Lawrence Krauss Deliberately Lies About Science

[Friedrich]

Here is a video that someone threw in my face as if it proves that god exists.



My position was that even if the Universe began to exist it does not mean that god did it, anything else could have caused the beginning of the universe.

Did Krauss deliberately lie about something that can be verified and, if he did, is it even important?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by Friedrich]

Lawrence Krauss did not lie, but he did deceive!

A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it, with the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it.

Yet, to deceive is to cause another person to acquire a false belief or to continue to have a false belief or to cease to have a true belief. Thus, preventing someone from acquiring a true belief. To allow another person to acquire a false belief or to continue to have a false belief or to cease to have a true belief. Hence, to be prevented from acquiring a true belief. This was done through omission and he was caught.

[Friedrich]

This was done through omission and he was caught.

Krass was asked about the ... and he said they were just technical details, they were not. This is what it means to lie or deceive as you put it.

Alternate facts are not facts.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 3 by Friedrich]

Thanks, for your comment, but it is my position that the terms lying and deceiving are not understood to be interchangeable.

[Divine Insight]

I feel deeply sorry for William Lane Craig. He's spent his entire life trying to apologize for a hopelessly self-contradictory and failed theology. He obviously can't make a decent argument for his theology on its own merit. For if he could he wouldn't find himself in such a desperate situation that he would need to be calling his debate opponents liars.

If he had a credible case for his theology he could just stand by that. Clearly he doesn't. So it's truly sad to see this man desperately trying to put other people down just because he can't make a compelling case for his favorite failed mythology.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

This is an interesting post as related to the question: Did Lawrence Krauss lie? It seems that you have decided to attack "William Lane Craig" instead of defending "Lawrence Krauss." Why is that?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

This is an interesting post as related to the question: Did Lawrence Krauss lie? It seems that you have decided to attack "William Lane Craig" instead of defending "Lawrence Krauss." Why is that?

To begin with I have no desire to defend Lawrence Krauss. There are many things I personally disagree with Krauss on.

I feel that Krauss make major errors in reasoning. For example, in his book A Universe from Nothing he apparently takes the preexistence of quantum mechanics to be "nothing".

In all fairness to Krauss this is how the physics community has traditionally viewed the problem. They view "empty space" as not really being empty. Whilst at the very same time considering this space to contain "nothing".

I also find it inconsistent that Krauss would write a book entitled "A Universe from Nothing" and then later argue that there may have been conditions that existed prior to the universe.

I would suggest that Krauss is simply inconsistent in his position rather than calling him a liar.

Why did I attack Craig? Well, he is the attacker here is he not? He's the one who is accusing Krauss of deliberately lying.

And moreover, isn't my assessment of Craig obviously correct?

If Craig had a compelling case for his theology he wouldn't need to be crawling around in the gutter trying to defend his hopeless theology by accusing other people of being deliberate liars.

If Craig's theology is extremely dependent upon the universe having a beginning, (especially having come into existence ex nihilo) then he clearly doesn't have a very compelling theology. The current most popular origin of the universe is that it began as a quantum fluctuation. If that's true then it could not have begun ex nihilo.

So Craig's theology is in pretty desperate shape if he's down to making these sorts of physics arguments in an effort to give the theology some sort of compelling genesis.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Why did I attack Craig? Well, he is the attacker here is he not? He's the one who is accusing Krauss of deliberately lying.

I didn't here Craig call Krauss, a lier in the video. It was Friedrich, which wrote this claim.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Why did I attack Craig? Well, he is the attacker here is he not? He's the one who is accusing Krauss of deliberately lying.

I didn't here Craig call Krauss, a lier in the video. It was Friedrich, which suggested this or asked the question.

And moreover, isn't my assessment of Craig obviously correct?

Sorry, but I haven't come to that conclusion at this time. But, this is besides the point of the thread. The focus was on Krauss, not Craig. The fact that you admit to some of Krauss' weaknesses shows that he has issues. However, the issues that Craig has (we all have issues) may not be relevant to the debate or question.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Why did I attack Craig? Well, he is the attacker here is he not? He's the one who is accusing Krauss of deliberately lying.

I didn't here Craig call Krauss, a lier in the video. It was Friedrich, which suggested this or asked the question.

And moreover, isn't my assessment of Craig obviously correct?

Sorry, but I haven't come to that conclusion at this time. But, this is besides the point of the thread. The focus was on Krauss, not Craig. The fact that you admit to some of Krauss' weaknesses shows that he has issues. However, the issues that Craig has (we all have issues) may not be relevant to the debate or question.