[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 254 KB, 725x571, DebatePieces2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793558 No.2793558 [Reply] [Original]

Anyone else planning to watch this on Wednesday evening? Should be good I think. I like Krauss a lot.

>> No.2793566

Krauss will win 100%, while the other guy will use big words in order to sound smart and any average American watching it will not have his opinion changed.

...I do like Krauss a lot too.

>> No.2793574

Just reading the short blurb on the right made me nauseous.

>> No.2793575

>>2793558
Where can I watch it and at what time (time zone)?
Looks great!

>> No.2793580
File: 13 KB, 468x425, 1284574916855.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793580

>Two Really Smart Guys
>Oooh, Krauss! Who's he debating? Another brilliant scientist?
>mfw

>> No.2793581
File: 70 KB, 450x337, Moomin_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793581

>>2793558
the guy who is most confident and charismatic will win, rather than the guy who is right

that might be krauss or craig, but whichever it is, it will be depressing.

>> No.2793585

Craig now claims to actually have *proof* of God? Hadn't heard about that before.

He's usually a pretty good debater, though, so this should be interesting.

>> No.2793586

Because OP was too lazy to post it his-self:

http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

>> No.2793590

>One Really Smart Guy and One Fairly Knowledgeable Guy go Head to Head

>> No.2793598
File: 148 KB, 399x315, cccccombobreaker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793598

Oh for fucks sake, evidence for a deity? Nigga please. Until you can show that life can exist without time and space (conditions without a big bang) or how an all powerful, all knowing, self creating organism can exist naturally... there is no fucking evidence for gods, deities, ipu's or flying spaghetti monsters. Fucking fuck, I hate christians.

>> No.2793605

>>2793581
well aren't you mister pessimistic

>> No.2793609

>>2793605
He's a faggot and by faggot, I mean agnostic.

>> No.2793617

>>2793609
>>2793605
Not so sure what your objections are. He's pretty much correct. In many people's eyes, the "winner" of a public debate is barely ever the one with the best arguments, but the one who put on the best performance.

>> No.2793622

1. Search LM Krauss on google scholar;
2. try to read one of his papers then curl into a ball on the floor because you realise you'll never be as bright as him.

3. Read WLC's philosobabble
4. LOL

>> No.2793628

>>2793575
Oh sorry! I thought the time info was contained in the jpg too... It's 7.00pm EST. Which is like midnight GMT for me...

http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

>> No.2793631

>>2793617
>Science vs circular reasoning using the bible.
>implying that use of logical fallacies could ever hold a candle to Lawrence Krauss and his pock marks.

>> No.2793632
File: 7 KB, 114x338, Denzel_Crocker.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793632

>>2793558
>Doctorate in Theology

I'm currently pursuing my Master's in FAIRIES.

>> No.2793636

>>2793622
>>2793622
>>2793622

So what is it that qualifies WLC to be called "really smart"?

>> No.2793643

>>2793622
It's not even good philosobabble, I'd bet a hundred bucks he tries to counter Krauss' brilliant points with the old: "Well where do morals come from? The bible says they come from the bibledurrhurr"

>> No.2793644

>>2793598
Why are you assuming there weren't time and space before the big bang? All our ideas of what went on before the big bang are pure speculation

>> No.2793649

>it's ok Billy, you don't have a REAL PhD, but you're JUST as smart and special as the science boys.

>> No.2793658

>>2793631
>implying that use of logical fallacies could ever hold a candle to Lawrence Krauss and his pock marks.
Someone as savvy in fallacies as you should realize that this is a complete straw man distortion of what I actually said.

>Science vs circular reasoning using the bible.
That's not Craig's angle, really. His arguments are (usually) more philosophical, and more aimed at establishing some sort of internally consistent logic that would make the existence of a god at least not entirely implausible. That's not to say that any of his points are actually convincing, but they certainly are above your usual Bible thumper fare.

>> No.2793673

>>2793644
There is no such thing as duration or location without the creation of time and space. The big bang was the creation of this time and space.

>> No.2793678

>>2793673
>The big bang was the creation of this time and space.

Prove it

>> No.2793682

Krauss is amazing. He's gonna rip that other guy to pieces. I don't even know who the other guy is.

>> No.2793683

1. God is real. We wouldn't be here without it.
2. God is nothing that anyone expects. Not even in all the bibles in the world know what the fuck it is.
3. God may not even know it's a god or even if we exist.
4. God may be a scientist and we are in a test tube.

>> No.2793687

>>2793683
>herp derp god is whatever caused us

>> No.2793698

>>2793598
How do you know that our universe is the only or first universe to experience a big bang?

