Who won?

[Huskqa]

No, there is no argument. You just acted as if temporality is implicit in the definition of the word 'cause', which it is not.

There is no argument here, you just keep mocking the idea of simultaneous causation. From the proposition "There is no time before the universe" the inference "Therefore, there is no cause of the universe" does not follow.

This point is all based upon: everything that begins to exist has a cause. This mainly based on the fact that we have never observed anything that exist that do not have a cause (not true according to physics). But have we ever observed any simultaneous cause/effect?

[ACriticalChristian]

Given that WLC's burden of proof was to show that God's existence is more probable in light of contemporary cosmology that it would have been without such cosmological data, WLC would have had the lighter burden of proof; indeed, a much, much lighter burden than Carroll's. My assessment of the debate isn't so much based on what WLC did - since I'm familiar with his material and just needed to see how Carroll would respond - but rather my assessment is based on how Carroll responded. While I'm not working with a transcript or playing through the video as Carroll goes through his points, I'll try and give a general overview of Carroll's response.

Carroll's first main point was that naturalism "works" in the sense that it accounts for the data we observe. In other words, naturalism is a better scientific hypothesis than theism. Carroll gives some examples as to what we should observe if theism were true, and I didn't find any of them to be particularly convincing. For example, Carroll says if theism were true, he'd expect God's existence to be much more obvious. This has been addressed by WLC, so I won't just repeat a response that's already been given. All of the points he raised were either already addressed - as anyone with a slight familiarity with WLC's material knows - or were simply presumptuous. Carroll didn't explain why he is in such a privileged position as to know what God would or wouldn't do if He existed.

One of the issues Carroll kept mentioning was his claim that theism is not well-defined. Obviously, theism is pretty easy to define - "The belief that God exists" - so that's not really what Carroll means, I would think. It seems to me that Carroll is suggesting that God is what's not well-defined, yet this objection only holds if God is a scientific hypothesis. This is another claim Carroll likes to bring up. He seriously seems to think that God is just a hypothesis, and He should be subjected to the same rigorous analysis any other scientific theory would have to endure. Yet I don't think any sophisticated theist - least of all WLC in this debate - posits God as just an explanation of our cosmological observations and data. Why Carroll then treats God as if He is just a hypothesis is beyond me. It seems like it would be more productive to critique your opponent's actual view.

Moreover, Carroll fails to make a basic distinction between How things are and How things came to be. Yes, naturalism can provide a plausible account of how reality is. (In fact, apart from the naturalist assumption that the universe is a closed system, the theistic account is almost identical to the naturalist one.) But that's not the question that's raised in the kalam, for example. Carroll repeatedly says we have no right to demand anything more than a model that is self-contained and fits the data. But the obvious presupposition of such a statement is that there is such a model. Besides the Hartle-Hawking model, he really doesn't say which model is both eternal and supported by empirical data. Really, Carroll kept making an implicit statement of faith that future cosmological models based on a better understanding of quantum theory will fill the post of being both eternal and based on the evidence. But the debate was really about modern cosmology.

Carroll implicitly concedes the point to WLC. Modern cosmology does support the notion the universe had a beginning, but future cosmology will sort all that out. In essence, Carroll concedes premise 2 of the kalam fits nicely with current cosmology.

As far as the first premise of the kalam goes, Carroll kept bringing up possible models that come into being uncaused or never began (thereby shifting his response to premise 2). Indeed, Carroll never really responded as to why he thought the universe could come uncaused from nothing; he simply directed us to eternally existing models. To deny that premise 1 is more probable than not - which is all we're looking for in a good premise - seems unconscionable for a sincere, open-minded seeker of truth. Regardless of a person's personal psyche, what they assume in denying premise 1 is that the universe could come into being - uncaused - out of nothing. Yet such an assumption (1) violates a metaphysical principle that pre-dates Socrates and (2), as Carroll would say, "doesn't meet our expectations." If the entire universe - defined as all physical reality - can just come into being from non-being, why is it that anything and everything doesn't follow suit? It seems to me such an expectation is pretty natural, given that we're meant to entertain the idea a whole universe could come from literally nothing.

Again, Carroll's response was just to tell us there are models that circumvent that problem. No doubt that's true, but those models aren't themselves perfect, as WLC pointed out. So Carroll really didn't give us any reason to doubt premise 1 is more probable than not. Indeed, I don't think any rational and sincere person can deny it with a straight face (unless they want to pull a Dennett and say the universe caused itself).

Obviously this analysis was just about some of Carroll's general remarks and his response to the kalam, but I think it shows that Carroll did not refute premise 1, implicitly admitted premise 2 fits with modern cosmology, and failed to substantiate his presumptuous expectations about reality if God exists.

