William Lane Craig Debates Sean Carroll

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.greerheard.com/

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey! Can you give us a quickie update, BAA? Did they get into inflationary cosmology, the Higgs field, the multiverse????

[bornagainathiest]

Hey! Can you give us a quickie update, BAA? Did they get into inflationary cosmology, the Higgs field, the multiverse????

 

 Not bad, F!

 

2 mins.

.

.

.

 

Sorry, but no.  I only found the thing out for myself 3 mins ago.

 

Like you, I will be investigating tho'

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Went to the link but couldn't find the actual Carroll-Craig debate, only a question-answer w/ six or seven panelists at the end of the conference.

[scitsofreaky]

Supposedly the debate will be back online in the next few days (it was on youtube but was made private). It's probably way too technical for me, but I do like WLC being made a fool. I saw a video a while back where he rejects Relativity for Lorenzean (sp?) physics. His reasoning was that it supports Kalam, ergo it must be true. Hilarious.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Until they put the debate back up, we can get started with this cute 45-second summary:

 

[Blood]

Refutation of Kalam Cosmological Argument:

 

Were you there?

[raoul]

Let me guess what Craig will posit - we cannot go back, infinitely, in time - it's logically impossible. However, his god does go back, infinitely, in time and in his mind, this is very logical. I believe his 2nd premise refutes the first or vice versa.

 

However, if we could argue in defense of infinite regress for many other things, besides his god, then his arguments are meaningless no matter how he frames them.

 

 

source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/eric_sotnak/

 

Eric Sotnak holds a PHD in Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Akron. argued that an actual infinite can exist by showing that if the afterlife is true one's spirit lives forever, actually infinite. He posits it by:

 

(AL1) God's intellect apprehends your afterlife as unending.

(AL2) If God's intellect apprehends your afterlife as unending, then God's intellect either apprehends your afterlife as potentially infinite or as actually infinite.

(AL3) If God's intellect apprehends your afterlife as potentially infinite, then there will be days of your afterlife that will come to pass that are not included in God's intuitive apprehension of it.

(AL4) There is nothing that will come to pass that is not included in God's intuitive intellect. (Omniscience)

(AL5) Therefore, God's intuitive intellect apprehends your afterlife as actually infinite.

(AL6) If God's intuitive intellect apprehends your afterlife as actually infinite, then your afterlife is actually infinite.

(AL7) Therefore your afterlife is actually infinite.

(AL8) If your afterlife is actually infinite, then an actual infinite is possible.

(AL9) Therefore, an actual infinite is possible.

(end of argument)

 

The following are my views which have been argued with xtians elsewhere:

 

Craig's god knows ALL things, omniscient, this includes all future things going forward infinitely, therefore Craig's god is also an actual infinite. Craig would argue that his god is outside the natural realm, therefore natural laws, especially theoretical mathematics, don't apply. He has, in fact, done this very thing in numerous debates. Since Craig's god is outside of anything we can logically and scientifically study and observe, then debate on it is incoherent, irrational, and meaningless. Since Craig presumes to speak on behalf of this incoherent, irrational, and meaningless god, then Craig's arguments along with Craig himself are also incoherent, irrational, and meaningless.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The videos have just been linked over on Freethought & Rationalism:

 

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=7648431#post7648431

[sdelsolray]

Craig is a lying and disingenuous creationist.  In short he's a Piece of SH*T, probably in it for the money, glamour and attention.

[raoul]

Craig is a lying and disingenuous creationist.  In short he's a Piece of SH*T, probably in it for the money, glamour and attention.

I couldn't have said it better! He turned my stomach with his whining about Bart Ehrman after the good professor handed him his ass on a platter regarding biblical inerrancy. He reduced WLC to merely offering an altar call at the end of the annihilation to Ehrman who simply smiled. But then the whiner went back to some xtian college and bragged about how inadequate Ehrman was in debating and other nonsense.

[bornagainathiest]

Here is Sean Carroll's take on the debate.

 

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[scitsofreaky]

I haven't gotten myself to watch what WLC says, so I just skipped him and just watched Carroll. Why anyone cares what a lawyer/philosopher of religion has to say about cosmology is beyond me. I think he handled himself well, including letting some of his frustration show. I didn't give it all of my attention, but if I have time I think it is worth it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Craig is a lying and disingenuous creationist.  In short he's a Piece of SH*T, probably in it for the money, glamour and attention.

