Sunday, April 3, 2011

Atheist SmackDown

Physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss 

Philosopher Dr. W.L. Craig

"Accidents Happen All The Time" 
~ Physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss

"All Accidents Have A Cause" 
~ Philosopher Dr. William L. Craig

In yet another in the series of Atheism's Greatest Hits, Biblical Scholar and Philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig debated Scientist and Physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss at N.C. State University on Wed. March 30, 2011 sponsored by Campus Crusade For Christ. The debate topic was "Is There Evidence For God?" 

Using Bayesian Probability Theory as a base Dr. Craig offered 5 basic arguments:
  • The existence of contingent beings
  • The origin of the universe
  • The fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life
  • Objective moral values and duties in the world
  • Historical facts of /the resurrection of Jesus Christ

In this over 2 hour debate Dr. Krauss managed to do the following:
  • Completely deny that he affirmed scientism
  • Stated that science WAS NOT incompatible with deism
  • Defined "nothing" in multiple ways as "something"
  • Defined all theories of quantum mechanics as being fully deterministic (this impacts free-will basically making it illusionary)
  • Denied "logic" only to reaffirm it later
  • Claimed that "Multiverse" if true, is what could be called "God" as it (the multiverse) would be metaphysically necessary
In another startling comment Dr. Krauss claimed: 
"I'm willing to believe that there is much more to the universe than science can appropriately explain"~ Dr. L. Krauss
While that statement doesn't define whether he refers to a future state of science, he did assert that he felt that at the current rate of scientific discovery, all scientific knowledge will be discovered or obtained in approximately 300 years??? 

In another statement Dr. Krauss when responding to Dr. Craig's cosmological argument simply stated:
"You'll have to trust me on this because I actually know General Relativity" ~ Dr. L. Krauss   
In short he should have called the General and saved some time...because Dr. Krauss got trounced! 

Already atheist web sites are full of rebuttals claiming that Dr. Craig won simply because he's a professional debater. (After almost every debate that is the claim) While it is true that Dr. Craig is a professional debater, it's not hard to fathom that he won more than likely because his arguments weren't refuted and he stood in truth. 

Still others pundits say that that they could have done much better than Dr. Krauss. While I find that to be unbelievable given the nature of the debate and the limit of what one had to establish to be successful,  the fact is that most of them that think they could have done better have never debated anyone in a public forum, not to mention the fact that NONE of them have the knowledge or the credentials of Dr. Krauss. 

In short, this was another debate where truth won out over the fiction of naturalism. The full debate can be found HERE: Is There Evidence For God?



  1. Krauss is certainly no intellectual slouch by any means. He just wasn't prepared to deal with they type of arguments that Craig presented in a public forum, even though he uses them all the time.

    For him to ask someone to "trust him" on a subject in debate and offer no proof to support his request for that trust, shows that he simply likes to teach, not argue his points. There's nothing wrong with that, but he should have established why we should trust his points when his conclusions are vastly different.

    Thing is most theists don't distrust him because he's an atheist, we just don't adhere to his conclusions and philosophy that he draws from the evidence.

    This was quite telling...internet atheism is different from public atheism for sure, no more enlightening or factual, just different.

  2. Still listening but yes Dr. Craig owned him.

    I find it interseting that these theories that are unprovable are being passed of as facts and truth.

  3. Yes, atheism has reverted to fringe science as the new protection against religious teachings.

    Now, they have an interesting premise...they say, if God is God then why didn't he tell us about the universe in advance of us finding out. Personally i think that thought is lazy. As much as Krauss condemns Christians for laziness that's the ultimate.

    If God would have told us all, then what would we have to discover? There would be nothing left for us to find out.

    Then Krauss claims that mankind will have all scientific knowledge of the universe in 300 years. It that's not arrogant, I don't know what it is.

    If god moves in a logically consistent manner in tghe universe and has allowed us to discover the universe but is yet above the universe and no contained by it, we will never discover all of the knowledge that there is in the universe. This is a claim that we will gain 100% knowledge of black holes, quasar's formation and use of dark matter (which is invisible mass with weight and density) We can and should ascribe to know all these things, but the discovery of what God has created, is only looking at the signature of God.

  4. Krauss placed a disclaimer to his debate here: Pharyngula

    It is amazing...after he leaves he says, "I'm not gonna be nice anymore" He didn't realize that God confuses the enemy no matter how well he thinks he's prepared and that there is no way to overcome real truth.

    It's amazing what men will do to avoid the truth.

  5. "...but the discovery of what God has created, is only looking at the signature of God."

    absolutely! I find it funny that they seem to think by looking into this creation somehow gives them the upper hand as to why God is no necessary.

    I actually find these men to be jokers, for according to their beliefs one couldnt believe in God apart from materialism so whats is their beef actually?

    Is it not possible that some men have evolved to belief such things and they are just soooo much more advanced that all the people who believe. I am kind of suprised that their arrogance wouldnt cause them to believe that.

  6. Paul I've been studying this debate with Craig and Sam Harris. Harris couldn't even defend his view yet alone put forth a positive case that God isn't necessary for morality.

    He goes on this long tirade even introducing the "either god doesn't exist or god is impotent" (problem of evil) bit to support his case. I've got another article coming on that debate this week focusing on one particular point that he made and tried to oversimplify.

    They are something else, but certainly not the threat to Christianity and Christian belief that they themselves suppose. People are open minded and will listen to anything for entertainment value, but people that look for deeper and meaningful truths leave their theories by the side of the road. I mean since 400 years before Christianity atheism has tried to take a hold and hasn't made it yet. I guess they are holding to the thought that evolution may kick in sooner or later.

  7. I watched the part of the debate you are refering to Pastor.

    Looking forward to what you have to say.

    What i do know is that there are many gross misunderstanding about God in his comments but I will wait for what you have to say on it.

  8. Sam Harris uses a form of utilitarian ethics and morality based on human "well being". He claims that religion can't be the answer of moral truth because the biblical characters didn't know enough about modern relevant facts...

    So because they wee less sophisticated and less wise (according to him) they ethic is inferior.

    At the same time utilitarian ethic is only rooted in what is best for the greatest control group and is contradictory because if it's has anything to do with "well being" as he claims, the lesser group will be out and always not "as well" as the other more popular and well off group.

    Sam Harris is off his rocker.

  9. Sam Harris also doesn't believe in free will. His notion is that a combination of experiences and possibly predetermined factors causes us to act as we do.

    He says that everything that a person wants to do is preceeded by neural events for which we aren't conscious of. He says that from a neurophysiological standpoint, many seconds before we make a decision that decision has already been made by our neural system.

    So here with Sam we have a neural system that makes decisions, based on prior situations and circumstances etc. There is no free will there is only fatalistic moral determinism.


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.