KviteKrist

  • **
  • 7 Posts
    • View Profile
I just listened to the debate between Craig and Krauss hosted by the City Bible Forum and I was really surprised by Krauss' opening statement. 50% of it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the debate or anything related to God, but it was just statements to undermine Craig to sort of make himself look better and Craig worse. I have to say, I lost a lot of respect for Krauss after that opening statement.

During the debate he would act very emotional and interrupt Craig while Craig was talking and I was really disappointed at how he treated Craig. I think that is why he actually prefers to have that sort of "discussion" because then he can interrupt the other partner while he is talking so that the other partner doesn't get to make his statements.   

I've noticed this, not only with Krauss, but also with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins said that Atheists should go out and mock people for their believes. That they should mock Catholics for believing that the bread literally turned into Jesus flesh, and in Dawkins saying that, I find him no better than the Muslims who claim that they should convert heathens by using the same technique. Maybe I can excuse Krauss for acting in this sort of childish behaviour, saying that he was just affected by Dawkins, but as an adult human male, Krauss ought to have some more decent behaviour.

Finally I want to congratulate Craig for ignoring these attacks on him and being very formal and acting really calm, in spite of Krauss' very provocative attacks on Craig. I find people like Craig to be very inspiring in the way of acting in a debate and I don't think I would have had the same strength as Craig, though I wish I did.
I would probably have looked really frustrated at Krauss and yelled "WOULD YOU JUST SHUT THE **** UP FOR ONE MINUTE SO THAT I CAN FINNISH MY STATEMENT?!"
Applause to you Craig, and shame on you Krauss.

What do you think? Did Krauss act childishly? Are the other New Atheists similar or is it just him? What about apologists? Are they also just as childish when talking about the opponent?
"You scare us with your god, who is both blind and deaf and can neither save himself nor others, and who can not get the stain without anyone carrying him...  Look up now, look towards the east, where our God comes with great light!"
-Olaf (II) Haraldsson, debating with a group of Norse pagans.

1

Estevao

  • **
  • 77 Posts
    • View Profile
Yea Krauss really went of the rails in those debates. The only fruitful discussion came with the discussion of the Fine-Tuning in the third debate. But remember how Graham Oppy was moderating that one? I mean, the quality of the discussion that could have happened between Oppy and Craig would have been 100x better than what happened between Krauss and Craig. It's a real shame that Oppy and Craig couldn't have had a discussion instead with Krauss taking a break to calm down.

IMO many new atheists are way too childish: Dawkins, Krauss, PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne come to mind here. Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Sean Carroll are rather easy to listen to and are able to be calm and collected (but then again, I personally don't think Dawkins, Krauss, Myers and Coyne really bring anything substantive to the discussion, whereas Dennett and Harris have been able to present some interesting stuff).

I've noticed that Edward Feser (Catholic philosopher with an excellent blog, but who isn't really that famous...yet) has a bit of a temper, some of his posts on his blog reveal a bit of impatience, although sometimes I think it's warranted, other times it can come off as a bit hasty. But he has recanted some of his more testy posts before.

Lol yeah it would have been funny to see Craig lose his regular Ned Flanders esque persona and tell Krauss to STFU.
"...[T]o understand someone, it’s not enough to sit there tapping your foot while he talks.  You’ve got to listen, rather than merely waiting for a pause so that you can insert the response you’d already formulated before he even opened his mouth." - Edward Feser

2

stupid_sinner

  • **
  • 250 Posts
  • Saved by grace
    • View Profile
I sure agree with you. A Youtube atheist once told me (rather angryly) that NO SINGLE PHYSICIST nowadays believe that universe begin to exist out of nothing (and thus denying the second premise of KCA), and he name Lawrence Krauss as an example. I quickly searched for any lecture or debate and found this debate. But, must say, I was VERY disappointed. Not only Krauss didn't say anything about universe out of nothing, but he also resort to personal attack on Dr. Craig. He also said something like '2+2=5' which made me question his view on science. That's how I lost all faith on new-atheists such as Krauss, Dawkins, and their gang.

Another notable example is PZ Meyer, who said that Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name. People like Alvin Plantinga is a real genius while PZ Meyer is (I hope I don't offend anyone) just like some random Youtube atheist troll not worth the time. I personally think people like Christopher Hitchens is far lot better than PZ Meyer.
'It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.'

