God yes or no?: Live Webcast of debate tonight between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 30, 2011

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here:

Wednesday, March 30, 20117:00 PM EST

William Lane Craig versus Lawrence Krauss

Topic: Is There Evidence for God?
http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=192530664101598

The organizers say, due to limited seating, watch, don’t go.

Write here and tell us what you think

Also:

Thursday, April 7, 2011
7:00 PM EST
William Lane Craig versus Sam Harris

Topic: Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=133604053378987 (the website for the event is forthcoming and the link to it will be placed on this Facebook page)

Comments

It is up to us now. The atheists have officially abdicated.tragic mishap_{April 1, 2011
April
04
Apr
1
01
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

I couldn't bring myself to finish watching this. Terrible. It couldn't be any more obvious that atheism will lead to the destruction of science. The universe to them is "insensible." Recall that the Scientific Revolution began with theists who believed the universe was intelligible because it was created by a rational God who defined it and gave it order, not chaos. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.tragic mishap_{April 1, 2011
April
04
Apr
1
01
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

myname, "Only the rebuttal of the fine-tuning fell a bit short." And all the rest fell waaaaaay short, right!? I can only guess you mean that he didn't contradict himself as much on the fine tuning point as on all the others.Brent_{April 1, 2011
April
04
Apr
1
01
2011
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

myname I hold that Dr. Krauss 'fell a bit short' on all counts in the debate; here is how I picture the debate; Futility http://www.amam-magazine.com/futility1.jpg myname, can you guess which one is Dr. Craig and which one is Dr. Kraussbornagain77_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Thanks for making me aware of this debate. Craigs arguments were not particularly new but Krauss was the right person to rebut him since modern apologetics seem to rely on mainly physics arguments. (The other major line of argument would be biological complexity.) Only the rebuttal of the fine-tuning fell a bit short.myname_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, have you ever heard of Dr. Robert A. Herrmann's theory of,"General Intelligent Design"? Here are a few links: http://www.raherrmann.com/evidence.htm http://www.raherrmann.com/gidt.htm http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_1/j23_1_62-69.pdfkuartus_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

I thought I saw Krauss on the History Channel once saying he believed in advanced ancient civilizations... I cant find any citation of exactly what he said on that, but I did find this article where he "dabbles" with the idea: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=forgotten-dreams-2010-11-18
"...Europe and Neandertals still walked the earth, the paintings are at the same time remarkably modern, reminiscent of Picasso or Weber."
In that article he also seems to confuse or conflate "climate change deniers" with "skeptics of climate alarmism" and "skeptics of anthropogenic global warming." That's not the sign of an intellectually honest person.Frost122585_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

further details/cites substantiating a 'Theistic Universe' alluded to at post #5; General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin http://bornagain77.livejournal.com/bornagain77_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

It is also interesting to point out that Dr. Krauss, at the 1:13:30 mark, argued that virtual particles had 'no reason' for why they fleetingly popped into and out of existence from the quantum field, it was all based on 'probability'. Yet Dr. Strauss (a particle physicist) in this video reveals that even the 'exotic' virtual particles are found to be necessary for life in this universe since virtual particles are necessary for the 'top quark' to exist. And the top quark is necessary for the nucleus of every atom to exist: Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Special Relativity - Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674 ,,, Thus I would say that Dr. Krauss's belittlement of the necessity of virtual particles was extremely biased, for virtual particles in fact give him no leeway for the 'purposelessness' he had hoped to invoke. further note; it seems even the 'exotic' virtual photons, which fleetingly pop into and out of existence, are tied directly to the anthropic principle through the 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant for dark energy: ELECTROMAGNETIC DARK ENERGY Abstract: We introduce a new model for dark energy in the Universe in which a small cosmological constant is generated by ordinary electromagnetic vacuum energy. The corresponding virtual photons exist at all frequencies but switch from a gravitationally active phase at low frequencies to a gravitationally inactive phase at higher frequencies via a Ginzburg–Landau type of phase transition. Only virtual photons in the gravitationally active state contribute to the cosmological constant. A small vacuum energy density, consistent with astronomical observations, is naturally generated in this model. We propose possible laboratory tests for such a scenario based on phase synchronization in superconductors. http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpd/17/1701/S0218271808011870.html Shining new light on dark energy with galaxy clusters - December 2010 Excerpt: "Each model for dark energy makes a prediction that you should see this many clusters, with this particular mass, this particular distance away from us," Sehgal said. Sehgal tested these predictions by using data from the most massive galaxy clusters. The results support the standard, vacuum-energy model for dark energy. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-dark-energy-galaxy-clusters.htmlbornagain77_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

