4 thoughts on “VIDEO: William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss, 3/30/11, debating the “Evidence for God””

1. My point by point recap is pretty snarky, because Krauss was so annoying.

   Reply ↓

2. Whether or not Krauss was annoying has no effect on his arguments. I get the impression that Krauss wasn’t as prepared for this debate as Craig was, who seems, like Krauss said, a professional debater.

   My refutatioin of Craig’s claims is this: saying that Jesus’ tomb was empty and that he was seen after his alleged death are “established facts” is disingeuous at best. Established by whom? Biblical scholars? That’s like saying “9 out of 10 Christians say there is a god!” and using that as evidence. Biblical accounts are not admissable as evidence, because their veracity is part of the debate. And the fact that a cult arose around Jesus “soon after his resurrection” proves nothing. I think Jim Jones, David Koresh, Bhagwan Shri Rajneesh and others are evidence of that.

   It was a long debate, and I don’t remember all of Craig’s point, so I’m going off the video stills that show his Power Point, but saying that resurrection is the best explanation of the “facts” is also wrong. Let’s assume that the three “facts” (empty tomb, Jesus seen after death, appearance of cult) were in fact witnessed. Resurrection from the dead is REALLY the best explanation? Isn’t it more probably that either the witnesses (whomever they were) were mistaken, or that a deliberate fraud had taken place? Mistakes or fraud are infinitely more likely, especially when one compares the story of Jesus to very similar stories in Egyptian, Hindu and Babylonian mythology.

   I do admit, though, that Krauss failed on those points. Craig’s arguments were so obviously hollow that anyone could have refuted them. He obviously has started with the premise that god exists and worked backwards to make evidence fit his conclusion.

   Reply ↓

3. It is a remarkable fact that so few people who have taken sides in the god/not god divide fail to see the bigger picture. No amount of reason or logic will convince the faithful to abandon their beliefs and no amount of belief will convince the rational to abandon their logic. Science has a perfectly rational explanation for faith. Faith is a very natural and often  beneficial response to cultural and environmental pressure, it is a survival mechanism and will either work or fail according to evolutionary principals.  William Craig Lane is not alone in wishing to hang onto his beliefs. He is a very smart guy, happy to use the hard work of others  to defend his naked beliefs. Like all his followers he firmly beliefs he is right. He should be allowed to take refuge in his comfortable beliefs his success/punishment will be to endure a belief in god along with the troglodytes who cling to his ministry and mastery of semantics. Nature is amoral it has no teleology a world with religion is sadly just as possible as a world without it. Trying to convert the faithful is pointless the best that can be done is to save the children from indoctrination and while this philosophy is mirrored by those mired in dogma who see science as the great deceiver (while watching their plasma TV’s and driving their SUV’s) and using pseudo science to protect their emotional investment they are on the decline leave them to watch the sun go down on their once great empire. History is littered with dead gods Yahweh is simply another one to add to the pyre.

   Reply ↓

4. Sigh. This debate was a complete mess. Krauss does not engage or deal properly with Craig’s points. The point of the debate seemed to be misunderstood by Krauss too.

   But I don’t blame him entirely. The title was too imprecise. The title itself fluctuated between: ”WHEN is there evidence for God?“ and ”Is there evidence for God?“, and then there was it’s misunderstood version of: ”Does God exist?”. When I see ”WHEN is there evidence for God?”, there are two possibile meanings:

   1. «in the SUBJUNCTIVE mood» WERE God to exist, then WHAT WOULD constitute Evidence for Him (or possibly: for this, namely His Existence).

   2. «in DIRECT speech» In our reality as we in fact can access, what DOES constitute Evidence for God bzw. God’s Existence.

   Within these (in particular 2, but also for 1), there are further two possible Intentions by the word Evidence:

   a. Evidence that pushes the Affirmation (of God or His Existence) forward.
   b. Evidence that compels the Affirmation to be accepted.

   Sigh. I really wish they had made both the meaning of the Debate Topic, and the Intention and the Purpose at the start very clear.

   Anyway, some observations.

   Dr. Craig:
   very clear on his intentions. Gave some arguments a weak treatment (namely the Nonexistence of infinite Amounts). Failed to take the opportunity to discuss Cause and Effect which seemed to be an Issue in this Debate (namely discussing the coming into being from nothingness): being a masterful Philosopher, he could have expounded on Aristotle’s work. He could have also really expounded on distinctions (as he in his written work and on other occasions does), e.g. distinguishing structural/phenomenological understanding and a framework within with to do this — so as to really put out the fire of Krauss’ confused (I mean this in the technical sense of the word ‚confuse‘) attack on logical+systematic Inconsistencies in Reasoning and phenomenological Paradoxes. Craig would have been excellent at doing something like this. Anway, aside from these “Neglects”, so to speak, I found his overall Debate of a very high standard and very focussed.