- G.K. Chesterton -

3

Howling Winds

  • **
  • 548 Posts
    • View Profile
I sure agree with you. A Youtube atheist once told me (rather angryly) that NO SINGLE PHYSICIST nowadays believe that universe begin to exist out of nothing (and thus denying the second premise of KCA), and he name Lawrence Krauss as an example. I quickly searched for any lecture or debate and found this debate. But, must say, I was VERY disappointed. Not only Krauss didn't say anything about universe out of nothing, but he also resort to personal attack on Dr. Craig. He also said something like '2+2=5' which made me question his view on science. That's how I lost all faith on new-atheists such as Krauss, Dawkins, and their gang.

Another notable example is PZ Meyer, who said that Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name. People like Alvin Plantinga is a real genius while PZ Meyer is (I hope I don't offend anyone) just like some random Youtube atheist troll not worth the time. I personally think people like Christopher Hitchens is far lot better than PZ Meyer.

Sean Carroll was a much better communicator than Dr. Krauss and I actually learned a lot from Carroll.  Some people are just more "gifted" than others when it comes to communicating with others and perhaps that's not Dr. Krauss's strength...

4

Rick Dawkins

  • **
  • 817 Posts
    • View Profile
I hope what you learned from carrol, was nothing he intended you to learn, or perhaps he got better after his typical childlikel atheist opener's.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 09:40:37 am by Rick Dawkins »

5

Howling Winds

  • **
  • 548 Posts
    • View Profile
I hope what you learned from carrol, was nothing he intended you to learn, or perhaps he got better after his typical childlikel atheist opener's.

What I found interesting were Carroll's comments about what questions physicists ask:  no theological questions are allowed.  He also said something to effect that no one "had a right" to ask what came before the Big Bang.  As a Christian that tells me a lot about his thinking.  But he was a good communicator, far better than Krauss and would probably be an excellent teacher...

6

CannisFal

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
Hey guys, first time poster:)
I think Krauss' behavior goes beyond being childish.  He's demonstrated a concerted effort to deceive to manipulate the public to his ends.  I can't evaluate his work on a mathematical level, but he's absolutely weak as soon as he dips into philosophy.
I firmly believe Krauss knows he's outgunned and so appeals to this "New Atheist" animosity rather than rational thinking.  I've compiled three lines of evidence demonstrating that Krauss is not just rude, he's an incompetent fraud.  I've been developing this on Youtube in debating commentators there.  Building a case against Krauss is like rolling a slowball down a mountain side on a warm day; it just builds itself. 

I hope you all enjoy and I welcome your comments.  God bless!

Here are three lines of evidence demonstrating Krauss ignorance and willingness to lie to the public:

Line 1: Lying About the Vilenkin Email and Contemporary Cosmology
WLC and Krauss have had four debates together.  The last three were all held in Australia.  In the first of these three (in Sydney), Krauss produced an email by his "friend and college" Alexander Vilenkin as part of his attack against WLC's Cosmological Argument (specifically p2).  Krauss had removed sections of the email and added boldface type to sections he wanted to stand out.  When WLC asked what had been removed, Krauss explained it was merely technical and didn't add anything to the meaning of the email.
However, in the doctored email, Vilenkin seemed to be agreeing with Krauss that the BGV in no way showed the universe isn't eternal in the past and that there were even some good working models that disproved this.
This seemed "fishy" to WLC since WLC was quite familiar with the BGV theorem (a short and easy read) where Vilenkin had precisely demonstrated the opposite.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0110012.pdf

Or watch this video: Did the Universe have a Beginning? Alexander Vilenkin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

In the third Australian debate,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xcgjtps5ks,
 Krauss again attempted to discredit WLC with the email.  However, WLC had gotten the original and full email from Vilenkin and posted it in comparison to the doctored one (shown at 52:47 and read by WLC at 54:30).  The original email clearly agrees with WLC's interpretation and completely discredits Krauss'.  Furthermore, it's clear what Vilenkin was saying in the email and just as clear that Krauss doctored it, not because it was too technical (it's quite straightforward), but because he wanted to fool the audience into thinking WLC was the fraudulent one.
If you want a further analysis, see http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem.
The article quotes from Vilenkin where he makes it abundantly clear Krauss was misrepresenting him (even though he's professional enough not to drag Krauss through the mud over it).