I'm really surprised by Dr. Krauss's opening statements. Quotes like 'the only evidence you can have is miraculous evidence...' really just display a lack of any thought on the subject. To then demand that a miracle must be this or that is rather arbitrary. And to then say 'The interesting thing about the universe is that it's not logical'. Ok Dr. Krauss, is that a logical statement? Then everything you say is chaos and your opening speech is nothing more than a silly rambling being that you attempt to use logic in order to make your points that the universe is not logical. Now let me demonstrate this by showing you something that is testable where you'll get the same repeatable results. Seriously? Last night was a testimony that the deist-leaning atheist cannot live consistently with his worldview.Chris_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Semi OT: here is Hugh Ross on John Ankerberg,,, Why is the Big Bang evidence that God Created the Universe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ5BzpBdyN4 Of note; as well, John Ankerberg recently did a excellent interview with Stephen Meyer, you may view all 4 video links here; Does New Scientific Evidence About the Origin of Life Put an End to Darwinian Evolution? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/does_new_scientific_evidence_a045171.htmlbornagain77_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

1.) Dr. Krauss said he'd take the multiverse to be his necessary being, and says that at least his necessary being is motivated by physics. 2.) He then says to the very next question that evidence is something that can be falsified. 3.) Then he said that the multiverse cannot be detected! He said that they (other universes) cannot communicate with us or exert any force on us. Ummm???? This was over the course of the last three, or maybe four, questions.Brent_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

"And Christopher Hitchens is my friend." The "clincher" argument.Brent_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

here is the audio/video, and a humorous analysis of the debate; http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/audio-and-video-from-the-debate-between-william-lane-craig-and-lawrence-krauss/ excerpt: William Lane Craig’s case William Lane Craig made 5 arguments for the existence of God: the contingency argument theargument from the origin of the universe (kalam) the argument from cosmic fine-tuning the moral argument the argument from the miracle of the resurrection These arguments went unrefuted during the debate. Lawrence Krauss’s case Lawrence Krauss made the following arguments in his first speech Dr. Craig is a professional debater Dr. Craig is not a scientist Dr. Craig is a philosopher Disproving God’s is a waste of my valuable time Dr. Craig has the burden of proof to show evidence My job is not to present any evidence I think that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is a nice slogan, but I have no evidence for it I don’t like that God doesn’t appear on Youtube, therefore he doesn’t exist I don’t like that God didn’t appear to humans until recently, therefore he doesn’t exist I don’t like that the stars didn’t come together to spell “I am here”, therefore God doesn’t exist Dr. Craig has to supply extraordinary evidence, because my favorite slogan says he has to Dr. Craig talks about logic, but the universe is not logical Dr. Craig doesn’t have any arguments, just things he doesn’t like Dr. Craig doesn’t like infinity, and that’s why he believes in the Big Bang cosmology Dr. Craig doesn’t like chance, and that’s why he believes in cosmic fine-tuning Dr. Craig doesn’t like rape, and that’s why he believes in the ontological foundations of morality If people believe in logic, then they can’t do science The things that science discovers contradict the laws of logic For example, Dr. Craig doesn’t like infinity, so he believes in the experimental measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation For example, Dr. Craig doesn’t like chance, so he believes in the fine-tuning of the gravitational constant for the formation of stable stars Quantum mechanics shows that the universe is stranger than you think, therefore all of Craig’s arguments are false My t-shirt says 2 + 2 = 5, therefore all of Craig’s arguments are false Atheism may look ridiculous, but it’s true, and if you don’t like it, too bad – because the universe is very strange Accidents happen all the time, so that explains the cosmic fine-tuning We all have to convince ourselves of 10 impossible things before breakfast, and atheism is impossible, so you need to convince yourself of it I don’t know about the Big Bang, so Dr. Craig cannot use the Big Bang to to prove the universe began to exist I don’t know about the cosmic fine-tuning, so Dr. Craig cannot use the fine-tuning of cosmological constants to prove the fine-tuning I don’t know anything about science, so Dr. Craig cannot use science in his arguments Dr. Craig says that the universe is contingent because it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago based on the state-of-the-art scientific evidence for the Big Bang creation out of nothing from 1) red-shift of light from distant galaxies, 2) cosmic microwave background radiation, 3) helium-hydrogen abundances, 4) experimental confirmation of general relativity, 5) the second law of thermodynamics, 6) radioactive element abundances, etc., but how does he know that? I don’t know that It’s fine not to know the answer to scientific questions like whether the universe began to exist, it’s more exciting Thinking that the universe began to exist based on 6 pieces of scientific evidence is the “God-of-the-Gaps” fallacy, it’s intellectual laziness But all kidding aside, the universe actually did begin to exist 13.72 billion years ago, exactly like Craig says in his argument I could argue that God created the universe 4.5 seconds ago with all of us sitting believing that we heard Dr. Craig, and how could you prove me wrong? It’s not falsifiable Universes can spontaneously appear out of nothing, and in fact they have to appear out of nothing Nothing is unstable, and space and time can come into existence out of nothing, so that’s not a problem Our universe could have appeared out of a multiverse, an unobservable, untestable multiverse that I have no way of observing or testing, but which was in fact created by none other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster! The universe is not fine-tuned for life, and no scientist says so, especially Martin Rees, the atheist Astronomer Royal, and every other scientist What if God decided that rape was OK, would it be OK? God can change his moral nature arbitrarily, can’t he? Would you have any preference as to whether I was born an atheist baby or a Muslim baby?bornagain77_{March 31, 2011
March
03
Mar
31
31
2011
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

