Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing? 

Enlightening to me. Sorry.

Well the anti-theists never do have any good arguments, so they have to rely on rhetoric mostly.

Yep. And it gets rather old and daunting.

That's weird because he continued to say repeatedly to not that his word for it and research yourself. 🤔🤔🤔.I have a feeling you just made up any critec you could think of in the hope that nobody actually watched the video. Real smart

+Pesadaman Dis enlightening to what nigga???? to what exactly you dumbass

Agreed. She derailed the entire debate at 57:17.. totally useless.

Joe Vete judging from her clothing and this channel I am sure they planted her as the moderator to tip the debate in favor of Craig. I mean look at the way she cuts him Kraus but rarely William

That seems like a quite extreme statement saying based on her appearance you can categorise her to a certain bias. And she saved Kraus from attempting to explain absolute nothing is something.

I meant her extremely modest Christian type clothing. I also googled her and as suspected she’s a believer and “spiritual”. Just as she showed her bias through the whole debate.....

Their*

Its understandable. Craig just asserts baseless propositions as if they are obvious.

@@nosteinnogate7305 Not understandable at all in my book

​@@nosteinnogate7305ignorance must be bliss for you.

@@nosteinnogate7305 Baseless propositions? He doesn't even get a chance to explain them. Kraus is a pain to listen to. He's a good scientist but a terrible debater.

@@heavybar3850Exactly. The person who committed couldn’t even stop to think that the interruptions is why he believes Craig’s points lack foundation 😂

I agree. Moderators are obstructive. I once moderated a panel at a comic book convention with Jonathan Frakes, Wil Wheaton, and the super cool LeVar Burton. I was in the way and unnecessary. It was still a good learning experience. If I had it to do over my only function would have been to take questions from the audience and keep them flowing, and I would have remained offstage. I had no business being up there. But I was invited, and I took the opportunity. I'll emcee anything.

Yeah.. but a lot of people only agree to debate with a moderator.

Well, in this case you do not even need Craig.

​@@ApaX1981lol

​@@ApaX1981But if Kraus was absent we could finally be able to discuss 'nothing' without him confusing us.

Pico della Francesca: You are moving towards theism because you are totally ignorant of “the Bible, philosophy, theology and science (especially quantum physics)”. If you had even the SIMPLEST understanding of anyone of these, you would realize that theism is unsupportable. Plus, I need to point out that you have NEVER been an atheist. You simply do not have sufficient knowledge to be one.

Pico Della Francesca doesn't exist!!!

And now?

I suppose there is always a strong temptation to invoke the magic word: "Goddidit!"

​@@vincenzodimasofootballandc748That's a positive claim. What's your proof for it?

Its probably a matter of knowing how to listen and process what the other side is actually saying.

LoL 😂

The only thing I learn from Kraus is how to lie with a straight face. He lies that a universe can come from (his definition of) nothing. He lies about the word nothing, as a universal negator. And he lies about the letter from Vilenkin.

You have (much) more respect than this agnostic atheist has for him. I could never get in tune with him and/or his attitude. In fact, I'm watching him right now to see if I can find something I can take seriously. Edit; I got bored.

She also doesn't seem very bright.

greyeyed123 Yup, hence why I labelled her 'dozy'. She's also unnecessarily hostile/aggressive towards Krauss, in addition to giving her irrelevant opinion on whether or not a certain exchange is productive or not.

Yeah. Christopher Hitchins was right all along. Women ruin everything.

Krausse is incredibly obnoxious

They're is no universe in which Craig is intelligent. None of what he said had any basis at all in fact. His "proof" is idiotic nonsense wrapped in pseudo-intellectual lingo, which people such as yourself hear and think "wow, he made some valid intellectual arguments! " No, he spewed stupidity, baseless, fact less garbage. Not one shred of evidence to back up any of his ridiculous claims. Biblical "scholars" are not intellectuals. Were that the case, then all of the people that have studied, digested, and analyzed The Lord of the Rings would be intellectuals. Craig is an idiot, believed by gullible people who desperately want their particular fairy tale to be true.

@@ceceroxy2227 Its hard to watch,

Exactly. Give me one miracle and I will explain the universe.

wow, i have never heard of that perspective. Thank you after 5 years.

@ GUPTAYOGENDRA Another grand claim with falls flat on its face !

What about the dream you apparently experienced but cannot recall. You apparently experienced it but you have no memory of it that you can retrieve.

How the hell is this supposed to help me understand how the universe came from nothing

Crane Sebastian BLEATED: “His expertise is strictly on observing the natural world; whereas the expertise of William Lane Craig is on asking and thinking about the deep philosophical questions about reality. Krauss, I advise you to leave abstract thinking to the pros” As Stephen Hawking famously wrote, philosophers have not kept up with the scientific advances of the last 150 years so they are uniquely UNQUALIFIED to speak about any of the deep Philosophical questions of the 21st century. And WLC is literally the worst of the modern philosophers as far as education goes. He is ridiculously unqualified to discuss any subject, even his own beliefs of Christianity Krauss on the other hand spends more time daily using the tools of science to address the deep philosophical questions than Craig ever has. That is why Krauss teaches at one of the best academic institutions in the world and Craig brainwashes illiterate children at a 10th rate Christian madrassa Krauss is correct. Craig is completely wrong about everything

Krauss is famous in these debates for absolutely crucifying Craig. It was such a mauling that afterwards craig complained about krauss being 'rude'. Also, please tell me you didn't accuse a *theoretical physicist whose specialty is the shape of space time and quantum field dynamics of not being up to the job of using abstract concepts... 😂🤦‍♂️

I clicked on this comment twice because I found it so amazing that anyone could genuinely watch this back and forth and come away thinking that _Craig_ performed well. I can only guess that you didn't watch it; I know that's a common accusation when people disagree but I really mean it. This was an evisceration by Krauss and it was so total it made me uncomfortable at points. WLC was utterly taken apart, quite aggressively, by Lawrence, and I felt like Krauss could've backed off sometimes because he was making WLC look like Grandpa Simpson in the Q and A and it was slightly pathetic.

That's no different than saying a scientist met their match when attempting to have a physic explain how they can see visions in a crystal ball. What I find most astonishing is that anyone can find intelligibility in anything Craig says.

Krauss never took apart WLC 😂 people are such fanatics. This was a good debate.

Well you should be. He's a used car salesman!

John Di Cresce No I believe he is sincere. And he is brilliant. He is just a complete ass and I don't care for him.

He's not the most tactful with his points, even though he's right. Where is Hitchens when you need him…lol

@@LibertyOverDeath-27nah hes wrong

"hofifut"...I will second that. I truly wanted a high quality debate (I am not an atheist). But I was really disappointed in the way Krauss acted and some of his totally unnecessary attacks on groups he didn't like (Christians, republicans, Microsoft, etc).

