Happy Atheist Forum

Dr. William Lane Craig is a slick, well-practiced debater, but after the third or fourth time hearing his spiel (I guess I have an abnormally high tolerance for bullshit) I decided he's also a tiresome bore.  He's content to bring the same set of arguments to every appearance he makes, with few if any innovations in his presentation.  He's very good at what he does, though.  It doesn't matter that the content of his arguments has been torn into tiny bits of dreck in various places, on numerous occasions.  Usually he's performing in front of a mostly sympathetic audience, and he and they believe in the taffy and hand-waving.

Dr. Lawrence Krauss is an eminent physicist, a professor and occasional speaker on topics related to atheism and/or physics.  He says he doesn't like debates, and he certainly is not as proficient as Craig in that format.  However, the topic of this debate apparently was one that he felt was compelling enough that he chose to participate.

The sound quality is abysmal in this video.  For pretty much the entirety of it, there is an annoying 60 cycle hum and the mikes on the participants, especially Krauss, produce an unpleasantly over-modulated sound.

I happen to be something a fan of Krauss, though, so to me it was worth it.  I admit skipping over some of Craig's yammerings, and because of this it's impossible for me to say who I think "won" this debate.  Krauss, though not in his element (he's much better giving talks on physics and cosmology) does a reasonable job, while obviously outclassed in the debate format by Craig.

Direct link: THE GREAT DEBATE: IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD? Presented at North Carolina State University by Campus Crusade for Christ (http://mckimmon.online.ncsu.edu/online/Viewer/?peid=c71f72ecead9438faf30bb39b4b1c3051d)

Promotional Page (http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/)

I listened to this live....I missed the part where Craig actually presented anything that could be called evidence. Well, other than him basically stating that whatever was the thing that caused the universe is god (describing it in such a way that god could be the big bang or the multi-verse).

Did all the power point slides show up in the recording?  In the live broadcast they were down for most of the debate.

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011 ... rauss.html (http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html)


Craig is an excellent logician and I fail to see that his arguments have been refuted as they are certainly sound in that if the premises are valid then the conclusion is true.  You may find that he keeps presenting them because he would welcome a valid refutation as this would present genuine challenge.

Consider the law of the excluded middle

A proposition can not be both true and false.

So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

Do most atheist claim to have evidence for atheism?  Is there a strong atheology that gives them an apologetic to give defense of that view?  When atheist talk of evidence it begs the question of what they define as evidence?

consider what is evidence: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... dence.html (http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2008/07/principles-of-evidence.html)

I don't profess to have all truths or knowledge but what I find out there points to the Christian God.  And with an open mind I can recognize what counts as evidence and a logical coherent worldview need not have all the entailment's hammered down for one to feel one is on the right track.

There is even an argument about what is truth: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... a_of_truth (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criteria_of_truth)

Quote from: "freeservant"http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/william-lane-craig-vs-lawrence-krauss.html


Craig is an excellent logician and I fail to see that his arguments have been refuted as they are certainly sound in that if the premises are valid then the conclusion is true.  You may find that he keeps presenting them because he would welcome a valid refutation as this would present genuine challenge.

Consider the law of the excluded middle

A proposition can not be both true and false.

So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

Do most atheist claim to have evidence for atheism?  Is there a strong atheology that gives them an apologetic to give defense of that view?  When atheist talk of evidence it begs the question of what they define as evidence?

consider what is evidence: http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... dence.html (http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2008/07/principles-of-evidence.html)

I don't profess to have all truths or knowledge but what I find out there points to the Christian God.  And with an open mind I can recognize what counts as evidence and a logical coherent worldview need not have all the entailment's hammered down for one to feel one is on the right track.

There is even an argument about what is truth: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... a_of_truth (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Criteria_of_truth)

Here is a thread where atheists and theists when back and forth on the question of whether we can disprove God.  This went on and on for days.  http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6459

Of course, you can only go so far when attempting to prove a negative.  However, the burden of proof is not on me, but on the person trying to tell me that the supernatural exists.  I simply don't care whether or not someone believes in God.  My beautiful wife does and that doesn't bother me a bit.  The religious, however, seem to have a mission of proselytizing.

I don't know if I am going to be able to watch the whole debate, certainly not in one sitting.

Craig's first argument was based on the Cosmological Argument.
1. Everything that exists has an explaination of its existence...
2. The Universe exists
3. If the Universe has an explaination for that existence, then that explaination is God.
4. Therefore the explaination of the universe is God.

My personal reaction to this argument is that this is a very dishonest argument. The debater must know the appaulingly obvious fallicy and hence is resorting to underhanded, dishonest and intentionally misleading tactics for the purpose of "winning" a debate. He simply cannot believe this is evidence of anything (not even in simply raising the probability of God by a miniscule fraction of a percent). Why does he so quickly resort to such a bad argument? Does this mean he has no honest and semi convincing argument in support of his stance? Does he take the audience for fools? Is he really an atheist in disguise with the intent of making theists look like idiots?

In case you are wondering, the issue with the argument is this:
Statement 3 makes a baseless assumption that there is a God which is outside SpaceTime reality and that the God was the cause of the Universe. There is no attempt to prove the god's existence, there is no attempt other than a feable tounge in cheek suggestion that the only alternative is for abstract objects like the number 7.  By abstract objects, I take it that he means "Concepts" rather that existent objects. He very cheekily tries to seperate the God concept as being something other than an abstract object so that he can discredit abstract objects and leave himself only with God, however his discredit of abstract objects also discredits the God concept. If God is something other than an abstract concept then he has not gone to the trouble to explain why god can be the only non abstract concept outside of SpaceTime reality.
Statement 4 is exactly the same as statement 3, only worded slightly differently, so basically he is saying that his conclusion is not only based on an assumption but that his conclusion IS the assumption. With regards to this argument you could simply replace the injection of God in statement 3 with any conceptual object which is not proven to be only a concept e.g. Pink unicorn, Sasquache, Loch Ness, Santa Claus, Dr Who, Lister... and your conclusion in Statement 4 would be none other than Pink unicorn, Sasquache, Loch Ness, Santa Claus, Dr Who, Lister...
This is such a dishonest argument, surely theists have something better.

Also of note, with regards to his set up for the debate, I noticed a technique he used. He set the bar very high, suggesting that it could be proven that the probability of God is more than 50%. He then avoids having to prove this noting that the debate is not about proving this high bar, but leaves the audience thinking that maybe he could actually prove it if necessary. He then drops the bar much, much lower, giving the audience the appearance that he is tasked with a very easy proposition, almost trivial, given what could be proved (but which is left to the audience's imagination since that is not the objective for today). This is a cheep but effective trick, but shows very quickly that this guy is slick and slippery and needs to resort to cheap tricks because the meat of his arguments are likely not strong enough to stand by themselves.

Quote from: "fester30"Consider the law of the excluded middle

A proposition can not be both true and false.

So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

Do most atheist claim to have evidence for atheism?  Is there a strong atheology that gives them an apologetic to give defense of that view?  When atheist talk of evidence it begs the question of what they define as evidence?

Here is a thread where atheists and theists when back and forth on the question of whether we can disprove God.  This went on and on for days.  http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6459

Of course, you can only go so far when attempting to prove a negative.  However, the burden of proof is not on me, but on the person trying to tell me that the supernatural exists.  I simply don't care whether or not someone believes in God.  My beautiful wife does and that doesn't bother me a bit.  The religious, however, seem to have a mission of proselytizing.[/quote]

Try and explore with me the rules of debate:

QuoteTheists, it is asserted, have the burden of proof. As I have demonstrated before, burden of proof is a debating term referring to the party making an assertion at the start of a debate. That person makes the case for his point. Then the opposing side has the burden of rebuttal, being required to refute the case being presented using the same standards for acceptance and rejection as are used for the original case; then the rebuttor makes a counter case, the validity of which is, again, subject to the same standards for acceptance and rejection.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... there.html (http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/11/challenge-to-atheists-prove-that-there.html)

If the atheist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.

We both have the same standards or it is my view that the non-belief vacuum-head atheists type don't stand upon a standard that is to be considered rational or comports with the axioms of logic.

I will see what I can contribute to the thread you mentioned.

Quote from: "Stevil"In case you are wondering, the issue with the argument is this:
Statement 3 makes a baseless assumption that there is a God which is outside SpaceTime reality and that the God was the cause of the Universe. There is no attempt to prove the god's existence, there is no attempt other than a feable tounge in cheek suggestion that the only alternative is for abstract objects like the number 7.  By abstract objects, I take it that he means "Concepts" rather that existent objects. He very cheekily tries to seperate the God concept as being something other than an abstract object so that he can discredit abstract objects and leave himself only with God, however his discredit of abstract objects also discredits the God concept. If God is something other than an abstract concept then he has not gone to the trouble to explain why god can be the only non abstract concept outside of SpaceTime reality.

Here is a post that speaks to why the third statement is not baseless.

QuoteHierarchical Domains, not Magesteria
In the first post, the idea that reality extends beyond the realm of the tangible is presented. The first level of transcendence is the intangible domain of intuition, which is a form of thought. Thought itself is an intangible, as with many concepts that we use and believe every day. On another list one commenter observed that his "jar of 'meaning' is empty". Meaning is transcendent; it can't be weighed, measured, or thrown out with the trash. And what about the "meaning of meaning"? The word "meaning" does have a meaning or we wouldn't be able to use it. And the "meaning of the meaning of meaning"? Well, this demonstrates a hierarchy, all of which do have...meaning. In the world of the hierarchy of "domains", what would the next domain level above thought and intuition look like?



If level 1 is "sensate", and level 2 is extra-natural "intuition / thought", then we find that level 3 is "acquired through a second level of extra-natural faculties". And if Godel's theorems hold, the third level would be required to exist in order to validate the second level. So the third level fully encompasses the second level, just as the second level fully encompasses the first.



Think of two concentric spheres, with level 1 at the very center filling the smallest sphere, and level 2 between the level 1 sphere and the level 2 sphere. Level 3 would exist outside the other two spheres while encompassing them at the same time. The "magesteria" are concentric spheres, and by the way, they are not magesteria at all: they are hierarchical domains, with the "sensate", natural empiricism fully enclosed by the other two "extranatural" domains.



This argument for the extra-extra-natural depends only upon logic and rational thought, and does not involve theism, deism, or fantasy in any way. And I am aware of the argument against Godel's theorems: must they have higher order validation in order for the theorems themselves to be known to be true? If so then they are true. If not, they are also true! But wait, maybe Godel's theorems don't apply to anything but math! However, math is just logic and rational thought applied to sets and numbers. So Godel's theorems must apply to logic and rational thought as well! That is the beauty of it.



Level 3; it's out there.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/se ... %20Domains (http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/Godel%20and%20the%20Higher%20Domains)

For the hide bound naturalist/materialist they are not even free thinkers enough to see level two even when their intuitions and thoughts show materialism to be self refuting unless we are all under a noncompatablist hard determinism.  This determinism means that we are all wasting time.

QuoteSo Godel's theorems must apply to logic and rational thought as well! That is the beauty of it.

And this beauty is not for the closed mind that can not think outside the stilted godless box that is the atheist worldview.

Quote from: "freeservant"If the atheist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.

If the aunicornist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.
If the a-alienist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.
If the aleprechaunist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.
If the afariest concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.


Obviously...not having a belief in something is neither incoherent nor irrational in the absence of evidence.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "freeservant"If the atheist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.

