tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7465309330973514859..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Lawrence Krauss responds to William Lane CraigVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6047671495426986362011-04-07T07:14:33.095-07:002011-04-07T07:14:33.095-07:00During the debate, Dr. Krauss flat-out asseverated...During the debate, Dr. Krauss flat-out asseverated that Christianity is incompatible with science, and I immediately thought of theoretical cosmologist George F.R. Ellis when I heard this, a man possessing a mathematical caliber on the same plane as that of Stephen Hawking (in fact, he and Hawking co-wrote a very mathematical dense book on theoretical cosmology). <br /><br />I don't want to be too haste in my judgment, but Krauss is increasingly beginning to strike me as being a second-rate physicist at best, whose mind - and thereby whose "science" - has been irrevocably polluted with anti-theistic presuppositions about reality. <br /><br />Maybe I'm wrong in my assessment here, but there's absolutely no doubting the man's recent (and deeply repulsive) intellectual dishonesty, especially since such intellectual dishonesty is practically a prerequisite for posting at cesspools like Pharyngula and RichardDawkins.net.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43370956313208113382011-04-07T04:22:10.238-07:002011-04-07T04:22:10.238-07:00Crude:
Great comment:
"It reminds me of a c...Crude:<br /><br />Great comment:<br /><br />"It reminds me of a claim I ran into recently: "The only people who find theistic arguments compelling are theists!" Well... yeah. If one finds an argument for theism compelling, then one becomes a theist. What's expected? An argument that atheists find compelling but they remain atheists?"<br /><br />And great quote:<br /><br />"MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law."<br /><br />Made me think that maybe Lawrence should have had his essay graded and corrected before thinking it was good enough to post online.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72431204250528847832011-04-06T15:45:36.014-07:002011-04-06T15:45:36.014-07:00Ana said...
In the face of a phenomenon/fact that...Ana said... <br /><i>In the face of a phenomenon/fact that is presently inexplicable in terms of natural causes, it is faulty logic to posit the supernatural (God or otherwise) as the cause or agent.</i><br /><br />See, to me if a phenomenon is inexplicable in terms of natural causes, there is no choice byu supernatural causes. Perhaps instead of inexplicable, you meant "has no currently supported explanation"?<br /><br />Tea to wine would be inexplicable. Abiogenesis has many competing hypotheses, but with no preferred one. The first is inexplicable, the second merely unknown.<br /><br /><i>By it, I was referring to the objection against invoking God/ the supernatural.</i><br /><br />I beleive that objection is generally raised about the unknown, not the inexplicable.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27951836180818793052011-04-06T13:16:28.534-07:002011-04-06T13:16:28.534-07:00I just found a Christian physicist's take on K...I just found a Christian physicist's take on Krauss' post-debate comments and behavior and thought I'd share:<br /><br />http://helives.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27127318080533630912011-04-06T13:07:14.458-07:002011-04-06T13:07:14.458-07:00One Brow
"What is your defintion of the &quo...One Brow<br /><br />"<i>What is your defintion of the "God-of-the-gaps principle"?</i>"<br /><br />In the face of a phenomenon/fact that is presently inexplicable in terms of natural causes, it is faulty logic to posit the supernatural (God or otherwise) as the cause or agent.<br /><br />Sorry if my phrase "God-of-the-gaps <i>principle</i>" was misleading. <br /><br />By it, I was referring to the objection <i>against</i> invoking God/ the supernatural.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20506111503361792992011-04-06T13:05:59.954-07:002011-04-06T13:05:59.954-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28417683990102477052011-04-06T12:35:31.883-07:002011-04-06T12:35:31.883-07:00As it happens, I don't think the debate format...As it happens, I don't think the debate format hurt. <br /><br />It has, after all, just revealed how empty the current academic prejudice in favour of atheism really is.Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89566350309983006162011-04-06T12:34:12.714-07:002011-04-06T12:34:12.714-07:00Hopefully Craig will post this reply (in this form...Hopefully Craig will post this reply (in this form) and respond to it in some detail. Or better yet, have the team of scholars that he consulted when preparing for the debate reply. <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46915160083416551222011-04-06T12:32:07.555-07:002011-04-06T12:32:07.555-07:00I have to agree with Tim. I have no doubt at all t...I have to agree with Tim. I have no doubt at all that Krauss would be a wonderful lecturer. But his performance against Craig was a classic case of "expert overconfidence". <br />His arguments do not seem to be any more advanced than PZ Myers. He just doesn't find Theism plausible, and we're meant to buy into his argument from personal incredulity. <br /><br />In many ways it is shameful that a public intellectual should neglect their duties in this way. <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27463316590777167242011-04-06T10:55:10.037-07:002011-04-06T10:55:10.037-07:00>Well, I often whine when I don't get my te...>Well, I often whine when I don't get my tea (sorry, couldn't resist, despite my own preponderance of typos).<br /><br />No worrriess.;-)BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2180300362335110662011-04-06T10:52:54.658-07:002011-04-06T10:52:54.658-07:00BenYachov said...
