Here is a link to the video of the debate that just occurred between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss: “Is There Evidence For God?”
Here is an audio link. And here is a Youtube playlist. [Edit: the Youtube videos have been added to this blog (eyeonapologetics.com) in case they are taken off of Youtube.]
It was live-blogged at this blogsite: apologeticalliance.org. You can read a play-by-play with some commentary there.
I didn’t get to watch much of it due to a poor internet connection, but will be re-watching it soon. We had a fun time driving to the nearest spot with free Wi-Fi and watched bits and pieces as people painted pots, graded homework, drank coffee, and sang songs with guitars and drums in the background. For those of you who got to see enough of it to comment, please feel free to do so. I will publish a commentary and an outline after reviewing it myself.
Persistent Questions 
Ammon
March 31, 2011
My initial response was that Dr. Craig refuted or seriously rebutted every one of Dr. Krauss’s objections to his evidence/arguments… even Krauss’s ‘strawmen’ arguments that did not pertain to his own. I also think that Dr. Krauss had tried to prepare to what he thought was a sufficient extent, but simply either dismissed or had not read some of Craig’s published work or previous responses to the objections that were raised. Craig, as far as I can tell, has published (in some way or another; by scholarly article, reply to a question on his website ReasonableFaith.org, by podcast, or by way of his previous debates which are mostly available for viewing online for free). I do, however, think that Dr. Krauss had some valid concerns and sentiments toward the evidence presented by Dr. Craig, so not all of them were prima facie unwarranted. But in the end I was not given sufficient reason to reject any of this evidence on any grounds whatever…
I also noted that the moderator misspoke at the beginning that the topic of the debate was supposed to be about whether there was SUFFICIENT evidence for God, when the topic, rather, was just whether there is evidence at all. Sufficient is a rather disputable and ambiguous term and would have needed to be well-defined by someone during the debate in order for the question to be pressed any further. I think that this could have led some people astray…
Let me know what you thought!
Ammon
March 31, 2011
I’ve got an outline coming soon and will comment on important points made by both parties…
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Dr. Craig wrote on facebook: “I was frankly flabbergasted by Krauss’s opening salvo attacking logic and the probability calculus. Can you imagine what people would think if, in order to defend a Christian worldview, the believer had to reject logic and probability theory? This was the worst of several outrageous claims Krauss made in the course of the debate.”
Tyler Clemons wrote: “He didn’t deny logic…”
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Ammon wrote: “Tyler, he denied that the universe is rational (which implies that it the truth of propositions about the universe cannot be known by our natural reason). This amounts to the same thing as “denying logic”. Perhaps he didn’t mean to imply that we forgo the basic truths of reason (the LNC and the PSR, for instance) in all cases, but only in some. IF this were the case (and it seems that it could have been what he was getting at), then he is committing the ‘taxicab’ fallacy as Dr. Craig pointed out in the debate. It is simply ad hoc to dismiss this intuitions at an arbitrary stopping point, especially in reference to a mechanistic explanation when any mechanism seems to demand further inquiry (is question-begging). Krauss even admits that the program of science is not to stop inquiring, so what was his point about logical truths???”
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Ammon wrote: “While admit that there may be no necessary a priori obligation for the universe to adhere to our intuitions about it, there is strong multifaceted and freely abundant evidence that it does!”
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Tyler wrote: “He didn’t say that at all. All he was trying to get across is that we need to get off our butts and make observations about the universe. That’s it. Logic is a useful framework for reasoning etc., which he DID say, but “reality is the on…ly basis for truth”. (Is what I remember him saying)
Ammon, the universe is the way it is without any care to our input. You might think you change the laws of physics, but you can’t….and I’m not sure why you would think that.”
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Ammon wrote: “Tyler, how do you justify to yourself or to others that your observations correspond with the truth about reality without a demonstration by way of natural reason and appeal to our rational intuitions? I don’t think that Dr. Craig would in anyway want to deny that we should keep searching for answers about the way the physical universe (and even larger reality) is. And he would also certainly agree with the maxim that there is an objective reality; which is what “reality is the only basis for truth” means.”
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Tyler wrote: “Again, Krauss is not interested in bringing down logic or reasoning. He even says that they are useful. His point, and I am amazed that this is so misunderstood, is that we must observe the universe and accept the way it is; we cannot merely talk about it or expect the universe to fall into our mindset. There is no other way to say that. Do we use logic and such to reason about our observations OFC. However, we have to MAKE the observations. That’s his point, as he says in the debate.
One may point out that Craig believes in investigation, so its a moot point. However, it’s important to understand what Krauss is saying even if it is wrong. (Wrong in the sense that Craig does believe in investigation)”
Ammon
March 31, 2011
I think that Craig did site some observations that have been made; both empirical ones to support the premises of his arguments and metaphysical ones…
Your point about the universe being what it is regardless of our models and descriptions of it is one that is often sited but then overlooked, in reference to the so-called physical laws of nature for instance.
You are right in pointing out that his/your arguing about the imperative of investigation was/is non secuitur.
Ammon
March 31, 2011
I think that one might get somewhere in terms of conciliation on this issue by simply extracting the assertion that formal logic schemes may be fallible in regard to reality from your and Krauss’s intentions in arguing the point. Which is similar to the assertion made by Dr. Craig about mathematical schemes. They both may be internally consistent, but not entail correlation to ontic objects. However, both are models that DO adhere very well to reality in many respects, and it would generally be considered disingenuous to dismiss the basic truths that are apparent to us in both fields in an ad hoc manner.
Tyler
March 31, 2011
Nice website 🙂
I wish this debate was focused on one topic: Cosmology (include the Kalam and even fine tuning). I also wish it had a cross examination at the very least.
Ah well.
Ammon
March 31, 2011
Thanks, Tyler! I hope you don’t mind my moving your comments here…
Yah, they could have talked all night on that topic alone! The cross examination is always a very telling part of a debate… I echo your sentiment — too bad that there wasn’t one.
Sarah Salviander
April 2, 2011
Hi, Ammon. We’ve just posted an analysis of the debate at our blog here, if you’re interested.