If the aunicornist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.
If the a-alienist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.
If the aleprechaunist concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.
If the afariest concedes that they have no burden of rebuttal then they have no evidence to present on their side and are thus incoherent and irrational.


Obviously...not having a belief in something is neither incoherent nor irrational in the absence of evidence.

FIRST:  There is evidence that give the Christian validation and confirmation for their belief

SECOND:  The atheist only functions from what they believe that gives confirmation for them.

Both have a firm evidence based belief system that should if it is to be considered rational comports with the laws of logic and debate under a free and open marketplace of ideas.
                 

For atheists to claim rationality this entails a worldview that is coherent or they are just blathering a strawman word salad about noodles non-stamp collecting and baldness is the haircolor of satire.  (anti-rational and is automatically self-defeating)

The law of the excluded middle means you are either a rational thinking person who comports to your beliefs or a satirical anti-rationalist who is blinded and unthinking.

Q.E.D

QuoteArguments of an experiential nature â€" experiencing the deity or a spiritual experience â€" are rejected as “brain farts” in the words of one Atheist. All experiences are explainable in terms of brain states and / or brain chemical imbalances. Correlation is causation it is presumed. Another claims that experiences cannot be trusted because the cause of the experience cannot be correlated with the content of the experience(!)

By labeling all intuitive knowledge as fallacious, chemically imbalanced, brain farts, the Atheists have Poisoned the Well, and have used that tactical fallacy to shut down any argumentation of personal experience as delusional.

So the demand is reductively focused on material evidence of a non-material being, one that would exist necessarily outside space-time and mass-energy, a being whose non-material characteristics we cannot even imagine, much less measure using devices that do not apply in any way, being designed to measure material things.

Thus the demand itself is self-contradictory, self-refuting, and Atheists who have any logic in them at all know this. A non-coherent demand, being irrational, does not merit a response, of course, in spite of some theists attempting to respond (with arguments which cannot possibly satisfy the non-coherents making the non-coherent demand). Because the demand is non-coherent, no answer can suffice, so there is the spectacle of theists being chewed up in their attempts to match rational arguments to an irrational question, and Atheists sneering at their failures. Rationally speaking there is no rationality involved.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... there.html (http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/11/challenge-to-atheists-prove-that-there.html)

The irrational can think they are rational all they like but the more I get word salad satire and strawman the more it proves my point and shows a fundamental failure of some to be actual truth seekers who show they have a rational mind not clouded with emotion and what is pointless fallacious thinking.

I see that taking some time away from the forum did not increase your understanding of atheists or logic.

Quote from: "Whitney"I see that taking some time away from the forum did not increase your understanding of atheists or logic.

No I would say that by using logic I understand some atheists quite well.  (I use to be an atheist)

I respect the atheists that are genuine truth seekers and are not bound to the postmodern anti-rationalist wing of the group.

It is all about following the logical entailment's...


They try and function not from what they do not believe as a never ending argument from personal incredulity but from what they do believe and are willing to question their presuppositions as I have sought to do.  I am ready to be an atheist at any time if I could find good coherent logic based probabilities that have epistemic weight.  To even participate here I must question my own noetic effects and understanding of the world around us.  I need not take much time here to see the axiomatic reflex of postmodernism and anti-rationalist mindsets.  Don't worry I shan't stay long if no good critical thinkers are around.  If the tautology like the one in my sig works then I would be wasting my time with anti-rationalists who can't figure out why the word salad of it is all just a non-belief thus can't question ones own mind.  I mean come on, with this closed mindset one can't even face the possibility that they can't even falsify or properly define what atheism is.

Here is a good example of the issue I am presenting from a former RDF forum participant

http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011 ... organ.html (http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/interview-former-atheist-richard-morgan.html)

I seek the real free thinkers who are ready to critically question everything including their own belief system.

Also:

The first 20min of Krauss's presentation is fraught with an improper mindset.  Extraordinary claims ONLY require sufficient evidence.  Any claim only requires sufficient evidence.  In court this is known as either beyond a reasonable doubt or the preponderance of the evidence.  This shows the black and white thinking of someone who may be operating on wrong presuppositions or axioms that turn out to be wrong.  Given the ten impossible things before breakfast meme I would as him if he sees the difficulty of the quantum inference that something comes from nothing.  Right now I have two books by Feynman that I intend to read.  The Pleasure of Finding Things Out  and The Character of Physical Law   It should be some interesting reading.  This also begs the question of why in the quantum realm something can come from an absolute condition of nothing and this does not bleed over into the physical realm.  We should have magic if that is the case amiright?  You know Poof an there is a new astronomical object ex nihillo or poof and you have cheese puffs with your beer....

If you want to stick around here you need to actually address the membership and not respond as if you are talking to strong militant new-atheist types.  The reason I said you don't understand atheists or logic is because I posted something and then you responded with the assumption that I took the strong atheist position; something that did not logically follow from my post.  Not to mention that it is completely illogical to demand evidence of non-existence...things that don't exist can't leave behind evidence.

Quote from: "Whitney"If you want to stick around here you need to actually address the membership and not respond as if you are talking to strong militant new-atheist types.  The reason I said you don't understand atheists or logic is because I posted something and then you responded with the assumption that I took the strong atheist position; something that did not logically follow from my post.  Not to mention that it is completely illogical to demand evidence of non-existence...things that don't exist can't leave behind evidence.

Yes I see that I need to go a little deeper

Presupostion:  You can only have proof if it comports to certain empirical standards?  Is this the axiom you function from?

Consider that proof is a more interesting and nuanced thing.   Also understand that this:  

Quote from: "Whitney"Not to mention that it is completely illogical to demand evidence of non-existence...things that don't exist can't leave behind evidence.

Did you know that this is a POSITIVE assertion?  You see as a former atheist myself it was interesting to learn all the positive knowledge based assertions that I hid under the obfuscation of atheism somehow having a weak part or a strong part.  This is baked into the postmodern rationalizations cooked into the idea that atheist make no positive assertions thus have the vacuum head of non-belief.

How can we even prove we are not brains in a vat somewhere?

Look into these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma)

QuoteHere, one has a mere choice between:
an infinite regression, which appears because of the necessity to go ever further back, but isn’t practically feasible and doesn’t, therefore, provide a certain foundation;
a logical circle in the deduction, which is caused by the fact that one, in the need to found, falls back on statements which had already appeared before as requiring a foundation, and which circle does not lead to any certain foundation either; and finally:
a break of searching at a certain point, which indeed appears principally feasible, but would mean a random suspension of the principle of sufficient reason.
Albert stressed repeatedly that there is no limitation of the Münchhausen-Trilemma to deductive conclusions. The verdict concerns also inductive, causal, transcendental, and all otherwise structured justifications. They all will be in vain.
Therefore certain justification is impossible to attain. Once having given up the classical idea of certain knowledge one can stop the process of justification where one wants to stop, presupposed one is ready to start critical thinking at this point always anew if necessary.

Wow!  This makes proving a positive just a problematic as proving a negative amiright??

Consider this problem in Science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude)

QuoteThe problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory. This problem was central to the philosophy of science of Karl Popper, largely because Popper was among the first to affirm that truth is the aim of scientific inquiry while acknowledging that most of the greatest scientific theories in the history of science are, strictly speaking, false. If this long string of purportedly false theories is to constitute progress with respect to the goal of truth then it must be at least possible for one false theory to be closer to the truth than others.
Popper assumed that scientists are interested in highly informative theories, in part for methodological reasons â€" the more informative a theory, the easier it is to test, and the greater its predictive power. But clearly informative power by itself is rather easy to come by, and we do not want to gain content by sacrificing truths. So Popper proposed that closeness to the truth is a function of two factors â€" truth and content. The more truths that a theory entails (other things being equal) the closer it is to the truth

Even in science we should think in terms of proof being very limited and empiricism even more limited.

The atheist makes positive claims no less then the Theist but one can see that if you fall into the logic trap of having a non-belief like a mental vacuum in your head you go further down the path of making a religion like scientism or the atheist equivalent to buddhism.  Remember that both these religions are comparable with the false idea that you can have such a thing as a weak or strong atheism. The postmondernist or anti-rationalist can't use critical thinking to see how self refuting this meme can be.

Look as the definition in use since 1546:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

From the Greek 'a' -without 'theos' -god

So the atheist is full of positive assertions and efforts to show the negation of the God Hypothesis.  It is just sad that the blinded anti-rationalist atheist is so confused by postmodern philosophy  that presents that there are no truth  but relativistic personal truths that makes it against the laws of logic and thus an axiom for the blinded self.

I don't believe in god...i don't claim to be able to prove that a god doesn't exist.  It would not change my life if a creator god did exist.  Quit trying to tell me what I ought to believe and deal with what I'm actually claiming.

Quote from: "freeservant"It is just sad that the blinded anti-rationalist atheist is so confused by postmodern philosophy

That is sad, anyway who is this sad, blind  and confused atheist?
If you see them you should suggest they drop by, we'll cheer them up.  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "freeservant"It is just sad that the blinded anti-rationalist atheist is so confused by postmodern philosophy

That is sad, anyway who is this sad, blind  and confused atheist?
If you see them you should suggest they drop by, we'll cheer them up.  

Quite right, I have yet to meet such a person, on a forum or in real life.

Quote from: "freeservant"Craig is an excellent logician and I fail to see that his arguments have been refuted as they are certainly sound in that if the premises are valid then the conclusion is true.  

There is a deceptive trick you are conjuring here. You are asserting the premise to be true.

So lets take a look at Craig's first argument within the referenced debate.

QuotePremise 1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence...
Premise 2 The Universe exists
Premise 3 If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is God.

So if we assert these premises to be true then no doubt the conclusion is true simply because the conclusion is none other than a rewording of the third premise devoid of the condition and replaced with an assertion that the universe has an explanation for its existence. You could say that the "if" condition was elevated to fact by derivation from premises 1 and 2 but premise 1 was a baseless assertion, a presupposition, making premise 4's elevation of premise 3's condition a fallacy.

The "surprise" injection of the god concept within premise 3 is none other than a presupposition drawing on the Christian epistemic viewpoint. Hence the argument is not only baseless but is also circular in nature limited only to a Christian relevance. In essence this is a perfect example of preaching to the converted.

With this in mind I completely understand why you fail to see that his arguments have been refuted. To use your own terminology, It is just sad that the blinded Christian is so confused

Note: In a response to my analysis of Craig's argument you provided additional information that you no doubt deemed necessary to fill in the gaps of Craig's argument. Rather than address your additional information I choose to avoid this diversion in an attempt to remain on topic with regards to addressing the merits of Craig's argument.

Quote from: "freeservant"You may find that he keeps presenting them because he would welcome a valid refutation as this would present genuine challenge.

With the first argument Craig merely regurgitates the Cosmological argument of which he is not the author and of which the successful refutes are well documented.

Quote from: "freeservant"So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

The Atheist's stance is that of disbelief. Disbelief does not require proof to the contrary, only rejection of the proofs offered by the proponents of the god hypothesis are necessary for the Atheist's stance.

Quote from: "freeservant"I don't profess to have all truths or knowledge but what I find out there points to the Christian God.  

Finally we are starting to get some kind of definition of what is meant by the term "God". Not simply the creator of the universe, but also an intelligent, all powerful, all loving being who sent forth two she bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head.

Quote from: "freeservant"And with an open mind I can recognize what counts as evidence.

