I agree. As much as I thought that his comments where arrogant and he focused way too much on religion, you do have to cut him a little slack as his audience seemed to be of the same mindset. There are plenty of comments that I theist might make in a theological conference that would come off the same way.

As an atheist I think that you (atheists in general) should appreciate that when theists here people like this talk they gain a skepticism in the whole process, that is warranted if this is your main exposure to scientists.

He did not seem to differentiate at all.

What he was taking shots at really did not align up with Christianity in more ways than this as well.

I do want to say though that I listened to the whole thing and despite his absurd comments towards religion, I really enjoyed it. He really does an excellent job of explaining complex things so that even someone like me can follow. That really is a gift.

I would like to know what people like Max or Metric (who I do not think ever ventures to RGT) think about his idea of the universe being capable of coming from nothing because the energy cancels itself out. That does not seem to make any sense, so any further explanation by you guys would be great.

It's actually a fairly standard hypothesis--I heard about this in my graduate GR class. I can't remember the details exactly, but it's essentially showing that the positive energy from existing particles is equal to the negative energy from gravity. If the universe is perfectly flat, then the two energies must be exactly equal. Hopefully they'll have a better explanation for they layman than I do, but I can tell you it's something that grad students hear about...

I can understand the balancing out of energy, its the extrapolation of "and this is how we know something can come from nothing" idea that I cannot understand.

Also, I find it interesting at one point where he is talking about the multi-verse theory and says it is very possible that we will never have any evidence that they exist and that we will just have to believe it. Seems a little hypocritical.

I don't know what you and NR has this weird fixation on, but it's not really an earthshattering issue if a scientific assumption is wrong or if a theory is incorrect because the data are incomplete.

You two seem to mistake it for religion, where such things are a disaster.

It will become hypocritical when he extrapolates social norms, rules and value judgements from his unprovable assumption. Like say "multiverse hates gays" or "respect your father because the multiverse says so".

This has nothing to do with my post. Did you think you were quoting another post? This post is just me trying to understand the reasoning behind this, of which I honestly just do not understand.

This is just false. It is hypocritical to say "I only believe in that that we can scientifically and empirically verify, unless of course it aligns with what I want to believe."

Yes, to assume X so that your numbers fit in a working model that actually has a _descriptive_ use that works is ofcourse identical to assuming an X which is useless in any instrumental model and from which you extrapolate _normative_ conclusions.

Once again you seem to think science and religion somehow has something in common. And well they do, the same way road signs and nationalism have something in common.

lol, what descriptive power does the multi-verse theory have? Let the atheist hand waving begin!

And you still never addressed the hypocrisy.

I don't know, it's not something I am very interested in. I have no need for assuming a multiverse.

However to assume a teapot to explain a weird sound while being aware that it is merely an assumption, is different from assuming a teapot and then concluding from this that coffee-drinkers are immoral.

I see no "hypocrisy". I see someone with a desire to inflame a quarrel with a negative buzzword.

But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about positing a being that created everything over everything created itself.

It seems apparent that you either do not know what hypocrisy means, or that you are using some sort of different definition.

That's not what I am talking about, but fine:

Science:
1) We don't know if it exists, but assuming a teapot will make the models work so we will do it for now.

Unrevealed religion.
2.) A teapot created the universe.

Revealed religion:
1) The first teapot made the universe, and therefore coffeedrinkers are sinners.

And this is my last post on this, as your purposeful misunderstandings are getting tedious.

Ive seen the video a while back and I was amusing this was a backhanded theist joke, it may have been another clip though.
If he was being sincere then you have to understand what (I think) Tame is trying to say, a scientific theory and theology are very different. A scientific theory has some basis in reality in that it fits in not with someones beliefs, but other scientific facts and theories. In this case you can see why the multiverse would be very logical, the equation for electromagnetism just pops out of a multidimensional modal as well as explaining numerous other things. Scientists are also in the process of testing weather sub atomic particles (gravitons for example) actually leave this universe on the point of impact at CERN.
A theory of the creator has no such basis and basically comes from myths and legends from yesteryear, theists are the ones who's world views fit in with their own when they point to intelligent design.

E=mc^2. That is, mass and energy are equivalent. Thus, if the universe is zero energy, then you don't have to worry about why there is matter in the universe (or at least, you can explain that the sum of mass + energy = 0)

This should excite you then:

"Something" comes from nothing all the time. What's more: we can even measure it. Go read about the "Casimir effect" on Wikipedia.