>> No.2793702

>>2793658
He uses the fine tuning argument and the watchmaker fallacy. Fucker even went off about god has to exist because he is the only one perfect being and only a perfect being could conceive of perfection. The guy's no better than the banana man and that retard from growing pains.

>> No.2793704

Read both these guys bios. There is one major difference.

Krauss' expertise has to do with objective reality. If he says that there is no evidence for a god or gods, then I'm inclined towards his position and would expect his arguments to be more credible.

Craig's expertise is in theology and philosophy. At the very most, he may be able to come up with a logical system that allows for the possibility of a god or gods, but as soon as he gets to specifics, his arguments are invalid and he becomes nothing more than an apologist for his faith.

These debates shouldn't be framed in the context of science versus religion, but rather reason vs. superstition.

>> No.2793707

>>2793698
Prove that we live in a multiverse.

>> No.2793713

>>2793678
prove me wrong to my face fucker not online and see what happens

>> No.2793717

>>2793704
Most of these kinds of "debates" (I'd call them "debacles") end up with science pointing out that basically everything can be explained in terms of a materialistic world and that for the few things that can't yet, we have no reason to believe there's anything to stop us from figuring it out using the materialistic world.

The religion side tends to boil down to "well, some contrived notion of god would still be possible with what we know now, so it must be true because it's better that way!"

>> No.2793739

>>2793702
Sure, I think he used pretty much all the popular "arguments" (watchmaker, etc.) at some point in time, but what sets him apart from completely undebatable airheads like Comfort and Cameron is that he tends to acknowledge and subsequently adjust his position to the counterarguments. He doesn't *insist* on the watchmaker line of reasoning, for example, simply because he realizes that this drivel doesn't impress anyone anymore. I wouldn't go as far as calling him intellectually honest, but at the very least he's not completely stubborn in his ignorance, and he understands when an argument trumps his own.
Again, I'm not implying that he actually makes a good case for any god, much less the Christian one, and his claim to have "proof" of a deity is of course absurd, but as far as both rhetoric and logic is concerned, I wouldn't put him anywhere near guys like Comfort, who barely even grasps the counterarguments to his nonsense.

Craig has several of his debates on his site, by the way:
www.reasonablefaith.org

>> No.2793742

i fought through the first 7 pages of his book.

he argues.

1. everything that exists in finite space time must have had a cause
2. the universe exists
3. the universe had a beggining

conclusion: something outside finite space time must have cause this.

he hopefully at some point provides reasonable evidence that that something could only have been god, this is most likely where his flaw lies.

However the argument he went on to is that space can be divided indefinetly, to say space can be divided into smaller parts infinetely this not only shows that he does not understand that concept of infinty but also does not understand the concept of space.

I actually do want to learn more about his philosophy he does not seem that stupi just misguided, his arguments are well layed out but yeah I will probably watch it because I will not waste my time reading his book.

>> No.2793757

If space is infinitely large then are not all things possible wouldn't that mean that somewhere there has to be a God?

And alternatively there must be a world exactly like our own in every way but for the fact that on the world OP isn't always a faggot?

Casue OP is definitely a faggot

>> No.2793768

>>2793757
if it's infinitely large then everything that CAN exist will exist

somehow a timeless, dimensionless creature that can create everything, in 7 earth days no less doesn't seem like something that CAN exist

>> No.2793779
File: 11 KB, 227x294, Internettoughkid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2793779

>Casue OP is definitely a faggot

>> No.2793781

Craig has been destroyed by half a dozen other people in debates about God. He's a hack of the highest caliber.

>> No.2793794

>>2793768
Exactly. If I roll a normal six-sided die an infinite number of times, there's still a 0% chance that I'll roll "existentialism."

>> No.2793810

I want to see Craig getting destroyed, but apparently the people who set this up don't know the existence of countries beyond U.S.A.
Can an American tell me what GMT is that 7pm supposed to be?

>> No.2793830

>>2793794

Actually, there's a small chance the dice will turn into a piece of paper that says "existentialism".

There's some evidence that universal constants shift as you move through the universe. Changes in universal constants would effect what would be logical occurences in those areas. Therefore, if universal constants do indeed shift, it's possible that there exists a region of the universe where a God would be permitted by physics.

>> No.2793853

>>2793810
GMTfag here. It'll be midnight Wednesday night.

>> No.2793854

>>2793810
7pm est is 11pm gmt I believe

>> No.2793873

>>2793853
>mfw 8 am Thursday morning and I have a lecture from 8-10am.