I assume your definition of an open mind would be knowledge of, acceptance of, and adherence to the Christian epistemic viewpoint.

Freeservant, perhaps there is a God, but if so I don't believe in it.  I can't prove nonexistence of this God, and I realize that, but it doesn't matter because I don't care if you or anybody else decides to believe in it.  I can understand if someone chooses to believe in a God because of things we cannot yet explain.  I choose, however, to believe that just because there are things we cannot explain, it doesn't prove that there is a supernatural being controlling or creating it all.  Gaps in scientific knowledge, to me, are not evidence that there is a higher power to fill in those gaps.  Your premise 3 doesn't do it for me, because I could just as easily insert Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, my Dad, Whitney, The Magic Pudding, or Tank in place of God.  

If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is God.
If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is fester30.

I could tell you I'm God, and I could use Christian methods to refute your arguments that I'm not.  I could even write my own book and call it the Holy Truth of Fester30's Godness.  You wouldn't be able to argue against that book.  I could also guarantee that I could write it with far fewer inconsistencies and contradictions than the Bible.  It's even possible I could start my own religion with it... just look at L. Ron Hubbard, who started a religion to win a bet with a friend.  All my followers would be Festering with love for me!

Whether or not there is a God, or decent arguments in favor of the existence of a God, there really aren't decent arguments for the validity of Christianity as God's chosen religion.  You try to use logic and debating skills to prove God's existence, and then you choose Christianity as your vessel of faith.  Why not dump Jesus and just believe in a creator God who created and then just left things alone?  At least then you don't need to lean on such a broken text as the Bible, and you wouldn't have to worship a God who has sinned by the Bible's definitions far more than any human.  You could be just like Thomas Jefferson!

So... who all wants to Fester?

Perhaps I need to find a new name for myself.  I don't think Festering would be a very attractive thing for people to want to follow.  Kinda sounds gross.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"Craig is an excellent logician and I fail to see that his arguments have been refuted as they are certainly sound in that if the premises are valid then the conclusion is true.  

There is a deceptive trick you are conjuring here. You are asserting the premise to be true.

First you have not stated the premises correctly.

Quote from: "Stevil"So lets take a look at Craig's first argument within the referenced debate.
Premise 1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence...

You omitted an important part and that is the conditional Begins.

Did you begin to exist?  I would hope you look to your parents for that answer.

The Universe did Begin to exist.  This leads to a condition that has to be outside of this universe and before Time=0  and points to a Timeless and spaceless entity.

Quote from: "Stevil"
Premise 2 The Universe began to exist
Premise 3 If the Universe has an explanation for that existence, then that explanation is God.

So if we assert these premises to be true then no doubt the conclusion is true simply because the conclusion is none other than a rewording of the third premise devoid of the condition and replaced with an assertion that the universe has an explanation for its existence. You could say that the "if" condition was elevated to fact by derivation from premises 1 and 2 but premise 1 was a baseless assertion, a presupposition, making premise 4's elevation of premise 3's condition a fallacy.

The answer is no... No there is no fallacy... One is not a baseless assertion.  Here is what you need to then prove.

1: things that begin to exist can do so ex nihilo  and further that that ex nihilo does not necessitate an intelligent proscriptive cause.  This bald assertion is made by Krauss in the debate

2:  Ex nihilo causation to be established begs the question of observation or evidence of your five senses observing magic.  (defined in this case as un caused causation)  On could even say POOF there it is.

And don't think to at this point ask what caused God as there can be no cause for a timeless being just as there is no cause for the laws of logic or mathematics.

Quote from: "Stevil"The "surprise" injection of the god concept within premise 3 is none other than a presupposition drawing on the Christian epistemic viewpoint. Hence the argument is not only baseless but is also circular in nature limited only to a Christian relevance. In essence this is a perfect example of preaching to the converted.

With this in mind I completely understand why you fail to see that his arguments have been refuted. To use your own terminology, It is just sad that the blinded Christian is so confused

I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir.  I was an atheist.  I am well versed that there is no true atheist{as tank has never found one]  I am well versed in the preaching of the tautology that the atheist has no need for evidence and proof for their certainty.

I will find here many atheists that are certain that they need no evidence or confirmation for their belief that is a non-belief that shows just how self defeating atheism is as a worldview.

Speaking of preaching I put together a little example: All hail the truthieness of atheism
For the utility of the tool of science shall lead us
The meaningless purposeless emergence shall be our righteousness
We shall fear no evil unless we say it is evil
Christianity is the virus of evil that we shall defeat with non-belief as we evolve to the evolution of a godless utopia
though we walk through the pratfalls of outrageous fortune Darwinism shall comfort us.
Bring forth our vaunted Scientism so that we may worship at the greatness of Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and the amazing Randi
The way is bleak and the end is death so we shall then celebrate the short life we have as the only god of solipsism that we shall ever know is ourselves.
Our baseless assertions shall be a light upon our twisted footpath
Our dogma of non-belief is the Captain of our guard-less defenses against any intellectual burden to show the evidence for our views that are non-views
Tis a  far far better light that the atheist shall bring
For we face the demon of a Beneficent God that we do exorcism of by our wishful thinking
To strawman and satirize all the days of our life as we commit the fallacy of poisoning the well with the hegemony of empiricism.
Bye our wisdom we do reject ontological arguments unless we doth smuggle them in for our own righteous means.

This is an attempt at humor so some of the spelling is intentional

also see if you are a fundamentalist atheist: http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html (http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html)

Are you certain that premise one is a baseless assertion?

QuoteLudwig Wittgenstein also seems to connect certainty with indubitability. He says that “If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty” (1969, §115). What makes possible doubting is “the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn” (1969, §341). Although Wittgenstein's view is sometimes taken to beâ€"or to provide the basis forâ€"an epistemically satisfying response to skepticism (see, e.g., Wright 2003 and 2004), it is hard to see the kind of certainty he has characterized as being epistemic, rather than merely psychological, in nature (on this point, see Pritchard 2005). Thus, when Wittgenstein says, “The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing” (1969, §166) it seems clear that the so-called hinge propositions are ones that we are psychologically incapable of calling into question. This is, of course, compatible with their being false.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/)

Are we not BOTH certain of our respective positions?

Are we not BOTH on and epistemic journey?

We BOTH must operate from a doxastic position.  IF one operates from a pure lack of any conviction or noetic effect is that what I am to think atheism is??

Quote from: "Stevil"Note: In a response to my analysis of Craig's argument you provided additional information that you no doubt deemed necessary to fill in the gaps of Craig's argument. Rather than address your additional information I choose to avoid this diversion in an attempt to remain on topic with regards to addressing the merits of Craig's argument.

Trying to dodge the issue of Gödel's incompleteness theorems?  It is germaine to the issue.  It is germaine to the issue regarding how God comes into the question.  But if you don't want to address it then that speaks to your credibility when you make the following bald assertions.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"You may find that he keeps presenting them because he would welcome a valid refutation as this would present genuine challenge.

With the first argument Craig merely regurgitates the Cosmological argument of which he is not the author and of which the successful refutes are well documented.

One does not have to keep up formulation new ideas if there are ones that work.  But I understand your investment in this ad-hominem

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"So if I submit that the proposition regarding the existence of God is true then it follows that the atheist shares a burden in regarding proving the negation.

The Atheist's stance is that of disbelief. Disbelief does not require proof to the contrary, only rejection of the proofs offered by the proponents of the god hypothesis are necessary for the Atheist's stance.  

Ahh the certainty of pure skepticism aye??  see this link again: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/)

Even if you are certain of your uncertainty then you need something to ground that with so the atheist can't get away from the fact that they have something that gives them reason to believe or reason to be certain otherwise the tautology in my signature works with incorrigible devastation!!! rofl

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"I don't profess to have all truths or knowledge but what I find out there points to the Christian God.  

Finally we are starting to get some kind of definition of what is meant by the term "God". Not simply the creator of the universe, but also an intelligent, all powerful, all loving being who sent forth two she bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head.

ROFL!  MOAR PREACHING.... I love it.  Let's do a bible study sometime.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"And with an open mind I can recognize what counts as evidence.

I assume your definition of an open mind would be knowledge of, acceptance of, and adherence to the Christian epistemic viewpoint.

Bottom line is that my definition of an open mind is the acceptance of the laws of logic and a viewpoint that seeks TRUTH.  Nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: "freeservant"The Universe did Begin to exist.

There is no evidence for the beginning of the Universe as per Craig's definition of the Universe "SpaceTime reality"
It seems to me that Space has always been there. Space being simply a 3 dimentional coordinate system. Time is realitive to each piece of energy/matter but not equivalent for all energy/matter in existence. Reality is simply Space, Time and Energy/Matter combined.
Although the sum total of energy/matter is always the same as theorised via the Conservation of Energy law, it is likely that that sum total = zero. I feel that it is likely that there was not a single instance where all energy/matter began, I feel this is a continual process even though the sum will always be zero. Our "expanding Universe" (that which is theorised to have been expanding from the big bang) is only a very small part of all that exists within reality. There are likely an infinite amount of expanding Universes, this is a perpetual system that has no beginning and no end. This is my current hypothesis, not my belief.  

Quote from: "freeservant"This leads to a condition that has to be outside of this universe and before Time=0  and points to a Timeless and spaceless entity.

I find my hypothesis much more likely than an intelligent being outside of SpaceTime made of nothing that decided to conjure it all up. Even if there were a
Timeless and spaceless entity that created the universe there is no proof to say this was an intelligent being or in anyway fits the description of the god of the bible.

Quote from: "freeservant"Here is what you need to then prove.

I don't need to prove anything. I hold a weak Atheist stance. I am simply asserting that there is not enough evidence to suggest there is a god, any god of any religion.

Quote from: "freeservant"And don't think to at this point ask what caused God as there can be no cause for a timeless being just as there is no cause for the laws of logic or mathematics.

Agreed, there was no cause of these things into existence. None of them exist, they are merely concepts imagined by humans.

Quote from: "freeservant"I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir.  I was an atheist.

Noone needs to be reminded. Everyone and everything that is or was ever in existence is or was an Atheist. To have a belief in god one must be taught.

Quote from: "freeservant"I am well versed in the preaching of the tautology that the atheist has no need for evidence and proof for their certainty.

Atheists need no preaching, no teaching, no knowledge. My neighbor's dog is an Atheist. My car is an Atheist. So am I.

Quote from: "freeservant"I will find here many atheists that are certain that they need no evidence or confirmation for their belief that is a non-belief

A disbelief is not a belief. Atheists are open minded and will accept evidence as it is presented, with lack of evidence an Atheist my form hypothesis but will reserve judgment.

Quote from: "freeservant"Are you certain that premise one is a baseless assertion?

Until evidence is presented to the contrary my answer is yes

Quote from: "freeservant"Are we not BOTH certain of our respective positions?

I am certain that there is no proof or evidence of gods. I am not certain whether or not gods exist, I am uncertain of the definition of god.

Quote from: "freeservant"Are we not BOTH on and epistemic journey?

My knowledge comes from what is predictable and recreatable. I know that many scientific theories are simply models of observations and may not be 100% accurate but many can accurately describe future events to a high certainty.
Your knowledge it seems comes from a very old book of stories.

Quote from: "freeservant"Trying to dodge the issue of Gödel's incompleteness theorems?  It is germaine to the issue.  It is germaine to the issue regarding how God comes into the question.  But if you don't want to address it then that speaks to your credibility when you make the following bald assertions.