   Dr. Krauss:
   Was very unfocussed. Which, I guess I can’t blame him, since, being the enthused Physics Professor that he is, he is bound to go off on tangents; nevertheless these tangents (and lack of global-coherence and orderliness in his macro-argumentative Exposition) really damaged his Presentation. Many of us are like this too, so I shouldn’t launch an attack on him here. (At any rate, this post itself suffers from the same Problems!) So style aside, let me go to content.
   * Krauss had a kernel of something good. Theist must not be lazy and use God-of-Gaps. Rather they (and every Explainer!, not just Theists) must provide a positive explanation of how it works. He also had something good, by saying the probabilistic Aspect is not satisfactory. Excellent stuff! I wish he had explained why. Though I think that the decision to brush this off, is not so easy, since there certainly is something worthy of consideration to the very-well-formulated criterion presented by Craig: that “Pr(G : E&B) > Pr(G : B) implies E constitutes (in the sense of a. above) Evidence for God”. Nevertheless, Krauss could here have explained in more detail that, although this is noteworthy, this still leaves us with a doubt, because we have merely empirically measured something. We haven’t used the EVIDENCE to provide a CAUSAL / PHENOMENOLOGICAL explanation to the WHY God exists. (But I think Craig did try to provide an explanation in the case of Resurrection… but not in Universe-Creation)
   * Krauss says one can’t use Probabilities at any rate in the case of these Arguments for God. Well, I think it’s not so clear cut. Yeah I agree with him: something narks me when I hear Philosophers speaking of such and such a probability (since we think: how are they calculating these?? There’s no numbers!!). But that’s only prima facie, and anyone who continues this line of attack is really missing the substance — and I think there is something substantial to what one says when one talks probabilities — why? Because they aren’t claiming to be able to calculate fixed numbers, but rather are looking a the diagramme of Statements (partially) ordered by relevance and their probabilities. Perhaps Philosophers have made a mistake, by speaking of of this such an empirical aspect: but you have to excuse the Philsophers, since they merely use what is available to them in terms of Tools, and it is our fault as Mathematicians (I’m a Mathematician) that we present only this Tool. For the Philosopher REALLY is not discussing Probabilities, against which Krauss launches his invalid, but rather a metaphysical POTENTIALITY for occurrence. In terms of Phenomena, we CAN talk about the POTENTIAL increasing (it’s just easier to say Probability), by discussing via argument the “likeliness” (in terms of sufficient causal power) of events.
   * As in the above discussion of Craig, Krauss confuses a breakdown of logical coherency with a break down of intuition about Phenomenon. Logic NEVER breaks, only our physical intuitions break and need reformulation — and no wonder, since the substantial Content of Physics (and also of Mathematics) is based on Axioms/Principles which we hypothesise to hold true of objects/the World, and thus, is subject to refutation. Whereas Logic is just how truth works. One can here argue: but Logicians are always at work on new Logics. Sure. Granted. But that misses the point. A Logical Calculus is a System established to assess the validity of ARGUMENTS. Whereas a phenomenological understanding (e.g. Physics) is a body of Knowledge to try to understand PHENOMENON/REALITY. In something like Physics, principles are declared/hypothesised. But reasoning is always conducted using Logic(+Mathematics). Natural Scientists (and people from other Fields) seem to consistently attack Philosphers, Logicians and Mathematicians in this respect: they consistently mistake Paradoxes in their Field for a Breakdown of Logic. No no no, my friends. Phenomenological Paradoxes merely mean, you have to reform your phenomenological Intuitions, NOT Logic, Reason and valid Argumentation. In these Theist-Atheist Debates, this attack is launched fallaciously to undermine Christians who are “too logical/rational” (but when is THAT ever a problem?!). It’s shameful really: the Atheist notices the argumentative style is really watertight, but because it is disagreeable, they try to change the grounds of good argumentation.
   * Krauss contradicts himself in saying “[don't withdraw to Gaps and mystically fill these in with an explanation that fits your Ends]“, and then himself withdrawing to Gaps (lack of knowledge of the Origin of the Universe), and filling it in with the fantastical (albeit appealing – I have to say it appeals to me too!) hypothesis that there is simply more nature: a Multi-verse, which is perfectly-crafted to suit the ends of Naturalism. (Although I love the Multi-verse idea, and toy with it myself, I would be unjustified in appealing to it in so formal a discourse.)
   * My final problem with Krauss in this Debate, was that he contradicts himself on the issue of Causality. He first says “[don't be lazy, look for explanations]“. Then applies double-standards and says “[oh, … there might not be an explanation for certain events/beings — they just happen to occur.]“. He is better off sticking to the first count (as a Natural Scientist). And here Craig should have piped up with Aristotle’s discussion of the concept of Accidence! — wherein Aristotle says that, yes, some things just happen to be, BUT that there is always a causal explanation for these Happenstances. If Krauss REALLY wanted to do away with Craig’s line of attack, he really should have presented a coherent model of multi-reality wherein every value for aspects, and every set of rules are possible. (Though, unfortunately, this would be tangential to addressing the topic of the Debate — for the point to to try to look in our commonly-accepted reality and see what constitutes evidence.). He sort of did this, but it was too sloppy. He simply STATED (like a blind hoping Faith) properties of a Multiverse, instead of ARGUING for these.

   Finally, Dr. Krauss says something good in his talk: we should conform what we accept as true, to what the evidence says. Thus implore the ancient Greeks: we must follow evidence where it leads us, wherever that may be. I have to say, I have only found Prof. Arif Ahmed to adhere to this imperative from the Atheist side. He seriously considers the evidence for God/Resurrection. (Here I mean evidence in the sense of a. above, not of b., since the Evidence is something noteworthy, but itself might not be enough to convince.)

   Reply ↓

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code *

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>