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?

[Divine Insight]

[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.

In that case then why suggest that Krauss was lying? In fact, in the video linked to in the OP Krauss discusses the email in questions and the author of email clearly states that there's no such thing as absolute certainty in science.

Therefore if Krauss points out that there are many possible theories how does that constitute lying???

So if Craig isn't calling Krauss a liar, then why are we debating whether or not Krauss is a liar? I suggest that he's simply pointing out that there are many different theories. In fact, I would even suggest that the most well-acccepted theories suggest that the universe did not start ex nihilo. It's may have had a "beginning" in terms of its current state of physical existence, but that doesn't mean that it started ex nihilo.

So if it's important to Craig that the universe starts ex nihilo then there's no point in even having a discussion about Lawrence Krauss at all. Because according to Krauss the question of precisely how the universe may have started is still an open question.

How could that be considered to be a lie?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

In that case then why suggest that Krauss was lying?

I didn't!

[FWI]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

In that case then why suggest that Krauss was lying?

I didn't!

So if Craig isn't calling Krauss a liar, then why are we debating whether or not Krauss is a liar?

I don't know! You jumped into my comment. So, only you have that answer.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

In that case then why suggest that Krauss was lying?

I didn't!

So if Craig isn't calling Krauss a liar, then why are we debating whether or not Krauss is a liar?

I don't know! You jumped into my comment. So, only you have that answer.

So if it's important to Craig that the universe starts ex nihilo then there's no point in even having a discussion about Lawrence Krauss at all. Because according to Krauss the question of precisely how the universe may have started is still an open question.

How could that be considered to be a lie?

Again, I didn't write it was! It seems you are confused.

[Kenisaw]

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?

The BGV Theorem does not contradict the hypothesis of a creation event. That is not the same thing as actually supporting it of course, although I think Craig is trying to suggest just that. As since the BGV doesn't even include all models, it is not a end all/be all statement about models dealing with the origins of the universe in the first place.

To me it doesn't matter if Craig or Krauss lied or told the truth or did a little bit of both. It's really hard to determine what these guys mean based on a few minutes of clips from multiple speaking events. Context matters, and we can't be sure what either of them really meant without watching a lot more videos...

On a side note: We went through the Kalam claim at this website last year, in great deal. Hundreds of pages of comments, many of them excellent. You might want to review that thread (it was either in here or Christianity and Apologetics) if you are interested in it.

[TSGracchus]

"Empty space" is the closest thing to "nothing" that exists. "Nothing" is, otherwise, the non-existent. If there is something,(e.g. God) then there is no "nothing". If your premises contain "nothing" then your conclusions come to nothing.



Dr. Krauss did, at least, define what he meant by nothing. He was not trying to deceive or mislead.