He would do us all a favour by not debating and stick to doing science. I don't think there is any room for Lawrence Krauss in the Atheism vs Theism debate. To me, he has jumped on the bandwagon. I like him and I am an Atheist but he can't and shouldn't debate Theism.

bada9412"Spamming"? I've seen a number of his videos, and I've commented twice in this series only when he was in Austrailia. That's as in "2" times total. I don't consider that spamming. And no, it's not the exact same comment. Maybe the same idea, OK, but check the words. Care to clarify what makes that "childish"?

***** I don't go to church, don't know the scriptures, and accept the science indicating the earth is a few billion yrs old. If that makes me a Christian, so be it. Don't care much for labels. I only mention I'm an atheist because I know if I'd only made the statement regarding Krauss's behaviour, then I'd be labelled religious.

***** Do you believe in a God?

you couldn't do better.

Where do they find them, ugh... (the moderator from the first talk was terrible too).

Craig Reeves It was as if there were no moderator.

Lawrence likes it to be a discussion.

Justin White he also likes the sound of his own voice

+LIQUIDSNAKEz28 both your point and grandmasterjoshh's point are strong and equally valid for both sides of the argument. The solution thus far is an intriguing evasive mystery.

+grandmasterjoshh both your point and Liquidsnakez28's point are equally strong and valid for both sides of the argument. The solution thus far is an intriguing evasive mystery.

Nothing is not a possible state....the implication that there must be space?

Mary Beth Miranda Sort of. Another way of thinking about it is this, Something and Nothing are exactly where they are supposed to be. "Something" is everywhere and "Nothing" is nowhere.

no!

And she really didn't seem impartial. I think she was part of the Christan organization that put on the event, and it was plainly obvious.

I'm annoyed by krauss. If he could just let wlc speak.

I can’t listen to full-of-himself Krauss anymore.

Why? To be imprisoned for eternity by a God, whether it be heaven or hell? Couldn't think of anything worse.

No, that is how an arrogant person debates

@@MrVincehalloran No I don't think it is. The whole point of a debate is for two people to engage in dialogue about a particular topic. And that can't happen if one person is doing all of the talking.

Why does Krauss shout so much? I was getting a headache from listening to him.

Time stamp?

except bill wasn't talking about rubber duckies. he was talking about an infinite "after life"... bit of a difference there

@@joshua_wherleybecause he is losing the debate. You can always tell.

Lawrence interrupted all the time, usually with another question. William seems to attempt to entirely think on his feet in this debate. That means he needs time to think about each question instead of going to prepared material. Lawrence seems more interested in winning the debate that discovering knowledge, and he bombards William with questions and talks very fast so that he loads up what William (and the audience) has to process in a very short time. The debate or discussion was a bust because of Lawrence and possibly the moderator.

I know that this is 8 years later, but that analogy is disingenuous. The curvature of the earth wasn’t calculated after traversing the whole planet or seeing it from above, it can be done using basic trigonometry. The same was done for measuring the curvature of the universe using the most distant observation that can be made, the cosmic microwave background.

Theology is not truth. Neither is philosophy. Science is the only truth. How is the only question that really matters. Why questions are usually pointless. Does it matter why you were involved in a traffic collision? How is what matters. When speaking in scientific terms, how and why are essentially the same. The "why" questions of theology are meaningless. Fairy tales aren't facts. Fairy tales stop knowledge. Fairy tales destroy intelligence

He says that in the sense that asserting something before any means to verify is useless knowledge and no better than blind guessing. It's healthy skepticism.

That's the only true answer. Anyone might believe in a deity, but there's no way of knowing for sure. The problem is when people claim "scientists don't know, they can't explain, therefore why can't there be a god"... Usually when a scientists knows only 99.999% of something, they still say i don't know.

wrong answer dumbass, mathematical proof by contra-positive

Majestic, unfortunately, you are using that principle in the wrong context. If one is making a positive claim that a god exists, one needs to provide evidence. Otherwise, there is no reason to accept the claim. It is not up to everyone else to try to disprove you. In other words, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not to be used here (and is unnecessary), because, by default, no one is claiming no god exists, rather, you just haven't met the burden of proof that a god does.

What context? Either that statement is consistently true or always irrelevant. Many people believe in 'aliens' or life on other planets in the Universe, despite NO evidence having ever been provided. Even scientists have speculated with probablity and statistics affirming that there IS a high probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere and have even spent $millions on SETI because they 'firmly believe' in their delusion despite the 'absence of evidence'. Scientists distort science to suit their own purposes and agenda - same as the lying politicians.

First off, the SETI researchers are not spending money despite evidence. Quite the contrary. In this case, absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence. Why? Because the we find that the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, meaning, the distribution of matter is more or less the same, everywhere. Thus, the same laws of physics that permitted life to arise on Earth are the same working in solar systems very similar to ours. In other words, the probably is in our favor. The scary thing is why aren't there any intelligent communicating aliens? Just as well, we just started serious SETI searches only a few decades ago. And there is no guarantee that we can resolves radio signals, cover all the band reliably, throughout the whole sky, nor that any intelligent aliens are sending radio waves. Perhaps they are using optical communications (i.e. optical SETI) or other things.

You're an idiot. For example, my research group doesn't distort anything, nor do any of my colleagues in other labs. There are bad apples that serve to tarnish the images of groups in any human pursuit. The science we practice today has a major social component to it (we are not robots) and thus, errors, whether on purpose or accident, are made. But this is precisely why we have the methodology of science. To eliminate such errors. If any scientist or science group lies about major (or even minor) results, the beauty of science, unlike politics, is that they will eventually be found out and dealt with. Interestingly, I recently gave a talk on the Schön Scandal. You should take your ignorant brain and educate yourself about it to understand how we researchers really deal with the rare instances of liars in our field.

Does it have to be immaterial?

Glasstable2011 Yes!!! Because you enter into an infinite regress if you’re trying to determine the origin of something. The first piece of word could not have come from wood.

sounds like something he would say. And indeed, why does "the cause" (assuming the concept applies at that "moment") have to be immaterial? In other words, what's the reason that it HAS to be immaterial? Like Krauss, I am REALLY asking.

@TheBuilder I don't think that's Krauss's argument. It's certainly not mine. As a sentence in English it doesn't work. If there already is a "some thing" then "it" doesn't have to "create itself" because... it already is whatever it is.

@TheBuilder I don't know that matter was "created". Why not say "matter" naturally occurs? That's what Krauss seems to argue. That fluctuations in the quantum wave (whatever that means; I don't really understand it; not a physicist!) result in energy converting to particles. What "created" energy...? I dunno either! I suppose you will say god. And then you will say, by definition, nothing/no one created god. That's "special pleading". Your explanation seems to be exempt from your challenge against infinite regress. But if infinite regress is allowed for your god, why not allow it for energy, matter, or the multi-verse? The point is... no one knows for sure. Krauss makes an argument for the plausibility of spontaneous "creation" because he understands/ has data about how energy and mass interact and behave. Sounds interesting. Who knows?! No one for sure. And god seems LESS plausible, and does not really explain anything. God did it. How? He's magic, he can do anything. Really? How did he get that way? He always was. That does not explain anything. And you might as well just stick with the Universe, because we know for sure that's There, and we can measure/ observe/ study it.