Line 2: Equivocation About 'Nothing":
Here is a short article with quotes from Krauss that demonstrate he knew the dangers of deception, that he knowingly deceived the public for his own ends, that he continually contradicts himself when equivocating about nothing, and that he doesn't understand the question the title of his book pretends to address.  This wasn't a hatchet job on Krauss, but one meant to give him a chance to explain his views.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

KRAUSS TALKS ABOUT SEDUCTION AND THE DANGERS OF DECEPTION
"Every time I write a book, I try and think of a hook."
“Well, if that hook gets you into the book that's great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim."
"I try to be intellectually honest in everything that I write, especially about what we know and what we don't know. If you're writing for the public, the one thing you can't do is overstate your claim, because people are going to believe you. They see I'm a physicist and so if I say that protons are little pink elephants, people might believe me."
"...seduction might be causing people to ask, "How can he say that? How can he have the temerity to suggest that it's possible to get something from nothing? Let me see what's wrong with these arguments." If I'd just titled the book "A Marvelous Universe," not as many people would have been attracted to it."
So Krauss knew what he was doing, that it was dishonest, and that it’s a dangerous thing to do, far from popularizing actual science.  He also makes clear (in a facetious way), that he thinks he could make the public believe what he considers to be illogical claims.

KRAUSS CLAIMING HE NEVER MEANT TO USE ‘NOTHING’ TO ACTUALLY MEAN NOTHING
"I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why why why why why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down."
"...I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing...."
"What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties.”

KRAUSS CLAIMING PHYSICS IS ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF HOW SOMETHING CAN COME FROM ACTUAL NOTHING
"The religious question "why is there something rather than nothing," has been around since people have been around, and now we're actually reaching a point where science is beginning to address that question. And so I figured I could use that question as a way to celebrate the revolutionary changes that we've achieved in refining our picture of the universe."
"I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen"
"It's true that I'm applying the laws of quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me."
Here, Krauss explains he’s merely attempting to apply meta-physical laws to an actual ‘nothing’.  I’d include this as a quote that he’s not attempting to address the question except he’s clearly trying to apply characteristics to a thing that doesn’t exist (and thus cannot be affected by anything).
"When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum. That's a later stage. "
KRAUSS DEMONSTRATING HE DOESN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHICAL TENANT THAT “From Nothing, Nothing Comes.”
"For [the writers of the Bible] an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing anymore."
This isn’t true.  ‘Nothing’ is and always will be a static philosophical term for “non-being.”  It’s an important concept, so when frauds like Krauss equivocate to the public, it really throws laymen off from understanding the nature of existence and even rudimentary philosophy.
Krauss’ claim that it has changed is almost funny.  He doesn’t understand the tenant of “From nothing, nothing comes.” so he hasn’t gone so far as to consider if anyone ever asked how the universe could have come from an earlier stage of the universe.  We all intuitively know it can and does, for even yesterday was an earlier stage and we clearly understand most of how it got from there to here.
"What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery. So how do I frame that? I frame it in terms of this question about something coming from nothing. And part of that is a reaction to these really pompous theologians who say, "out of nothing, nothing comes," because those are just empty words."
Krauss again tries to sideline objections to his impossible view by relegating them to the religious groups he so disdains.  The truth is, “Out of nothing, nothing comes” is a theologically neutral term.  It doesn’t, in and of itself, imply the existence or non-existence of a god.  It’s a concept that comes from philosophy and calling philosophers “pompous” because they won’t accept your misappropriation of an ancient concept is, well, pompous.

So, in this short and easily read article, Krauss makes it clear he's a fraud and knows he's sold books off of it.  He also demonstrates he doesn't understand the question he's often pretended to address.  This is why Krauss thinks physics will yield the answer: he doesn't understand the question.
So, even though he loves claiming to love not knowing the answer, he's clearly buried his head under the sand rather than face his ignorance and drop his unfounded faith that physics can create existence from actual nothingness.

Line 3: Krauss and Epistemology
Question #1:
Is Lawrence Krauss Honest in His Debates Concerning Philosophical Questions?

Question Even if We Were to Assume Krauss is Honest, is His Position Logically Tenable?

I shall quote Krauss directly out of the video I've linked:
Krauss, ""If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge."

