Jump to content

Comments On Carroll-Craig Debate


ficino
 Share

Recommended Posts

The April thread on the Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig debate is now locked, but some folks may be interested in comments that people posted over on philosophy forums.  Here's the link to them:

 

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/god-and-cosmology-wl-craig-sean-carroll-debate-65546.html

 

The debate was about recent theories in cosmology.  Craig argued that recent work by physicists supports the claim that the universe was created by an intelligent designer.  Craig relied on the Kalam argument and the fine tuning argument.  He also criticized Carroll's work, which was a laugh - that is, a laugh that Craig tried to criticize a physicist's work.

 

In the course of demolishing Craig, Carroll made two notable points, as "veritas vincit" points out in the thread linked above:

 

1. Theism doesn't explain anything because theism is not well defined.

 

2. Therefore theists can come up with ex post facto explanations of why God might have created the world that we observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think WLC is a fairly good debater, so much so that his rhetoric makes it seem like he is doing better than he is at first. Will check out this debate when I get the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think WLC is a fairly good debater, so much so that his rhetoric makes it seem like he is doing better than he is at first. Will check out this debate when I get the chance.

He is a fairly good debater. I watched a debate with him and Hitchens and have to say that Craig out debated him in that one. However, many of Craig's conclusions do not follow from his premises and he likes to straw man here and there (he is good at disguising it). His favorite go-to is the Kalam Cosmological argument which is better than the traditional cosmological argument but still easily refuted. Even though it rewords the first premise to attempt to avoid it, it still immediately makes god the exception to it and thus sets up what is essentially a circular argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.  Craig appears to be a good debater, but only on the surface.  What comes out of his mouth is quite full of factual misrepresentations and logical fallacies.  Indeed, his arguments necessarily depend on incessant use of factual misrepresentations and logical fallacies.  And he lies, and cheats…repeatedly.

 

He is a poor debater because he is addicted to himself and his own irrational and disingenuous dogma.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.