Archived

Craig vs Krauss

Read 49568 times

Ian Smithers

  • **
  • 509 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #90 on: June 24, 2011, 01:51:07 am »
tcampen wrote: What is the "superior argument(s)" you repeatedly refer to? It's all so vague and general. I still have no specific analysis or methodology from which to reach the conclusion you appear so confident of.
Yes you do, unless you are saying that you simply don't know how to tell if an argument is superior to an alternative?  In which case I can provide some methods to determine this from this very site.

tcampen wrote: And I don't think something is pointless because one can't come to an "objective" conclusion about it.  Is art or music pointless because we cannot objectively determine which particular examples are good or bad? If I don't particularly like John Tesh's works, is there something objectively wrong with my music appreciation?
No, I agree.  Those are not pointless pursuits or experiences, however they do not make truth claims.  Music isn't an argument, nor is art.  An argument makes a truth claim, and so there is an objective result, you saying you like John Tesh's work (whoever he is) or not, is merely personal preference.  What I am trying to get away from here, is the idea that debate results are too, personal preference.

tcampen wrote: This particular debate topic was "Is there Evidence for God?"  The negative answer doesn't have a whole lot to say, really.  It is more of a rebuttal to the positve response. In fact, I don't think this was a very good question to begin with because it doesn't put forth an issue sufficiently in between the two opponents.
I agree, I don't think this question was great either.  I think actually WLC perhaps mentioned this was a question suggested by Prof. Krauss, and even though it put all the burden of proof on WLC shoulder's, it was so light that he was happen to support it.

tcampen wrote: As for WLC's particular arguments in this debate - they were no different than any other debate he's done in the last 15-20 years.
This is irrelevant.  Or rather, it's only relevant when you take into account how poorly people interact with these arguments, since 1992 he has use the same arguments with minor tweaks, and more often than not people simply don't even interact with them.

tcampen wrote: I remain objectively unimpressed by his arguments in this debate, while I fully and objectively acknowledge his remarkable debating skills.
His debating skills are irrelevant to the question of who had the better arguments.  If you feel that something WLC said is flawed, then surely you should present why - I find this "Well... he is an awesome debater, but his arguments didn't convince me." the same as saying, "........................................".

The information content is equal.

1
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #91 on: June 27, 2011, 02:12:21 pm »
More damage control from Krauss. Apparently Dr. Craig is "disingenuous" and Campus Crusade had some malicious intent in the debate question...


2

Timothy Campen

  • ***
  • 3145 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #92 on: June 27, 2011, 04:39:27 pm »

Digitalos wrote:
Quote from: tcampen
What is the "superior argument(s)" you repeatedly refer to? It's all so vague and general. I still have no specific analysis or methodology from which to reach the conclusion you appear so confident of.
Yes you do, unless you are saying that you simply don't know how to tell if an argument is superior to an alternative?  In which case I can provide some methods to determine this from this very site.

A bit of question begging. In fact, here's my favorite quote from WLC in that link:

"A person is guilty of begging the question if his only reason for believing in a premiss is that he already believes in the conclusion."

Oh, the irony!

I already stated that I did not find WLC's arguments persuasive. If it makes you feel better, I found them objectively unpersuasive.


tcampen wrote: And I don't think something is pointless because one can't come to an "objective" conclusion about it.  Is art or music pointless because we cannot objectively determine which particular examples are good or bad? If I don't particularly like John Tesh's works, is there something objectively wrong with my music appreciation?
No, I agree.  Those are not pointless pursuits or experiences, however they do not make truth claims.  Music isn't an argument, nor is art.  An argument makes a truth claim, and so there is an objective result, you saying you like John Tesh's work (whoever he is) or not, is merely personal preference.  What I am trying to get away from here, is the idea that debate results are too, personal preference.
Here's the problem.  You and I both listened/watched the same debate, yet come away with very different impressions and conclusions.  I don't think you're stupid or uninformed, nor do I think I am.  I've heard the same arguments made by WLC countless times before. I don't find them objectively persuasive, particularly in the debate format.  I suspect you believe you are also engaging in what you believe to be an objectively based evaluation of the arguments. So are so many others - yet here we are with so many different "scorecards".  To me, that mean no matter how much we strive for an objective analysis if this topic, there is an inherent subjective component to it - whether it involves a truth claim or not.