I've often wondered. Does anyone have any evidence that Craig actually believes in his heart of hearts that Christianity (at least, the inerrantist kind) is bogus, but that he goes on anyway because it's in his material interest? If you do, answer only briefly lest it derail the thread.

[raoul]

I believe in one debate when asked if the bible were proven to be false would he still believe. He responded 'yes'. I don't know if this answers your query but it tells me he's in it for the $$$$$$$$$$.

[Blood]

"William Lane Craig Debates Sean Carroll"

 

kind of like saying, "Nine Year Old Boy Challenges LeBron James to a Game of One-on-One"

 

Craig is the biggest pseudo-intellectual phony on the planet, a world champion in bullshit, even worse than Ken Ham because he pretends he's a philosopher when he's nothing more than a cheap apologist for the Jesus, Inc. global scam.

[scitsofreaky]

I believe in one debate when asked if the bible were proven to be false would he still believe. He responded 'yes'. I don't know if this answers your query but it tells me he's in it for the $$$$$$$$$$

WLC would tell you it is because he had a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit. So he believes because of a delusion, not because of some logical argument. I have yet to meet/read about anyone who believes because it is just so damn logical, yet WLC and his kind keep trying logic. Seemed weird, until someone (I don't remember who) pointed out that apologists aren't there to debate but evangelize. We can't know if he is a True Believer or not, but it doesn't really matter, either way he is lying about why he is at the "debate."

[♦ ficino ♦]

I watched the debate and the rebuttals, though not the Q&A.  I don't know the math or physics to make my own evaluation.  It's pretty clear that Craig tries, but does not, understand them either;  he relies on quoting other people's work.  Often he seems to get the context wrong when he quotes scientists.  He also indulges in favorite rhetorical tactics like saying "Skeptics admit... forced to admit... even on his own model..." as though his opponents are repressing truths that they really do or should realize.  He also likes to present lists of specialists who, he claims, support his view - e.g. a list of physicists who, he says, affirm "fine tuning" in the universe.  He doesn't come clean with the fact that they use that term in a very different sense from what the average person understands by it, i.e. they do NOT conclude that the universe is "fine tuned" for life, esp. for humans.

 

I am interested that Craig is well aware of theories of the multiverse.  He tries to dismiss their relevance.  He also admits that there may be intelligent life elsewhere than on earth.  He doesn't go into whether there was another Adam and Eve and a second person of the Trinity being incarnated in those worlds.  But he does seem committed to interpreting Genesis 1:1 as referring to the traditional Big Bang.  Craig kept referring to a paper by Guth and two other guys (I think OC referred to it too) as though it supports his contention that the universe had a beginning.  It was fun to see Carroll bring in Guth on his laptop, and that Guth said in his view, it's probably past-eternal. 

 

Finally, I heard no mention of the Higgs Field in the 90 minutes I listened to.

 

It was nice to see Carroll making his own points and not getting tied up in trying to rebut all Craig's many points, as less experienced debaters sometimes do.  It was intriguing that Carroll urged at the end that we value the best human things in religion while ditching theism  -- i.e. value ethics, a sense of wonder, community, etc.  I also liked the way Carroll sort of preached the gospel of naturalism (heh heh) and almost gave a little altar call:  this is your only life, your only chance to accomplish something, it's not a dress rehearsal for an afterlife.  So get to it!

[bornagainathiest]

I've posted this before, but, in the light of the recent posts about WLC's character, please read all of post #4. (by Rumraket)

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/william-lane-craig-s-hypocrisy-and-science-denial-t38622.html

 

The essential point is emphasized by Rumraket's posting of half a dozen credal statements from Biblical Literalist organizations. 

 

WLC is prepared to deny the objective evidence of his own eyes.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, I remember seeing that page from Craig before;  thanks for reminding us, BAA.

[Blood]

I wish Carroll had known more about WLC's debate tactics. He could have delivered some real zingers if he had. For example, whenever WLC debates somebody like Carrier, Price, or Crossan, he ALWAYS appeals to consensus and authority for most of his arguments: "The vast majority of New Testament scholars believe so-and-so ... how dare anybody go against their expertise with a fringe theory."

 

When Craig presented his ideas, Carroll could have parodied him by constantly saying, "The vast majority of physicists, in fact 100%, believe otherwise. What Craig is claiming has zero support among experts." 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think he did say that, actually, when he talked about the views expressed at cosmology conferences, and again later. Plus he quoted stats saying that 73% of all philosophers don't believe in God. I thought he did a better job than Bart Ehrman did in the debate I saw.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi ficino!