1. Rationality cannot be empirically measured.
2. Science relies on inductive reasoning based on empirical observation.
3. Inductive logic requires the assumption of rationality.
Conclusion: The Scientific method cannot be logically employed without the a priori knowledge of rationality.

Here is a lockdown argument against Krauss even understanding science. Since he doesn't understand the fundamentals of science or philosophy, he's not just uninterested in the Cosmological question of why there is anything at all, he's completely ill equipped to even understand the question.

 So we see that he's likely purposefully disingenuous but he certainly cannot present a logical argument of any kind with his stated assumptions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL84Yg2dNsg


So should you look to a fraud who misrepresents science to learn about science?

I think WLC's patience for Krauss' behavior is good inductive evidence WLC is omni-patient :P

7

stupid_sinner

  • **
  • 250 Posts
  • Saved by grace
    • View Profile
I sure agree with you. A Youtube atheist once told me (rather angryly) that NO SINGLE PHYSICIST nowadays believe that universe begin to exist out of nothing (and thus denying the second premise of KCA), and he name Lawrence Krauss as an example. I quickly searched for any lecture or debate and found this debate. But, must say, I was VERY disappointed. Not only Krauss didn't say anything about universe out of nothing, but he also resort to personal attack on Dr. Craig. He also said something like '2+2=5' which made me question his view on science. That's how I lost all faith on new-atheists such as Krauss, Dawkins, and their gang.

Another notable example is PZ Meyer, who said that Alvin Plantinga gives philosophy a bad name. People like Alvin Plantinga is a real genius while PZ Meyer is (I hope I don't offend anyone) just like some random Youtube atheist troll not worth the time. I personally think people like Christopher Hitchens is far lot better than PZ Meyer.

Sean Carroll was a much better communicator than Dr. Krauss and I actually learned a lot from Carroll.  Some people are just more "gifted" than others when it comes to communicating with others and perhaps that's not Dr. Krauss's strength...
Agree. I've watched that debate and, must say, I think Dr. Carroll made some good points. Dr. Craig almost (if not have) lost that debate.

However, that's not the case. AT LEAST Carroll admitted that the universe is, in a sense, eternal. Whlist Krauss write a book titled 'A Universe Out Of NOTHING', but did actually re-define the meaning into something absolutely irrational. Carroll, on the other hand, never claimed that the universe came out of nothing and do the re-defining.

So it's not really about the way Krauss deliver his points, but his intellectual dishonesty (re-defining 'nothing'). If he really never meant 'nothing' to be 'nothing', then he shouldn't use such misleading word.
'It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.'

- G.K. Chesterton -

8

joppe

  • **
  • 409 Posts
  • I am a protestant
    • View Profile
To me, it seems that it has the most emotional impact on the atheist community. They get satisfied. It is sad that atheists refuse to engage with theistic arguments and still atheism grows. All that happens is ridicule towards theists.
Saying you 'merely lack belief' in God while arguing for naturalism is the same as saying you 'don't have a political opinion' while praising a political party.

9

Agrippa

  • **
  • 13 Posts
    • View Profile
I just listened to the debate between Craig and Krauss hosted by the City Bible Forum and I was really surprised by Krauss' opening statement. 50% of it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the debate or anything related to God, but it was just statements to undermine Craig to sort of make himself look better and Craig worse. I have to say, I lost a lot of respect for Krauss after that opening statement.

During the debate he would act very emotional and interrupt Craig while Craig was talking and I was really disappointed at how he treated Craig. I think that is why he actually prefers to have that sort of "discussion" because then he can interrupt the other partner while he is talking so that the other partner doesn't get to make his statements.   

I've noticed this, not only with Krauss, but also with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins said that Atheists should go out and mock people for their believes. That they should mock Catholics for believing that the bread literally turned into Jesus flesh, and in Dawkins saying that, I find him no better than the Muslims who claim that they should convert heathens by using the same technique. Maybe I can excuse Krauss for acting in this sort of childish behaviour, saying that he was just affected by Dawkins, but as an adult human male, Krauss ought to have some more decent behaviour.

Finally I want to congratulate Craig for ignoring these attacks on him and being very formal and acting really calm, in spite of Krauss' very provocative attacks on Craig. I find people like Craig to be very inspiring in the way of acting in a debate and I don't think I would have had the same strength as Craig, though I wish I did.
I would probably have looked really frustrated at Krauss and yelled "WOULD YOU JUST SHUT THE **** UP FOR ONE MINUTE SO THAT I CAN FINNISH MY STATEMENT?!"
Applause to you Craig, and shame on you Krauss.

