Dr. Craig is a liar.

[RoadRunner79]

There are a fair number of theories in science, which contradict each other (or are at least incoherent with each other).  I would also disagree that religion can't be falsified or corrected.  Just because something isn't repeatable doesn't mean that there is no reason or evidence behind it.  Also I think you are of a misunderstanding, that so many contradict each other.

Your statement about scientific theories is just misleading and false, and I would invite you to provide some examples.  General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is being tested and retested and tested again and again right up to the present day.  No religion receives such scrutiny because no religion makes any predictions which anyone can test.  Theology is a predictionless academic discipline, and as the late Professor Carl Sagan once said, "Philosophers have no laboratory in which they can test their ideas."  As religion makes no testable predictions, religious belief is unfalsifiable.

Yers, and as to the topic of this thread, all the repeatable evidence points to a hot big bang model and a beginning of the universe.   Common descent evolution is not repeatable (or is at least attempts so far are unsuccessful).  However while it may be repeatable, if that is the only evidence you are going to accept, then this type of evolution is absolutely false.  It is a category error, to require the same evidence, for something to which it does not apply.  Common descent evolution is a historical claim, and therefore you need to look at the historical evidence.

[Jehanne]

Your statement about scientific theories is just misleading and false, and I would invite you to provide some examples.  General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is being tested and retested and tested again and again right up to the present day.  No religion receives such scrutiny because no religion makes any predictions which anyone can test.  Theology is a predictionless academic discipline, and as the late Professor Carl Sagan once said, "Philosophers have no laboratory in which they can test their ideas."  As religion makes no testable predictions, religious belief is unfalsifiable.

Yers, and as to the topic of this thread, all the repeatable evidence points to a hot big bang model and a beginning of the universe.   Common descent evolution is not repeatable (or is at least attempts so far are unsuccessful).  However while it may be repeatable, if that is the only evidence you are going to accept, then this type of evolution is absolutely false.  It is a category error, to require the same evidence, for something to which it does not apply.  Common descent evolution is a historical claim, and therefore you need to look at the historical evidence.

Your claims about modern evolutionary theory are just false; evolutionary theory has made innumerable and testable claims, such as the existence of transitory fossils.  You can test evolutionary theory whenever you want, just by going out to areas of exposed rock from certain geologic periods.  If you find a fossil of an animal or plant that did not exist in that epoch, then, "Voilà!", evolutionary theory has been falsified.  Of course, individuals have made such claims, only to be refuted later on.

As for the "all repeatable evidence...and a beginning of the universe," some cosmologists hold to this, but not all.  Here is a recent paper that demonstrates a beginning-less and endless Universe:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

So, no, the door is not yet closed.  I realize that Alexander Vilenkin has argued for a Universe with a beginning, but even he holds to the possibility of a multiverse:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01819

[RoadRunner79]

Yers, and as to the topic of this thread, all the repeatable evidence points to a hot big bang model and a beginning of the universe.   Common descent evolution is not repeatable (or is at least attempts so far are unsuccessful).  However while it may be repeatable, if that is the only evidence you are going to accept, then this type of evolution is absolutely false.  It is a category error, to require the same evidence, for something to which it does not apply.  Common descent evolution is a historical claim, and therefore you need to look at the historical evidence.

Your claims about modern evolutionary theory are just false; evolutionary theory has made innumerable and testable claims, such as the existence of transitory fossils.  You can test evolutionary theory whenever you want, just by going out to areas of exposed rock from certain geologic periods.  If you find a fossil of an animal or plant that did not exist in that epoch, then, "Voilà!", evolutionary theory has been falsified.  Of course, individuals have made such claims, only to be refuted later on.

As for the "all repeatable evidence...and a beginning of the universe," some cosmologists hold to this, but not all.  Here is a recent paper that demonstrates a beginning-less and endless Universe:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

So, no, the door is not yet closed.  I realize that Alexander Vilenkin has argued for a Universe with a beginning, but even he holds to the possibility of a multiverse:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01819

Can they prove that they are transitional, in a repeatable demonstration?

[Cyberman]

RoadRunner, what in your opinion does "repeatable" mean in the scientific context?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Why does not one person on the "other side" listen when I point out that the lines of common descent were demonstrated/proven by DNA testing, which can track the slow changes (or lack thereof) in copied sections of the DNA which are not acted on by Natural Selection (called "markers"), as well as other things like mtDNA?

Evolution and common descent have been demonstrated innumerable times. The finding of transitional fossils just where and how we predicted they would be found is among the smallest forms of predicted evidence produced by the Theory.

You can argue all you want about "does/doesn't look like", in bone comparisons (though I think that's borderline idiotic)... but you can't argue with the fact that rapid DNA testing demonstrated exactly what they had already discovered through other means.

Seriously, if the DNA evidence which confirms evolution and common descent is disregarded, then we will have to throw out every paternity suit filed in the last 30 years!

[Pat Mustard]

---

I can. Why can't you?

