Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?

0

This is the third in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.

Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss whether it is reasonable to believe there is a God.

The copyright for the Life, the Universe and Nothing videos is held by City Bible Forum. Prof Krauss has requested that these videos are not copied on to any device nor uploaded by anyone other than the City Bible Forum.


Written By: City Bible Forum
continue to source article at youtu.be

NO COMMENTS

  1. I’ve only watched the opening so far, but at the start, Craig redefines the topic to avoid having to deal with the burden of proof. I would argue that it is not reasonable to believe in a god because there is no evidence for any gods. Craig attempts to sidestep this approach by redefining to topic to be a contest between arguments ‘for’ and arguments ‘against’ gods. He knows very well that demonstrating non existence of gods is not possible, logically. I hope Kruass picks him up on this. Also…he asserts that school shootings are “not objectively wrong”…implying that without a god to believe in we have no way of deciding whether such tragic events are right or wrong. Well, maybe you’re not sure, Dr. Craig, but I am damn sure they’re wrong, and I’m as atheist as they come.

  2. I’m sorry,Dr? Craig’s arguments are fairly shite,and I’m getting more than a little annoyed that anyone listening to it wouldn’t have a plethora of alarm bells going on in their normally functioning human mind. It seems that these people and their shite arguments might only be convincing to people who are bad at chess,like a domino effect that,well,if I can’t see the dominos outside my range of vision,then,they mustn’t exist(and I might wear some really dark shades too).I was at a debate in Florida yrs ago,and the party arguing against evolution used the same type of simple arguments much to the delight of some old ladies in the crowd,firmly convincing them of a victory regardless of the quality of logic…
    ok,morning rant over,espresso time,not ex…..
    oooh,nice to hear Mr.Krauss pronouncing ‘etc’ correctly ,without an ‘x’,

  3. Watching Craig. His ‘argument’s seem to be a bit like this:

    1. Either I’m in New York, or Paris, or in orbit around Sirius.

    2. I’m not in New York.

    3. I’m not in Paris.

    4. Therefore, I’m a revolving Sirian.

    • In reply to #4 by steve_hopker:

      Watching Craig. His ‘argument’s seem to be a bit like this:

      Either I’m in New York, or Paris, or in orbit around Sirius.

      I’m not in New York.

      I’m not in Paris.

      Therefore, I’m a revolving Sirian.

      This is the common creationist fallacy, that if doubts can be cast on scientific explanations, god-did-it-by-magic, must be the default position.

      It is a reflection of their false-dichotomy thinking, which only has one preconceived view-point plus a disparged strawman opposite!
      The concepts of multiple possibilities needing investigation, to eliminate the false ones, and produce evidence of reality, simply does not cross their simple minds!

  4. This is a general query rather than a response to the videos, but when people like WLC and others tie themselves in rhetorical knots and play these semantic games in order to reason god into existence, do they then attempt to link it to any particular faith? If so, how?

    I would like to argue against these sort of arguments and say, ok, I accept this as true. A creator can be reasoned to exist. So what?

    Without linking it to a faith surely it is just deism, and I don’t think deism reveals anything.

  5. WLC. Please explain why is it that something as compelling as the idea of a creator of the universe isn’t something that is much more simple and obvious instead of something that has an explanation obfuscated by syllogistic fallacy?

    Why is the creator so keen to conceal himself to the point that IT is only revealed to the likes of people with a talent for the most preposterous self delusion?

    It is perfectly reasonable to believe there is a god because our cognitive architecture which has evolved to cope with socialisation has a few glitches which provide platforms for those beliefs. Such beliefs however have exactly the same status as believing ETs talk to me through my hair drier. ‘Tis utter nonsense

    • In reply to #6 by Vorlund:

      WLC. Please explain why is it that something as compelling as the idea of a creator of the universe isn’t something that is much more simple and obvious instead of something that has an explanation obfuscated by syllogistic fallacy?

      Why is the creator so keen to conceal himself to the point that IT…

      Have you sent your questions to WLC?

  6. Everytime I hear that fellow Craig talking I have a mixed feeling of pity and contempt for him. He always uses a pseudo-intellectual and convoluted prose just to say nothing at all, or at least to say the same bullshit that a village priest would say to an illiterate peasant, using plain language. Craig is a reminder of the misuse of taxpayers money. The question is why a scientist like Lawrence Krauss wastes his time debating with him? Craig is just an ignorant desert mullah using an exquisite university language which leads me to wonder why a modern and advanced XXI century college wastes resources on a “subject” called Theology that contributes little or nothing at all to human knowledge. This is one of the absurdities of our world.

  7. Really??? Is that all that Craig has to offer? I hadn’t bothered to listen to anything he’s said for a long time but I do like listening to Lawrence Krauss so I gave this a go. In light of all the nonsense out there in internet land about people allegedly ‘being destroyed’ in debates with Craig and ‘being afraid to debate him’ etc etc I really expected more… should have known better I guess.

    A highlight (or should that be lowlight?) for me was the following line of logical reasoning by WLC:
    1) If god did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence. 2) The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3) It therefore follows that God exists…….

    I did chuckle at that along with a fair few of the audience members on the video as well. There was me thinking that the tools of mathematics were developed by humans to help describe and make predictions about the universe; tools that make useful predictions were kept and refined whilst potential tools that did not work, or were superseded by better tools, were abandoned along the way. Isn’t this by definition a long purposeful process that is precisely the opposite of a happy coincidence? Or am I missing something here??

    Personally I always marvel at the ability of different types of hammers to be perfectly suited to bang in different types of nails… Lets apply a bit of WCL reasoning:
    1) If god did not exist, the applicability of hammers would be just a happy coincidence. 2) The applicability of hammers is not a happy coincidence. 3) It follows therefore that God exists…

    Hmmm, perhaps he’s on to something after all… I’m off to sacrifice something to appease THOR.

  8. zeerust2000, I encourage you to watch a bit more of the video. At about 45 minutes in, Dr. Craig states why he defines the question the way he does. It’s ironic, contrasted against your comment.

  9. Is it reasonable for an uneducated ape to believe in a god? Yes. An educated ape, today in the 21st century, has less excuse. That’s assuming the traditional “creator of the universe and taking a special interest in us apes” definition of a god.

  10. I actually feel sorry for poor old Bill. All that strenuous apologeting (is that a word?) is making him turn grey. It can’t be good for your health. As for Lawrence, a much better performance from him compared to the first debate, in my view.

  11. It is reasonable to know the fact that the pantheistic God exists and that this fact proves atheism is a myth. Google “The No God Delusion: Deconstructing The Atheist Myth” for full argument.

  12. I have watched both parts one and three, and agree that Lawrence did better in part three. Zeerust2000 makes one of the most important points in observing that WLC uses a rhetorical trick to make it seem that it is a simple task of weighing the “for” and “against” arguments to see which tips the scales. But no, the side stating the existence of something has the burden of proof, and in this case the claim is extraordinary thus requiring extraordinary evidence. The side against is not required to prove anything, as disbelief is the base position until some further position can be shown.

    [Plug for own blog removed by moderator]

Leave a Reply