Excerpt:
I have never before seen Krauss debate, but the physicist opened up explaining he did not particularly like them. I was shocked to discover that Krauss’ entire opening statement revolved around criticizing Craig’s well-known arguments as “God-of-the-gaps.” He also mentioned that quantum mechanics demonstrates that physics does not conform to the laws of logic (thus, in my view, demonstrating a fundamental equivocal misunderstanding of the term “logic.” It does not mean, as Krauss here seems to suggest, “common sense” or “what we would expect.” This is the most charitable view as the only other sense he could mean is that it is reasonable to assume reason does not apply to physics, while also giving us a reason, which is self-contradictory.). He also suggested God cannot be the grounds of objective morality since God can’t will evil things to be good.
[…]In Craig’s second rebuttal he again focused the debate topic. Craig does this to show both what he has argued and to show that the rebuttal was not at all relevant to the topic at hand. I wished he had discussed more cosmology and why inflationary models require an absolute beginning, but he at least mentioned these rebuttals. He completely tore apart the Humean argument against miracles by pointing out that he did not have the probability calculus back in that time. Craig seemed perfectly comfortable by this point and not at all rushed; however he had fewer points to argue against as Krauss was defaulting to “desire” as a motivator over scientific evidence.
By the time of Krauss’ second rebuttal, he was struggling for words. He seemed to have run out of things relevant to say. He did eventually get going, but made such contradictory statements as “there is no purpose in the universe.” As Ryan Hedrich said to me during the debate, “There’s no meaning, no purpose, and yet there he is, arguing away for God only knows what reason (literally).”
And he even reviews the Q&A. This is a really good review.
In this post you can find links to the audio, video, and my snarky summary on Krauss’ speeches.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Thanks for the link and shoutout! :)
LikeLike
Hmm….no reason for the purpose of the universe – so that would mean there would be no reason to participate in debates or to do science! Case closed!
LikeLike
The debate has generated quite a bit of discussion over at Apologetics 315 as well ! :-)
LikeLike
I’ve heard variations of the argument “Quantum Physics shows that nothing is logical” from friends and co-workers. In response, I say that you can’t live your life with the basis that nothing is logical. I can’t drive my car into a tree or walk naked in the winter cold, because I know there are logical consequences. It’s not enough to convince someone bent on ill-logic, but I trust that they think about it after dismissing me.
LikeLike
A nice review and some good points. I must admit I feel less generous toward Krauss. The ambiguity of his terms was so bad that if an undergraduate philosophy student debated in a similar fashion they would receive a failing grade for not paying proper attention to their language. That atheists are now moving back to positivism [which I think it is clear Krauss does] to try to avoid the question of God completely, I think, demonstrates they are on the run. I think scientists like Krauss are selling science as if it can be an epistemology and I find that both naive and shameful. After all the careful work done by someone like Sir Karl Popper in the last century it is simply not an excuse anymore to claim not to be a philosopher as if that excuses one from having some burden of logical consistency. I know the days of the polymaths have gone but surely Professors of science know when they are doing science and when they are doing philosophy? Apparently not since Krauss said the debate wasn’t about philosophy and then tried his hand at the subject repeatedly throughout. Disappointed is an understatement.
LikeLike
Totally agree with you here, its an absurdity when the new atheists claim that “philosophy is dead” (or something to that effect), and then seek to dabble in philosophy under the guise of “science”…
As you mentioned we are moving away from Popper’s ideals of empiricalism in science and more to the older version where there is no push for experimentation to confirm the hypothesis… If the hypothesis “seems logical” then it is accepted.. Despite the fact that deeming anything as logical is subjective since people disagree with what is logical for them, meaning it is not an arbiter of truth.
LikeLike
As a biased Krauss fan (as those here are quite obviously biased Craig fans), and having seen a multitude of Craig debates, I was impressed with Dr. Krauss, and felt he won on content, although Craig never loses on style and presentation.
But Krauss did ramble at times (especially earlier, before he got going), and that’s understandable…he hasn’t spent decades as a professional debater. Hopefully, nobody here actually thinks public, timed, verbal debates are an indicator of truth.
I thought Krauss did a great job on several points, and the more he talked about actual science, the less relevant Craig became. By the question-and-answer period, I felt Krauss had gained control (on content).
As I posted on another board, I cringe every time I hear Dr. Craig (whom I have respect for in a lot of ways) address the probability of the Resurrection with the ‘it’s only improbable if it’s a natural resurrection, but not if GOD raised him’ argument. Followed by the probability equation, which I think is beneath him.
Oh well, he’s an evangelist first and foremost. Anyway, this board needed a dissenting opinion just to break the boredom, and now you have it. :)
LikeLike
And we thank you for the respectable dissent.
LikeLike
Hey Brandon, have you seen the question of the week on craig’s website??
LikeLike
Yes, and it was my text that the person who posted it used…I had written those words on the Apologetics 315 website in the comments section of the debate, and have given a response since he posted Dr. Craig’s reply to my statements. :)
LikeLike
I feel that Krauss’ “review” of the debate is simply a matter of “sour grapes”.
LikeLike