[Huskqa]

Carroll's first main point was that naturalism "works" in the sense that it accounts for the data we observe. In other words, naturalism is a better scientific hypothesis than theism. Carroll gives some examples as to what we should observe if theism were true, and I didn't find any of them to be particularly convincing. For example, Carroll says if theism were true, he'd expect God's existence to be much more obvious. This has been addressed by WLC, so I won't just repeat a response that's already been given. All of the points he raised were either already addressed - as anyone with a slight familiarity with WLC's material knows - or were simply presumptuous. Carroll didn't explain why he is in such a privileged position as to know what God would or wouldn't do if He existed.

....no.....the whole point was: theism is not well defined....you can always wiggle out any problem that is opposed.

One of the issues Carroll kept mentioning was his claim that theism is not well-defined. Obviously, theism is pretty easy to define - "The belief that God exists" - so that's not really what Carroll means, I would think. It seems to me that Carroll is suggesting that God is what's not well-defined, yet this objection only holds if God is a scientific hypothesis. This is another claim Carroll likes to bring up. He seriously seems to think that God is just a hypothesis, and He should be subjected to the same rigorous analysis any other scientific theory would have to endure. Yet I don't think any sophisticated theist - least of all WLC in this debate - posits God as just an explanation of our cosmological observations and data. Why Carroll then treats God as if He is just a hypothesis is beyond me. It seems like it would be more productive to critique your opponent's actual view.

It is not well defined since you can always wiggle out any problem that opposes it. Example: god is good, but what about evil? God "might" have moral reasons to do it.

Moreover, Carroll fails to make a basic distinction between How things are and How things came to be. Yes, naturalism can provide a plausible account of how reality is. (In fact, apart from the naturalist assumption that the universe is a closed system, the theistic account is almost identical to the naturalist one.) But that's not the question that's raised in the kalam, for example. Carroll repeatedly says we have no right to demand anything more than a model that is self-contained and fits the data. But the obvious presupposition of such a statement is that there is such a model. Besides the Hartle-Hawking model, he really doesn't say which model is both eternal and supported by empirical data. Really, Carroll kept making an implicit statement of faith that future cosmological models based on a better understanding of quantum theory will fill the post of being both eternal and based on the evidence. But the debate was really about modern cosmology.

If it comes to modern cosmology Carrol basically say: dr Craig, you are wrong, you do not understand. End of story. He is not making statements of faith. All he says is that we have multiple models that fit the data.....and we are not sure as to which one is best....

As far as the first premise of the kalam goes, Carroll kept bringing up possible models that come into being uncaused or never began (thereby shifting his response to premise 2). Indeed, Carroll never really responded as to why he thought the universe could come uncaused from nothing; he simply directed us to eternally existing models. To deny that premise 1 is more probable than not - which is all we're looking for in a good premise - seems unconscionable for a sincere, open-minded seeker of truth. Regardless of a person's personal psyche, what they assume in denying premise 1 is that the universe could come into being - uncaused - out of nothing. Yet such an assumption (1) violates a metaphysical principle that pre-dates Socrates and (2), as Carroll would say, "doesn't meet our expectations." If the entire universe - defined as all physical reality - can just come into being from non-being, why is it that anything and everything doesn't follow suit? It seems to me such an expectation is pretty natural, given that we're meant to entertain the idea a whole universe could come from literally nothing.

So how is the proposition of an un unembodied mind  (never observed) creating from nothing (also never observed) a better proposal? People like dr Carrol work their entire life trying to explain how all that we see can come from very very little. Al dr Craig does is asserts that god did it.

As for the metaphysical principal that is 2500 years old....really? Modern cosmology and physics is far stranger than one can imagine. 2500 year old metaphysical principals are probably wrong if they do not match our observations.

Again, Carroll's response was just to tell us there are models that circumvent that problem. No doubt that's true, but those models aren't themselves perfect, as WLC pointed out. So Carroll really didn't give us any reason to doubt premise 1 is more probable than not. Indeed, I don't think any rational and sincere person can deny it with a straight face (unless they want to pull a Dennett and say the universe caused itself).

How is adding god explaining anything? Adding god is simply not required to understand anything.

Obviously this analysis was just about some of Carroll's general remarks and his response to the kalam, but I think it shows that Carroll did not refute premise 1, implicitly admitted premise 2 fits with modern cosmology, and failed to substantiate his presumptuous expectations about reality if God exists.

Like many arguments in the favour of god....there is simply no reason to assume the premiss is true. Adding god in the picture simply does not explain anything. One can sill ask the question: how did god do it? Ironically you would never actually find any theologian stupid enough to try and answer this question.