I hope the video gets posted somewhere.

>> No.2793879

>>2793558
Should be lols-worthy, depending on how much of an idiot this other guy is.

I hope it's not just a deist argument, because those are just useless and asinine.

>> No.2793889

>>2793742
>1. everything that exists in finite space time must have had a cause
>2. the universe exists
>3. the universe had a beggining

Same old argument. This is what all of the new "sophisticated" theologians use.

The answer is:
Atheist: "Why does god have no cause?".
Theist: "Because god doesn't exist in time."
Atheist: "There is no causation outside of time. Textbook case of special pleading, a form of specious reasoning. I am entirely unconvinced."

And that's about where the intelligent argument breaks down.

>> No.2793897

>>2793757
>If space is infinitely large then are not all things possible wouldn't that mean that somewhere there has to be a God?

No. It means that all possible finite configurations of matter and energy will exist, not some underspecified stupid thing that exists partially (?) outside the material universe.

>> No.2793907

>>2793873

Apparently it will be accessible for download or stream after the debate is over, I assume from their website.

>> No.2793917

>implying /sci/ isn't just mad that they don't have the mental capacity to follow Craig's arguments
>so buttdevastated

>> No.2793921

>>2793889

After that it's pointless name calling. I bet that this is what the debate will boil down to.

>> No.2793927

>>2793921
I hope not, but seems likely. At least I get to see good forms of persuasion in use, and creative name calling. That alone should make it interesting.

>> No.2793930

>>2793879
>I hope it's not just a deist argument
Depends on the topic and the general direction of the debate, but it's unlikely that Craig won't allude to a Christian god specifically in some way. He argues from a Christian perspective after all.

>> No.2793942

>>2793649
And what phd do you hold?

>> No.2793970

>PhD in Philosophy
>win numerous debates for the side of theism
>Dawkins is afraid to debate him as can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A&feature=related

True trolling

>> No.2793996

Good on Krauss for being willing to engage in debates that Dawkins wouldn't.

But the debate itself won't solve anything.

>> No.2794004

Just a note for this thread, because it seems to be about logical theism debate. There is a book written by a Catholic Theologian and professor named Hans Kung called "Does God Exist? An Answer For Today." It is very, very comprehensive in its dealings with nearly every classical and modern philosophical argument regarding God, and for more than 3/4ths of the book, presents and discusses these arguments without bias. In the last quarter of the book, the author presents his own arguments based on the groundwork that had been laid out. As he is a Catholic priest, I'm sure you'll guess that he concludes that yes, God does exist, but that's almost besides the point to me. Whether I agree with him or not, it is important for everyone on both sides of the debate to realize that there are serious theological and philosophical arguments that rarely enter the realm of conversation.

I have read many books on the subject, such as The God Delusion, The History of God, Critiques of God, Religions Explained, etc, and they bring up very good points. However, they mainly deal with the pop culture, man-on-the-street kind of religion, the kind of popular religion that is all about an invisible bearded sky-man. I have yet to read an atheist text that really challenges serious theological arguments like those presented in "Does God Exist," so I'm going to recommend that you read it if you are really interested in the subject.

P.S. my personal beliefs are irrelevant. let's not get in to them.

>> No.2794013

>>2793970
>can't debate him
>"because I'm busy"
>yet clearly not really because I show up everywhere attention whoring err'yday

>> No.2794023

>>2794004
I should add, if you are interested, it is an academic book not intended for the casual reader. it is very dense, and (if I recall) at least 800 pages long.

>> No.2794025

>>2793970
>won't take on theist academics but will respond to Bill O'Reilly.

>> No.2794027

>>2794004
Could you quote some examples, or maybe just a general line of reasoning?

>> No.2794048
File: 4 KB, 300x57, image..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794048

Atheism is a search for a scientific truth.

Theism is a search for subjective meaning.

They seem to oppose each other but they are not actually incompatible. Deep down the theists know there is no proof for God but the human mind's search for meaning in chaos is as natural to the fabric of reality as the air we breathe and stars collapsing into dust.

And that is why no conclusion can be reached either in this debate or subsequently.

>> No.2794054

>>2793970
Dawkins is just a amateur who says mean things to theists to get the atheists all proudfaced. You can see all the shit-eating grins on the faces in the crowd when he says something harsh.

His arguments are weak, he's not very bright, and he's so anti-theism that it just makes me cringe. True scientists aren't anti-theism, they're just pro-science.

>> No.2794058

>>2794048
Nigga you must be stupid.

Atheism is not, and never was, the search for scientific truth.