(And vacuum energy and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for good measure.)

For the same reason you can't know whether something happens by pure chance you can't possibly know whether something came from nothing. Even if you did, you can't possibly know whether that event is uncaused. Unless, like Krauss, you think you're omniscient.

Warren on Larry King:

When did the world give Warren the power to ban all stem cell research? Oh, you mean embryonic stem cell? When did the world give Warren the power to ban embryonic stem cell research? Oh, you mean federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? When did the world give Warren the power to withdraw federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?

And by the way, can you name one person who has been harmed in any way by anything Warren has said or done concerning any stem cell research?

Edit:

So what has Warren done? How about:


Let me know when either Krauss or Dawkins even lift their little finger to help anyone in any way. Should make the Times headlines if it ever happens.

So Krauss thinks if you try to end global poverty Y O U A R E A N A S S H O L E.

Krauss is such a genius.

Krauss has helped me understand physics and Dawkins has helped me understand how stupid religion is and those that follow it blindly. Not to mention a greater understanding of evolution and science in general.. look for the christmas lectures they were an amazing thing that everyone would watch in the uk.

Equivocation central.

What do you mean?

You're using help differently than I was.

The scientific method isn't itself a scientific statement - it's a non-scientific philosophy on the best way to discover empirical truths about the reality we know through experience.

Beyond that, the theistic arguments for the existence of God are propositions that make truth claims. Some science may be involved in some of the premises but all philosophy tries to discover truth on the basis of reasoning about reality - that reasoning is non-scientific, but it is either true or false.

Maybe the clearest examples are in the field of morality. What we "ought" to do can never be answered by science, but is it true that one should not torture small children?

Let me know when Warren gives "help" without exchanging bible verses for that help.

Goalpost-moving central.

I haven't listened to the lecture yet so it may or may not be that Krauss was unfair to Warren, frankly I know little about either of them. However, this argument that people throw out of the manner of: "What do you do to help others? Until you prove that you've done as much charity as that guy you can't say anything" is a stupid argument. We all play different roles and I would think it would be expected that someone like Warren sets up charities, etc. However, just because someone has done good things does not make them immune from criticism for the bad things they have done (I'm not suggesting Warren has done bad things, I don't know much about him except that he writes cheesy books )

Dawkins has set up a foundation: http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/. It doesn't have the same focus as Warren's perhaps but it does play a role and aims at playing an important role.

Scientific method is how you do science. Saying scientific method is only a philosophical principle is so simplified that it is wrong.

Method is the very formal rules and tools you apply in your research, and what many religious believers who argue this don't seem to understand (I am absolutely certain most do, but it's easier to pretend one doesn't) is that the method can be far more important than the content.

Arriving at the right answer by wrongful method is by far the worst error you encounter in science. In contrast; arriving at the wrong answer by correct method is often very helpful (once the initial disappointment has settled).

The scientific method WORKS. We know this because of past history, stats, experience, accurate predictive models, and so on. The scientific method is obviously not 100% (you guys love to take that to mean it's full of holes when meanwhile, any other method hasn't been shown to do diddlysquat in comparison), but it works...the same way that playing poker like Phil Ivey works. It doesn't win every pot, but it gets the money most of the time.

The scientific method works the same way no matter who is using it. It's the same method every time. Isn't that a beautiful thing?

Your theistic arguments do NOT work like that. Theology in general does NOT work like that. One guy has version A of the Bible. Another guy has version B of the Bible. A third guy has the Koran. All three have to "agree to disagree" about their "findings."

This is not a good way to attempt to ascertain truth. It's actually one of the poorest ways. Has anyone ever been able to validate a single belief to any certainty? No! Has anyone returned from the dead or seen a talking snake or watched water part or found "the soul" or watched a resurrection? No! This method actually does the opposite of the scientific method. It's conclusion by speculation, and it sucks.

Morality is not clear at all. Not without an ultimate goal.

Not torturing children is by no means an ultimate truth. We'd like to THINK it is, but that's nothing more than wishful thinking. The only reason we don't think torturing children is correct is because it's purposeless, and most (99%) of humans find it repulsive. It offends us, so therefore it cannot be true? A better argument is needed here.