My favorite moment in that debate, and the one most emblematic of the issue you're trying to pretend doesn't exist in order to prematurely do your touchdown dance, is when Craig goes up and says that the universe had a beginning, and that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem supports this view. Carroll responds not only by explaining what the theorem actually means (and having read it myself, I can say that yes, Craig severely mischaracterizes it because, yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about) but by bringing in Alan Guth himself, one of the writers of the paper, to set the record straight and state that his work does not indicate what Craig asserts it does, and that he himself believes the universe is most likely eternal. Craig, having been proven wrong but unable to admit this, dismisses Guth's statements as just his personal opinion. So not only does Craig clearly not know what he's on about, he's also employing a dishonest double standard: when Guth's work appears to comport with what he already believes, Craig considers Guth to be an adequate source. When Guth's work does not do this, then it doesn't matter what he thinks.

In fact, here's a six-and-a-half minute compilation of moments where Craig shows he doesn't know the science, and Carroll has to correct him... only for Craig to not give up his bullshit, even when corrected by an actual scientist:





Now, you clearly place a lot of credence on academics and degrees, since you bring up Craig's so emphatically: given this, surely you recognize Carroll's clear advantage in discussing physics and cosmology, since Carroll is himself a PhD with more than 20 years of experience in that field? And since you seem to accept that trained professionals in the field know more about that field, wouldn't you then have to admit that Craig's refusal to give up his flawed conceptualizations of the science, even when corrected by an actual scientist in that area, is profoundly bad form?

---

I had watched this debate, and I like Sean Carol.  He is well composed, and very likeable.  I also appreciate his denouncing of some of his colleges dismissal of philosophy, who then going on to make poor philosophical claims.  

However; this video which you referenced reminds me of one of the critiques  of the debate.  Dr. Carroll didn't really refute any of the evidence given by Dr. Craig; or show that another view was more reasonable.  He offered a number of theoretical models, which if I'm remembering correctly, he said that he didn't think any of which where correct.  I'm also cautious of overly assumptions claims in light of quantum mechanics, which exceed what our knowledge of this area tell us.  

And in regard to the claim by Guth, in regards to the universe having a beginning, before you do your happy dance, I think that you would need to show more behind his reasoning here, before jumping on Craig, for saying it was an opinion.   For what was given in that video was just that, with no foundation for how he was forming that opinion.  Now if he has reasons either not written in his work, or another part of his work, which Craig is ignoring, then it may be valid.  But that wasn't presented here.  

Personally, I don't buy, the insinuation that the one doing the work is automatically best to interpret (unless what they published is incomplete).  Sometimes someone with another perspective, may not be stuck in the same rut of a way of thinking.  I think that we need to look at the reasons why one interpretation is better than another, and not who is making them.  

And there have been some very well respected scientist throughout the years, who have admitted, that they are uncomfortable with the idea, that the universe had a beginning.

So a man who knows sweet fuck all about physics knows better what a physics paper says than the three men who wrote the paper, doing all the hard work behind the writing as well?

Roadrunner "'tis better to keep quiet and have the world think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Keep schtum until you find a topic you knowsomething about.

[Jehanne]

Your claims about modern evolutionary theory are just false; evolutionary theory has made innumerable and testable claims, such as the existence of transitory fossils.  You can test evolutionary theory whenever you want, just by going out to areas of exposed rock from certain geologic periods.  If you find a fossil of an animal or plant that did not exist in that epoch, then, "Voilà!", evolutionary theory has been falsified.  Of course, individuals have made such claims, only to be refuted later on.

As for the "all repeatable evidence...and a beginning of the universe," some cosmologists hold to this, but not all.  Here is a recent paper that demonstrates a beginning-less and endless Universe:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3

So, no, the door is not yet closed.  I realize that Alexander Vilenkin has argued for a Universe with a beginning, but even he holds to the possibility of a multiverse:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01819

Can they prove that they are transitional, in a repeatable demonstration?

Through DNA evidence, yes, absolutely.  If you, as a "Reformed Christian", are willing to sentence someone to death based upon DNA evidence, why aren't you willing to accept that same evidence as showing "common ancestry" with respect to other organisms on the planet?

[Esquilax]

However; this video which you referenced reminds me of one of the critiques  of the debate.  Dr. Carroll didn't really refute any of the evidence given by Dr. Craig; or show that another view was more reasonable.

Now, it's been a while since I've seen this debate, but by and large, Craig doesn't really give evidence, he gives arguments. In this case he shored up a number of these arguments by appealing to scientific papers like the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, but as Carroll pointed out, he misused them when he did. The thing about Craig's style is that, largely, he attempts to logic god into existence, rather than appealing to specific evidence for god, and then uses what evidence he can find to prop up individual premises within his arguments, rather than the conclusion as a whole, which is a good tactic for sounding correct without actually demonstrating anything at all.

Let's take his usage of Kalam within the debate as an example here: everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause, and Craig specifically brings up the BGV theorem in support of the idea that the universe began to exist. Now, leaving aside that he's wrong about that, what we've got there is an argument of two premises and a conclusion, for which we have, at best, a single premise confirmed on the back of the BGV theorem. Craig has no interest at all in demonstrating the first premise- in fact he, and I quote, "takes it as obvious," despite later going on to acknowledge that spacetime as we understand it began at the big bang- and similarly no interest in demonstrating the conclusion. Yet through some sleight of hand, Craig seeks to sweep the fact that he's only justified one third of his argument under the rug and simply moves on from "confirming" premise two, summarizing that Kalam must be true and provides a good basis for a "transcendent cause" for the universe. The fact that he's established no such thing merely passes him by.