What you added to Craig's argument didn't make much sense, there was much epistemic Christian belief assumed within. What spoke volumes to me was your meed to add to Craig's argument. Maybe you thought it was lacking.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"Finally we are starting to get some kind of definition of what is meant by the term "God". Not simply the creator of the universe, but also an intelligent, all powerful, all loving being who sent forth two she bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a man's bald head.

ROFL!  MOAR PREACHING.... I love it.  Let's do a bible study sometime.

I have much better things to do than study the bible or look to interperete it as inevitably the Christians do

Quote from: "freeservant"Bottom line is that my definition of an open mind is the acceptance of the laws of logic and a viewpoint that seeks TRUTH.  Nothing more and nothing less.

So you would have no problem accepting that there is no proof or evidence of any god theories and hence keep an open mind for when some might come along.

I'm pleased to see you here upholding Dr. Craig's ideas, freeservant.  Argumentative theists help keep this place more interesting, I think.  Stevil is doing just fine, so I'll try not duplicate his responses or step on his toes too much in my own reply.

Quote from: "freeservant"Here is what you need to then prove.

1: things that begin to exist can do so ex nihilo and further that that ex nihilo does not necessitate an intelligent proscriptive cause. This bald assertion is made by Krauss in the debate

Actually, Dr. Krauss gives a basis for his assertion from current thought in physics and cosmology; it's not bald at all.  Did you just ignore that, or do you have another reason for thinking that Krauss made a "bald assertion"?

Quote from: "freeservant"2: Ex nihilo causation to be established begs the question of observation or evidence of your five senses observing magic. (defined in this case as un caused causation) On could even say POOF there it is.

As pointed out above, Krauss is not talking about un-caused causation.  You seem to be making an argument from incredulity; because you find the statements of a well qualified and knowledgeable speaker hard to swallow, you dismiss them.  Quantum fluctuations are an established reality in physics.  As Krauss pointed out, this fact may mean that our space-time is a necessary result of the nature of reality.  We don't know that our space-time is all that there is.  The universe may actually be an eternal multi-verse; there is nothing in our current understanding of cosmology which prevents that from being the case.

Quote from: "freeservant"And don't think to at this point ask what caused God as there can be no cause for a timeless being just as there is no cause for the laws of logic or mathematics.

i can't resist this one (pace Stevil). Despite Craig's philosophically based assertions to the contrary, there is nothing in current cosmology or physics which makes an eternal universe or multi-verse (something beyond our present space-time) impossible.  Hypotheses based on that idea are still very much current, as Krauss pointed out.  Dr. Craig enjoyed trotting out his taxi-cab idea a couple of times.  I guess his thinking means that with God, the taxi-cab ride ends. The same may be true of the multi-verse.

Quote from: "freeservant"I am well versed that there is no true atheist{as tank has never found one] I am well versed in the preaching of the tautology that the atheist has no need for evidence and proof for their certainty.

Who (other than yourself) says that a necessary condition of atheism is certainty? There are some atheists who are certain of their position that there is no god or gods, and others who assert that they are open to considering any reasonable evidence to the contrary. As you can see, I'm trying to avoid getting into a definition dispute about whether atheism is a lack of belief or not.

Quote from: "freeservant"We BOTH must operate from a doxastic position.

Please define the term "doxastic position."

Quote from: "freeservant"IF one operates from a pure lack of any conviction... is that what I am to think atheism is??

Atheists who use the "lack of belief in God" definition are not saying that they lack convictions on anything, rather that they do not have a belief in God.  Most are also non-solipsist; they are quite convinced that reality outside their skulls exists.  That does not mean that non-solipsism is a necessary component of atheism though.

Quote from: "freeservant"... or noetic effect ...

Please define the term "noetic effect."

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"With the first argument Craig merely regurgitates the Cosmological argument of which he is not the author and of which the successful refutes are well documented.

One does not have to keep up formulation new ideas if there are ones that work. But I understand your investment in this ad-hominem

Actually, Dr. Craig's particular brand (Kalaam) has been refuted (see "Cosmological Kalamity" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html) for one example out of many); it doesn't work any more than the standard cosmological argument does. Craig and his followers will not admit this however, and blithely continue to use it.  The thing is, the cosmological argument is not evidence, even if it hadn't been debunked long since.  This debate was about evidence, not omphaloskepsis and hot air.

Quote from: "freeservant"Even if you are certain of your uncertainty then you need something to ground that with so the atheist can't get away from the fact that they have something that gives them reason to believe or reason to be certain...

Many atheists are only certain of things that they can say about themselves ("I love my wife") or things for which they have evidence ("The flame of the candle is hot.")  The "god hypothesis" falls outside those two categories for such atheists.

Debate post-mortem by Dr. Krauss (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php)

Debate post-mortem by Dr. Craig (http://www.facebook.com/notes/reasonable-faith/a-brief-post-mortem/144625275604375)

I need to reply briefly to some issues and can go more in depth when I am through with some personal issues.

I say again that the argument has not been successfully refuted.  Granted there have been many failed attemps and Dan Barkers is a poor attempt at best.


Let's look at some responses to the "Cosmological Kalamity"

http://sguthrie.net/barker_response.htm (http://sguthrie.net/barker_response.htm)

I am sorry for the copy-pasta but I have been given the STRONG impression that contempt prior to investigation is the modus operandi for some.

Quote(i) He is ignorant of the metaphysical claim "everything that begins to exist has a cause" used outside of theistic philosophy.  This claim is much older than David Hume who went to great lengths to defeat it (but to no avail).  Immanuel Kant (18th century) believed that this claim was a synthetic a priori truth and that it was unquestionable.  Barker's limited understanding of these sorts of claims is just made more evident.

(ii) Barker wants the same premise (premise 1) to wrongly imply "everything except God begins to exist" which is a straw man of the premise.  Here's how it is twisted.  The original premise is only about everything that begins to exist and that's all.  The revised premise a la Barker is not just about everything that begins to exist but about God's eternality, too!  So, it is only the poorly reconstructed argument that assumes what it ultimately tries to prove (actually, the initial kalam argument does not immediately prove God per se but that the universe has a cause!).  The original premise concentrates simply on a subset of all things, namely those things that begin to exist.  Nothing else is to be presumed in the first premise. Worse, the revised conclusion "Therefore, the universe is not God" is also a howling straw man since the argument is completely remade.

(iii) Barker resurrects the old challenge that the conclusion could just as equally apply to impersonal causes as God.  Those who have read presentations of kalam in their entirety know that this issue has been discussed and debunked.  Eternal impersonal causes would necessarily yield eternal effects.  Since the universe is a temporal effect, then the cause cannot be impersonal.  The idea about God possibly evolving from initial sources is just a red herring and a category mistake.

(iv) Despite controversies surrounding God and time, Barker commits another fundamental mistake about an "actual infinite."  In the context of the kalam, one of the subarguments to the second premise is that there are no actual infinites.  And Barker complains that God is supposed to be an actual infinite, So isn't the kalam self-refuting?  When proponents talk about an actual infinite, we mean "an infinite number of discrete segments."  The infinity of God is to be understood in terms of an undifferentiated infinite entity.

Given the poverty of Barkers effort I am surprised it has been mentioned.

You can look at another response here:  http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles ... -konfusion (http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/dan-barkers-kalam-konfusion)

QuoteHe does think that causation is entirely contained within the universe such that any attempt to justify talk of God's causing the universe to exist from observation is not allowed (I think). Here it seems plain that he just is not familiar with the literature surrounding the issues. There are many things that we can draw conclusions about that would "transcend" our universe (see here (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2216208), for example). In fact, supposing he is right, he has adopted a principle (that what we learn inside the universe cannot be applicable outside of it) and defeated his own position. Does his principle apply to our universe? How does he know? Why can't we apply the principles of causation to our universe in the same way?

....Also get ready for another blockbuster debate on the 7th!!

http://is.gd/VGPdVA (http://is.gd/VGPdVA)

http://calendar.nd.edu/events/cal/day/2 ... ar@nd.edu (http://calendar.nd.edu/events/cal/day/20110407/35_All+Events/CAL-2c9360a9-2edf6369-012e-df72c973-000012d7calendar@nd.edu/)/

https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=133604053378987 (https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=133604053378987)

This is going to be a long and painful exercise for me given I have virtually no free time in my life right now.
I have just seen argument 2. which is simply elaboration of the first half of proposition 3 of Craig's first argument which is the Cosmological Argument

Quote3. If the Universe has an explanation for that existence

He ponders about infinity and decides it is only an idea but doesn't exist. I'm not sure what he basis this conclusion on.
He then concludes that history only includes a finite amount of events. I feel this is a faulty conclusion, but easily something that people ponder about. Infinity is indeed difficult to comprehend.

He then makes a statement that Scientists have concluded that an expanding universe has a beginning. But he avoids expanding on what is meant by the beginning. I have found in my experience of debating with theists that they often perform this trick. They know that a word has multiple meanings and they use this to confuse their audience. They discuss one point implying a definition of the word but arguing a different definition. This way they twist reality.
In the argument made by Craig he states that scientists agree that an expanding universe had a beginning. He is implying a beginning of existence but he knows that the scientists meant a beginning of expansion. His definition of Universe is also blurred. At the beginning of the debate he defined the Universe as SpaceTime reality, but within point 2 he is arguing the expansion of the big bang which is likely only a very, very small part of SpaceTime reality. I doubt the scientist in question was stating that SpaceTime is expanding and had a beginning.
He then bizarrely extrapolated this to a multiverse, as if a multiverse is expanding or if all the universes within a multiverse had some kind of correlation to each other with regards to their respective beginnings. How does this relate to SpaceTime reality? How does it point to a beginning of SpaceTime reality? It simply does not. Anything referring to universes outside our own is pure speculation since other universes are beyond our ability to observe.

He then states that the cause must be transcendent of SpaceTime but avoids the issue of how something can exist and not be part of SpaceTime.

His conclusion is that god's existence must be more likely given the beginning of the universe that without it. I struggle to see, even if the universe had a beginning that this makes god more probable. Again it is a twist. The bible states that god created the universe. Well, we could then say that if the universe was not created then the bible is incorrect. Would this mean that god definitely does not exist or would it mean that the bible is interpreted incorrectly? Now if the universe did have a beginning, does this mean god is more probable?
Lets look at the odds:
The Universe didn't have a beginning. Odds of god's existence equals zero
The Universe did have a beginning. Odds of god's existence is equal or greater than zero.
To improve the likelihood of god's existence we need to rule out zero probability therefore we must have evidence that points to greater than zero probability.
Equal or greater than zero includes the probability of zero which means that we haven't improved the probability of god's existence.

Freeservant, in your understanding is there anything which exists (other than the creator god which Craig in the Kalaam is attempting to prove is the cause of the universe) which did not begin to exist?

Quote from: "Recusant"Freeservant, in your understanding is there anything which exists (other than the creator god which Craig in the Kalaam is attempting to prove is the cause of the universe) which did not begin to exist?

As a rationalist I think this will help you to understand some things that are both universal beyond the material entity we know as the universe but also can't have a means to have never not existed.  These are necessary, incorrigible, and like numbers where never not present.