 

I'll get back to you about your post ( # 18) yesterday.  Please hang in there.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I watched the debate and the rebuttals, though not the Q&A.  I don't know the math or physics to make my own evaluation.  It's pretty clear that Craig tries, but does not, understand them either;  he relies on quoting other people's work.  Often he seems to get the context wrong when he quotes scientists.  He also indulges in favorite rhetorical tactics like saying "Skeptics admit... forced to admit... even on his own model..." as though his opponents are repressing truths that they really do or should realize.  He also likes to present lists of specialists who, he claims, support his view - e.g. a list of physicists who, he says, affirm "fine tuning" in the universe.  He doesn't come clean with the fact that they use that term in a very different sense from what the average person understands by it, i.e. they do NOT conclude that the universe is "fine tuned" for life, esp. for humans.

 

Yes.  Exactly.

Find a phrase, an acronym or a highly technical piece of terminology that's used by one group of people one way and take it out of context, forcing it to mean what you want, in a completely different context.  Like the words, "past boundary".  More about this below.

 

I am interested that Craig is well aware of theories of the multiverse.  He tries to dismiss their relevance.  He also admits that there may be intelligent life elsewhere than on earth.  He doesn't go into whether there was another Adam and Eve and a second person of the Trinity being incarnated in those worlds.  But he does seem committed to interpreting Genesis 1:1 as referring to the traditional Big Bang.  Craig kept referring to a paper by Guth and two other guys (I think OC referred to it too) as though it supports his contention that the universe had a beginning.

 

Here you go, Ficino. 

http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/  This link shows how WLC tries to conflate the traditional Big Bang singularity with the 'Past Boundary' of Borde, Guth & Vilenkin's 2003 paper, Inflationary spacetimes are not complete.  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

 

WLC realizes that BG&V are saying that there must have been some kind of beginning and he claims this must be the Big Bang of only this universe.  Giving him the direct God--->Singularity--->Universe causal links he needs to make the KCA work.  But BG&V never say this!  All they do say is that there was a beginning of some kind.  They don't say it was a singularity, they don't say that it's only 13.82 billion years old and they don't say that it was the point of origin for only our universe.

 

So much for Christians being lovers of the truth! 

Take the words, 'past boundary' out of it's Inflationary context, adulterate it to mean what you want (a singularity), unworkably mismatch it with traditional, pre-Inflationary Big Bang theory and declare victory!  Matt Slick does exactly the same kind of hatchet job in this article... http://carm.org/atheism-and-the-multiverse

 

 It was fun to see Carroll bring in Guth on his laptop, and that Guth said in his view, it's probably past-eternal. 

 

Fun, yes... but frustrating too.

What's needed is some hard evidence for the multiverse to stop the likes of WLC, Slick and OC from  misusing the technical wording of theoretical papers to their own advantage.  That's the core of the problem here, F.  Nobody can force these bozos to correctly apply the correct axioms, correctly - so they don't do it.  Nor can they be made to use technical terminology properly, either.

 

Just one decent piece unequivocal multiversal data would change all that! 

 

Finally, I heard no mention of the Higgs Field in the 90 minutes I listened to.

 

It was nice to see Carroll making his own points and not getting tied up in trying to rebut all Craig's many points, as less experienced debaters sometimes do.  It was intriguing that Carroll urged at the end that we value the best human things in religion while ditching theism  -- i.e. value ethics, a sense of wonder, community, etc.  I also liked the way Carroll sort of preached the gospel of naturalism (heh heh) and almost gave a little altar call:  this is your only life, your only chance to accomplish something, it's not a dress rehearsal for an afterlife.  So get to it!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thought2Much]

Fun, yes... but frustrating too.

What's needed is some hard evidence for the multiverse to stop the likes of WLC, Slick and OC from  misusing the technical wording of theoretical papers to their own advantage.  That's the core of the problem here, F.  Nobody can force these bozos to correctly apply the correct axioms, correctly - so they don't do it.  Nor can they be made to use technical terminology properly, either.

 

Just one decent piece unequivocal multiversal data would change all that! 

 

It wouldn't matter if we had mountains of evidence for the multiverse. Craig would still misuse the scientific terms in order to make it seem like the evidence favored his argument. Just look at how the creationists misuse concepts such as "radiometric dating" and "transitional fossils" to twist the existing evidence.