The point is tea to whine need ...BenYachov said... <br /><i>The point is tea to whine need not have a supernatural explanation.</i><br /><br />Well, I often whine when I don't get my tea (sorry, couldn't resist, despite my own preponderance of typos).<br /><br />You can find people committed to any position, even materialism, who will look for any explanation to reject/reinterpret evidence they feel does not comport with their understanding. They are not skeptics. I am. I would not be interested in any conceivable physical explanation. You'll find no Chopraisms coming from me.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57546979151255931982011-04-06T10:46:55.679-07:002011-04-06T10:46:55.679-07:00Ana said...
Such that, what phenomenon would conv...Ana said... <br /><i>Such that, what phenomenon would convince one skeptic, may not convince another. </i><br /><br />Since skepticism itself has little unifying dogma other than doubt, how could it be otherwise?<br /><br /><i>And yet both might think the other unreasonable ... </i><br /><br />I have witnessed and participated in such arguments. You'd be surprised how often people can see each others points.<br /><br /><i>"if my tea is suddenly converted to wine in my glass,"...<br /><br />(To borrow from Crude)<br /><br />... " I hallucinated !" </i><br /><br />Then it wasn't converted to wine, after all? I agree that if there was no break of homogeneity, I would not be impressed by the break of homogeneity.<br /><br /><i>But in accepting it as evidence, that would be in spite of the God-of-the-gaps principle. </i><br /><br />I have not previously seen the use of the term "God-of-the-gaps" to describe attributing phenomena that break homogeneity to God. I generally see it used to describe phenomena that look natural, but have an unkown origin. Of course, there are some people who say the first type of event is not possible in principle, but they do not use the notion of God-of-the-gaps to describe it. Further, I've noticed that it's only the theists in this thread using the term to describe a reaction to miracles. My first thought is that this represents a mischaracterizaiton of the argument.<br /><br /><i>For the God-of-the-gaps principle is always readily available, for him that wants to use it, and it would apply just as much to your example of the tea, as it does to the universe.)</i><br /><br />What is your defintion of the "God-of-the-gaps principle"?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85823834664106689562011-04-06T10:42:31.383-07:002011-04-06T10:42:31.383-07:00OTOH what if the Nanobots where ClarkTec?OTOH what if the Nanobots where ClarkTec?BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17305739063358918792011-04-06T10:40:33.514-07:002011-04-06T10:40:33.514-07:00>When nanobots exist that can perform those rea...>When nanobots exist that can perform those rearrangments, can survive being boiled, and exist freely as opposed to a laboratory, that would make it a consideration. <br /><br />Good to see you read <b>Hard Science Fiction</b>(i.e Science fiction that tries to say close to known science...rotating Spaceships since there is no artificial gravity plates...no going faster than the speed of light...dry nanotech that obeys the laws of physics etc).<br /><br />>Until, you've simply moved the bar for homogenity from the change in the tea to the sudden appearance of nanobots from nowhere.<br /><br />The point is tea to whine need not have a supernatural explanation.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46124432439471496332011-04-06T10:33:51.595-07:002011-04-06T10:33:51.595-07:00Crude said...
Is that really the line Ana is aski...Crude said... <br /><i>Is that really the line Ana is asking for? "</i><br /><br />No, it is not what was requested. I said a clear bright line would be difficult to draw to agree that it is difficult to fulfill her request.<br /><br /><i>MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. </i><br /><br />In identical conditions, we would expect those laws we are comfortable with to break down in the same way again. Homogeneity doesn't say that you can extrapolate all natural laws to all conditions, but that all equivalent conditions would obey the same laws.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73438358507151027352011-04-06T10:29:27.388-07:002011-04-06T10:29:27.388-07:00How do you know the tea doesn't contain nanobo...<i>How do you know the tea doesn't contain nanobots that naturally alter the molecular structure of the tea? <br /><br />Just thought I'd put that out there.</i><br /><br />When nanobots exist that can perform those rearrangments, can survive being boiled, and exist freely as opposed to a laboratory, that would make it a consideration. Until, you've simply moved the bar for homogenity from the change in the tea to the sudden appearance of nanobots from nowhere.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60116750030060935042011-04-06T10:25:13.406-07:002011-04-06T10:25:13.406-07:00The bottom line is that no matter how often Craig ...The bottom line is that no matter how often Craig wins, he loses. The usual excuse is that when he wins a debate with an atheist, that's just because he's a better debater. Not because he was right. Not because he had the best of the argument. Had the facts on his side. No, couldn't be that.<br /><br />But then he debated Hitchens, who is, by all accounts, a masterful debater in his own right. Yet Craig won that debate, too.<br /><br />In that case, the excuse wasn't: Craig won because he's such a great debater. No, it had to be: Hitchens was unprepared, or Hitchens was off his game that night.