QuoteThe FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts.  They are fundamental.  And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof.  So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

To restate that which was said before, without the fundamental “truths”, logic cannot exist.  Logic must be based upon something simple, consistent, and clear. Yet there are those that reject the first principles.  Rejecting them would have the effect of eliminating “rational” logic, and replacing it with a non-rational substitute.  For example, Nietzsche rejected the first principles and developed an antirational philosophy.  But any antirational philosophy must be considered fantasy by true rationalists.

Since rationalism depends entirely upon the validity of logic, it also then depends upon the validity of the first principles.  This is especially true of empiricism, which depends on the principle of cause and effect, and the principle of non-contradiction.  Were these not valid, empiricism would never have come into being.

So science, at least empirical science, is totally dependent upon the continuing validity and consistency across the universe of the first principles of logic and rational thought.

And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.  Thus, if science is thought to be valid, then intuition is also assumed to be valid.

Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist ... ciples.htm (http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist%20Talking%20Points%20first%20principles.htm)

---If link does not work: http://is.gd/qZrFKy (http://is.gd/qZrFKy)

Transcendence is part of the very fiber of not only this reality and how we understand all that is around us as rational thinking human beings but also points to a greater necessary being that is the end of any supposed infinite regress.

http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley ... scendental (http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve1.html#god-transcendental)

So...I've been away for a fair while.  I was here, ever so briefly, and then...zip...off like a politician after a prostitute.

 

And I see you've all been having quite the time while I've been gone.

So...let's see...

Quote from: "freeservant"Consider the law of the excluded middle

Consider the fallacy of the false dichotomy...

Quote from: "freeservant"The FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts. They are fundamental. And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof. So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

Not all intuitions are equal.  Some are very poor indeed.

Quote from: "freeservant"I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir. I was an atheist.

Really?!  What fun!  I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian!  Ah, the talks we shall have.  Makes me quiver, a little, in anticipation.  But of course, as you have obviously considered, and dispensed with, every possible argument in favor of an atheistic world-view merely by having been once self-identified as atheist - I mean, you must have, it couldn't possibly be that you were simply mistaken in your assessments somewhere along the way - and as I have once self-identified as a Christian, it must be that I have done similar work with the Christian world-view, and therefore both and neither of us are correct, and between the two of us, we have actually disproved the LNC!  Again, I say, what fun! amiright?!

Quote from: "freeservant"And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.

Once axioms, and the laws of relations holding among them, have been posited, we are on an inexorable course to certain conclusions.  But we would only continue to rely upon those axioms (and the posited, or observed, laws of their relations) if they did work in the real world, by modeling or explaining reality as we experience it.  Numbers and such thorough-going concepts are only considered "universals" because they are everywhere useful in describing relations among real objects.  If they ceased to do so, it is my strong "intuition" that we would cease to use them. And if you remark that they would exist in any case, if there were no one to think them - I say - PROVE IT!  Actually, I don't say that, that's childish...I say - what really exists are relations among objects.  Our numbers and theories are our ways of accounting for such relations.

Quote from: "freeservant"Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

Again, not all intuitions are equally valid. Just because some intuitions prove useful doesn't mean that all intuitions are true.

Wow, this guy IS FUN.  Livens up the place, yaknow! amiright?!

Quote from: "freeservant"As a rationalist I think this will help you to understand some things that are both universal beyond the material entity we know as the universe but also can't have a means to have never not existed.  These are necessary, incorrigible, and like numbers where never not present.

First, atheism does not equal rationalism. Trying to say that the atheist position is defined by rationalism doesn't work.  Many atheists came to the atheist position by relying on rationalism, but there are plenty that did not.  Many atheists pride themselves on striving to order their thoughts and lives in a rational manner, but some us really don't give a damn about that. I myself started on the infidel path  for emotional reasons, and only later used my rational capabilities to confirm that it was the right path.

Humanity began to exist.  Any conscious entities which are part of our space-time began to exist.  With that in mind:

What evidence do you have to show that I'm wrong when I say that in all likelihood numbers begin to exist when humans became capable of conceptualizing numerical concepts beyond "one, some, many"? What evidence do you have that numbers even exist other than as a construct of conscious entities such as outselves?  Why are they necessary except for the purposes of conscious entities such as ourselves?

QuoteThe FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts.  They are fundamental.  And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof.  So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

I would say that "First Principles" began to exist when humans became capable of thought on an abstract level.  Do you have any evidence that they existed before that, let alone are eternal, existing infinitely into the past as well as into the future? Again, these only seem necessary for the purpose of conscious entities such as ourselves.

QuoteTo restate that which was said before, without the fundamental “truths”, logic cannot exist.  Logic must be based upon something simple, consistent, and clear. Yet there are those that reject the first principles.  Rejecting them would have the effect of eliminating “rational” logic, and replacing it with a non-rational substitute.  For example, Nietzsche rejected the first principles and developed an antirational philosophy.  But any antirational philosophy must be considered fantasy by true rationalists.

Since rationalism depends entirely upon the validity of logic, it also then depends upon the validity of the first principles.  This is especially true of empiricism, which depends on the principle of cause and effect, and the principle of non-contradiction.  Were these not valid, empiricism would never have come into being.

So science, at least empirical science, is totally dependent upon the continuing validity and consistency across the universe of the first principles of logic and rational thought.

If the space-time we know as the universe did not exist, would logic and first principles exist?  If in your opinion that is so, do you have evidence to show that position is valid?

QuoteAnd so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.  Thus, if science is thought to be valid, then intuition is also assumed to be valid.

Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

That last sentence is totally unproved by the preceding writing. What does "transcendent" mean in this context anyway?  What makes intuition transcendent?

Quote from: "freeservant"http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Atheist%20Talking%20Points%20first%20principles.htm

---If link does not work: http://is.gd/qZrFKy

Transcendence is part of the very fiber of not only this reality and how we understand all that is around us as rational thinking human beings but also points to a greater necessary being that is the end of any supposed infinite regress.

This sounds like so much theist double talk to me.  If by transcendence you mean intuition, that seems to be a component of how we apprehend the universe, nothing more.  How it points to a "greater necessary being" is not explained. Causality seems to be a property of our space-time, but it may actually only be a property of the way that we, as conscious entities interact with space-time.  Either way, we have no evidence that causality exists beyond the space-time we are aware of, and in fact, it seems that causality as we understand it may not even apply on the quantum level.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nice to see you again, Black Jester. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif) I do agree; I'm grateful for the stimulating presence of such members as freeservant. I hope I haven't duplicated too much of your response, if any; I started writing mine before you posted.  I really haven't read any of it beyond the last bit, but will proceed to do so now...

Well, after reading your post, I don't think we duplicated effort overmuch, though I think your response may be a bit more on-target than mine.  I'll leave my puerile requests for evidence in there, just to give freeservant something to tackle/sneer at.

Freeservant, I'm going to assume that since you put 'christian' in your worldview that you think that the universe began with an intelligent creator intentionally designing the universe. That is a positive claim that theistic religions make. Is there evidence for an intelligent creator?  We know a universe was created and that each of us exists - how does that tie into an intelligent creator?

And I won't even get into an intelligent being (complex) which had no beginning or wasn't itself intelligently designed...

Also, don't over simplify and group atheists into one "godless box" as if it tells you anything about us as a whole other than our lack of belief in god(s). It's annoying. Atheism is just one facet of irreligious people, atheism makes no claims other than 'I have not encountered evidence for god(s)'.[/u]

Myself for instance, I would be an agnostic and ignostic in regards to whether a god created the universe (I think that nobody knows, because of and based on theistic claims being not at all convincing or well constructed enough while a deistic god is beyond our reach anyways. We only have our horizon of the universe to gain viable scientific knowledge) and I'm an antitheist when it comes to claims I see as false. People might confuse a claim that atheists make that a theist is not providing sufficient or good evidence (which is mostly what happens) as antitheism, but it is not.

I think that both theists have a difficult time understanding our position and atheists also miss the mark when equating the psychology of a belief in a god to the belief in Santa or leprachauns.'God' morphs into different concepts like a multipurpose tool . It's a sophisticated system, not just one aspect. Which of those aspects do you think that atheism makes negative claims against?

For those interested, here is Craig's alleged solution to the "Euthyphro Dilemma":

Quote"We don't need to refute either of the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma, because the dilemma it presents is a false one: There's a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good. What do I mean by that? I mean that God's own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.
So moral values are not independent of God because God's own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature. Therefore, they're not arbitrary. When the atheist demands, 'If God were to command child abuse, would we be obliged to abuse our children?' he's asking a question like 'If there were a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides?' There is no answer because what it supposes is logically impossible.
So the Euthyphro dilemma presents us with a false choice, and we shouldn't be tricked by it. The morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it."

(Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010. pp. 135-36)

Here is an interesting response to Craig's points regarding both the Euthyphro Dilemma and the existence of "objective" morality by a participant on the RationalSkepticism.Org website:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/craig-vs-harris-atheists-prepare-your-excuses-t21174-360.html

And here is an interesting paper pointing out some issues with trying to ground Morality in God (granted, this really should go in the thread on the Harris/Craig debate:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.pdf

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "freeservant"Consider the law of the excluded middle

Consider the fallacy of the false dichotomy...

The proposition is simple:  God?  True or False

If you content that it is false then no false dichotomy as you have a duty to express validation for why you believe it is false.  The false side of the assertion needs just as much an epistemic burden as does the proposition that God is true.  Logic dictates that both sides make positive assertions.  The evidence for irrational / anti-rational atheists and their tautology of non-belief or that poisoning the well and saying absence of evidence is evidence for the absence of God does not escape the exigency of the need for both sides to make positive affirmations of their respective positions.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "freeservant"The FIRST PRINCIPLES are those that cannot be reduced any further to more basic concepts. They are fundamental. And they cannot be proven by any more basic principles, because there are none to use in the proof. So they are “seen” to be true by inspection; they are “obviously” true; they are “intuitively” true.

Not all intuitions are equal.  Some are very poor indeed.

Yes as exampled by the idea that there can be such a false dichotomy as weak or strong atheism.  Atheism is the a statement that there is no deity of any kind.  Simple to understand hard for some atheists to accept.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "freeservant"I see that I will need to keep reminding some that I was once a member of the choir. I was an atheist.

Really?!  What fun!  I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian!  Ah, the talks we shall have.  Makes me quiver, a little, in anticipation.  But of course, as you have obviously considered, and dispensed with, every possible argument in favor of an atheistic world-view merely by having been once self-identified as atheist - I mean, you must have, it couldn't possibly be that you were simply mistaken in your assessments somewhere along the way - and as I have once self-identified as a Christian, it must be that I have done similar work with the Christian world-view, and therefore both and neither of us are correct, and between the two of us, we have actually disproved the LNC!  Again, I say, what fun! amiright?!

I have not dispensed with every possible argument in favor of an atheistic worldview.  I even seek to find one that is minimally consistent with both logic and a criteria for truth.  You may think that I poison the well by claiming that I have yet to find a good argument for atheism that is both consistent with how some atheist want an empirically demonstrable God and a self contained materialistic universe.  But this is the reason I am a seeker of truth regardless of how painful truth can be.  

Yes what fun it must be to be a former Christian and yet think yours is the intellectually or ontologically superior position.  My materialistic deterministic brain functions do quiver and vibrate at the juicy reductionism we must all be operating under for atheism to be true.

I am sorry but I have to point out that we can not both be wrong on this simple proposition as the excluded middle is so efficacious at pointing out.  Theism is true or Atheism is true but both can't be wrong.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "freeservant"And so, science is based upon a set of unproven, and unprovable principles, that are known to be true only by intuition.