He’s a much worse and stupid version of Richard Dawkins when it comes to this stuff

Jim McCray when someone linguistically and philosophically attempts to beat you in a debate which blatantly has a rational conclusion, I would be like Lawrence, constantly interrupt to correct Craigs bs interpretations and stance

@@james-rimagine trying to justify Kraus in this debate, lol. Dude is insufferable.

@@weston06. Nobody needs to “justify” Lawrence. We live in a world where somehow some peoples ideas of evidence is insufferable bs.

***** Because doing the opposite causes unsuccessful results. If I just choose to believe that things can fly if I ask them to, I will fail to launch satellites into space. If I choose to believe I don't need to eat, I will starve to death. In some cases, you may choose to believe something that by chance happens to be true, it's just statistically less likely. Therefore, scientifically testing things will statistically increase your chance to be successful in your actions (by a lot). We use science simply because it has been proven to be effective. However, you ask the question in a very strange way. If you don't want to be effective, you can go ahead and believe whatever you want about things, no one is going to force you either way. (To some extent.) But really, I think you already know all of this. In my opinion, it's a stupid question.

you're disproving your own point: ration is of no concern to faith based thinking and vice versa. Ration and faith are diametrically opposed, you cannot argue one from the other, as has been proved over centuries of two parties thinking they are each correct and the opposing side is wrong. They are irreconcilable the best we can do is agree to disagree. It's all a waste of time anyway.

***** 'Rape is Wrong' is a statement that actually can be supported by science. Facts and Values aren't necessarily separate entities. Rape is a term/concept that parallels our development of intelligence and conscious awareness. We once engaged in sexual intercourse without permission but it was not rape, it was evolution working to promote the survival of species. But now, intelligence/consciousness has allowed independence/individuality to become an important consideration in species interaction. The science is in the development of the complex cognitive structures in the human brain. The brain tells us that it does not want to be raped through things like screaming, "help me!" and "No!" to get away from an unpleasant and potentially fatal experience. Therefore, science does have a say about truths in that regard.

***** You need to be more careful and/or specific about your question. If you ask "why should we believe in science?", then you're asking a philosophical question, and should expect to recieve a philosophical answer. (That's because science deals with "how", not "why".) You can phrase it as a scientific question instead: "How did we end up believing in science?", or "How is science a good belief for us?", for example. These questions can be answered, scientifically.

I must ask you,psychofmse, in what manner you have tested rigorously your hypothesis concerning "religious people"? Good grief dude, you are very unscientific!

Lol

You really are a silly child

@@boffeycn Not as silly as Krauss and his arguments

@@leonardu6094 Only gullible, ignorant, American fundamentalist Christians who believe the bible is a science manual and Ham tells the truth say that, don't you. Presumably you are yet another one that doesn't actually know what the Big Bang theory states or why it is so named. Correct? Just like the OP.

wong what an emotional response. Not a whole lot of substance. I'm quite familiar with the big bang. You don't posses any more information on it than I, so get to your supposed point.

William lane craig is a vapid moron.

The problem is that Craig continues to promote complete bullshit, and absolute factual inaccuracies, while telling people that they're fact. He deserves to be shouted down every time he says something idiotic.

Haha, YOU think it's factually inaccurate. Based on what you literally just said you have no clue of the arguments he is presenting b/c you don't care. Just like Krauss you are intolerant of any other worldview than your own which is why Krauss acted the way he did in this debate - like a 5yo. He will not only cut Bill off EVERY 5-10 seconds, but he will use insults in what is supposed to be a professional, public, civil debate. You hate religion therefore you are intolerant of it, and what's disturbing is you don't see anything wrong that or how Krauss acted.

mytuber81 it is not intolerance to any other wordlview than yours, it is intolerance to a view that has absolutely no real evidence for it. Krauss does not have a worldview, he just acknowledges the evidence of the universe we have today, while Bill ignores it.

Daniel Dourado Again, YOU say there is "no real evidence". You, like Krauss, ignore/reject ANY evidence that may point to a higher being b/c you have a predisposition to believe there isn't one - that's called being close-minded. Science cannot explain everything - Krauss even admitted this - which is what a lot of atheists don't realize. There are other ways of garnering truth than through science. Never-the-less science is great and we should follow the facts wherever they lead us. With that being said Craig presents facts in science and logic that point to a higher being. Craig's arguments are more plausible than Krauss's arguments against a God he doesn't believe in. Krauss cannot refute the argument itself, which is why he is well-known for almost ALWAYS using red herrings. Anyone who uses insults as a tactic in an argument is one who does not have a good argument.

Craig is full of shit, i'd interrupt as well

You can't just let someone pile shit on top of bullshit; it becomes impossible to address every false statement if someone as wrong as Bill is allowed to continue his "argument".

@@grains425 LMAO cuase he's destroying all atheists? Nice

Yes, you can always count on Craig to serve up simple fare for simple folk.

Craig wastes a lot of time and energy saying absolutely nothing worth hearing. Incoherent, illogical, idiotic, pointless, baseless, fact less drivel.

Are deaf his avoidance of all the question by quoting long dead philosophers. He did not once produce any tenderable evidence.

***** I am muslim, and it does not make Krauss right... He is a fraud because he changes the meaning of nothing.... When you undrestand this you can be anything you want and call krauss a fraud!

"When proving the existence of God, Craig..." ************ Craig proved the existence of God? media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/98/04/d9/9804d98c6b6a994110ccc1e1ce6d9a9d.jpg

Krauss looks at things only from the perspective of a scientist (meaning to use rationality and empirical evidence). Would you suggest that someone should not use rationality and empirical evidence, and just make things up instead?

jpchen0321 I am not suggesting that my any means. These "things" are not made up. If you have ever felt Jesus' presence, wow it just feels fantastic. Totally can't even be explained the amount of love you feel when having accepted Jesus. As for this case, God exactly can't be proved, but I believe his existence can be supported by what we have empirically. Science can't disprove God, it only proves it to me. The amazing accuracy of the Bible proves it, and our Bible today is 98% accurate from when it was first written. It gets the creation spot on in terms of order. THOUSANDS of online testimonies prove God. But how can we have the same evidence, but come to different conclusions? I truly wonder this. Jesus in the Book of John did many divine, yet STILL people rejected him. (I am not sure if all historians believe he was the person he said he was, but they believe he existed.) With that, I have two answers. God has either not revealed himself, or a person has rejected him. Faith is what you need to know God, and even I as a Christian have to admit that at the end of the day to an atheist. I urge you to read the Book of John and just ask God to reveal himself. I would love to answer your questions via messaging or something!

