Larrys comment Someone please join me in offering Wes Baire a round of applause for his willingness to participate (again) in the conversation(s) here. Good for Wes. Wish we could say the same for Lawrence Krauss, though. Dr. Krauss has a large following of confused devotees who are content to allow him to play rhetorical tricks on audiences rather than actually answer questions (or provide evidence supporting what he offers as “answers”). Lets look at some of the tricks he plays on his audience in that vid, shall we? First, the whole point of the video is explicitly stated – including in the title of the Web page used to present the video – as a “Why” question (Why is there something rather than nothing?). But what does Krauss do with that question? Nothing. He completely ignores it and tries to make us believe that a completely different question is the real question being asked (i.e. “When we say why we really mean how.). That is false, of course, but Krauss isnt interested in truth, he is only interested in changing the subject so he can distract devotees from the original subject (*WHY* is there something rather than nothing?) and attempt to respond to a completely different question from the perspective of his atheistic/naturalistic worldview (he knows full well, of course – but he refuses to admit – that his worldview cannot address the *actual* question being asked). Krauss intentional dodge away from the actual question... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring ... is probably the most common logical fallacy committed by atheist evangelists. However, because their hatred of the God who empowered them with the capacity to reason (logic and reason do not “evolve” out of nothing any more than matter and energy do) blinds them from an open-minded awareness of committing the fallacy... biblegateway/passage/... & adatum24601.blogspot/.../atheismfounded-on... …, they simply ignore the fact that they have committed it even after being shown that they have (as Krauss has been shown many times, which we will show below). The next intentional dodge of the obvious, intended subject of the original question (which is a philosophical question that materialistic scientists are technically incapable of addressing, let alone answering) occurs when Krauss says, “Why implies there is some purpose and there may be no purpose to the universe. Indeed, as far as we can tell from all the evidence, there is no evidence of purpose.” Krauss, here, attempts to throw the dogs off the scent of the original question again (which metaphor is the actual origin of the term “red herring” used to codify the informal fallacy of changing the subject) by making a *philosophical* (as opposed to a scientific) assertion (i.e. “... there may be no purpose to the universe.”). apologetics-notesereason.org/.../scientism... & toughquestionsanswered.org/.../is-science.../ As is so typical of atheist evangelists, however, Krauss doesnt offer any scientific evidence for that philosophical assertion, he simply waves his hands in an effort to make the issue go away and states – without offering any evidence – that “... theres no evidence of purpose.” That sort of self-refuting “argumentation,” again, is typical of atheist evangelists – especially those among the New Atheist stripe... anotherslownewsday.wordpress/.../the-new.../ … – and it reveals the almost comical (sad, really) avoidance of reason and rationality which they intentionally and repeatedly employ. anotherslownewsday.wordpress/.../reason.../ That which Krauss has no interest in researching – i.e. evidence for purpose (Greek: telos, English: design) – is as plain as day to most of the rest of the world. salon/2007/07/03/paul_davies/ & reasons.org/.../design-and-the-anthropic... & reasons.org/.../fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth... & reasons.org/.../anthropic-principle-a-precise... Voluminous additional resources on this topic of plainly-obvious purpose in the design of the universe are available to anyone willing to ask for them in a Comment here. Finally as mentioned above, Krauss has been shown the many glaring errors in his attempts at philosophical reason (as opposed to scientific investigation) by many credentialed peers – including peers from his own discipline of theoretical physics. For the reason cited above, however (i.e. his hatred of the God who loved him enough to grant him the capacity to reason in the first place), Dr. Krauss simply ignores all of their criticisms. anotherslownewsday.wordpress/.../atheism-science/ (See the “Speaking of Lawrence Krauss” section on that page.)
Posted on: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:22:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015