Once axioms, and the laws of relations holding among them, have been posited, we are on an inexorable course to certain conclusions.  But we would only continue to rely upon those axioms (and the posited, or observed, laws of their relations) if they did work in the real world, by modeling or explaining reality as we experience it.  Numbers and such thorough-going concepts are only considered "universals" because they are everywhere useful in describing relations among real objects.  If they ceased to do so, it is my strong "intuition" that we would cease to use them. And if you remark that they would exist in any case, if there were no one to think them - I say - PROVE IT!  Actually, I don't say that, that's childish...I say - what really exists are relations among objects.  Our numbers and theories are our ways of accounting for such relations.

Umm... My quantum effects in a sodium channel called a brain does see this as a challenge.  Consider this:

QuoteNearly everyone agrees that math is incomplete. The idea that the universe is also incomplete apparently makes some people very uncomfortable. If the universe cannot explain itself then there has to be some kind of higher power at work.

The debate essentially comes down to this:

    If the universe is illogical and inconsistent then it is possible for it to be complete.
    If the universe is logical and consistent then it is incomplete.
    If the universe is incomplete, then it depends on something on the outside.

In other words, if the laws of mathematics and logic apply to the universe, then the universe has to have a metaphysical source. Atheism can only be true if the universe is irrational.

http://www.perrymarshall.com/10043/gode ... s-and-god/ (http://www.perrymarshall.com/10043/godels-incompleteness-theorem-the-universe-mathematics-and-god/)

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "freeservant"Last, if intuition is valid, then transcendence exists â€" because intuition is transcendent.

Again, not all intuitions are equally valid. Just because some intuitions prove useful doesn't mean that all intuitions are true.

Wow, this guy IS FUN.  Livens up the place, yaknow! amiright?!

Yes!  The appellation I use in some other places is Jackanapes.  It is a dated pejorative I use upon myself to keep me in my proper place so as fellow jesters or if you want to look for me on facebook then look for Jape Jackanapes I see that we can both have a place.  Not to mention that I also tend to favor a polemical style of writing.

Keep up the good work friend.  

Also let me make a promises in that I understand that I can change no heart that is hardened against God.  I have no power to change someones mind as that is the jurisdiction of the loving God I honor and try to obey.  His jurisdiction in that only those who seek God diligently will have God give a personal revelation.  All I ask is for critical thinkers to seek truth.  As for me... I am but a humble servant who only has found freedom by God's will.

Let me do a quick and dirty response to some of the issues addressed to be.  I beg your forbearance if I don't properly use the quote system.

"Actually, Dr. Krauss gives a basis for his assertion from current thought in physics and cosmology; it's not bald at all. Did you just ignore that, or do you have another reason for thinking that Krauss made a "bald assertion"?" --Recusant

I see some interesting things coming from physics and cosmology. Facinating stuff in fact but this does not give weight to Dr. Krauss in effort to explain things in a better way then the natural theology evidence presented.  

"You seem to be making an argument from incredulity; because you find the statements of a well qualified and knowledgeable speaker hard to swallow, you dismiss them. Quantum fluctuations are an established reality in physics. As Krauss pointed out, this fact may mean that our space-time is a necessary result of the nature of reality. We don't know that our space-time is all that there is. The universe may actually be an eternal multi-verse; there is nothing in our current understanding of cosmology which prevents that from being the case." --Recusant
Excellent point but if this is the case then it will still just be begging the question in that what started the multi-verse?  The multi-verse may be true and yet this does not dismiss the possibility that a timeless and space-less Mind loves to create a more excellent playground in which we get to have a future eternity in as adopted children of God.  May on it's face sound ridiculous to you but I hope there is a multi-verse.  My incredulity may have a reason given the weightlessness of some of Dr. Krauss's responses.

"Who (other than yourself) says that a necessary condition of atheism is certainty? There are some atheists who are certain of their position that there is no god or gods, and others who assert that they are open to considering any reasonable evidence to the contrary. As you can see, I'm trying to avoid getting into a definition dispute about whether atheism is a lack of belief or not." --Recusant

I would say that the laws of logic and criteria for truth are guides.  Given that I as an atheist was open to reasonable evidence I hope their will be others.  I also can currently be wrong and would hope to explore this if there is proof and evidence an atheist can use to give validation for that viewpoint.  I don't think I need go much further then the semantics some atheist use to say that Christians have a burden to give evidence while an atheist apparently needs or has no such burden.  Either there is no equal footing in the open marketplace of ideas or there is.

"Please define the term "noetic effect."" --Recusant  Try googleing the term Noetic Science

"He then makes a statement that Scientists have concluded that an expanding universe has a beginning. But he avoids expanding on what is meant by the beginning. I have found in my experience of debating with theists that they often perform this trick. They know that a word has multiple meanings and they use this to confuse their audience. They discuss one point implying a definition of the word but arguing a different definition. This way they twist reality." --Stevil  
I need some help here if you could explain more about how the fallacy of composition is committed?  It is reasonable to think from causality that the universe needs a cause.  It is also a valid inference to say an actual infinite like one is intending to get out of a chair does not ever result in one actually getting out of the chair.

"He then bizarrely extrapolated this to a multiverse, as if a multiverse is expanding or if all the universes within a multiverse had some kind of correlation to each other with regards to their respective beginnings. How does this relate to SpaceTime reality? How does it point to a beginning of SpaceTime reality? It simply does not. Anything referring to universes outside our own is pure speculation since other universes are beyond our ability to observe." --Stevil

I will try and explain conceptually.  The first nanoseconds of spacetime are bizarre to say it best and needed physics to be different.  So I don't know that a singularity is needed any more then any issue of a multi-verse.  We can not prove that the universe was not started on 12/31/1969?  All knowledge and memories could have started on this date that is considered to be the start date of the Internet.  A timeless and spaceless Mind could start things as an expanded point by forming the prerequisite quantum vacuum first so that there was no bang only an appearance of photons collapsing the wave like saying let there be light.

"His conclusion is that god's existence must be more likely given the beginning of the universe that without it. I struggle to see, even if the universe had a beginning that this makes god more probable."  --Stevil

I have to say that you devolve into circular arguments after this point but let me try and address this part from the post-mortem of Dr. Craig.  

QuoteBy contrast, as I explained, when one asks, “Is There Evidence for God?” all that means is “Is the probability of God’s existence greater given certain facts than it is just on one’s background information alone?”  That question makes the debate a cakewalk for me (contrary to Krauss’s assertion that I was brave or foolhardy).  In a court of law, of course there is evidence for the guilt of the accused, even if that evidence isn’t sufficient to convict.  So here, to say there is evidence for God isn’t to say that that evidence is sufficient to show God exists.  In order to determine that, one would need to discuss as well the probability of God’s existence on the background information alone. That’s why, as Krauss stated, this wasn’t a debate on the existence of God.  It was merely on whether there is any evidence for God’s existence.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/reasonabl ... 5275604375 (http://www.facebook.com/notes/reasonable-faith/a-brief-post-mortem/144625275604375)

You see there is evidence for many things.  I can say that there is evidence of UFO's.  You see even a good debater like Michal Shermer will say that there is evidence but that he feels it not sufficient enough.  I just love the ignorance of some who make the bald assertion that there is no evidence for God.  And thus from the probability that this universe does exist and is fine tuned for life one can certainly draw a simple inference of a God.  You may not like the mere mention that there is evidence but I am sorry to tell you that this theist is not operating on magical thinking or wish fulfillment.

Quote from: "freeservant"You see there is evidence for many things.  I can say that there is evidence of UFO's.  

I suppose that's true, mad bastards claiming to be Napoleon could be seen as evidence Napoleon lives, to me though it's just evidence that there are a lot of mad bastards out there.

Quote from: "freeservant"I just love the ignorance of some who make the bald assertion that there is no evidence for God.  And thus from the probability that this universe does exist and is fine tuned for life one can certainly draw a simple inference of a God.

There is evidence that we don't know how our Universe began. There is lack of evidence to suggest that our Universe had a beginning, there is lack of evidence to suggest how or why our Universe began.
There is lack of any evidence of any god.
There is no clear definition of a god creature that could lead to a positive finding of evidence in support of gods.
What is a god, and what destinguishes it apart from all other creatures?

If I point to the ocean and say look lots of water, is that evidence that King Neptune exists?

Quote from: "freeservant"Let me do a quick and dirty response to some of the issues addressed to be.  I beg your forbearance if I don't properly use the quote system.

Quote from: "Recusant"Actually, Dr. Krauss gives a basis for his assertion from current thought in physics and cosmology; it's not bald at all. Did you just ignore that, or do you have another reason for thinking that Krauss made a "bald assertion"?

I see some interesting things coming from physics and cosmology. Facinating stuff in fact but this does not give weight to Dr. Krauss in effort to explain things in a better way then the natural theology evidence presented.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  You seem to be saying that you would rather look to theology than cosmology when exploring ideas and attempting to increase your knowledge of cosmogony. Thus you find that the statements of a physicist who has worked in the field of no weight when compared to those of a Christian apologist.  If I do understand your position correctly, I really can't dispute your right to follow that path.  I'll simply register my disagreement with your position.  Dr. Krauss was attempting during the debate to devote at least some of his time to educating the audience regarding current thinking in scientific cosmology in the course of his speeches responding to Dr. Craig.  It seems that his tutelary efforts fell on deaf ears in at least one case.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Recusant"You seem to be making an argument from incredulity; because you find the statements of a well qualified and knowledgeable speaker hard to swallow, you dismiss them. Quantum fluctuations are an established reality in physics. As Krauss pointed out, this fact may mean that our space-time is a necessary result of the nature of reality. We don't know that our space-time is all that there is. The universe may actually be an eternal multi-verse; there is nothing in our current understanding of cosmology which prevents that from being the case.

Excellent point but if this is the case then it will still just be begging the question in that what started the multi-verse?  The multi-verse may be true and yet this does not dismiss the possibility that a timeless and space-less Mind loves to create a more excellent playground in which we get to have a future eternity in as adopted children of God.  May on it's face sound ridiculous to you but I hope there is a multi-verse.  My incredulity may have a reason given the weightlessness of some of Dr. Krauss's responses.

I bolded one thing you seemed to miss entirely in your response.  Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my first effort, but by "eternal" I mean just that.  In this case, "eternal" means "without beginning or end."  Again you make a bold stand for ignoring the statements of a scientist who works in the field being discussed on the basis that you judge them to be "weightless."  Maybe you could explain why you feel that Dr. Krauss's responses are weightless?

Another issue.  I'm not clear on how a "timeless" entity interacts in a universe that seems to be a fabric of space and time.  Is that just one of those imponderable transcendent deals where the deity gets to act in ways "beyond our understanding"?  If so, again, I won't dispute your right to hold with such ideas. However, in this case, I think that I'll be the one considering a response "weightless."

Quote from: "freeservant"...Either there is no equal footing in the open marketplace of ideas or there is.

No, the footing probably isn't equal, as far as I'm concerned.  Given the somewhat mundane quality of a non-supernatural view of the world when compared to the extraordinary qualities exhibited by a supernaturalist view, I would consider that ideas pertaining to both require some falsifiable evidence to make them worthy of serious consideration, but that the burden on the supernaturalist view may be greater.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Recusant"Please define the term "noetic effect."