Simeon Davis "The amazing accuracy of the Bible proves it, and our Bible today is 98% accurate from when it was first written. It gets the creation spot on in terms of order. THOUSANDS of online testimonies prove God." *************** fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/345/4/6/jane_the_killer_facepalm_demotivator_by_angrydogdesigns-d6xmqyn.png

Then let the child in them decide which is the more desirable argument. 🌍

You just insulted them without reasoning like a child. Hypocrite.

*_"Krauss has the reasoning skills of a great professor and the speaking skills of a child, and Craig has the speaking skills of a great professor and the reasoning skills of a child."_* Kraus IS very poor at philosophy. But at least he's honest about everything, unlike William Lame Crackhead. And Krauss does try to make even quantum physics accessible to the laymen, unlike some philosophers who just like to use jargon to sound clever. {:o:O:}

@@cockroachv *_"You just insulted them"_* Not really. He's just saying that Kraus has the mind of a giant but is not such a great orator. Crackhead is a fraud with very thin arguments,. but he presents them well. {:o:O:}

More than that, we've all watched SOOOOOO many structured, back and forth debates, and it's just rehashing the same arguments over, over and over again. But having a free-form discussion is so rare, and its unfortunate that the moderator can't be there to bring up a couple topics, and then just let it go. There are natural lulls, and THAT should be when a topic gets changed. NOT in the middle of someone's sentence.

Whats your point?? The scientific method was fully established in the 16th century. *500 Years ago* . and its catagorized as *modern science* Should we get rid of that too??? Is it too outdated?

🤣

Yes - Prof Krauss needs to learn some debating ethics from Richard Dawkins.

TheWiseOldChinaman I agree 100%, Krauss doesn't know how to debate, he comes as rude and arrogant (let aside his constant ad hom attacks) Dawkins is way better, totally civilized, he waits until the speaker is done.

Snake Plissken Yes agreed - wish Krauss would get some pointers and etiquette tips from Dawkins, otherwise it is a waste of time for the audience.

Ehhh, Craig is way, way out of his league when it comes to any kind of scientific discussion. Craig intentionally speaks in confusing logical circles and sneaks conditions into his argument without mentioning he had. Krauss is much much smarter than Craig, but he's speaking down to a layman's level. Krauss breaks things down very clearly into simple terms and concepts, Craig intentionally makes things very confusing, and even confuses himself, and argues himself into corners then escapes with a subjective statement that cant be debated, or known. Its unreal that Craig can even stand on the same stage as a physicist, or even a clear thinking logical person.

mikeylikesit2675 I don't believe a physicist knows much more about metaphysics than a philosopher, so in that way I don't believe he is out of the league of Craig. I believe that Prof Krauss doesn't know how to debate, he just interrupts and make personal attacks. That is not the way you debate, you must attack the arguments not the debater. I think this debate got pretty chaotic by the way each debater behave so different from each other.

in that case we all look forward to seeing you present a much more intellectual debate the next time your on stage.

anders larsen i respect both intellects, the only low point in this debate was when krauss dismissed the nobel prize as nothing. absurd and offensive to the greats who hold this award for thier contribution to mankind in my opinion, absolute farce.

OhhYeeah Merchant Craig

who is who, it's not up to you...

OhhYeeah Merchant There is a lot of politicking involved in the Nobel prizes, which is probably why he said that. It doesn't mean that some winners weren't great scientists but the prize doesn't mean as much as people attribute to it and there have definitely been some who got it over others who deserved it more or who stole credit from others.

***** are you?

+Keymo Fetus So what you're saying is, content doesn't matter, only tone of voice?

Keymo, I find your points hit the nail on the head, I have listened to many of these type of debates and in nearly all I find the theists participants speak in either a very patronising or condescending manner, like you said I feel preached at instead of spoken to.

ignatei: no it was like the Super Bowl champions (Krauss) playing 11 two year olds in diapers (Craig) in American football. Craig simply doesn't belong on the field against someone who knows science, math, (or any subject at all for that matter). Theology doesn't belong on the field against science. Theology will always lose.

Keymo: Krauss teaches intelligent young adults at a major USA university. Craig brainwashes illiterate children whose parents have sent them to a Christian madrassa because those adults want to be sure their children are never exposed to 21st century knowledge. Krauss is an educator, Craig is a preacher. that is the difference

I know right

So you wilfully misinterpret things. OK.

And you're such an idiot. No one will ever remember you.

Or care.

lol ... the whole fact that you cant get enything out of nothing doesnt ring a bell? miracalous... after that he axplains that God is logic. and sience without logic is worthless. so yeah... Craigs won...

Science describes whatever know of the universe. The universe we argue was created by God. The rules of scientific inquiry such as testable hypotheses do not apply to God. What kind of God would be easily measured by skeptical earthlings? Not a very great one.

I agree, he was way too lenient on this debate.

***** 47

I understand why he does though. wlc is SO dishonest and it infuriates me. He is hurting the world with his woo woo. I literally want to punch him.

John Abad The creator has no first cause or prime mover. Maybe the universe has no first cause or prime mover. We still have no idea what existed before the big bang.

***** Craig's argument is slightly more involved than your giving him credit for, His argument is contingent on attributes he gives God to give him a loophole out of this. It's still silly though.

John Abad My point is that giving God specific attributes that are not proven to support God's existence is a leap of faith to prove a leap of faith.

John Abad I still see it as a leap of faith. Different logical proofs could just as easily hold up in a polytheistic view. What if the Hindus got it right? How do you think you have have turned out if you were born in India? Most likely, you would think the Christian beliefs were very odd (they are when viewed objectively) and you would wonder how anyone could believe in such dogma. You will naturally gravitate toward what's familiar. I'm not going to beat this into the ground. It's very clear that neither of us will change our minds. Just make sure your beliefs make sense to you and that you don't believe it out of familiarity, pressure from others or fear of the consequences of unbelief / disbelief.

John Abad You could say an infinite regress can't exist as easily as you can say it can. Neither are known facts. The Prime Mover, First Cause and infinite regress argument can be refuted as easily as saying: Maybe, maybe not.