This is one of the things I both respect and despise Craig for in equal measure; he's an absolute master at manipulating cognitive biases on stage to make his arguments seem more solid without ever actually defending them. What has he done in this case? He's presented an argument that, at best, leads to a cause of some kind, skipped justifying how that argument applies to his god in favor of justifying a small fraction of that argument and then, taking advantage of a cognitive trick known as a framing bias, he continues on a narrowed train of thought, framing his justification of premise two as justification of the whole.

In reality, the only thing Craig provided evidence for is one third of a vaguely tangential argument to his main claim, without even taking the effort to connect it to his position. It just looks like he's done more because he's good at glossing over the thin parts of his speeches and ending on the thicker bits. There's really nothing there for Carroll to refute.

 He offered a number of theoretical models, which if I'm remembering correctly, he said that he didn't think any of which where correct.  I'm also cautious of overly assumptions claims in light of quantum mechanics, which exceed what our knowledge of this area tell us.  

If the science doesn't yet allow for anything more firm than theoretical models, then Craig's position that god definitely did do it, for sure, is automatically out no matter what alternatives Carroll might have.

And in regard to the claim by Guth, in regards to the universe having a beginning, before you do your happy dance, I think that you would need to show more behind his reasoning here, before jumping on Craig, for saying it was an opinion.   For what was given in that video was just that, with no foundation for how he was forming that opinion.  Now if he has reasons either not written in his work, or another part of his work, which Craig is ignoring, then it may be valid.  But that wasn't presented here.  

I wouldn't do a happy dance: Guth specifically stated that he didn't know. I'm not even saying that Craig is necessarily wrong, just that he's misusing the paper he's citing. I will, however, mercilessly jump on Craig for dismissing Guth's statements as just his opinion, partially because Craig had no way of knowing either, but was willing to dismiss the point out of hand in front of an audience anyway, but also because he's clearly willing to use the man to argue from authority, and yet dismiss him as an authority at the very next turn. It is the double standard I'm jumping on him for.

Besides, you can read the paper too, since Guth's justifications are in there. Presumably (hopefully!) Craig has read it too, and if he has, then he knows that it's not just Guth's opinion, but something established in his work too.

Personally, I don't buy, the insinuation that the one doing the work is automatically best to interpret (unless what they published is incomplete).  Sometimes someone with another perspective, may not be stuck in the same rut of a way of thinking.  I think that we need to look at the reasons why one interpretation is better than another, and not who is making them.

Agreed. However, I'm not the one cherry picking specific scientific papers in support of my position, Craig is. I draw my position from the scientific consensus as a whole, which has not yet come to a conclusion on this, and fully acknowledges that it may not be able to yet.

To be clear, none of this is about the accuracy of Guth's claims. It's about whether the paper is being accurately represented in what it does say, regardless of whether it's correct or not, by WLC. And it's simply not: Craig could be totally right that the universe had a cause, but he would still be wrong in saying that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem says that too.  

And there have been some very well respected scientist throughout the years, who have admitted, that they are uncomfortable with the idea, that the universe had a beginning.

What are you implying here, please?

[Esquilax]

Can they prove that they are transitional, in a repeatable demonstration?

That very much depends on how reasonable you're willing to be. If you will acknowledge that consistent observations we make in the present can be applied to things we observe about the past- if you accept, essentially, that uniformitarianism is a thing borne out by the available data- then I can and absolutely will make that argument for you.

If, on the other hand, you'll sink into solipsism, ignore all the evidence and assert that there's no way of knowing whether observable phenomena is consistently applicable to history despite there being no observable changes to the mechanisms therein, then I don't know how I could possibly demonstrate anything to you. You would, on this hand, be holding to a fundamentally unreasonable epistemological model.

So, which hand do you want?

[SteveII]

The "chief result" of the paper is not that the universe had a beginning, but that beyond the beginning of the expansion boundary, new physics are required to give accurate descriptions. In fact, the conclusion actually brings up a potentially eternal model of the universe, a recycling model, that fits right into their physics, but that requires additional analyses. So not only do the actual conclusions specifically avoid giving an answer on the beginning of the universe, not only are they ill suited to actually do so anyway, but they bring up an alternative that matches an eternal universe just fine.

Now that you know this, now that you've had it directly quoted to you from the paper itself- and there are pdfs of it online if you cared to read them- do you agree that Craig's assertion that the paper demonstrates the universe had a beginning is incorrect? Was Craig wrong on the science here, since you now know what the contents of the science actually are?

For reference, the BVG paper was 2003.

Vilenkin in his book (which comes 3 years after the paper): "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

In the Youtube video I posted (2012) Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition (any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past) still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”

Vilenkin must not understand the science either.

You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe. And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science. 

It is unavoidable. If you need "new physics", a universe generator, or some other mechanism (a cause) to move across the boundary than you have a beginning of our universe.