The search for scientific truth is SCIENCE, and it doesn't give a fuck if there is or isn't a god.

>> No.2794059

>>2794054
>Implying Dawkins is harsh
>Implying Dawkins is anywhere near as harsh as most of his theist opponents
lolno

>> No.2794060

>>2794054
Which arguments are weak ?

>> No.2794067

>>2794004
Please watch:
'The Evolution of Confusion' by Dan Dennett, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ

>> No.2794069

I don't like how Dawkins wants to engage with the subject and yet feels he can just wimp out whenever.

But to be fair, he isn't a physicist, a cosmologist, or astronomer. He is an evolutionary biologist so his arguments aren't going to extend to the fundamental basis of reality.

>> No.2794070

>>2794058
~brofist~

>> No.2794071

>>2794054
>True scotsmen aren't anti-theism, they're just pro-science.
Fix'd

>> No.2794073

>>2794054
>arguments are weak
[citation needed]
>true scientists aren't anti-theism
[citation needed]
>Dawkins [Oxford biology professor] is an amateur
[citation neeeded]

>> No.2794074

>>2794060
Like all theists, the ones that go against his beliefs.

>> No.2794081

>>2794054
There's nothing wrong per se with being anti-theist. It's not a scientific position, but there is no requirement that scientists must hold and espouse only scientific arguments. They're human too with their own value judgments, like the value judgment that the christian god is a dick, and we're all happy that he does not exist.

>> No.2794085

>>2794058
Scientific atheism then. You're nitpicking word choice and not my actual point.

>> No.2794088
File: 35 KB, 416x556, 1297895026300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794088

>>2794074
Could you be more specific ?

>> No.2794091

>>2794027
I'm going to try to find some concise quote, but I'm going to have a hard time of it, mainly because the book is very comprehensive, has probably a dozen major arguments, and each of them are quite longwinded. He isn't a man for soundbites, and I just personally don't know where to start describing his position, but I'll see if I can work something out.

>> No.2794093

>>2794085
It's not nitpicking. It's a very important and fundamental distinction.

Science is the practice and the art and the philosophy of searching for truth about the observable world through evidence and models and falsifiable predictions.

Atheism is a model in the scientific framework, well supported by evidence, not yet falsified. The model is that there is no interfering god.

One can be an atheist scientist, and one can be a theist scientist, and even an atheist non-scientist.

I would argue that anything but a scientist is insane,
>Insanity doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

And I would thus argue that anyone who isn't an atheist is simply ignorant of the evidence, insane, or deluded.

>> No.2794099

>>2794093
change my first line there to 'scientists like lawrence krauss search for a scientific truth.

>> No.2794103

>>2794091
Thanks. I'm just curious, because I'm not familiar with Küng's work and his arguments at all.

>> No.2794121

>>2794093
>Atheism is a model in the scientific framework
That's a bit misleading, I think. One can be an atheist for purely non-scientific reasons. If I believed that God doesn't exist only because Bigfoot killed him, then this would make me an atheist by definition, but not one whose beliefs are within a scientific framework.

>> No.2794125

>>2794121
True. I implied this with "one can be an atheist non-scientist".

Perhaps a better phrasing is: Atheism can be a model in the scientific framework. It can also be a belief divorced entirely from evidence.

>> No.2794142

>>2794125
Stil haven't responded to the main point.

>> No.2794144

I don't think this debate will be as one sided as you guys think
Logic favors the existence of a God more than not.
Even Descartes himself said so.
You may explain the mechanics of the universe all you want. But scientists have yet to explain why they're there in the first place.

>> No.2794154

>>2794144
0/10

>> No.2794155

>>2794144
Exactly and theism (although I think its most likely wrong) is just as natural as those mechanics explained by scientists.

>> No.2794161

>>2794154

typical troll. I know it's a real stretch for you but articulating your point of view is helpful.

>> No.2794163

>>2794144
If you want to call god "The terminator of an artificial infinite regress", us atheists mostly don't care. If you want to start talking about an interfering god, then you're talking about falsifiable predictions, and we care. The evidence also says you're wrong.

>>2794142
Sorry I can't say and chat. I do want to say I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm off to work. Love And Peace!

>> No.2794170

>>2794163
>Clearly not a scientist at all

>> No.2794178

>>2794144
>Descartes
Don't forget Cantor, Newton, Einstein,Faraday and Max Planck

>> No.2794179

>>2794163
>If you want to call god "The terminator of an artificial infinite regress", us atheists mostly don't care. If you want to start talking about an interfering god, then you're talking about falsifiable predictions, and we care. The evidence also says you're wrong.