Try googleing the term Noetic Science

I'm aware of the idea of noetics.  I wasn't clear enough in my request apparently. I was asking you to define the term in relation to the subject at hand.  "Noetic" is a somewhat nebulous term, in my opinion, and I was hoping you would clarify what you intended to say when you used the term "noetic effect."

Quote from: "freeservant"A timeless and spaceless Mind could start things as an expanded point by forming the prerequisite quantum vacuum first so that there was no bang only an appearance of photons collapsing the wave like saying let there be light.

I'm not actually responding to this; I want to give Stevil the opportunity to elaborate on his response to your post if he wants to before I consider jumping in. I just thought I'd compliment you on some nice imagery, even if I don't agree with it.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"I just love the ignorance of some who make the bald assertion that there is no evidence for God.  And thus from the probability that this universe does exist and is fine tuned for life one can certainly draw a simple inference of a God.

There is evidence that we don't know how our Universe began.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.  Is the universe static or is it expanding?  What about the cosmic background radiation?  What about the laws of thermal dynamics?  Do you know that by the second law alone we know that that matter and energy are not eternal.

Quote from: "Stevil"There is lack of evidence to suggest that our Universe had a beginning, there is lack of evidence to suggest how or why our Universe began.

Have you studied cosmology much?  I would encourage you to study science more as you will find that this there is evidence that goes counter to what you are saying.  Again do some research about entropy.

Quote from: "Stevil"There is lack of any evidence of any god.

Nope this is just not true but if this makes you happy then cling to this as all the contempt prior to investigation that you will ever need.

Quote from: "Stevil"There is no clear definition of a god creature that could lead to a positive finding of evidence in support of gods.
What is a god, and what distinguishes it apart from all other creatures?  

You have not explored the information available have you?

Quote from: "Stevil"If I point to the ocean and say look lots of water, is that evidence that King Neptune exists?

Yeah... And with this dogma of the strawman you may feel this makes your case but keep educating yourself and try not to have contempt prior to investigation that is only a formula for ignorance.

EDIT:  Let me give you a website that you should explore:  http://www.ted.com/ (http://www.ted.com/)

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "freeservant"Let me do a quick and dirty response to some of the issues addressed to be.  I beg your forbearance if I don't properly use the quote system.

Quote from: "Recusant"Actually, Dr. Krauss gives a basis for his assertion from current thought in physics and cosmology; it's not bald at all. Did you just ignore that, or do you have another reason for thinking that Krauss made a "bald assertion"?

I see some interesting things coming from physics and cosmology. Fascinating stuff in fact but this does not give weight to Dr. Krauss in effort to explain things in a better way then the natural theology evidence presented.

Let me see if I understand this correctly.  You seem to be saying that you would rather look to theology than cosmology when exploring ideas and attempting to increase your knowledge of cosmogony. Thus you find that the statements of a physicist who has worked in the field of no weight when compared to those of a Christian apologist.  If I do understand your position correctly, I really can't dispute your right to follow that path.  I'll simply register my disagreement with your position.  Dr. Krauss was attempting during the debate to devote at least some of his time to educating the audience regarding current thinking in scientific cosmology in the course of his speeches responding to Dr. Craig.  It seems that his tutelary efforts fell on deaf ears in at least one case.  

I was limiting my comment to the issue of the debate.  Is there evidence for God

I did not mean to sound like I was dismissing cosmology for theology but if the two magisteria do cross then I was saying that Dr. Krauss was making a poor effort and that is all.  The arguments Dr. Craig presented do have weight or he would not have presented them and this is born out by the multiple efforts to try and refute it.  I grant that some feel there has been sufficient refutation but I don't see this is true.

Quote from: "Recusant"The universe may actually be an eternal multi-verse; there is nothing in our current understanding of cosmology which prevents that from being the case.

Quote from: "Recusant"I bolded one thing you seemed to miss entirely in your response.  Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my first effort, but by "eternal" I mean just that.  In this case, "eternal" means "without beginning or end."  Again you make a bold stand for ignoring the statements of a scientist who works in the field being discussed on the basis that you judge them to be "weightless."  Maybe you could explain why you feel that Dr. Krauss's responses are weightless?

We may both have a problem of faith here.  Look at m-theory and you will see the problem in that it is still cooking and yet how do we really verify a multiverse?  Is there a way we can interact with it?  Does the quantum realm have strange attractors and such?  By what means do we show this?  You can obviously see that there is work to be done.  My bold stand if you will is to say that we do have competing theories and given entropy can you have an eternal mulitverse seed bed?  Given our understanding of thermal dynamics what kind of strange physics are entailed in an eternal multiverse that would need to have energy created regardless of if it is destroyable or not?

Quote from: "Recusant"Another issue.  I'm not clear on how a "timeless" entity interacts in a universe that seems to be a fabric of space and time.  Is that just one of those imponderable transcendent deals where the deity gets to act in ways "beyond our understanding"?  If so, again, I won't dispute your right to hold with such ideas. However, in this case, I think that I'll be the one considering a response "weightless."

Okay... Yet it does stand to reason that a Creator and a Beginner of the universe would need to be outside of it.  A cause of all the spacetime and matter we have around us should be able to interact with His creation.  Also it would follow that God is a personal God who knows you or why else cause anything that you want to interact with.

See this weblink to try and understand why I give it weight.  

http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/r ... s-theorem/ (http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/)

QuoteIn 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed.

Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally all branches of science, logic and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications.

Oddly, few people know anything about it.

At least give it a try.  It may seem a bit esoteric to the case I am presenting about a personal God but understand that it does give me some greater clarity in my own personal epistemic journey.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "freeservant"...Either there is no equal footing in the open marketplace of ideas or there is.

No, the footing probably isn't equal, as far as I'm concerned.  Given the somewhat mundane quality of a non-supernatural view of the world when compared to the extraordinary qualities exhibited by a supernaturalist view, I would consider that ideas pertaining to both require some falsifiable evidence to make them worthy of serious consideration, but that the burden on the supernaturalist view may be greater.

I would say that given Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem it may be a bigger burden on your part.  Go with me here:  Try and understand that the falsification dogma is self refuting as it can not falsify it's self.  And if you define the supernatural as outside of this universe then this has been proven mathematically in the above theorem.  You do understand that some things just stand and can't be provable or testable in the sense you are talking about.  

By the mundane quality of a non-supernatural view do you mean a theory of everything like materialism?

Quote from: "from the link above"In 1931 this young Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, published a paper that once and for all PROVED that a single Theory Of Everything is actually impossible.

You may be fighting a lost cause?  This is where it is important for the atheist to come up with new attempts at logical argumentation.  The old tried and true pat answers just don't do it anymore.  I even see atheism slipping into a religion called secular humanism or neo-paganism.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Recusant"Please define the term "noetic effect."

Try googleing the term Noetic Science

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm aware of the idea of noetics.  I wasn't clear enough in my request apparently. I was asking you to define the term in relation to the subject at hand.  "Noetic" is a somewhat nebulous term, in my opinion, and I was hoping you would clarify what you intended to say when you used the term "noetic effect."

I use the term to imply that your brain is working IE: there can be no such thing as non-belief for you have to believe in something or have a functional brain thus non-belief is a nebulous and useless term.  I can't express with language a non-belief because it is a vacuum of any noetic effect.
It is like the problem with the term reverse racism.  There is only racism as a reverse condition would not be racism would it.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "freeservant"A timeless and spaceless Mind could start things as an expanded point by forming the prerequisite quantum vacuum first so that there was no bang only an appearance of photons collapsing the wave like saying let there be light.

I'm not actually responding to this; I want to give Stevil the opportunity to elaborate on his response to your post if he wants to before I consider jumping in. I just thought I'd compliment you on some nice imagery, even if I don't agree with it.

Thank you.  The picture at this website is the inspiration for that imagery.  http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... _Bang.html (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_Bang.html)

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"I just love the ignorance of some who make the bald assertion that there is no evidence for God.  And thus from the probability that this universe does exist and is fine tuned for life one can certainly draw a simple inference of a God.

There is evidence that we don't know how our Universe began.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.  Is the universe static or is it expanding?  

Huh, did you read my sentence? It has nothing to do with the static or expanding nature of our Universe.

We know that our Universe is currently expanding, we can tell by observing the red shift of nearby galaxies. What this has to do with whether our Universe began or how it began is a mystery. Even the term Universe is ambiguous. Craig's definition is all encompassing of all of reality, all that exists. The definition I go with is with regards to the collection of energy/matter that is expanding from a central point (the big bang theory). How my definition and Craig's definition differ is that I think it is highly likely that there are many Universes within space.
When you say the beginning of the Universe do you mean the beginning of all the energy and matter or do you simply mean the begining of the expansion?
Science has theories with regards to the expansion upto a small amount of time after it started. Science doesn't know how or why it started and science does not know what was there before it started. Did all the energy exist within a massive black hole which took billions of billions of years to grow? Was the Universe as a result of the total energy exceeding some critical point, was it the result of multiple black holes colliding? Was there an intelligence that created it using advanced science? Science doesn't know.

Quote from: "freeservant"What about the cosmic background radiation?

Science thinks this is a result of the begining of the expansion of the energy/matter within our Universe. It does not have a reflection of the beginning of the energy within our Universe.

Quote from: "freeservant"What about the laws of thermal dynamics?  Do you know that by the second law alone we know that that matter and energy are not eternal.

You are somewhat confussed here.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"There is lack of evidence to suggest that our Universe had a beginning, there is lack of evidence to suggest how or why our Universe began.

Have you studied cosmology much?  I would encourage you to study science more as you will find that this there is evidence that goes counter to what you are saying.  Again do some research about entropy.

I have already explained my answer above, I feel you position takes on board many assumptions

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"There is lack of any evidence of any god.

Nope this is just not true but if this makes you happy then cling to this as all the contempt prior to investigation that you will ever need.

We could argue this one till we are blue in the face. What you deem as evidence, I deem as assumptions, myth and superstition.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"There is no clear definition of a god creature that could lead to a positive finding of evidence in support of gods.
What is a god, and what distinguishes it apart from all other creatures?  

You have not explored the information available have you?

From my understanding there is no clear definition.
Christain's simply point to their bible and say YHWH is god. This is a description of a personality, not the underlying noun god.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Stevil"If I point to the ocean and say look lots of water, is that evidence that King Neptune exists?

Yeah... And with this dogma of the strawman you may feel this makes your case..

How about this for a strawman?
The Universe exists therefore God created it.

Please quit with your BS.

Quote from: "freeservant"A timeless and spaceless Mind could start things as an expanded point by forming the prerequisite quantum vacuum first ...

This is quite funny actually.
Your god created nothing first.
Your god that is made of nothing created nothing.
YHWH, the nothing god.
Hmmm, much to think about.
I'd actually like to throw theJackle's standard set of (nothing god that created everything including space) questions at you.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "freeservant"A timeless and spaceless Mind could start things as an expanded point by forming the prerequisite quantum vacuum first ...

This is quite funny actually.
Your god created nothing first.
Your god that is made of nothing created nothing.
YHWH, the nothing god.
Hmmm, much to think about.
I'd actually like to throw theJackle's standard set of (nothing god that created everything including space) questions at you.

A mind is not nothing is it?  God is one being with three persons.  The bible does give a meaningful definition and incite into the character of God.  A trinitarian God gives explanation to how we have the richness of the creation we experience all around us.  Understand that just because you have a mind does not mean there can not be a timeless spaceless mind who gives anchor to our properly basic beliefs....

