Who won?

[lucious]

That would not be magic.


Magic is a perjorative in place of any substantive argument. It is a term of abuse.

Magic refers to things which are intrinsically unintelligible. Craigs argument would entail that an immaterial, personal Creator brought matter into existence. If his argument entails it, following from the premises, it must happen.


It does not matter if we have no idea of how or why it happens, only that it does. Spacetime bending through matter is one thing we know happens, without knowing why. It is mind boggling and inexplicable yet it still happens.

[Interest12345]

I honestly don't understand why so many atheists consider this to be Craig's big debate loss. There are many atheists who have done a much better job in debating Craig in my opinion. Arif Ahmed, Peter Millican, Keith Parsons, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Austin Dacey, Doug Jesseph, Raymond Bradley, and most of all Shelly Kagan.

Carroll was pretty good, but his performance against Craig is HIGHLY overrated by atheists. I watched the debate when it was first aired live, and honestly, I thought that Craig had won.

[lucious]

Atheists hyperbolise everything, I know.

Carroll carried himself through charisma and confidence, not substantive argument. Of course, the former count for a lot in debate.

Study the transcript and it tells a different story. Carroll threw a lot out there which was difficult to counter in short time, but mostly nothing Craig has not addressed before.

Unfortunately, people rarely scrutinize debates this way. If someone they already agree with delivers something with confidence, they lap it up without a shred of scrutiny.

[ApnaaGhar]

Carroll won this debate I had seen this

[lucious]

Carroll won this debate I had seen this

He actually didn't.

[Bill McEnaney]

I watched the debate months ago, so I've forgotten too much detail about it.  But it seemed to me that Carroll made only one strong objection to Craig's case.  He quoted Guth to show that WLC had misinterpreted the BGVT.

[lucious]

I watched the debate months ago, so I've forgotten too much detail about it.  But it seemed to me that Carroll made only one strong objection to Craig's case.  He quoted Guth to show that WLC had misinterpreted the BGVT.

Actually, Craig didn't misinterpret the theorem at all. It was quite a juvenile stunt on Carrolls behalf (Hey, look, these cosmologists are actually my friends and not his!).

What Guth thinks, is that the theorem does not completely describe all of physical reality.

[DerekTheVExtreme]

I think Carroll personally looked better in the debate. He carry confidence and we have to grant that he's much more knowledgeable with science than WLC. I find that if Carroll were to debate anyone it should be Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross might still lose but at least Carroll would be taking on someone that knows science better.

[TheChristCam]

Personally, I think WLC definitely won this debate. Too many things Carroll asserted in the debate he didn't back up with evidence, or even an argument. Two example:

1. "There are plenty of models which explain an infinite universe" So? That is completely irrelevant, because if none of them are adequate, it doesn't matter what they explain.
2. "Asking what caused the universe is the wrong question" This is not even an argument, and is akin to saying "I don't believe God caused the Universe because I believe the Universe came from nothing"

Carroll presented his arguments, but so many of them he inadequately, or didn't at all, defend.

Why can't we ask the question of what caused the Universe? He doesn't say, but simply it's "absurd". If someone were to ask me "why can't I ask what caused God", I wouldn't answer "that's absurd" and simply walk off, I'd give him an adequate explanation of why the question in itself is false.

The reality is that philosophically, the universe just popping into being is completely absurd, and is not explained by the science.

I mean, why stop at Universes? Why not minds? All we know is that the only mind that exists is our own (and even that is questionable), so why try to assert that there are others outside of our own?

How can anyone think Carroll won?

[TheChristCam]

Right. Just like the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is really just an assertion. There is no actual argument to defend the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

Oh, on the contrary, WLC has an entire page defending the premises in his arguments. They are far from "just assertions"

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

They're also further visited in his writing.

You're premises, on the other hand, have no backing through argumentation, logic, or evidence, they're just statements.

[Mammal]

@ TheChristCam re reply #83:

From a scientific perspective most of what you posted seem uninformed. I recommend a bit of research on your part on the specific topics that you raised and objected to. Perhaps you would appreciate Carroll's comments and who knows, even be less biased once you have a better understanding thereof..?

[futureboy]

I think that because of the way Carroll expressed the scientific/rational reasons why Craig's arguments fail, most people would indeed think that Craig won.

However, this is simply due to the fact that most people don't have a full understanding of the scientific/rational reasons why Craig's arguments fail. Given the way Carroll presented them (specifically: the cosmological models vs. observed facts and expectations, and also the ill-defined rebuttals), they mostly likely went over most people's heads, and Craig took full advantage of that.

[jayceeii]

Minds can cause stuff

MATERIAL minds can cause stuff. Namely, cause material to move. The MATERIAL neurons, chemicals, etc. in my brain interact with the MATERIAL parts of my body, which in turn interact with the MATERIAL world.

You are talking about an IMMATERIAL mind creating, from nothing, MATERIAL.

That sounds like magic to me. Sue me for being frank, but it's how I'm calling it.

One of the most fascinating things is that there has been no serious study of the mind. No one has catalogued its powers, or listed its various functions. Those studying the brain as a material organ make no attempts to guess about the powers of reasoning or memory. Often we learn more from what is absent than from what is present, and in this case we learn man is a being who uses the mind but then takes it for granted, unable to examine it.

Man can be called an externalized being, regarding the material world around him to be real and of value, but lacking in self-appreciation and existential comprehension or concern. The consciousness is cast outward, not inward, and this can be observed without reference to prior religious teachings. Why is the mind so hard to study, when it is central to a person’s identity? Why is there so little concern they even get angry to hear about it?