"Science is incompatible with the doctrines of every single religion, but it’s not incompatible with deism." lolwut? I suppose he means that as long as God keeps his grubby little hands out of the laboratory scientists may still lay claim to all ultimate truth. ???tragic mishap_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

Pulling out the portion of the debate re: Krauss and deism (It's around the 1:59:00 mark): ..the point is, I actually think Deism – the possible existence of a Divine Intelligence – is not an implausible postulate, and I won't argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place. The question is, is there evidence for that? And that's we (try to debate? Not clear here). So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible, and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe and it may indeed ultimately, um, we may find it's required. But the relationship between that and the specific God some people believe in here and the specific God some other people believe in here obviously is a problem, because not everybody can be right. (…) Science is incompatible with the doctrines of every single religion, but it's not incompatible with deism. So... he pretty much conceded 90% of the debate to Craig in the Q&A session, since establishing the plausibility of the existence of a mere God was where his efforts were centrally directed.nullasalus_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Of note; for those who missed the debate, they already have it loaded so you can just go here and watch it; http://mckimmon.online.ncsu.edu/online/Viewer/?peid=c71f72ecead9438faf30bb39b4b1c3051dbornagain77_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Yeah nullasalus, I was kind of hoping that Dr. Craig would have driven that point home, it seemed that Dr. Craig let him off the hook way to easy when Dr. Krauss conceded the possibility of a Deistic creation event. It was about the only thing in all that Dr. Krauss said that really interested me! :) It seemed he just rambled about unsubstantiated stuff all night.bornagain77_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

BA77, Also, it seems like Krauss was putting tremendous weight on "The universe doesn't look like it has a purpose." But to me the universe does look as if it has a purpose. So.. what, does that mean I now have considerable warrant to believe in the Christian God (since he's pretty much giving away the case on a mere Deistic God) by Krauss' own standards?nullasalus_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, I was wondering the same thing. But more amazing to me was that Dr. Krauss, being a professor of physics, did not realize the overwhelming Theistic implications from Quantum Physics, much less his grudging acceptance of Deistic implications from a beginning for the universe. To give a little background on the 'overwhelming Theistic Implications", this video that Dr. Dembski posted a while back; The Known Universe by AMNH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U ,,,got me to wondering about the centrality we observe for the earth in the video. I mean, why exactly would the earth exhibit centrality in the known universe??? I kicked around the 4-Dimensional (4_D) space-time of General Relativity for a while,,, Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ , but something smelled fishy with 4-D space-time, and I realized that 4-D space time was insufficient in itself to explain centrality in the universe for radically different points of observation in the universe, mainly because of finite (10^80) particles to work with for each point we may propose for centrality. Though this was lack in 4-D space-time was obvious to me, I needed more proof, thus I then scratched around a little bit more and found that exhaustive examination of General Relativity themselves revealed a 'geodesic incompleteness'. The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf And to top that off, the following article, which surreptitiously appeared the time I was wondering about all this, speaks of a proof developed by legendary mathematician Kurt Gödel, from a thought experiment, in which Gödel showed General Relativity could not be a complete description of the universe: THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html Thus I had my proof that 4-D space-time was insufficient to explain centrality for each point in the universe,,,But if General Relativity is insufficient, within itself, to explain different points of centrality in the universe, What would be sufficient? Of course the answer is quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation could provide the sufficient explanation of centrality! But I only knew of the double slit observer effect,,, Double Slit Experiment - Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/ ,, so I needed more proof and scratched around and found this,,, Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm ,,,and to top this off I found that universal quantum wave collapse to each 'central observer' could be further refined to a very 'personal level',,, First I found this,,, "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. Then a while later I found this key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries: Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination and implementation! Thus explaining to me Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Thus nullasus, after I went through all that it caused me to observe this; I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. Thus nullasalus, that is why I wondered at the fact that Professor Krauss, being a professor of physics, would only grudgingly give a nod to a 'impersonal' Deistic god when the evidence from physics is clearly for a personal Theistic God! Moreover nullasalus, this can be extended,,, The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time 'unifying' into a 'theory of everything'.(Einstein, Penrose). Yet, the unification, into a 'theory of everything', between what is in essence the 'infinite world of Quantum Mechanics' and the 'finite world of the space-time of General Relativity' seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfgbornagain77_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Exactly what does Krauss teach his students? Nothing? The fundamental properties, mechanisms, laws and behavior of nothing, of course.nullasalus_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Krauss seemed to revel in the hope that nothing is really known, but then he seemed pretty convinced that there was no evidence for God. This doesn't seem very consistent. I think Craig made the more rational case. At least he appealed to what is known. This makes me wonder....Exactly what does Krauss teach his students? Nothing?Bantay_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

Apparently, Krauss said that he's 'very open to the possibility of a deistic God' during the Q&A session. I wonder if he realizes how much he gives away by saying that.nullasalus_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

This is good; Preview of the William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate « Wintery Knight http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/preview-of-the-william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss-debate/bornagain77_{March 30, 2011
March
03
Mar
30
30
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply