Who won?

[Interest12345]

There seems to be a lot of people that think that Carroll won this debate. I honestly don't know who won. I was curious if there were any theists on this forum that agree with the atheists who think that Carroll won.

I'm an atheist, and I thought both sides did very well. I don't know who won.

To be honest, the only debate I've ever seen in which I can confidently say that Craig lost, is his debate against Shelly Kagan. There are many others that have done well against Craig, but as far as saying he lost any other debate, I can't say for sure.

[aleph naught]

I never actually watched it, but if it's not clear which side won to an unbiased observer then it's probably a tie!

[TylerBlack]

I'd say overall Sean Carroll won. This is because he was an amazing when it came to explaining what the multiverse is and especially when he argued with the fine tuning assertion that WLC makes. WLC made some decent arguments but realistically I would have to agree that Sean Carroll won.

[lucious]

I'm not sure. I think Carroll just bluntly asserted many things with confidence which really had no argument.

[Pragmatic]

I'm not sure. I think Carroll just bluntly asserted many things with confidence which really had no argument.

Right, its not like Craig has been doing that for over 15 years, debate after debate...

[lucious]

Craig always provides tight and succinct arguments in his debates. Not his fault the atheists can't deal with them.

Carroll just declared a lot of things with no argument, though. Such as having no right to ask for a cause of the universe--where is the argument?

[Interest12345]

Craig always provides tight and succinct arguments in his debates. Not his fault the atheists can't deal with them.

Carroll just declared a lot of things with no argument, though. Such as having no right to ask for a cause of the universe--where is the argument?

What? Carroll certainly did give an argument for that. He explained that it's the wrong question to ask, that the question is malformed. Just think about it yourself...if the Universe is considered to be literally ALL of space and time, then the idea of causation cannot apply to the beginning of the universe itself, since without the universe there is no time. Carroll gave an example to prove his point...He brought up the example of the digital camera, and said it's like asking "where does the film go?" He was explaining that the question is fundamentally flawed.

Dr. Craig appeals to "simultaneous causation" to get around this problem. However, I haven't heard ANY good reason or argument to believe that such a thing exists. I have heard people demolish that position though.

[jakswan]

Have to be fair to WLC he's a great debater and plays the game well, I never seen him someone destroy his arguments so effectively, so I'd vote Carroll.

[lucious]

Craig always provides tight and succinct arguments in his debates. Not his fault the atheists can't deal with them.

Carroll just declared a lot of things with no argument, though. Such as having no right to ask for a cause of the universe--where is the argument?

What? Carroll certainly did give an argument for that. He explained that it's the wrong question to ask, that the question is malformed. Just think about it yourself...if the Universe is considered to be literally ALL of space and time, then the idea of causation cannot apply to the beginning of the universe itself, since without the universe there is no time. Carroll gave an example to prove his point...He brought up the example of the digital camera, and said it's like asking "where does the film go?" He was explaining that the question is fundamentally flawed.

Dr. Craig appeals to "simultaneous causation" to get around this problem. However, I haven't heard ANY good reason or argument to believe that such a thing exists. I have heard people demolish that position though.

And this point of his, had no argument. He just delivered it with confidence, and this is seemingly enough for atheists to find compelling.

"The idea of causation cannot apply to the universe"

^^^This is precisely the statement with no argument. It's merely an assertion.

[Interest12345]

Craig always provides tight and succinct arguments in his debates. Not his fault the atheists can't deal with them.

Carroll just declared a lot of things with no argument, though. Such as having no right to ask for a cause of the universe--where is the argument?

What? Carroll certainly did give an argument for that. He explained that it's the wrong question to ask, that the question is malformed. Just think about it yourself...if the Universe is considered to be literally ALL of space and time, then the idea of causation cannot apply to the beginning of the universe itself, since without the universe there is no time. Carroll gave an example to prove his point...He brought up the example of the digital camera, and said it's like asking "where does the film go?" He was explaining that the question is fundamentally flawed.

Dr. Craig appeals to "simultaneous causation" to get around this problem. However, I haven't heard ANY good reason or argument to believe that such a thing exists. I have heard people demolish that position though.

And this point of his, had no argument. He just delivered it with confidence, and this is seemingly enough for atheists to find compelling.

"The idea of causation cannot apply to the universe"

^^^This is precisely the statement with no argument. It's merely an assertion.

Haha, what? I just gave the argument. I'll state it again. There is no "before" the Universe, if the Universe is indeed considered to be literally ALL of space and time. Thus to speak of causation to the Universe is a contradiction of terms. What don't you understand?

[lucious]

Who ever said there was a "before" time? Craig has never argued this, anyone attributing this to him is making a strawman.

There is no argument here, just a bland assertion. "The universe is all of space and time, therefore it cannot be caused". No, that does not follow. That is a non-sequitur.

There is no contradiction to speak of the universe being caused.

[jakswan]

Who ever said there was a "before" time? Craig has never argued this, anyone attributing this to him is making a strawman.

There is no argument here, just a bland assertion. "The universe is all of space and time, therefore it cannot be caused". No, that does not follow. That is a non-sequitur.

There is no contradiction to speak of the universe being caused.

If there was no time prior to the universe then it can't be caused because 'caused' is temporal.

[lucious]

There's no argument there.

[Interest12345]

Who ever said there was a "before" time? Craig has never argued this, anyone attributing this to him is making a strawman.

There is no argument here, just a bland assertion. "The universe is all of space and time, therefore it cannot be caused". No, that does not follow. That is a non-sequitur.

There is no contradiction to speak of the universe being caused.

It is the definition of the word. Craig's only way to argue for a timeless cause is to change the definition of the word to fit his argument. This is an incredibly desperate tactic. A timeless cause is a contradiction.

[lucious]

Definition of what word? Are you even sure about that, or was that a rhetorical move to avoid actually giving an argument? Remember, it's your objection, you need to shoulder the burden and argue for it. Not just assert it.


At any rate, pointing at a dictionary won't be of much help. Often times, it is philosophy who unpacks and explores the actual content of locutions like these.