Lawrence Krauss (page 4)

Fernando

Kate, thank you for this thread.

Can it really be wrong to explore by expressing viewpoints, asking questions, and starting or participating on a thread (conversation) if one is not yet an expert on the topic?

One imagines JWN would die a quick death. Heaven forbid.

I believe many of the laws of the universe have been designed to be autonomous and can be objectively studied without reference to the one who created science, the universe, order, consciousness, life and the laws which govern the universe.

One is then free to take any view on a/the creator and his existence or non-existence.

However, I believe, and have personally experienced, that one sees more, and learns quicker, when in harmony with the creator and his message.

I have also experienced the very opposite when under the authority, power and control of religion, which I conclude is the common enemy of God and man.

snare&racket

Fernando, do help the world by explaining the mysteries of science via the ancient jewish scrolls.....

Or wait until science explains it then look for an ambigous verse that may be construed in it's many translated alterations to mean something akin to the scientific discovery.

No offence and sorry for the teasing, but your last reply is littered with HUGE claims of revelation and knowledge none of which I have seen demonstrated having read the bible several times and knowing the sciences to a reasonable level.

I have no idea how a book that said there was a firmamnet with stars hung on it above a flat circular disk of earth, can be helpfull to science or be in harmony with it. I sincerely looked for harmony between the bible and science fact and not only have i found not one piece or matching information, the words of the bible have been flatly proven wrong countless times by scientific discoveries.

Read Genesis with a biblical companion once more and compare it to the scientific facts of the issue, please come back to me if you find ONE scientific fact found in the Genesis account alone that we now know to be true that could not be simply be summised by logic by the Jewish scribes at the time. If you feel I am being unfair by adding that humans back then were,not idiots, then ignore my last point. But, keep in mind that thousands of years before the jewish nation existed, the egyptians worked out the circumference of the earth to three decimal places using triganometry, they were also doing cataract operations... so don't underestimate what was known back then.

Good luck....

snare&racket

bohm

Kate: Krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist. Hence his science is biased. Being an antitheist means he's anti God.

As far as I know, Lawrence Krauss use the term "anti-theist" to indicate he does not find a world in which God exist desirable or good compared to a world where God does not exist. Assuming this is the correct definition you cannot logically conclude he is biased from that fact alone.

To give an illustration, we properly both find a world in which we will be tortured for all eternity for supporting Gay rights undersirable (this is roughly what some religious people believe), however that does not mean we are both philosophically or scientifically biased against such a world: We simply just don't think that is the case on purely logical and/or evidential grounds and we remain free to pass the moral judgement that *if* it was the case the world was like that it would be a bad state of affairs. I see absolutely no conflict.

Or to give a positive and even cruder example, we properly both think a world without malaria would be better than our current world. This does not mean we are scientifically predisposed against accepting that malaria exist or infect many people. Again there is no conflict.

As for Krauss himself, I got to say I have lost quite a great deal of respect for him as a carefull thinker after seeing the three intellectual disaster that was the three Krauss/Craig debates in Sydney. His book is good, but Craig absolutely tore him apart in those three debates.

KateWild

As for Krauss himself, I got to say I have lost quite a great deal of respect for him as a carefull thinker after seeing the three intellectual disaster that was the three Krauss/Craig debates in Sydney. His book is good, but Craig absolutely tore him apart in those three debates.-Bohm

Thank you for your objectiveness and honesty. I will watch the promotional video from cofty now, and let you know what I think. See you in a hour.

Kate xx

Fernando

Hey snare

My post was not saying that the foundational text itself explains the mysteries of science.

The unabridged gospel message hidden in plain sight throughout this text has the power to liberate our minds from limiting forces (such as religion) which impede scientific pursuit, progress, development and discovery.

Anony Mous

I don't see where Krauss lost any of the argument against Craig. Just because your pastor (Craig) says he won, doesn't make it so. You can't debate someone who insists on believing something regardless of it's merits and spouts nonsense. And showing people the stupid things others believe is not a personal attack - if you believe these things and say these things and you come over as a bumbling idiot and people laugh at you, that is not a personal attack, that is just showing how stupid you are when you said these things.

As far as any bias; consider your own bias before attacking science. If you have already made up your mind that someone or something is wrong, you can't properly talk about it. Krauss hasn't made up his mind yet, that's the beauty of science.

bohm

Anony Mous: Was that directed at me?

KateWild

As far as any bias; consider your own bias before attacking science. If you have already made up your mind that someone or something is wrong, you can't properly talk about it. Krauss hasn't made up his mind yet, that's the beauty of science.-Anony Mous

No it was for me Bohm. If you read all my posts on this thread you will see I have considered my own bias.

I listened to the promotional video and Krauss is most certainly bias, but he is honest and humble about it. In fact quite endearing, I find him intellectually honest.

32.15secs-33.37

This is where Krauss is talking about the flat universe and said he wanted the answer to be zero because it would mean no diety, he laughs and said, but they calculated and got the wrong number.

1.00.30secs

Krauss is answering a question about infinity, I have thought about this alot too. He says he lies a little bit when he explains it. So here he is being completely open and want people to know his intent is not to mislead.

47-49

In these two minutes he draws his religious conclusions and states what he finds nonsense. But it comes across as more of an opinion than facts. I actually disagree with his coclusions and view things from the opposite perspective.

All in all he's not that bad.

Kate xx

cofty

This is where Krauss is talking about the flat universe and said he wanted the answer to be zero because it would mean no diety, he laughs and said, but they calculated and got the wrong number

This is misleading. It turned out that it is flat.

Lawrence Krauss

Share this