Krauss is notorious for dismissing theology and philosophy outright; he probably didn’t think it was worth his time; ironically much like an evangelical, he dismisses subjects he doesn’t understand or care to understand and gets irritated and doubles down on his own ideas when that ignorance becomes apparent-he should stick to his research and stop debating, it does no favors to his field

A Good Man by that logic, 1) people who believe that the universe was caused by a natural force take 1 leap of faith. 2) people who believe this natural force doesn't have a will take 2 leaps of faith. 3) people who believe this cause doesn't want to be worshiped take 3 leaps of faith. 4) people who believe this cause won't punish it's creations take 4 leaps of faith. 5) people who believe this cause isn't jesus take 5 leaps of faith.

jon keene No, because rejecting negative claims is not a leap of faith. It's remaining objective. For example, are you making a "leap of faith" when you drink your coffee in the morning? That coffee could have been poisoned by somebody. Or you could choke on it somehow. You don't take leaps of faith when you reject things you have no reason to believe

A Good Man none of my points were based on the rejections of claims or beliefs. They were all "positive" beliefs or claims in there own right. For example, the first point was that "people who believe that the universe was caused by a natural force take 1 leap of faith." This isn't simply the rejection of the belief that it was caused by supernatural means, and the belief in the neutral claim that it was caused by natural means. As i see it, before any evidence, arguments, or whatever or whoever else is included, the two explanations are on an even playing field. Once all support, or objections and questions for each claim are taken into account, the supernatural claim is in fact shown to be stronger. But with anything short of certainty, how i see it is that one who believes the universe was in fact caused by natural means (or supernatural means) are exercising faith. I don't see how it could take absolutely no faith at all to believe that the universe was made by natural means, especially with no evidence or arguments in support of that claim.

jon keene I agree, believing the universe created itself is an equal leap of faith to believing the supernatural. However, to stop at that is only 1 leap of faith. If you start believing the supernatural force has a will you've taken a second leap because it's just as possible that it doesn't have a will. "will" is a man-made concept. Then to go on say that "will" is to be worshiped is another huge leap of faith because "worshiping" is huge man-made concept that has all kinds of moral degradations associated with it. It's quite simplistic to believe a super natural force desires worship. Then to go on to say this supernatural force will send it's own creation to hell is another huge leap of faith because "punishment" is flawed man-made concept. Especially eternal punishment. Then to go on to say this supernatural force is responsible for a deeply flawed and questionable book is an almost uncomprehensible leap of faith. One would expect that the only book in the world to be completely flawless in every way would come from a being as such. If I simply stop at saying a supernatural force created the universe but i don't know why I am no longer taking any leaps. This is the same with natural force

A Good Man Who said Universe created itself ? It always existed in form of Energy. That Energy simply changed it's form in Matter. Matter=Energy.

I'm sorry for you're ignorance.

I love how Jeremy called Albert ignorant (who misspelled "weak.") And then in his criticism, Jeremy misspelled "your." The irony is awesome. In any case, i disagree with the weak moderators claim. They should be almost non-existent. We've all seen soooo many structured debates. Watching a free-form discussion is rare and FAR more interesting.

@@jayman94fly something came from nothing... you will believe anything to try and escape The truth.

@@eternity6124 What is the truth? What are you even talking about? Weak sauce!

Hunh what are you talking about?

@@azertyqwerty5946he is referring to the story bill tells about how he came to faith. Through a girl that sat in front of him in class and gave a simple message

*cognitive dissonance sorry to be that guy.

***** NP :)

Actually, Craig's point was that the Koran was written about 600 ad, thus subject to exaggeration, legend, and alterations.

Pat Ireland Hi Pat. I'm aware of his point. But he is saying the bible accounts are a reliable source when none of the accounts of Jesus were written during the lifetime of the followers of Jesus. As to why this is relevant, I'll tell you a tale that Pen Jillette said during the bible episode of Bullshit. 3 members of Elvis' entourage wrote books sometime over the years after his death. These were actually written by people who knew Elvis personally. All 3 books has recipes in them for Elvis' favorite fried chicken, all 3 have claimed to personally made this chicken for Elvis and he gave them the thumbs up; all claimed to be the "Official" recipe. And all three recipes are drastically different. So if none of these direct sources, who were Elvis' contemporaries, who walked with Elvis, talked with Elvis and knew him personally, got this detail right.How can we take the bible accounts of the life of Jesus, that contradict each other left and right, which most bible scholars say written anywhere from 70 - 200 years after Jesus was reported to have died, as an accurate historical document? This, and direct revelation from God, are what WLC's main reported sources. Although he seems to shoehorn quotes from philosophers and scientists into his argument to varying degrees of success.

Avonidsed Three different recipes for fried chicken from three different people intimately associated with Elvis tells us one thing (with reasonable certainty)... ...Elvis liked fried chicken... That three different people with three different recipes all claim to have the "One Recipe" tells us that people like to think they are special. I'm reasonably sure that the authors of various Biblical texts felt the same thing.

It could be because the talk in is Australia. We have an anti-snobbery tradition and call those in authority (say a student talking to a lecturer at university, a voter talking to the prime minister) by their first name (as a rule of thumb). My doctor told me to call her by her first name, and I told my contact at the bank to call me by my first name. We generally don't like formality.

He may be impolitic, but of course Krauss is right.

ex0gen You bleated: " Krauss is just ignorant" There isn't a single topic appearing in any library that you know more than Krauss about.

***** With respect to physics, I am sure he knows much about the subject,given that his formal training is in that area. However, that does not mean that his subject matter covers the concepts, arguments, and other information, that is used in other disciplines, like for example, philosophy. For example, his idea that "something is a physical concept" is absurd because it is in no way obvious that it is, if it is in reality. He just assumed that because he is probably a person who is very grounded in his five senses, and as such tends to think mainly in those terms. So when he says "something" he means like a rock that he is looking at. And when he hits the rock, the rock does not move, so he calls that hitting of the rock "physical." Whatever his reason though, he just asserts it as if it is an obvious fact, which is to not even acknowledged all the arguments and associated conceptions with respect to the meaning of the word "existence." The subject matter though, of philosophy, is so complicated that it is entirely over his head and it is obvious to anyone who has formally studied the subject of philosophy and the history of ideas.

ex0gen Craig is a perfect example of what Hawking meant when he wrote that philosophy is dead because it hasn't kept up with the science of the last 100 years. From what I have seen of Craig, he knows less about philosophy than my 8 year old grandaughter. He is obviously not aware that every argument he uses for the existence of his god was shown to be illogical centuries ago.

MISTERWHITE111 I'm not so much interested in defending Criag, because I have no interest in what he is doing. I have a BA in philosophy though from Fordham, which is one of the best schools for the subject. This is too complicated to go into here. Just understand that Krauss commits so many conceptual errors it's not funny with the parts where he tries to do philosophy. I'm fine with the science he does. That's his field. But the dude is not a genius when it comes to the conceptual stuff that philosophy deals with.

ex0gen You claimed: " I'm not so much interested in defending Criag," Which is a good thing since Craig's ignorance is indefensible. You claimed: " I have a BA in philosophy though from Fordham, which is one of the best schools for the subject" Studying philosophy is what people like me do for FUN, not as a career move or to be a productive citizen. As I am now retired, the local state university permits me to enroll in any class that I want (that is not filled to capacity) for free. If I can find time for some fun classes like philosophy, I will take as many as I can. So far though, I have been sticking to the electrial engineering classes as that is a weak area for me (my professional career involved structural, mechanical, welding, ceramic, materials engineering and naval architecture) I just loved the dozen or so philosophy classes I took getting my 2 undergraduate degrees but I had to take them summer semesters because my engineering workloads were too great to take during the regular semesters. Philosophy courses, like physical ed classes, were EASY "A's" that engineers and scientists took to pad their GPAs. You claimed: "This is too complicated to go into here " Of course it isn't. Now that there are unlimited post word counts in RU-vid, as long as you are capable of expressing your thoughts in words (which someone with an undergrad degree is required to be able to do) we can quite easily discuss just about anything. You claimed: "Just understand that Krauss commits so many conceptual errors it's not funny with the parts where he tries to do philosophy " As I may have pointed out, philosophy is DEAD because of the complaints that Hawking and Wilson have written extensively about. Until philosophers are willing to do the work necessary to understand our natural spacetime, it is futile for them to even BEGIN to speculate on the realm of the supernatural You claimed: "the dude is not a genius when it comes to the conceptual stuff that philosophy deals with. " Whether a philosopher is a genius with philosophy or whether that philosopher is a rank beginner is the difference between 12 and a dozen. Philosophers are like theologians; they can sit and argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but it simply is irrelevant to any real discussion.

