Why did the chicken cross the road?

William Lane Craig: In the wake of your new book, Chicken Physics–published by Bantam Press (pardon the pun)–I'd like to ask you a question or two. For starters, "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Lawrence Krauss: That's the sort of deceptive, prejudicial question I've come to expect from Bible-thumpers like you.

Craig: Why do you say that?

Krauss: It begs the question by assuming there was a reason the chicken crossed the road.

Craig: What's wrong with that question?

Krauss: Because nothing caused the chicken to cross the road. 

Craig: Nothing at all?

Krauss: That's right. 

Craig: So how did it get from one side of the road to the the other side?

Krauss: It just popped out of a quantum vacuum. 

Craig: Is that anything like a Hoover vacuum? 

Krauss: Nothing is not like anything. That's the point.

Craig: Very well. Permit me to ask you another question: "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?"

Krauss: There you go again with your loaded questions! One didn't come before the other. Rather, both popped right out of the quantum vacuum.

Craig: That's a mighty impressive vacuum. Almost like pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Krauss: If I didn't know better, I'd say the quantum vacuum has godlike powers. 

Lawrence Krauss' Behavior

From William Lane Craig's latest newsletter:

Skeptical Scandals

I saw Michael Prescott link something I thought I'd pass along. Here's a post by Greg Taylor, concerning recent scandals involving some high-level skeptics (charges of rape, sexual harassment, etc.).

“New Atheist Documentary By Dawkins And Krauss Won’t Make An ‘Unbeliever’ Out Of Anyone”

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/new-atheist-documentary-by-dawkins-and-krauss-wont-make-an-unbeliever-out-of-anyone/

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are two of the most important figures in the New Atheist movement. So one would naturally have high expectations that their new documentary, The Unbelievers, would present a vigorous, powerful attack upon the rationality of religious belief, featuring interviews with impressive scientists laying out the case against God. Instead, the film turns out to be merely a travelogue of Dawkins and Krauss’ “magical mystery tour” of speaking engagements before their enthusiastic fans. Rather than thought provoking, the film is shallow, boring, and narcissistic.

There is no argument given for the mutual exclusivity of science and religion; rather it is the unquestioned presupposition of the film. This is ironic because one of the repeated emphases of the film is the necessity of critical thinking. No view is off limits to examination; we must insist on permission to question everything. Yet Dawkins and Krauss are strangely oblivious to their own unexamined assumptions. Why think that science, restricted as it is to the exploration of the physical world, is incompatible with the existence of God? Alas, we are not told…

HT: @mhmcintyre