Well that's precisely why the guy you quoted is right.

>> No.2794183

>>2794125
>True. I implied this with "one can be an atheist non-scientist".
Yeah, I just wanted to stress this point, because personally, I get a bit annoyed when *either* side employs arguments that present atheism and science as some sort of unity, like when someone points to (perceived) gaps in the fossil record in an attempt to "disprove" atheism, for example.

>> No.2794214

Where will I be able to watch it?

>> No.2794279
File: 6 KB, 480x360, 0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794279

Mr. Craig will get raped

>> No.2794316

>>2794214
http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

7pm North Carolina time. whenever that is, is that 6 hours behind UK tiem? :o
I dun wanna miss it :/

>> No.2794326

>>2794316
5. midnight for you

>> No.2794341
File: 260 KB, 725x571, temp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794341

>> No.2794379

>>2793622

That doesn't mean he's intelligent. If he were truly that bright, he'd be able to simplify his ideas instead.

>> No.2794385

>>2794379
nope.jpg

>> No.2794401

Craig will be utterly owned. Religitards will nonetheless claim it as a resounding victory. Craig will put the debate on his resume, making him appear a more serious thinker than he actually is.

tl;dr- I predict another Pyrrhic victory for Team Science. Dawkins has the right idea by refusing to debate with these assclowns, it just makes their stupidity seem more credible in the eyes of the lay public when top scientists deign to debate with morons.

>> No.2794408

>>2794401
To put it in other terms, Krauss will win, but Craig will be named the winner

>> No.2794418

>>2794401
>Dawkins

call your parents, sort your shit out.

>> No.2794427

>>2794408

It's unfortunate, but when the general public see a debate like this, they don't think "oh look, a top scientists debating with a talking chimp! This should be funny!" but rather "Oh look, that science guy has lots of impressive sounding letters after his name, I bet he's really smart. Guess the guy he's debating must be just as smart then!"

The only way out of this is for all these debates to be conducted by undergrad students on the science side and the top theologians on the idiot side. Or hell, schoolchildren: It's not as if its difficult to refute religitard sophomoronisms. Ofc, the religtards would never agree, since they know they can;t win any debate and rely on the perception that there is something worth debating to bolster their standing with the sheep.

>> No.2794432

>>2794418

Is that some cryptic death threat?

>> No.2794470

Heres how you can watch it live online:
http://www.thegreatdebatencsu.com/

>> No.2794484
File: 71 KB, 318x220, 1282010687339.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794484

Science is by definition the study of natural phenomenon through objective observation and reproducible experimentation to create predictive models. Any supernatural phenomenon which may or may not exist cannot be assessed by the scientific method. Supernatural phenomena are by definition alterations of causality and cannot be observed, rather any observed phenomena would appear to have a route cause in natural phenomena. Moreover even if supernatural phenomena could be observed objectively they could not be reproduced or used to create a predictive model, thereby making the attempted observation entirely pointless. When a scientist is utilizing the scientific method they do not spare a thought to the existence or nonexistence of supernatural phenomenon, because neither possibility has any impact on his observations. Science is not a worldview, it is not a philosophy. It has taken us too long to remove all philosophical and subjective content from the original Natural Philosophy to jeopardize the extremely effective tool that science has become.

Supernaturalism is not a hypothesis to be disproven, it is a supposition since no relevant data can ever be collected to form a hypothesis in the first place. It is not discredited by the scientific method, but rather is discounted because it has no potential to ever be assessed and it is impossible to create a predictive model of the phenomena.

TLDR:
Atheists: there is no objective argument that disproves the existence of supernatural phenomenon. Just be atheists and STFU.
Believers: there is no objective argument that proves the existence of supernatural phenomenon. Just be religious and STFU.


The entire debate is a farce and both Krauss and Craig should be skullfucked for daring to bring subjective bullshit into the scientific method and in the process damaging its objectivity. Keep your philosophies the fuck out my maths!

>> No.2794495

>>2794484
It isn't hard to see that people don't believe in te "supernatural." they believe in events which can't be explained by science.

If you can't see that

>> No.2794506

So when is this "great debate"?

As a sidenote, did anyone catch ray comfort on the a-e on sunday?

>> No.2794545

>>2794506
>So when is this "great debate"?