Atheists Exposed Debate is the art of persuasion of the audience. It's not about establishing the truth and as the late Stephen Gould said, honesty is rarely the best tactic. That's why he never participated in debates, at least as far as I'm aware. Debates are won by grand oratorical style, excellent use of facial expression and body language, use of argument that superficially sounds convincing and rebutting the opponents arguments by use of clever word play and semantics. It's entertainment and theater. Craig is a master of debate tactics. He has his lines down pat. He relies on philosophical argument (If this, then that. If that, then the next thing. If the next thing, then God did it.). For a guy who admits he cannot prove the existence of God, he spends an awful lot of time establishing the existence of God. Granted, when pinned down, Craig will admit that his arguments give only a plausible conclusion but he then goes on with, "My premises are more plausible than your premises, therefore my conclusiona follow logically and necessarily whether you like it or not." First, his premises are rarely plausible and second, his "more plausible" is never defended. He always leaves that point to his end remarks where his opponent has no more time. And third, plausible premises do not lead to necessary conclusions. After watching several Craig debates, it gets nauseating.

Atheists Exposed Of course; L.Krawze might have been mouthed, obnoxious but let's not forget, LK was also VERY RIGHT and correct in his statements. L.Krawze does an amazing job in preventing Craig from getting away using debating tricks to misguide people by reshaping the definition of what “faith” is or elevating theology to the level of “science” so that his arguments remain valid. Atheist always lose? Hilbillies? and creationists? Is the best you got? The only time I’ve seen an atheist losing to a Christian is with Craig, not because he is right but because he has amazing debating skills, but unfortunately for him and his supporters, Craig’s tricks are becoming useless, clearly in this debate, it was Krawze who was at the offensive, he was the one doing the challenging bit and preventing Craig from misguiding people and steering the debate in his favor. Personally, It was Krawze who actually won the debate, and if he didn’t certainly neither did Craig who tried to prove the existence of god with philosophy? Objective morality coming from god? How can anyone say that if god can be proved in the first place?

What makes you think Krauss is an atheist? He never claimed to be an atheist, and all he says is that "we do not know if god exists" which at best makes him agnostic.

91Chanito In this debate Krauss may not have said that he's an atheist but he has said so on many other occasions.

Agreed...In fact he is a confessed Anti-theist just as Christopher Hitchens was...by the way, don't you hate these people who edit and post videos of the debate saying "Lawrence Krauss beaten by William L. Craig" then they disable the comment section?..The fact they have to do this is a sign of lack of confidence in WL Craig who was at least the "only" christian with certain level of success in these debates.

should make you a theist

No actually, "last first" has made an incredibly ego-less rationalization. To OP - I thank you for your critical thinking.

George R. R. Martin is a wise man, I think he could have accomplished a lot of good as a philosopher. I like how Sam Harris puts it too "You'll no more suffer the eternity after your death than you suffered the eternity before your birth."

Wow, a quote, you must know the state and working of the universe. I envy you.

SolSilence He's appealing to sound philosophical reasoning.

SolSilence It's a joke, you muppet.

Ceasius A joke for a joke, you muppet.

+Jat Singh Krauss is an idiot. Everything that exists is caused to exit, this is the law.

your the idiot you clearly dont understand physics, if physics couldnt tell us anything then you wouldnt be using a computer right now

Jackie Wu is one of the most idiotic Chinese I've ever encountered, poor guy he hasn't even studied Confucius.

Steve Lee I did a little bit. Confucius was the first to teach "Do not unto others what you don't desire others do unto you". Since Confucius is a few hundred years older than Jesus. Jesus probably had heard of Confucius and learned a few ideas from him. It is just my guess, not a verifiable fact. How about you ? Have you studied Confucius ? How about I Ching, 易經 ? Have you heard of Yin Yang ? It is amazing the Chinese figured that out thousands of years ago, and Jesus put that into practice. Jesus is the ultimate Yin Yang. He is both dead and alive at the same time. Do you think that is being an idiot to recognise this fact when most other people, Chinese and Barbarians, thought that God is good rather than both good and evil ? May the love and the peace of Jesus be with you.

+Jackie Wu 子曰 : 敬鬼神而遠之。孔子二千多年前的思想，比你的還先進。 Confucius tells us to respect all the spirits and stay far away from them; his thought, though over two thousand years ago, is more progressive than yours.

Yes, that's good, but it is also a pity that so much work has to be done to convince others of what is already proven. Otherwise we could make even more progress.

pseu·do·sci·ence: A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation. Good Mental and physical health is the best feeling in the world. Not how many Hdtv you own. There is no evidence for God, until you or we find one, why do you believe? You don't believe in Bigfoot and Martians without evidence. Get out of here with that nonsense, a god is watching over us and cares if we're circumcised and who we have sex with and who we have masturbated to..

themetsfan861 Newtonian Mechanics is not "correct". It only applies in certain situations. It required "refinement". That is the reason we now have GR and QM. Evolution is FACT. Evolution is simply change over time. Everything evolves over time. Evolutionary Biology is FACT. Evolutionary Biology is simply the change in the gene pool over time. If Evolutionary Biology wasn't a fact, you would be able to look at every single organism and say, without correction, that every organism that ever existed on planet Earth is a clone of one of its biological parents. Big Bang is FACT. The Big Bang is simply the description of the EXPANSION of the universe from the time of the Planck Epoch until today. Our math/science/tools/brains are not up to describing what occurred prior to the point called the End of the Planck Epoch. But you are correct that science doesn't prove things. Science mostly disproves things. You can have a trillion examples of something but that doesn't prove that thing (Black Swans). All you need is a single example to disprove something.

