Feb, 2014. New Orleans.

Excited, I take it.

Yeah I forgot to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, it's already over.

I am super glad you made this thread.

I have to admit I didn't expect the atheists to be looking forward so much to this massacre. However, to whet edit oops I mean wet your whistle until Carroll's final demise, here are 3 tidbits which indicate what he has to look forward to:


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Reaso...-and-God-1.mp3
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Reaso...-and-God-2.mp3
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Reaso...-and-God-3.mp3

I hope you enjoy them as much as I did. No need to thank me.

My whistle is plenty sharp, thanks all the same.

Yikes, Super Grammar Man strikes again.

Is there a way you could, ya know, indicate what the debate topic for this debate far in the future was without making me listen to a bunch of mp3's? Something we can read?

My general experience listening to several WLC debates is that he is a polished debater who sticks to a very established script I have now heard many times. They are relatively valueless, and hardly worth "looking forward so much" 6 months in advance.

I just put this up, more for the theists than the atheists, to give them some advance notice. WLC didn't say what the topic is but I'm sure it will be on some aspect of the existence of God and how the great scientists of the world have shown that philosophy and theology are dead. The three links are WLC's comments on Carroll's contribution to one of the Blackwell books. If the debate topic is like that, as I said, debate over.

Edit: WLC did say each of them will be allowed 2 people of their choice to comment on the debate, ask questions, etc. One of Carroll's choices is Rosenberg, which should give you a good idea of what will happen.

Off Super Grammar Man has the night. You can blame that one on Whil Wheaton.

If it's going to be such a massacre then why are you so looking forward to it? You know winning and losing these things don't settle any questions, right?

Some people appear to be so disinterested in any sort of discussion that they only care about who wins (e.g. declaring victory 6 months ahead of an event). btw, it looks like the debate already happened, it is indeed 'over'!


Perhaps its only to be expected with a WLC debate, what does it say if you could take chunks of your debates over the years and cut/paste them together, and end up with an identical script.

"The argument is finished. The debate is over. Naturalism has won."
Sean Carroll

so, i guess the debate is getting canceled....

I am really shocked by such preeminent pronouncements. This reminds me, not in a perfect parallel, of Bertrand Russell's statement that "what science cannot prove mankind cannot know."

And, Stephen Hawking's declaration that Philosophy is dead ("The Grand Design"). How does one of the most brilliant minds ever make such a statement?!!? It absolutely bewilders and blows my mind.

Nonetheless, such statements amp up the rivalry debates.

I certainly have struggled with theism and hav rejected God at one point. I think such debates hav to be welcomed.

In contrast, philosophically speaking & going beyond the superficial, naturalism has some very formidable difficulties:
namely the idea of self & mind, the ascertaining of truth &, most importantly for myself, objective morality.

Atheist professor of NYU, Thomas Nagel recognizes such difficulities in his book, " Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" (2012).

The Human Mind:

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
Darwin, C. R. to Graham, William
3 July 1881

Is this a form of criticism? If so how?

It's like knowing the exact play that a quarterback will run every time. This should make every single point made by WLC very easy to dismantle.

This is your knockdown argument to end the debate!?!?

How do you know?.....that's it...it's over

This is utterly amazing!!!

Atheist professor of NYU, Thomas Nagel recognizes such difficulities in his book, " Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" (2012).

Sounds like a good read.

Here is a written version of parts of the discussion in the first of the three podcasts being mentioned:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/sean-...the-rf-podcast

It would appear that at least part of the debate is over the idea of "beginning" vs "eternal" cosmologies, with Carroll believing the later are possible, and WLC perhaps overstating the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to support the former. This matters to WLC as it grounds his "the universe has a beginning" needed in the kalam cosmological argument he champions.

In the context of "interesting discussion", someone that presents so many indistinguishable talks is not interested in keeping the audience engaged. WLC is put on a pedestal by some (see OP), that might have some merit if you have only watched a single debate, in fact I found the guy quite refreshing that first viewing, but it rapidly became clear the guy knows his strengths and does not deviate from them. If you are interested in 'winning' debates, that's a good strategy. If you are interested in discussion, it's fake.

Personally, I'd welcome a new talent on the theist side that can present something in a different way, but that might not be realistic.

a - It's not 'my' argument, it's a yt hit I found for "WLC and Carroll"!
b - I'm sorry if you have no sense of humour.

That's a good link and is probably a hint of things to come.

The KCA doesn't depend on the Big Bang. WLC uses it as part of the argument because it exists, but the argument itself dates back to at least 1000 A.D. and includes a philosophical argument (actual infinities) that obviously don't include modern physics.

It's a good question, how does he know? I'll take 'how do you know?' over 'everything has a cause, except god, who doesn't'.

That's such a weird objection, because theists for the most part believe that God is Spirit. Also, God by definition is un-caused. If we extend the cause-effect test to God, we are no longer speaking of God at all. You are in effect testing fire with fire. You are testing a strawman, and not God. If there is some inherent contradiction in this thinking, I don't see it. Semantic arguments aren't very convincing or useful for the most part, except for lame justifications when you just need something, anything to grab hold of.

There are some things about which it would be unreasonable to ask 'how do you know', for example 'If I drop something it will fall to the ground', 'How do you know?'.. Because that's what always happens and we have a theory supported by empirical evidence to explain why.

Or, we have 'God created the universe', 'How do you know?'. A much more reasonable question especially given that almost all the logic I've seen to support it is circular. 'God is uncaused', 'how do you know?' 'Because he's god'. I think God, and the universe were created a more powerful god that then ceased to exist. How is my theory any more or less credible than yours?

WLC is presenting a deductive argument. For a deductive argument to be considered sound, the conclusion must follow necessarily from the premises (i.e. the argument is 'valid') AND the premises must be true.

For example, consider the following argument:

P1) All life in the Universe is carbon-based
P2) Carbon can only form as a by-product of nuclear fusion
C1) Therefore life did not exist until after the first stars formed and generated nuclear fusion.

Here we have a conclusion that seems pretty reasonable, prima facie, and P2 is well-supported by physics & chemistry. The conclusion follows logically from the premises, so it is a valid argument. But P1 is speculative. Countering P1 with "maybe it isn't" is a perfectly adequate refutation of this deductive argument, even though I agree with the conclusion. The argument is not sound.

Yuck. This is almost exactly why almost all argument in this forum is near worthless.

This is exactly why I believe that belief is as much a choice as it is a matter of rational philosophical process.

God MUST be uncaused. It is a logical necessity. The PROOF that He is God is that He is uncaused. I am not stating that God is uncaused BECAUSE He is God. I am stating that God is uncaused because God must be uncaused. If "God" cannot or does not does not fulfill certain conditions, then he is not what we are looking for.

Look, we have this concept of an eternal being who was never born or never died, and we find that this concept holds some useful, explanatory power for us. If you want to propose the concept of a god that died off, then we are clearly not speaking of the eternal being, are we? And what kind of logical and rational difficulties will your proposition create?

This is a weird reaction. WLC chooses to present his argument as a deductive argument, so his argument stands or falls on the rules of deduction. Why use bad deductive arguments? It's not like there aren't other options open to him. Why not induction? What about inference to the best explanation?

Here's a question for you: to what extent does your belief in God depend on the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?