If they both took the final without the class Craig wins hands down.

Edit: I'm talking about scientists I've heard, like Carroll and Harris. Someone like Newton would beat Craig at science and at least come close in philosophy.

I think you're way underestimating how difficult a Harvard advanced graduate physics final is. Without an adequate educational background, he may end up leaving the entire final blank, which obviously won't be true for Carroll, Harris, etc. when taking the philosophy final. Do we have an example of WLC completing any high level physics/math problems on his own?

I'll restate it this way: Craig knows more about math and physics than Hawking does about philosophy and theology. I have no idea what the results would be on any exam. Perhaps both would score 0. But if each wrote down all they know about the opposite subject, Craig would have much more correct than Hawking.

Edit: I may know more about math and physics than Hawking does about philosophy and theology and I would probably be at or near 0 on an advanced exam.

Sure, Craig is conversant with modern cosmology, but there are people who publish original work in both philosophy and cosmology, so your claim is obviously false (eg David Albert).

Your ignorance of philosophy shows when you treat a relatively minor figure in philosophy like Craig as more than he is. Craig's impact as a popularizer is much greater than as a philosopher.

Okay, but you said this applies to all the "scientists you've heard" (which presumably would be a lot of people). Are you familiar with all their philosophy backgrounds?

Then you probably shouldn't have said "If they both took the final without the class Craig wins hands down."

In any case NR at first said "any scientist" which of course couldn't be true (even if you substituted the word "philosophy" with ANYTHING ELSE [and you substituted the name Craig with ANYONE ELSE who wasn't a mathematician or scientist.])

I obviously used some hyperbole. I think it's revealing that everyone wants to major in trivialities where the important point is that Craig knows far more about science than the scientists he debates know about philosophy. Scientists like Krauss, Carroll, Dawkins and Hawking are philosophy idiots compared to Craig's science knowledge. That's all I'm getting at, not how Craig would do on an exam that DS could pass.

You really believe Krauss knows more philosophy than Craig knows science or math?

Are we going to have any substantive intellectual discussion of this debate, or is dick-waving-by-proxy as good as we're going to get? I mean, the guest speaker videos aren't up yet, I just want to know if I should bother recapping them when they do.

I'd be delighted if you did but would understand if you couldn't be bothered, I'll likely follow them anyway when I have some time off in a couple of weeks.

A fundamental difficulty with discussing this debate is that very few people, including me, have a clue what they're talking about. It then comes down to credibility. When atheists tell us that something is nothing and 2+2 = 5 why should we believe them when they say that something that is past incomplete had no beginning? So unless someone whose credibility I respect says that Carroll is right and Craig is wrong, I'll go with Craig every time - but there's no way I can discuss it.

Here's an older thread on BGV that demonstrates what happens when this type of issue is debated on 2+2 - even Max Raker admits he doesn't fully understand BGV, nor do 90% of physicists.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...heorem-776503/

Did you re-read that thread before linking to it?

Two points. If this debate just comes down to credibility, then there is no contest - Carroll has more credibility. He is an actual expert himself on the subject on cosmology, whereas Craig is not.

Second, specifically with regards to the BGV Theorem, Alan Guth himself says that Craig is wrong. How is that not adequate?

Even if it were true, it would not at all be important.

I played chess with a neighbor and was thoroughly trounced. My young daughter piped up, "Oh yeah, well my daddy is better at basketball! He would beat you at basketball worse than you beat him at chess." It was adorable the way she desperately searched for a silver lining.

Do you have a link to the guest speakers? When I watched the quick recap I wished I'd seen what the other speakers had to say.

Pretty sure your daughter, if she's older than 6, could trounce Carroll at philosophy.

Edit: As for importance, I believe I already said what you did.

What do you know about Carrol's background in philosophy? You're adorable.

I had forgotten about Craig's interaction with Vilenkin and the fact that Krauss "seems" to be saying the universe probably had a beginning, so I'm throwing this into the mix:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hones...nd-bgv-theorem

Nothing. I can only go by what he says.

Huh.

Awesome.

WLC is a nice guy. And according to Carroll's own cv he has a minor in philosophy, not a degree. Sam Harris has an undergraduate degree in philosophy but it didn't show in the debate.

Okay, but him having a minor in philosophy doesn't mesh at all with your hyperbolic "Pretty sure your daughter, if she's older than 6, could trounce Carroll at philosophy" comment, now does it?

Going by what he's said, yes. I was very surprised to find Harris had an actual degree.

Mmmkay. Got those heels dug in deep; I won't push any further.