[Language-Gamer]

Wait, do people actually take Carroll seriously? I take the Alice's acquaintances that Carroll wrote about more seriously than I take Carroll.

[Lion IRC]

Bad snark LG.

[Huskqa]

Wait, do people actually take Carroll seriously? I take the Alice's acquaintances that Carroll wrote about more seriously than I take Carroll.

When it comes to cosmology and physics.....more seriously than dr Craig....

[lucious]

Many of those models Carroll put up in the debate have been discussed by Craig in his written work and found to be implausible. It's an odd argument to say that we're in some complete state of agnosticism simply because those models exist. Whether or not they work is a whole other question entirely.

Besides, the philosophical dimension is such an important part of this discussion too. If the philosophical arguments are sound, any future science would have to contend with them. That would mean that the range of viable future theories would be constrained to past finite models. This is a point unaddressed by Carroll (which is fair enough, since the debate was over cosmology only), but still a good point.

[Huskqa]

Many of those models Carroll put up in the debate have been discussed by Craig in his written work and found to be implausible. It's an odd argument to say that we're in some complete state of agnosticism simply because those models exist. Whether or not they work is a whole other question entirely.

Besides, the philosophical dimension is such an important part of this discussion too. If the philosophical arguments are sound, any future science would have to contend with them. That would mean that the range of viable future theories would be constrained to past finite models. This is a point unaddressed by Carroll (which is fair enough, since the debate was over cosmology only), but still a good point.

Craig has been debating 2 big physicist/cosmologist. Both of them say: you do not understand.

In the Carrol debate Craig qoutes the bordian guth valinkin theory and even the author basically tell Craig: you are wrong! Flat out wrong!

Craig is just creating a model of the universe so he can fit god into it. Jet his version of the universe does not actually explain anything about the universe.

[lucious]

Lol, no.

Vilenkin himself said directly to Craig that he had presented the cosmological work accurately.

That low brow stunt by Carroll (using the 'my good friend' meme) was certainly a juvenile tactic directly out of high school, but it is not a refutation of Craigs argument. Guth is really doing nothing but offering his own personal opinion on whether or not the universe is eternal. Does he have any evidence for it? If so, none was offered there. The only real challenge there is the quantum gravity aspect which may evade the theorem, but the total evidence still suggests the universe began.

Craig, again, has dealt with most of the models Carroll presents in his written work. Carroll et al also have no answer to the philosophical arguments against an infinite past, which would be necessary for any eternal model to answer.

[Huskqa]

Lol, no.

Vilenkin himself said directly to Craig that he had presented the cosmological work accurately.

That low brow stunt by Carroll (using the 'my good friend' meme) was certainly a juvenile tactic directly out of high school, but it is not a refutation of Craigs argument. Guth is really doing nothing but offering his own personal opinion on whether or not the universe is eternal. Does he have any evidence for it? If so, none was offered there. The only real challenge there is the quantum gravity aspect which may evade the theorem, but the total evidence still suggests the universe began.

Craig, again, has dealt with most of the models Carroll presents in his written work. Carroll et al also have no answer to the philosophical arguments against an infinite past, which would be necessary for any eternal model to answer.

from dr Carrol:
"
So, I think I can make these points basically by following Dr. Craig’s organization starting with the kalam cosmological argument, and unlike what he said I should be doing I want to challenge the first of the premises: If the universe began to exist it has a transcendent cause. The problem with this premise is that it is false. There’s almost no explanation or justification given for this premise in Dr. Craig’s presentation. But there’s a bigger problem with it, which is that it is not even false. The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology. This kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago. Today we know better. Our metaphysics must follow our physics. That’s what the word metaphysics means. "

dr Craig response:
"
To my surprise, Dr. Carroll challenges the first premise of this argument by saying it is based on outmoded Aristotelian concepts of causality. I protest – not at all! There is no analysis given of what it means to be a cause in this first premise. You can adopt your favorite theory of causation or take causation to be a conceptual primitive."

Yes...using the wrong words jet again. The question is begged jet again: what is the justification to assume this is true?

Carrol:

First, I want to notice some of the things he did say. He said he was astonished that I refused to accept the fact that things need causes to happen. To which I could only quote David Lewis, “I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare.”

End of the discussion.

[Architecto]

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

I'd be very careful with this level of hero worship.  Craig is an expert rhetorician. He is very good at debating because of rhetorical style.

His arguments HAVE been dealt with. Some of them have been dealt with for centuries, but it's hard to see when he bases his ultimate truth in an undetectable, untestable, unverifiable entity. He assumes the Bible is true, then arrives at conclusions based on that (for example, his defense of genocide. He says, "If God is good, and he commanded it, then it's Good". This, of course, is a facile answer. It allows him to claim anything Good, or (seemingly) Evil, as Godly whenever, wherever he wants. And he can deny anything is Good if he doesn't think God was somehow behind it.  This is why God really is no more than a personification of the Good, like Ares is the personification of war, or Eros is the personification of Love.).