Try reading the thread, it's been posted several times

>> No.2794576
File: 149 KB, 372x371, op is a faggot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794576

>>2794495
Ever since deism was big in the 18th century the Church of England, Catholic Church, and PAA have all said that supernatural phenomena are alterations of causality and will all appear to be supernatural phenomena. Basically any miracle caused by anything would be due to the supernatural altering all the universe past, present and future resulting in a alterations of causality and a natural phenomena that would always appear to have a route cause in natural phenomena. Supernatural shit is supposedly anything that stands outside causality and alters it. The supernatural is supposed to be assessed by personal subjective divination based on the reading of texts that record prior divinations by other people. Religion isn't for or against science, unless the adherent is fucking retarded.

My whole point is that no one should ever try to base atheism, theism, or agnostism on any objective observations because by definition all three are suppositions about things that have not ability to be assessed objectively. The only objective position is: "no data available".

Atheism is a divination that no supernatural phenomena exist.
Theism is a divination that supernatural phenomena do exist.
Agnostism is an attempted divination which was unable to determine a result.
Objectivity is when no divination is made at all. Objectivity is not even the same as rationalism, which expects that all things are based upon objectively observable. Objectivity just assesses any objective data available in an attempt to create predictive models without any supposition.

If you are a scientist you must completely and brutally objective when making scientific claims. As a man you can believe or disbelieve in any supernatural phenomena without damaging your objectively so long as you keep all your philosophical, moral, emotional, and religious views out of your fucking observational methodology.

>> No.2794593

>>2794484
> no relevant data can ever be collected
means "does not exist".
> relevant data is very hard to collect and we don't know how yet
means "might exist but we don't know yet"

>> No.2794595

>>2794576
Look, many people believe in things science can't explain. Ghosts, prophecy, and psychic phenomena.

>> No.2794619
File: 3 KB, 126x126, 1301264083155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794619

>I'm sitting in biology class, teacher starts on evolution/Darwinism
>Christfag walks out
>Islamfag tells the teacher that allah will strike him down
>two others object to evolution and stay in just to interject every 2 mins
>come home, go on /sci/ see this thread..
10/10 world, I raged hard

>> No.2794627

>>2794545
I'm poor with timezones, so I was really just wondering how long until it starts.

>> No.2794634
File: 4 KB, 300x57, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2794634

>>2794627

19:00 EDT, which is GMT -4.

>captcha
Well, I guess it is a bit of an egoibvit, but I'm not sure its a scientific one...

>> No.2794639

>>2794634
many thanks

>> No.2794658

>>2794379
he's a physicist. there's a reason science is considered hard, because it really is hard.

>> No.2794665

>>2794658
>>2794379
besides, watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
he actually does explain his shit pretty understandably. not in his papers, of course.
7/10

>> No.2794670

>>2794665
actually, everbody still in this thread should watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
if they haven't yet. its worth it

>> No.2794688

If God exists,why isn't Satan answering my prayers?

>> No.2794695

>>2794593
>means "does not exist"

It does not exist as a part of thephysical universe and is not a part of causality, that says nothing about the supernatural which by its nature supposedly stands outside causality and as such can never be assessed or have any data regarding it collected. That is why we dismiss any claims of supernaturalism in science.

As I said the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural is not a hypothesis. We dismiss it because it is a supposition.

No saying a tiny bollide floating around in space exists in a certain orbit despite lacking any data on it is sloppy methodology, but can be assessed since is may be possible one day to observe that orbit closely enough to see if their is an object traveling in it. But until such a time we ignore rather than dismiss miss the argument because it doesn't not yet have the data needed to support it.

>> No.2794703

>>2794595
>>2794593

>Ghosts
Even if ghosts, physic phenomena, or daemons(weak gods) existed, this being a supposition, they would still be supernatural and would stand outside causality. If they somehow caused an object to move it would be observed as a physical phenomena. For example the daemon might move the page of a book, but the page would observed to be moved a draft of air, which originated from the propagate of low pressure system in the environment, and every subsequent phenomena needed to cause that movement of air back to the big bag and beyond if there was any state before that.

But the existence or non existence of these supernatural phenomena means nothing to the scientific method. We assess physical phenomena to produce predictive models, because prediction is power. Even if these phenomena existed there would be no objectively certain way to invoke them and as such no predictive model and no practical application of the phenomena. Which defeats the very purpose of trying to examine them.

Science is not some faggy quest for knowledge, is it the acquisition of power and control over natural phenomena through prediction and replication of the phenomena.


Your being a rationalist, don't be. That is a philosophy that contains a supposition. Be objective, be cold and heartless without any suppositions or expectations, just collect objective data, assess it to form a hypothesis, and test it.


This is stressed in every research methodology course I have ever heard of since 1990. Be objective, make no assumptions, and while doing science keep your methodology pure by entertaining no thoughts about the subjective or supernatural. Be like a machine.

>> No.2795726

Bamp

>> No.2795794

Krauss is an expert on science. Craig is an expert on debating.

They're about to have a debating contest.

>> No.2795799

>>2794695
>>2794703
In order to exist you have to cause a measurable impact on other things that exist. Such interaction are and must be detectable, because the universe itself will say "pics or it didn't happen" and refuse to rain quail on the Jews unless you personally blow the hurricane and suck up the counterforce to prove you exist.
By stating upfront that it cannot EVER be detected by any means, you have made it not exist, because the universe can't detect it, and the universe is the set of things that exist.

>> No.2795862

>Everyone in this thread jerking off over Krauss
>ITT: People pretending anyone using logos alone has EVER won a debate, especially one on philosophy, which requires Ethos and Pathos in significantly higher portions than Logos
>Implying any of you dumbfucks understood a single words I just wrote.

Yeah....Krauss not gonna win. Physicist arguing what is essentially philosophy? He's going to look like a boob.

>> No.2795894

Of course I would watch it if I thought I could. William Lane Craig is a retard though. Damn I hate that smug piece of shit. He's a master at spinning everything in his favour, leaving logic and sound reasoning behind.

>> No.2795909

>>2794670
Oh god, he has no idea how to debate or present himself as a public speaker. This could be bad.

Well, let's watch a video of Dr. Kraig, because he may be just as shitty at public debate and lecturing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco


HOLY FUCK, why would Krauss even agree to debate this man? Holy fucking what? He's going to look like a goddamn asshole.

This is a debate on PHILOSOPHY, not goddamn science. You don't go into this shit with your arguing-gun loaded only with science bullets, you aren't going to win goddamit. YOU AREN'T GOING TO WIN KRAUSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's essentially a nassally voiced nerd debating a man who has a goddamn PHD in debating and bullshit.

Krauss' anus is not ready.

>> No.2795959

Anyone else remember when Craig debated Hitchens.

Craig:
>>Derp I just disproved evolution because of iriducible complexity, so that means god did everything, therefore my opponent must accept there is a god. I'm the winrar.

Krauss should have never agreed to this. Him standing on the same stage as Craig will make people think that somehow the two positions (science vs bullshit) are of equal merit.

>> No.2795966

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9NlRKJBKt4&feature=related
You see, this is going to be the result of this. You know what, Hitchens sounds like an angry petulant jerk. And he's sweaty, unkempt, looks like he just woke up with a hangover and did 3 lines of coke before coming to this debate.
He looks like an asshole. And he sounds like an asshole. And he doesn't know how to debate, discuss, or even dance around philosophy.

Ultimately I agree with his points, but it's meaningless, he could not possibly have more poorly represented atheism than he did here. This is why it is a significant misstep for atheists to try and debate theological (Read: Philosophical) questions using pure science. It wont' work. It never works. It's like trying to debate the Allegory of the Cave using only Newtonian physics. It doesn't work, it can't work, they're unrelated. You don't prove "Altruism" with physics for fuck's sake. Ugh, this is just going to be more atheist-looking-like-a-jackass.

>> No.2795972

>>2795959
Lol, I posted without seeing yours, but yeah I remember, and it still makes me cringe, because Hitchens was awful, absolutely awful.
A poorer representative for atheism could not possibly exist.
Why are there no great atheist PHILOSOPHERS? Those are the people you send into debates like this, not some sweaty asshole like hitchens who doesn't even seem to comprehend that he's in a philosophy debate, not a science lecture.

>> No.2795977

>>2795862
>a single words
i wishs i coulded be have as much smarts as like you

>>2795909
Very true. It's gonna be hilarious.

>> No.2795981
File: 313 KB, 1280x1280, detailed universe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2795981

If you check Craig's site, he says his main point against evolution is the mathematics involved with random mutation, which he says the chances of the evolution of species on Earth happening like it has would be over 1 in a googolplex, a number that is more than the estimated stars in the universe.(the number's so big your computer screen is probably too small to show all the 0's on screen all at once, even if they were each a single pixel)

Well, why not start the debate with Craig right here, and try to debunk this claim.

>> No.2795995

>one claims there is evidence for god, and this is the premise of the debate
/sci/'s reaction?
YOU CAN'T USE SCIENCE IN THIS CASE!

why?
if he has evidence, what OTHER than science could one possibly utilize in order to reach a conclusion that isn't complete bullshit?

>> No.2796002

>>2795972
>A poorer representative for atheism could not possibly exist.
I assume you've never seen the president of the American Atheists in an interview.

>> No.2796009

>>2796002
that guy's what one would refer to as a strong atheist, right?

>> No.2796014

>>2795995
>YOU CAN'T USE SCIENCE IN THIS CASE!
>/sci/'s reaction
That's less than a dozen posts in this thread. Come off it.

>> No.2796018

>>2795995
Because it's a philosophical debate. Furthermore, everyone always just focuses on logos like nothing else in argumentation exists. This method of debate was perfected in the Hellenistic period and everything we have now is but its ancestor.

And you do not (in fact, cannot) win a debate solely on logos (logic). It is impossible. You MUST have Ethos and Pathos.

The point isn't to be "right". That doesn't do anything. The point is to convince an audience. As the main character in "Thank You For Smoking" says: "When I debate someone, I'm not trying to convince them. I don't care if I convince them. I'm trying to convince everyone watching us. If I try to convince the other person he's wrong, I"ll lose". Paraphrased, but that's essentially what he says.

Every scientist goes into this shit confident as fuck that enough figures, numbers, and logic will rule the day. It doesn't work that way.

>> No.2796024

>>2796002
>I assume you've never seen the president of the American Atheists in an interview.
No, I haven't. While I am an atheist, I'm not some militant and I don't particularly care what other people believe except insofar as it makes for interesting philosophical debates.

Now I'm going to look this person up and hopefully not cringe too much.

>> No.2796029

Whats this event?

I got to ASU and I have seen Lawrence Krauss speak multiple times at scientific debates. Frankly, I dont like him, but I would enjoy seeing him speak.

I know exactly how his argument is going to go despite what the topic of this event is:

Claim that cant be proven right or wrong inevitably pro-science,

followed by some absurd scientific prediction about robots castrating everyone on earth

A conclusion that contains 2 or 3 snarky jabs at religious people being stupid.

>> No.2796036

>>2796009
I'm not sure, actually. He might be an agnostic atheist, but his tendency to act pompously douchy and holier-than-thou is what makes him such a poor "spokesman" for atheism. Just google some of his TV appearances. The name's Dave Silverman.

>> No.2796043
File: 47 KB, 375x320, Boxxy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2796043

Krauss and the 12 year old wonderkid would be something!

>> No.2796059
File: 496 KB, 2304x1728, 1263610443047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2796059

I haven't been to university but I'll have a go.

Let's assume that the odds are indeeed 1 in a google plex, and that in turn, the odds of anything else happening are also 1 in a googleplex.

If this is so, and we assume equal odds (life developing, life not developing but instead weird ass artificial formations and shit also having the same odds, since "life" only seems special to us as living things).

This being the case, no matter what the outcome, the odds that it would have occurred were 1 in a googleplex, and so it's not that strange that SOMETHING happened despite it being so "unlikely."

TL;DR
If I flip a coin 100 times in a truly random coin flipping environment, my odds of getting heads 100 times in a row are EXTREMELY low, it's super extremely unlikely that I will flip heads 100 times in a row, I think anyone would agree.

That said, any other combination is equally unlikely, that is to say, it's astronomically unlikely that I could predict the heads/tails combination I would flip in advance.

I flip the coin 100 times. I write down my results as I go. Boom, I got some combination of heads an tails. Dr. William Lane Craig walks up to me and says, "why should I believe that you got x combination flipping this coin? This is EXTREMELY unlikely to the point that it's unreasonable to believe you."

If shit is happening with the universe (and it was before life ever existed), then the universe is flipping the fucking coin so to speak, an even though ALL combinations are incredibly unlikely, SOMETHING is going to fucking happen.

Here we fucking are.

High School Grad vs Dr. William Lane Craig round results:
High School Grad winning.

Dr. Lawrence M Krauss is going to RAPE this guy.

>> No.2796070

>>2796036
>. Just google some of his TV appearances. Dave Silverman.

I was looking up Ed Buckner, and thinking "Well, he has a mediocre speaking voice, but not a bad guy. What's wrong with Dr. Buckner?"
Then I saw you meant Dave Silverman and looked him up.
Wow.
Douchebag extraordinare. You weren't kidding,

He seems to just say inflammatory things to be a dick, without actually hoping (or even trying) to convince people of his position. It's like he set out to just insult people and then walk away, smugly self-assured in his own greatness.

Why is this asshole in charge and not Ed Buckner?

>> No.2796080

>you think there's no god
>we know you're right

fuck you, American Atheists.
anyone with half a brain WILL call bullshit on that