on the Quora page referencing the clip of this, that seemed on the mark:

Quote from: Jack Bruni
He is saying that William Lane Craig’s arguments of are not true by necessity no matter how “logical” they seem. Krauss is implying that his math/physics based arguments hold up because they withstand the scrutiny of analysis, not because they sound good. He is saying that’s all that counts, not our beliefs.

He’s right, the arguments of the theists don’t hold up under analysis, and a large part of the reason for this is they’re attempting to prove an impossible God, not caring what the Living God may be like or trying to serve Him (benefit the creation in an optimal way). They’re not on a quest for God, but on a quest to control God, which is to say show their minds are a match for any ideas about God so they can feel He is under their dominion. Though acknowledging God to be “infinite,” they don’t acknowledge that He is greater. To conceive of one greater than oneself, one must know one’s own essence. Men don’t. This means any standards applied to “God” are pulled out of air, not relevant or personal.