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth06.html (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth06.html)

QuoteQ. But at least we can be certain that we are having an apparent perception.

A. It's logically possible that these other things are so. I don't for a minute think that they are so, and I don't think that the fact that these are logically possible means that we don't know any of these. One question is whether you know these things. And another question is what's your evidence or how do you prove these things. I think you know something when that belief is true and when it's produced in you by your faculties working properly. God has created us with a lot of faculties and I know a perceptual belief is a true proposition when I believe it and it's true and it's produced in me by my faculties working the way they were designed to work. But that doesn't mean I can prove it to some sceptic. That's a whole different question. Knowledge is one thing, being able to prove it to a sceptic is a wholly different thing.

http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/i ... oth-fairy/ (http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/04/is-belief-in-jesus-any-better-than-belief-in-the-tooth-fairy/)

QuoteUCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein interviews Oxford mathematician John Lennox about the truth of Christianity and the grounds for faith.

Quote from: "freeservant"A mind is not nothing is it?

A mind is a conceptual definition of a physical system (the brain).
There is no evidence to suggest that the concept of the mind can exist and perform thought without an underlying physical system.  

Quote from: "freeservant"God is one being with three persons.

You know this because your favourite story book tells you so? Can you present some evidence?

Quote from: "freeservant"The bible does give a meaningful definition and incite into the character of God.

Please enlighten me, this should be a very simply exercise for you to merely paste the definition of a god creature as posed by the bible.
As an example here are some attempts by online services

Quote from: "the free dictionary"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god
god (gd)
n.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Quote from: "Wikipedia"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent"

Quote from: "dictionary.com"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
Godâ€, â€,/gÉ'd/  Show Spelled
[god]  Show IPA
 
â€"noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of islam.
3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. ( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. ( lowercase ) any deified person or object.

As you can see there is no singular concise definition. None of these definitions could lead to a positive finding of evidence in support of gods. For example
take definition 5 from dictionary.com
"the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle"
How would we recognise evidence of this? It's all very abstract and conceptual. At best you could only point to your god and say "look - Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle". But you refer to those as absolute truths and anything contrary must be interpreted. e.g. "God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." To suggest God did not lie but told the truth one must interprete this "God was accurate and truthful when he said that Adam or Eve would die if they ate the apple. However, it must be interpreted symbolically as a spiritual death, not a physical death" - http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene.htm.

Please can you provide your succinct, concise, acurate definition of god based on the bible that could lead to a positive finding of evidence in support.

Quote from: "freeservant"Understand that just because you have a mind does not mean there can not be a timeless spaceless mind who gives anchor to our properly basic beliefs....

There is no evidence to suggest that a mind can exist without a physical system, that this mind could be timeless and spaceless. Without time how could a thought even be formulated? There would be no concept of sequence? Without existence of physical energy/matter how could data/information/knowledge and intelligence be formed? Your plea is baseless and hence no more than wishfull thinking

Quote from: "Recusant"I'm not actually responding to this; I want to give Stevil the opportunity to elaborate on his response to your post if he wants to before I consider jumping in. I just thought I'd compliment you on some nice imagery, even if I don't agree with it.

Hey Recusant, thanks very much for your approach to this. I don't have any problems with you stepping on my toes. I don't really care who points out the issues with his thinking. I'd much rather focus on analysing the actual debate being referenced.

Quote from: "freeservant"I was limiting my comment to the issue of the debate. Is there evidence for God

I did not mean to sound like I was dismissing cosmology for theology but if the two magisteria do cross then I was saying that Dr. Krauss was making a poor effort and that is all. The arguments Dr. Craig presented do have weight or he would not have presented them and this is born out by the multiple efforts to try and refute it. I grant that some feel there has been sufficient refutation but I don't see this is true.

When speaking of the topic of cosmogony, which after all is the subject of the Kalam, there is no question that I would prefer to hear the views of a physicist who works in the field of cosmology to those of a Christian apologist.  Not only is the physicist more qualified to speak on the subject, but in this case I happen to agree with his position. The arguments of Dr. Craig seem very weighty to you; enough to dismiss those of Dr. Krauss as "weightless." I strongly suspect that your reason for this is identical with that emphasized above. I think we've established our respective views on this question, and further discussion along these lines will prove fruitless.

Quote from: "freeservant"We may both have a problem of faith here. Look at m-theory and you will see the problem in that it is still cooking and yet how do we really verify a multiverse? Is there a way we can interact with it? Does the quantum realm have strange attractors and such? By what means do we show this? You can obviously see that there is work to be done. My bold stand if you will is to say that we do have competing theories and given entropy can you have an eternal mulitverse seed bed? Given our understanding of thermal dynamics what kind of strange physics are entailed in an eternal multiverse that would need to have energy created regardless of if it is destroyable or not?

I don't have to have faith in the speculations of physicists and cosmologists, because I acknowledge that is exactly what they are.  What these speculations give us is an alternative view to that expressed in the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of a god which is at least as valid as the Kalam, and contradicts it.  This alternate view (especially in conjunction with the circularity of the argument, and other purely philosophical issues with the Kalam) means that there is no good reason to accept the Kalam as a valid argument. As for your question of the energy of the universe, I offer yet another speculation:

QuoteFrom Creation ex nihilo - Without God by Mark I. Vuletic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html):

Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy.

No energy gained or lost overall.

Quote from: "freeservant"Okay... Yet it does stand to reason that a Creator and a Beginner of the universe would need to be outside of it. A cause of all the spacetime and matter we have around us should be able to interact with His creation. Also it would follow that God is a personal God who knows you or why else cause anything that you want to interact with.

See this weblink to try and understand why I give it weight.

http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/r%20...%20s-theorem/

Actually, I'm on the subscription list for Marshall's apologetics e-mails.  Not because I think he's outstanding; quite the contrary. I'm a subscriber because I like to get a regular inoculation of theistic thought to keep up my immune response. :shake:

QuoteMarshall:

Faith and Reason are not enemies. In fact, the exact opposite is true! One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.

This is a canard, and disingenuous at best.  The "faith" required to accept axioms in logic, for instance, is on an entirely different order than the faith required to accept that Jesus is the Son of God (and God Himself at the same time). If that were not the case, there would be very very few atheists.  Marshall must know this, but blithely glosses it over. The thing is, the axioms of logic and the premises upon which the scientific method is based may not be directly subject to proof, but we have strong evidence that they are true: Every time science provides us with something that works, it is further evidence that the premises upon which it's based are true.  Similarly with logic.  What evidence of that sort does one see which shows that the "God hypothesis" is true?

I could go on dissecting the Marshall page you linked, but I think I addressed the issues you were referring to. I see nothing in the page which shows conclusively that the universe is subject to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

Quote from: "freeservant"I would say that given Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem it may be a bigger burden on your part. Go with me here: Try and understand that the falsification dogma is self refuting as it can not falsify it's self. And if you define the supernatural as outside of this universe then this has been proven mathematically in the above theorem. You do understand that some things just stand and can't be provable or testable in the sense you are talking about.

As I pointed out above, the premises on which science is based, (including falsifiability as described by Popper) cannot be directly subject to proof, but there is strong evidence that they are true.  So indirectly, falsifiability is falsifiable, if you see what I mean.  Thus not completely self-refuting.  Also pointed out above is why I don't accept Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem as applicable to the universe.

Some things are indeed not testable, but that doesn't mean we have no other option than to accept them. There's no way to test whether Sagan's dragon exists, but on the other hand we have no good reason to accept that it does.  There are some reasons offered to accept that the Christian god exists even though we can't test for his existence, but I do not judge them to be of sufficient weight to convert to Christianity.

Quote from: "freeservant"By the mundane quality of a non-supernatural view do you mean a theory of everything like materialism?

The mundane quality of the non-supernatural is self evident; a tautology even. I don't need to invoke materialism for that.

Quote from: "freeservant"You may be fighting a lost cause?

 You wish.

Quote from: "freeservant"This is where it is important for the atheist to come up with new attempts at logical argumentation. The old tried and true pat answers just don't do it anymore.

You have not shown that to be the case.

 

Quote from: "freeservant"I even see atheism slipping into a religion called secular humanism or neo-paganism.

Yes, some atheists do adopt secular humanism or neo-paganism, or any number of other modes of thought such as Buddhism which can be described as a type of religion. LaVey Satanism is a religion which is explicitly atheist. None of this points to a defeat of atheism, if that's what you're implying.

Quote from: "freeservant"I use the term to imply that your brain is working IE: there can be no such thing as non-belief for you have to believe in something or have a functional brain thus non-belief is a nebulous and useless term. I can't express with language a non-belief because it is a vacuum of any noetic effect.

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I believe that if I jump off a three story building, I'm  guaranteed to get injured.  You're right, none of us can function without beliefs.  However, non-belief in a god or gods does not detract in any way from functioning properly in the world.  You might wish to deprecate it as "nebulous and useless" but by doing so you merely express a personal judgment which does not have any great significance to me. Your premise is quite flawed to begin with, being  based on semantics rather than analysis of reality.

Quote from: "freeservant"It is like the problem with the term reverse racism. There is only racism as a reverse condition would not be racism would it.

Again with the semantic games.  Reverse racism is a concept that's not hard to understand, and signifies a sociological phenomenon which exists.

(EDITED to correct spelling errors.)

To Stevil:  Cool.  I'm trying to avoid duplication of effort as much as anything, but I also want to respect your arguments by not second-guessing them in this thread.  We'll have plenty of opportunity to cross swords directly if the occasion arises.  

Dr. Craig has penned a response to Dr. Krauss's post debate essay (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php).  It can be found on his website here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8853).

I would say that I'm disappointed in Craig's condescending, smug sniping, but I'm not. This is the sort of attitude I've noticed him adopting in his debates as well. Thus I find it neither surprising nor disappointing.

What's more than just his smug sniping is that he is pretty good at trying to dodge things like:

QuoteDr. Krauss caricatures my arguments as "God of the gaps" reasoning. But, as I explained, whatever scientific evidence I presented was not for God but for religiously neutral statements like "The universe began to exist" or "The fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance."[...]Rather than misconstrue my arguments, Dr. Krauss needs to engage directly with the evidence I presented for these two premisses.

The god of gaps that he was being accused of wasn't those two premises, it was his implied premises that they must been done by a god. I really think the guy is intellectualy dishonest at best and just plain dishonest at worst.

Quote from: Recusant on June 03, 2011, 06:19:36 PM
Dr. Craig has penned a response to Dr. Krauss's post debate essay (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php).  It can be found on his website here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8853).

I would say that I'm disappointed in Craig's condescending, smug sniping, but I'm not. This is the sort of attitude I've noticed him adopting in his debates as well. Thus I find it neither surprising nor disappointing.

Of course there was Zero condescending tone in Krauss's "rule-breaking" blog...but since his views fall more in line with yours and this forum, I can see why it wouldn't be seen.  It drips of condescending tone from the first sentence.  Of course HAF is not a forum for like-minded individuals regularly reinforcing their convictions. 

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 03, 2011, 06:49:55 PMOf course there was Zero condescending tone in Krauss's "rule-breaking" blog...but since his views fall more in line with yours and this forum, I can see why it wouldn't be seen.  It drips of condescending tone from the first sentence.  Of course HAF is not a forum for like-minded individuals regularly reinforcing their convictions. 

I agree that there is a condescending tone in Krauss's essay as well.