NR can read Craig's mind. Impressive stuff

Can you give direct examples of where Carroll showed ignorance of philosophy in the debate? It sounds like you might have something substantive to say...

Well, I see why you bring up the quote and it certainly make NR's statements seem somewhat strange.

But, on the flip side of the coin this can also be an old "politician's trick" which I have even used myself (I say can, as I don't know the context here). When credibility comes up in an exchange between sides, you'll bring up someone from the other side and laud them for their surprisingly good understanding of economics/the situation of the poor/housing issues or whatnot.

Superficially you're saying "I commend this guy, he knows his stuff" and thus it is hard to protest. However, what you are really saying is "in general those guys don't have a clue as exemplified by this one being an exception". As an added bonus (and even more stealthily) you even get to affirm your own expertise on the subject matter.

Sure, that might be the rhetorical purpose of Craig's statement, but nonetheless it shows that NotReady disagrees with Craig's claim about Carroll. That might be a first.

Anyway, people shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is a disingenuous attempt at a rebuttal. Sure, lots of scientists and public atheists are not very knowledgeable about philosophy. But so what? The people who are knowledgeable about philosophy, ie professional philosophers, also largely reject theism. There is no reason to think that if scientists became more knowledgeable about philosophy that they would be more likely to accept theism.

In his post-debate article, Carroll says, "The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don’t know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down." (Bold mine.)

OK, maybe SC could beat a 6 year old:

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-p...her-physicist/

At least he got something right.

When you've put your pom-poms and ra-ra skirt away again, how would you feel about addressing this question:

Bump

Bravo zumby. I hope you'll provide this kind of summary for other debates, past or future. I would love to get something similar for the Kagan/WLC debate.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually watched the debate, just read zumby's post so I may be way off on a couple of things


So for the kca to hold we need to believe that:
1. the universe had a beginning i.e it isn't eternal
2.That beginning had a cause

And because this is generally an argument for the existence of god and it would be pretty ridiculous to assume this without examination i'll add

3. That cause was God

even though I know that's not strictly what Craig was arguing in this debate.

From there it still seems you have a lot of work to do to even get to an interventionist god who intended/cares about humanity let alone one that resembles the god of any of our religions.


What the debate had to say about:
1.: a bunch of technical stuff i wont pretend to understand but Craig says that both the gbv model and Carrolls model support the view that the universe had a beginning and that there have been no good eternal models. Carroll basically says that Craig doesn't understand the topic well enough, he gives an example of an eternal model that could work, says that Craig's wrong about Carrolls model and shows a picture of one of the authors of the bgy model saying that he thinks the universe may be eternal. Craig repeats his points that Carroll has rebutted and doesn't address any of Carrolls rebuttals directly.

Analysis: From this it seems difficult to conclude anything other than that it's still an open question but. the universe may well be eternal.

2.: Craig claims that Analysis:[1] is fine, [2] This is silly. obviously not wanting to believe x is a terrible reason for not believing x. [3] We have 0 information about how things outwith the universe might work. We can't apply laws we have learned about the universe to anything not in the universe in much the same way as we know know we can't apply laws about the macro world to the quantum world.
100 years ago it would have seemed just as reasonable to say something similar about things being in two places at the same time.. I conclude that both options in [1] are possible.

3.: We presumably get to 3 via the fine tuning argument which, interestingly, both say is possible and even likely, though unlikely to have been done with intelligent life as the end goal.

However Carrol also says:

Analysis: Both participants say it is possible that the universe has been fine tuned (perhaps as, or even more, likely than that it has not been fine tuned). If it has been fine tuned any arguments about premises 1 and 2 of the kalam would seem to be redundant. Something, in some sense, “intended” to create the universe. That this is such a viable possibility is extremely interesting in and of itself and is not a conclusion I expected to reach when I opened this thread however if you wish to impute on this creator any of the other characteristics we normally associate with god such as omniscience, omnipotence, some kind of consciousness/patterns of thought analogous to our own etc. then I think you still have a long way to go.


N.B. I'm still not totally sure about the line of thought “The universe was fine tuned therefore something intended to fine tune it” or even what it means to say “it was fine tuned” in this context but i'm having trouble thinking about it head on if that makes any sense.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...e-reflections/

Carroll's postdebate comments.

Would be interesting to see WLC's comments re the points Carroll discusses here that were ignored during the debate or are just plain wrong.

Here are the follow-up talks on the debate from Tim Maudlin, Robin Collins, Alex Rosenberg, and James Sinclair.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...and-cosmology/

Thanks for the earlier links, am liking Carroll's blog

WLC begins his debate comments:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/some-...carroll-debate

Thanks for the link. Will be interesting to see the response to points 2 and 3 when he gets around to them.

Thanks for all the links guys

I have listened or watched most of WLC's debates over the years, and this is the first one that I feel like he soundly lost.

Carroll was organized and prepared (which most of WLC's opponents aren't), well spoken, knowledgeable and very polite.

Do you mean he lost in a formal sense, on debating points, or substantively, or both? If substantively, do you mean Carroll established some truth value for naturalism or against theism? Or do mean he lost substantively on the science?

Since you're back ITT, would you mind responding to zumby's post:

Cf. my last link.

I was hoping for thoughts of your own, but I guess that's not going to happen.

Ad hominem followed by flattery?

No. I was just hoping to hear your thoughts on the subject (specifically as it relates to those thoughts you were presumably thinking some two months ago). It doesn't look like you're interested in doing that. And that's fine, if a little disappointing.

I don't much remember what I was thinking yesterday, let alone 2 months ago. I do remember thinking while watching the debate that Carroll was cutting the ground from under his feet by attacking causation. My initial assessment of his inability to think logically occurred when I read something by him calling Hugh Ross a crackpot because Ross thinks the verses in the Bible referring to God's stretching out the heavens means the Big Bang. I don't agree that Ross' interpretation is very solid hermeneutically, but it does nothing to make him a science crackpot - Carroll makes himself a philosophical crackpot.