You've yet to show that Krauss holds that view. Abolishment through education (as higher education correlates with less belief in sky-fairies) seems to be what he advocates.
Huh? He want's it labelled child abuse.
No. He wants religious indoctrination of children to be labeled as child abuse. That is not equal to criminalizing religion.
It's also a blatant fallacy that "higher education correlates with less creation". In fact the opposite is true if a person pursues an education in Philosophy.
Wrong. 72.8 % of philosophers being atheists is much, much higher than the average in the US. Link to a very recent study: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/
So, you couldn't find anyone giving those odds? Winning in lottery is a true/false question, how can anyone set those odds as anything different than 50/50? This is something that you seemingly fail to grasp.
Wrong, maybe you should go back and take a basic statistics class. Either that, or you need to stop twisting facts to support your beliefs, which would be the most advisable course of action.
But that's what you claim: The existence of a creator is a 50/50 chance situation, with nothing possibly skewing those odds to either direction. You just can't see how taking that stance in the lottery analogy leads to an absurdity. I'm not twisting any facts. I just find your unsupported 50/50 claim ludicrous, and tried to show how a true/false situation can mean anything but 50/50 odds.
The experiment comes from Philosophy first!
I don't really agree with this. The ancient Greek philosophers got several things wrong, when they didn't do the experiments they could have done.
You have a concept of something, you build a model to see if you are correct. The concept and thought process allowing you to build the experiment is Philosophy.
And that specific philosophy is called science. Philosophy in general lacks the self-correcting feedback that science has between the experiment and the theory. But, a theory begins with observations; usually such observations that aren't explained by existing theories.
I'm doubtful that you have a PHD.
Not my problem. My credentials are verifiable, but I'll prefer anonymity, as I don't try to make it an argument from authority. While you are on your trip to visit the cosmologist, find a couple of experimentalists and ask your philosophy question.
Einstein was not too happy about how Science was used against Japan either was he?
And? Science doesn't provide moral guidance in this sense. Though I'd like to know Einstein's view on atom bomb vs. invasion of the Japanese main islands, as the latter had a lot higher projected death toll.
We have found giant skeletons, which means that David and Goliath is very possible.
:D You do know that the giant skeleton was a hoax?
We have found all kinds of validation that a major world wide flood happened, so it is possible that this event occurred.
No. We have found evidence of local floods, but no evidence for a global one. And there isn't enough water on earth for a biblical flood.
Parting the Red Sea has been shown to have some merit with natural phenomenon, so while it may not have been a guy with a staff it could have happened.
Wind driving the water off from such a large area is a stretch, and it hasn't been demonstrated in reality. But yeah, I'll grant that it's not entirely impossible. The problem then is that you are trying to use a natural phenomenon as evidence for the supernatural.
You make a false claim that it's all horrible and all wrong.
I did not make that claim, I said "much". There are also the boring parts (genealogies, *yawn*), and even a few reasonably entertaining stories.
I haven't claimed that BB theory is right, as no theory is ever right. They can only shown to be wrong; until that happens, the prevailing theories are our best models to match the universe we observe. Did you read the Scienceblogs page I linked to? Where were the numerous BB theories presented there?
That whole paragraph reeks! Some theories are always wrong and should never be pursued.
What does that have to do with theories not being proven right? Of course some theories are so wrong that it's waste of time to study them, but to recognize theories that are wrong usually requires developing the theory to a stage where it can make predictions, and then making the experiment or observation.
Prevailing theories are often wrong, sometimes to the point of never being pursued Hitler's theories of a supreme race for example (which were heavily embraced in the US). Countless theories have been right enough that we can progress in knowledge because of them. Einstein's theory of relativity for example. Big Bang sits somewhere in the middle of those two theories.
That's an absurd claim. BB theory is based on Einstein's general relativity, which predicts non-static (that is, expanding or contracting) universes. If you want details, check out FLRW metric. "Race science" or eugenics, on the other hand, was politically motivated and twisted to produce "results" that the ruling parties wanted. It was more an ideology.
Yes, I read the blog but no, my opinion that Expanding Vacuum is a much better theory does not change.
Would you finally describe the EV theory? Google doesn't recognize it, and as I said earlier, the small bits you've inferred don't point to a theory which I've heard of.
It also does not change the fact that I can go to numerous locations to read variations in the Big Bang theory which also claim to be right.
You have to substantiate this claim (actually two claims: 1) different BB theories, and 2) claim to be right).
The next two points mean that you don't know Krauss's work at all. Again, you use fallacy to deny your own ignorance.
But Krauss's work is mostly about BB cosmology. Are you referring to A Universe from Nothing? A popular account of how the Big Bang could have happened.
Philosophy is required for every part of education. Rhetoric, Logic, and ethics.
Perhaps. But those are also well integrated into other disciplines, so math covers the logic part, for example.
Since you use fallacy so much, you seem to be extremely devoid of philosophical training.
Yet you seem to be leading at this front, starting the very post I'm replying to with a fallacy.
If philosophy is taught early, people are smarter. This is a fact, shown by over a thousand years of teaching in this way.
Evidence? I'd rather expect that education in general makes people smarter, and starting from an earlier age gives better results.
It should be taught young, not as an elective only in higher education. It has no precursor except for language which can be taught at the same time.
The problem here is you try to claim that philosophy, and only philosophy, can give these tools. In reality, those tools are in the sciences and math, and only in those disciplines philosophy can lead to actual knowledge about our world. You need to combine the philosophy with experiment, i. e. do science, to produce actual results. You can see this in the study I linked above: The philosophers don't have a consensus on any of the questions asked (external world comes closest, with 80 % agreeing with it). So while philosophy can provide us some useful tools, and studying it surely won't hurt anyone, it doesn't seem to be that useful alone.
Can I perform physics without Math, Algebra and Trigonometry? For more accurate Physics, I would also need Calculus right?
Yes, math is an integral part of physics. But if I calculate the trajectory of a projectile, am I doing physics or math? Or fit a theoretical model to my data? In the same vein, I'm not philosophizing when I try to deduce the magnetic interactions in a sample from different datasets.