What do you think? Did Krauss act childishly? Are the other New Atheists similar or is it just him? What about apologists? Are they also just as childish when talking about the opponent?

eh . . . ya. I saw that debate and the behavior Krauss got away with made my jaw drop. I think he just lacks social skills but also for whatever reason he is very angry and hateful. I'd guess that he is a very, very hard person to get along with unless you agree with almost everything he says or does.

I've run into those types on youtube recently and actually tried to start a reasonable dialogue which inevitably ends up with them cursing and hating everything Christian.

I engaged with one guy who complained that the videos that are posted by ReasonableFaith on youtube have comments disabled. Well, duh. Dr. Craig doesn't want his video comment board turned into a toilet from Trolling hateful foul mouthed atheists (as apposed to some very nice atheists that can carry on a reasonably polite dialogue).

Hate comes spewing out of the screen from these guys. I told this guy to come to the ReasonableFaith forum if he wanted to criticize Dr. Craig or his arguments. Nope. These forums are "heavily monitored." lol

I've read these forums and have never heard of anyone getting unfairly edited or monitored. One is just required to carry on with the forum rules which are pretty typical for this type of forum. Mind your manners.

I've come to believe that much of this type of virulent hatred comes from them feeling what I might call an existential threat or mortal threat from Christianity. Why? Possibly low self-esteem, feeling that certain Christians mocked them or condemned them at a certain time, insecurity in their world view (materialism I guess ya might call it). Certainly, that kind of hate and aggressive posture comes from a extreme fear of something in my experience anyway.

Well, the last few days of dealing with them on youtube has cured me of trying to even engage with them. Their hate is so fixed and toxic that I don't want anything to do with it.

10

Scott Morgan

  • **
  • 287 Posts
    • View Profile
It felt like from the very opening Krauss was trying to alienate Craig from the audience.  Its not without relevance that he started off by warmly thanking virtually everybody involved in the debate, organizers and audience, but did not acknowledge his opponent.

But maybe Krauss really thought that Craig deliberately mischaracterized Dawkins in an audio clip.  That wasn't a good moment for Dr. Craig, to say the least, when he was called out on that.  Personally, I'm glad that Craig and his staff caught the error and corrected it within a few days of releasing the podcast.

Anyway, I think Krauss's strategy did come out of the Dawkin's playbook.  I was reading on the net not long ago a piece written by Dr. Dawkins on how he would debate Craig . . . and what Krauss did was very similar.  I think the article I was reading was with regards to why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig.

The first debate didn't go very well, but fortunately Krauss thought he could hold to that strategy and I think it costs him dearly.




11

Helping Hand

  • **
  • 125 Posts
    • View Profile
To me, it seems that it has the most emotional impact on the atheist community. They get satisfied. It is sad that atheists refuse to engage with theistic arguments and still atheism grows. All that happens is ridicule towards theists.

People are angry at theism, they have had bad experiences of it, anger is possibly the most common symptom of atheists these days, especially on the internet.

12

Ove Karlsen

  • *
  • 3 Posts
    • View Profile
Krauss is definately as religious as pantheists are. However unfortunately that involves him talking about the sweat of his "parents coupling", that "mathematically" is still around. Which is taking things to aburdity. But that is the line of thinking he is following, and the type of maths. Which probably includes lots of calculation on infinity ;)

13

anomaly

  • **
  • 9 Posts
    • View Profile
I just watched that debate a few days ago and wow, I agree.

Krauss reminded me of my pouting brother who used to kick the table over when I started beating him in a chess game. Even in his other debates, Krauss acts surprisingly immature for someone with such a reputation in the scientific community.

He interrupts people before they've made their point, he shouts, he fusses about the definitions of words instead of addressing the underlying point, he raises his voice instead of clarifying his position. I think he should just stick with writing books and holding his symposiums and stay out of the debate circle.

14

Lion IRC

  • ***
  • 2233 Posts
    • View Profile
"
Quote
We need to set a higher standard for ourselves than for the New Atheists. They can behave however they want……
…If the New Atheist is mean-spirited or not playing nice, that is irrelevant."
 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/atheist-play-nice
This user will NEVER be posting at Reasonable Faith Forum again.