[lucious]

It's still a matter of debate whether the objections are successful. I, and others, do not believe Carrolls arguments succeed.

There is not one objection I've seen which cannot be rebutted, IMO. The cosmological arguments may be old, they may be a chestnut, but no atheist will ever crack it.

[lucious]

Lol, no.

Vilenkin himself said directly to Craig that he had presented the cosmological work accurately.

That low brow stunt by Carroll (using the 'my good friend' meme) was certainly a juvenile tactic directly out of high school, but it is not a refutation of Craigs argument. Guth is really doing nothing but offering his own personal opinion on whether or not the universe is eternal. Does he have any evidence for it? If so, none was offered there. The only real challenge there is the quantum gravity aspect which may evade the theorem, but the total evidence still suggests the universe began.

Craig, again, has dealt with most of the models Carroll presents in his written work. Carroll et al also have no answer to the philosophical arguments against an infinite past, which would be necessary for any eternal model to answer.

from dr Carrol:
"
So, I think I can make these points basically by following Dr. Craig’s organization starting with the kalam cosmological argument, and unlike what he said I should be doing I want to challenge the first of the premises: If the universe began to exist it has a transcendent cause. The problem with this premise is that it is false. There’s almost no explanation or justification given for this premise in Dr. Craig’s presentation. But there’s a bigger problem with it, which is that it is not even false. The real problem is that these are not the right vocabulary words to be using when we discuss fundamental physics and cosmology. This kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2,500 years ago. Today we know better. Our metaphysics must follow our physics. That’s what the word metaphysics means. "

dr Craig response:
"
To my surprise, Dr. Carroll challenges the first premise of this argument by saying it is based on outmoded Aristotelian concepts of causality. I protest – not at all! There is no analysis given of what it means to be a cause in this first premise. You can adopt your favorite theory of causation or take causation to be a conceptual primitive."

Yes...using the wrong words jet again. The question is begged jet again: what is the justification to assume this is true?

Carrol:

First, I want to notice some of the things he did say. He said he was astonished that I refused to accept the fact that things need causes to happen. To which I could only quote David Lewis, “I do not know how to refute an incredulous stare.”

End of the discussion.

so? This is not contesting Craigs understanding or use of the BGV theorem.


In fact, it is Carroll who does not give an adequate justification for tossing causality as confidently as he does. Causality is a topic for the metaphysician, not the cosmologist.

[Huskqa]

so? This is not contesting Craigs understanding or use of the BGV theorem.

It kind of does:

Carrol:

So I’d like to talk about the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem since Dr. Craig emphasizes it. The rough translation is that in some universes, not all, the space-time description that we have as a classical space-time breaks down at some point in the past. Where Dr. Craig says that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies the universe had a beginning, that is false. That is not what it says. What it says is that our ability to describe the universe classically, that is to say, not including the effects of quantum mechanics, gives out. That may be because there’s a beginning or it may be because the universe is eternal, either because the assumptions of the theorem were violated or because quantum mechanics becomes important. If you need to invoke a theorem, because that’s what you like to do rather than building models, I would suggest the quantum eternity theorem. If you have a universe that obeys the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, has a non-zero energy, and the individual laws of physics are themselves not changing with time, that universe is necessarily eternal. The time parameter in Schrödinger’s equation, telling you how the universe evolves, goes from minus infinity to infinity. Now this might not be the definitive answer to the real world because you could always violate the assumptions of the theorem but because it takes quantum mechanics seriously it’s a much more likely starting point for analyzing the history of the universe. But again, I will keep reiterating that what matters are the models, not the abstract principles.

In fact, it is Carroll who does not give an adequate justification for tossing causality as confidently as he does. Causality is a topic for the metaphysician, not the cosmologist.

Give an example of some causation without using, time and space in a classical sense.

[lucious]

No, Craig has accurately presented the theorem. He understands that the theorem applies to any average expanding universe, and may not hold in a full quantum gravity regime. Although the BGV theorem still applies in a semi classical regime even if GR equations need some modification.

Craig argues that the total body of evidence suppports the beginning--this includes the BGV theorem plus refutations of past eternal models (which he does in his written work, carroll apparently oblivious of this.) The shift to a quantum gravity regime does not change the game dramatically towards an eternal past.

vilenkin does not contest that the past is finite--he contends that our intuitions about time break down because of quantum gravity, but this shifts the discussion to the philosophical nature of time as opposed to cosmology.