No. You fundamentally misunderstand the philosophy and nature of science. Science doesn't prove anything. Mathematics "proves" things. Science constructs models that take into account the evidence. Read Michael Polanyi. I'm not denying either the Big Bang or evolution. Both of them are supported by the vast amount of evidence. Both of them may require refinement as we discover new evidence. For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" that ID people like to point to as "proof" of an "intelligent designer" is best explained by punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is not what Darwin proposed. The Big Bang may require refinement as new data arises.

themetsfan861 You wrote: "Science doesn't prove anything. " If you will reread my post, you will see that I wrote exactly that. Here, I will save you some time: I wrote in my post "But you are correct that science doesn't prove things. Science mostly disproves things" You claimed: "Science constructs models that take into account the evidence. " Science constructs models varying initial conditions and checks those models against boundary values. You claimed: 'Punctuated equilibrium is not what Darwin proposed. " No, if I remember correctly, PE was proposed by Falconer a decade before Darwin's work. Falconer died before he could push his idea into the mainstream. But punctuated equilibrium, like classical mechanics, is a tiny subset of evolution. Different species have different metabolisms. Different metabolisms manifest at different evolutionary rates. These rates hinge on reproductive, feeding, predator/prey requirements, and ability to regulate their internal heat. So you will find a cold blooded clam, for instance, that has remained unchanged for 45 million years and a warm blooded mammal that explodes in a wide variety of species to occupy the available niches. You claimed: 'For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" that ID people like to point to as "proof" of an "intelligent designer" is best explained by punctuated equilibrium " Not really. It is better explained by the change in the food supply that enabled organisms to utilize calcium and other elements as structural frameworks. While called the Cambrian Explosion, changes that were occurring at that time evolved over a period of nearly 100 million years. Wiki states that the earliest Trilobite fossils date to 530 million years but were already widely diversified by that point indicating that the Trilobite was already an ancient life form by the date of the first fossils we have. You claimed; ''Both of them may require refinement as we discover new evidence. " Refinements to be expected will be of the order of "dinosaurs are warm blooded" which isn't quite the revolution that had GR overturning Newtonian Mechanics at the beginning of the 20th century. You claimed: 'The Big Bang may require refinement as new data arises " Again, the Big Bang only describes the evolution of our space-time since the Planck Epoch. Things like galactic evolution will be refined. But revolutions are to be expected as our incredibly primitive math/physics/tools develop allowing researchers to pierce the observable limits of light. Such things as gravity waves will allow a pushing of researchers observations back into the Planck Epoch. You claimed: "You fundamentally misunderstand the philosophy and nature of science " How is it that I misunderstand?

Craig wasn't able to justify ANY of his arguments, what are you talking about?

That's religious garbage logic

So - because two words have multiple meanings, all words have multiple meanings? Pure genius. Also, why don't you tell us what the other meaning of "nothing" is?

***** Oh man, that was devastating. First, a non-sequitur and then attack a straw man. What did I say about God?

***** The evidence for God is our souls. There is no evidence that suggests our brains cause our intentions as opposed to embodying them. It's intentionality or epiphenomenalism.

+NyxSilver8 In the 21st century now, you still don't look for scientific explanations for things but mystical ones, just to comply with your ridiculous, irrational religious beliefs, pathetic !

***** When a philosophical naturalist experiences the supernatural they set aside their experience for natural explanations to come later. That's unreal. Atheists who don't set aside their supernatural experiences are now theists.

the arguments are indeed airtight, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows to be true as well. i'm not saying that that makes the arguments correct. you can dismiss his arguments by refuting 1or more premises. i'm interested in hearing the premises you refute in his arguments, though.

Krauss actually points out his faulty premise, the second one. "If the universe has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is god." It doesn't even matter that that is at best an argument for a deistic god, but the sheer gall he has to insert god there as if that was a logical step from the first half of the sentence. That's akin to saying "If my migraine has an explanation for its existence, that explanation is god." He doesn't even explain that point. He just puts it there as if he expected noone to question why he just institutes god as the explanation. Or maybe I'm missing the part where he explains it, but he brought up the exact same points in the debate before this one, again, without any real explanation where he got the god explanation from. I mean I get that he then makes it all about the "transcended mind" then, but that's still not really an argument. Is it the watchmaker? The god of the gaps? Does it even matter? Either way, the best he can do is establish a shaky reason that the universe needs a kickstarter. But everything beyond that is a pure thought experiment with no real explanatory power.

Good summary TyrantGea!

Try reading his next peer reviewed scientific paper he publishes and tell me if someone of your (in)ability can read it.

@@MarcusAsaro Not being able to comprehend the documented work of an individual is not indicative of the authors genius. I am not saying that he isn't a leading figure in psychis; rather the logical trajectory you utilised to refute the initial comment is flawed to say the least.

yep.... Through my classes on philosophy I have learned that there is a good argument for a God to exist and a good argument for a God to not exist. I expected some good intellectual arguments to attempt to sway me one way or the other. Bill just kept being an ass and the debate never could get off the ground. Science can never show direct empirical prof that God does not exist nor can science find any direct empirical prof that God does exist.

right sorry ooops

"Lawrence is selling us his atheist beliefs." That is bullshit. Atheism has nothing to do with science. He is talking about science, not atheism.

Simon P Krauss has been talking against God and against religion here and in other debates. He is using his atheistic argument to confuse his audiences so as to be able to sell more books and make more money. He is basically what you might call F.O.S. You want to watch good science watch Kaku, he doesn't do debates.

Yes, Kaku is a pantheist. Pantheism is but a nickname for universe. Tracie Harris says we already have a name for it, we don't really need another one. Michio Kaku doesn't believe in any religion, Jesus doesn't mean very much to him.

+Mary Beth Miranda He didn't need to use an edited video, he could have explained it clearly live on stage. He even stated the reason why he used the video, which was because it was short and concise, and freed up time for him to talk about other things.

+Marcus Turner But you do understand that nothing literally means nothing, right? Not something. Krauss talked about gravity and other *seemingly* none material things. But what Krauss fails to understand is that everithing in the universe began to exist, the NATURAL world. Gravity and his other things therefore cannot make a universe from nothing because they began to exist, so they are not nothing. And infinite regression is impossible. Conclusion, God is the only rational answer, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and personal being.

+Dêstynatiõn Y Where did he say gravity is nothing? The graviton is an elementary particle. Your statement "nothing literally means nothing" is rather empty. But the nothing you seem to expound is not nothing at all, it contains a god.

Adrian Owens I never said that nothing was everything there was. Either there was nothing, or there IS God. Krauss said that gravity could help the process of something coming from nothing. But that doesn't make sens, gravity is natural, not beyond the universe because it began to exist. His entire argument is about particles popping in and out of existence without any apparent cause. He is like someone trapped in a computer program trying to explain the origin of existence, but he cannot se outside the program...yet he uses the laws of the program to determine what is outside of the program. It is impossible.

The phenomenon of particles popping into and out of existence doesn't have a cause because it doesn't NEED a cause. That is the only answer that is currently available because scientists have not learned enough about Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is the most difficult science; no one completely understands it or even how it works. It just *does*. You are just like that person trapped inside the computer program. No one knows what's outside the universe; just because desert tribes more than 2000 years ago (that didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun.) wrote books about the creation and God (which isn't the first. The creation part is practically plagiarized, as well as the "moral" teachings.). I'd rather gain knowledge on reality rather than myth and superstition. I'd rather not read a book written by desert tribes 2000 years ago; I'd rather learn from the professional scientists that are actually searching for the truth. Scientists can not, and don't, say that they know for certain about anything. We try to explain phenomena as best we can with the *empirical* evidence that we have. It doesn't matter if that evidence is logical or not (meaning we don't understand how it works, like Quantum Mechanics). The conclusion that "either there was nothing, or there is god" is just stupid. Just because something came from nothing does *not* mean a supernatural being created everything. What did then? We don't know. That's the point. The same logic can be applied to God. What created God? What created the creator of God? So on and so forth. Don't even try to state that God can't be created because he's infinite or some shit. How do you know God is infinite? You don't. Theists think that just because they have faith that anything they apply to God is correct. And that's just it: *faith*, or the belief *without evidence*. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims, while Lawrence has used only that: evidence (which is empirical evidence, btw.) About the gravity thing. Lawrence explains that by applying the laws of Quantum Mechanics to gravity, gravity will fluctuate in and out of existence just like particles. I think you didn't understand anything Lawrence explained at all. Your closed-mindedness and brainwashed state of religion has clouded your logical reasoning. Or maybe it's just because you're ignorant, which religion strives so hard to keep. Why do you think God kicked out Adam and Eve? Because they gained knowledge from the tree. Religion wants to keep people ignorant so it can completely control them. This can be seen everywhere. Just because there is something rather than nothing does not automatically point to a supernatural being. That's just lazy. Nothing needs a purpose to exist. It can find a purpose, but just because it exists, does not mean it has a purpose. That, to me, seems like religious people are unable to stay sane knowing that they have no purpose and that they are not unique. That's weak and sad. Doesn't bother me at all. I don't care if I'm not unique; I gain my enlightenments and purpose from understanding the universe, not from believing that some supernatural being placed me here on this Earth in a comfortable family while millions of children suffer before they die. Last note: I'm pretty sure that's a tokyo ghoul image. Nice.

+Flipver0 Yeah? Not accepting a truth statement unless it has supporting evidence is a myth? Good luck with that logic, and by the way, we all know you were not an atheist. You are engaged in a transparent and dishonest ploy, an activity that defines christianity.

+Adrian Owens duh of course I am not an atheist, I converted 5 days ago. I must say, everything makes sense now. I hope you see it one day.

If you consider atheism too much "myth", Definition: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. Perhaps myth is not the right word.

+francisco444 yeah you are right. maybe myth is the wrong word to use.

I am sorry but Atheists don't believe no god exists, they simply lack a belief in a god since there is a lack of evidence. Thus, there is no position to hold as an atheist, just like there is no position to hold on, say, Leprechauns. We are all a-Leprechaunists. (Remember, the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim.)

Just wondering, what makes these theologians / believers think the universe owes them an elixir ?

Lawrence behaves like a physicist confronted with absurd claims.

***** failed arguments? Please explain with specific details

panthamor You mean the absurd claim that a quantum vacuum is "nothing" ? Oh wait, thats the absurd claim of You and Krauss Listening to him speak is like going to a comedy club. When is comes to debating the origins of the Universe, Krauss is a complete fake, an intellectual lightweight.

sgentlemanjack112 "(Craig) failed arguments? Please explain with specific details" ************************** Craig's only argument is the Kalam ontological argument. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument He uses it in several different ways but it's essence is always the same. 1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; 2) The universe has a beginning of its existence; therefor.. 3) The universe has a cause of its existence He then goes through a bit of philosophical song and dance arriving at the only possible cause of the universe is God. (Of note, the next song and dance arrives at the elimination of every God except his Christian God but I digress.) His argument fails for several reasons. If one or both of the premises are not true, the conclusion cannot be true. The second premise fails because while modern science believes that the universe had a beginning, it is not proven. If the universe sprang into existence from a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum, then the quantum vacuum must have already existed and no one has the slightest clue if it was already eternal or began 37.78452374947234 seconds prior to the universe. Our universe may be but one of an infinity of universes and no one has a clue how that works as far as having existed eternally. The first premise, while reasonable on the surface, also fails because it contains the hidden assumption that there is no such thing as something that is uncaused. (Craig himself says that God is uncaused.) Just because in everyday terms we struggle with a something that is uncaused doesn't mean it is impossible. Thus, the conclusion that Craig makes is unfounded. There is no sound reason in logic, philosophy, theology or science to conclude that the universe has a cause of it's existence. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't but Craig's argument is fallacy. As for his song and dance arriving at God being the cause of the universe, that goes out the window as well.

sgentlemanjack112 Craig's main argument. The KCA. Which is the argument for the existence of a general, deistic, creator god. All the rest of Craig's arguments for the detail about or nature of God rests on this one argument. The KCA is the basis and justification for the assumption that God exists in any other logical argument Craig makes. First off, we can see that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to Craig right off the bat in that he has to formulate a logical argument for the existence of God rather than just show the existence of God as an empirical fact. This alone should at least raise an eyebrow. Secondly, we know Craig is already a faith believing Christian who already believes in the existence of the Christian god Yahweh and Christian doctrine despite the value of the KCA. Craig himself, assumes God exists prior to any logical argumentation. If you are neutral or listening objectively, this gives Craig a bias which devalues any persuasive argument as it comes out of his mouth because we already know what his beliefs are. Plus, this also shows that Craig is not following evidence to a conclusion overall, he is an apologetic for his faith. You should have at least fully raised that eyebrow by now. Thirdly, the KCA has it's own problems. Any argument is only as good as it's assumptions. This is presumably an argument for, literally, the biggest truth there could ever be. Shouldn't it be scrutinized in the biggest way? If any part of it seems flimsy or ungodly, then it should be obvious that it doesn't hold water for what it is advertised to be able to do. In that case, all you need to do is think of a way that the KCA is false. For instance, the KCA is circular and begs the question. Why? Because everything which begins to exist means there are things which do not begin to exist. The only thing which does not begin to exist is God because that is what it means to be a creator God. Therefore, God is in the first premise making the KCA a fallacious argument. So, if you still think Craig doesn't have failed arguments, you should at least concede that he doesn't have proven arguments...with at least one eyebrow raised for a lack of any factual evidence. Merry Christmas!

That makes no sense, Lawrence Krauss is a full blown leftist Democrat.

Because he's objectively done more for the knowledge and understanding of our world and universe than most humans ever have?

@@rpjakey1868 like what ?

@@kennethkimbroug8087 Advancing the fields of theoretical physics and cosmology. A focus on addressing scientific approaches to climate change. Pushing for greater levels of accurate scientific teaching in schools. Studies of energy and empty space which contributed heavily to Nobel prize winning research. Authoring an amazing book that elucidates many things regarding our universe. Objectively, he has contributed more to science and knowledge than most humans ever have or will. Note the operative word "most" humans. I could go on, but what's the point. This is the internet, so if people want to disagree, they'll find a way.