tcampen wrote: As for WLC's particular arguments in this debate - they were no different than any other debate he's done in the last 15-20 years.
This is irrelevant.  Or rather, it's only relevant when you take into account how poorly people interact with these arguments, since 1992 he has use the same arguments with minor tweaks, and more often than not people simply don't even interact with them.
Yes, but this is not the case in written critiques of the same arguments. Thus, it further shows the nature of formal oral debates as being ruled far more by style than substance.

tcampen wrote: I remain objectively unimpressed by his arguments in this debate, while I fully and objectively acknowledge his remarkable debating skills.
His debating skills are irrelevant to the question of who had the better arguments.  If you feel that something WLC said is flawed, then surely you should present why - I find this "Well... he is an awesome debater, but his arguments didn't convince me." the same as saying, "........................................".

The information content is equal.

In competitive debating, where actual scores are kept, it is one's debating skill that is measured. If you are asking who is better at formal debates, I don't think anyone is better than WLC. If you are asking whether I found the substance of WLC's arguments in the debate compelling over Krauss', then I did not.   Krauss is not my hero, I've never been to any website of his, and his comments posted in this thread are the only ones I've ever seen of his regarding his debate with WLC.  He is not my golden calf.  Neither is WLC.  I'm just calling it as I see.   Are you as detached?

I raise a pint to WLC and all of you, even if I often disagree.  For I am convinced thoughtful people can disagree without being disagreeable.

3

Blake1960

  • Guest
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #93 on: January 06, 2012, 09:30:28 am »
I was very disappointed in the debate, and even more disappointed in Krauss' post-debate public response. Krauss' repeated ad hominem, even in the debate itself, was unfortunate.  The viciousness of his post-debate ad hominem libel, calling Dr. Craig a liar, is beyond the pale.  This is the behavior of a man who pretends to revere science and objective empiricism?  

Those who abandon thoughtful debate of issues and ideas in favor of derisive personal commentary aiming to smear the opposition have lost the debate.  

That statement applies equally to so-called Christians in this forum too!  

"Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us"?  Ring any bells there folks? Shame on all who abandon substantive debate choosing instead to sink into derisive personal commentary.  We all ought to do better.

Craig could have improved his performance by remembering to note that he was only aiming to present arguments for the existence of evidence.  Too many times he forgot and fell into his more familiar closing statements asserting that thus God exists (paraphrasing).  

Krauss' employer(s) ought to reprimand him for his outrageous public behavior.  He needs taught a lesson in manners.  A libel lawsuit challenging his assertion that Dr. Craig lied ought not be out of the question.

Kudos and BIG respect to Dr. Craig for remaining composed and staying far above the miserableness.


4

Sandspirit

  • **
  • 306 Posts
    • View Profile
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2012, 08:44:25 pm »
Kudos and BIG respect to Dr. Craig for remaining composed and staying far above the miserableness.


Are you aware of the thread "Did Krauss Unknowingly Admit Child Rape is Acceptable?" and the accompanying video? You can find it two or three threads below this one.

5

Blake1960

  • Guest
Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #95 on: January 10, 2012, 03:00:29 pm »
His philosophy tends towards that, but I'm sure Mr. Krauss does not.  Thus his problem.  I'm not interested in personal gossip or in putting such miserable notions into the mouth or mind of Krauss.

Dr. Craig ought to change his example to 2+2=7, thus eliminating any silly counter-argument even for very large values of "2".

6

dcherchenko

  • **
  • 14 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Resources for the skeptic
Re: Lawrence Krauss' Damage Control
« Reply #96 on: February 13, 2014, 10:12:48 pm »
Check this out: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZdtCKC2mUaKxL0_1Zf5BMO-un5ccKnad_JeLxXE3mIw/edit