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4430991732924332262011-04-06T09:57:49.467-07:002011-04-06T09:57:49.467-07:00"While it can be difficult to draw a clear, b...<i>"While it can be difficult to draw a clear, bright, universal line, most of the skeptics I have communicated with can describe events they would find convincing."</i><br /><br />Yes, skeptics offer examples that they say would convince them (e.g. the infamous example of amputees being healed)of supernatural causation or agency, there is certainly no shortage of examples skeptics will cite. However, in the absence them of providing a criteria, "convincing" examples are a matter of subjective perception. Such that, what phenomenon would convince one skeptic, may not convince another. (And yet both might think the other unreasonable, "You're being utterly incredulous and that's preventing you from accepting a pretty obvious evidence" vs " It is not obvious. You're proving your gullibility, by having <i><b>fallen for one of those</b></i> God-of-gaps arguments." )<br /><br />"<i>if my tea is suddenly converted to wine in my glass,</i>"...<br /><br />(To borrow from Crude)<br /><br /> ... " I hallucinated !" <br /><br /><br />(To be fair, I want to put out there, that I am not suggesting that many skeptics <i>in practice</i> would reject such things as tea turned to wine as evidence. <br /><br />But in accepting it as evidence, that would be <i>in spite of</i> the God-of-the-gaps principle. For the God-of-the-gaps principle is always readily available, for him that wants to use it, and it would apply just as much to your example of the tea, as it does to the universe.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49947733591020855012011-04-06T09:54:30.652-07:002011-04-06T09:54:30.652-07:00I'll take this as yet another shining example ...I'll take this as yet another shining example of scientistic arrogance, wherein scientists firmly believe that they and they alone are the brave souls who see reality rightly through the all-powerful lens of mathematical physics, whereas philosophers just "play around with words and syllogisms." By virtue of the scientific method, their eyes are free from all illusion. The supernatural/natural divide is fatuous. The world is a paradox! 2+2=5!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86041469918231689502011-04-06T09:30:46.948-07:002011-04-06T09:30:46.948-07:00Heh, bowing to David for his rabbinic-style quotat...Heh, bowing to David for his rabbinic-style quotation from that scene in <i>A Few Good Men</i>! {g}<br /><br />(The far more famous quote from that same climactic exchange is, "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Although on further thought, I doubt David was trying to ref that obliquely--he isn't the kind of person to think of sceptics that way, to his credit.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45116586404884153882011-04-06T08:55:28.109-07:002011-04-06T08:55:28.109-07:00I agree that a debate format is not the best place...I agree that a debate format is not the best place to hash out any really complicated issue. Debates are agonistic contests. <br /><br />That said, by any reasonable measure, Krauss got owned, and Craig's "dismissive" post-mortem was nothing less than the sober truth. Krauss's response to Craig linked in the OP is simply disgraceful and shows that he is completely out of his depth. Examples of this are available on request -- but it looks like most participants in this thread have found double handfuls of them already.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12456716564986119282011-04-06T08:32:05.130-07:002011-04-06T08:32:05.130-07:00Bossmanham: I agree -- I like debates, and enjoyed...Bossmanham: I agree -- I like debates, and enjoyed this one. I haven't seen Harris vs. Craig yet, though. <br /><br />You can read books by the principals, but a lot of times they just talk past one another. It's good to go at one another directly, and get answers. ("You want answers?" "I think I'm entitled!") <br /><br />One of my regrets is we Americans are not trained in the use of wit as a rhetorical weapon. How much more fun these debates could be.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25422593955770747522011-04-06T07:57:07.950-07:002011-04-06T07:57:07.950-07:00Ms. Ana,
"What I would like an atheist to ex...Ms. Ana,<br /><br /><i>"What I would like an atheist to explain, is how he would distinguish positive evidence for God, from God-of-the-gaps based "evidence" for God."</i><br /><br />When I was an atheist, the only evidence I would accept is a "burning bush." And, in all candor, even then I would probably still have looked for natural explanations first. I could have hallucinated, been drugged, had a psychotic episode, etc. If one has a mental or emotional block, then any evidence, even burning bushes, can be dismissed out of hand.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11798310330800155212011-04-06T07:23:40.507-07:002011-04-06T07:23:40.507-07:00The only weakness I see in this debate format is K...The only weakness I see in this debate format is Krauss' inability to see his fallacious reasoning. Academic debates have a long history and seem to me to be one of the better ways to present the ideas in a point-counter point way.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42109290409413254492011-04-06T07:06:14.621-07:002011-04-06T07:06:14.621-07:00Ben,
How do you know the tea doesn't contain ...Ben,<br /><br /><i>How do you know the tea doesn't contain nanobots that naturally alter the molecular structure of the tea? </i><br /><br />It was quantum tunneling!<br />We live in a computer simulation!<br />It was all a trick!<br />I hallucinated!<br />Aliens!<br /><br />And on the list goes.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com