The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I saw the Carroll-Craig debate, and I thought it was one of the best, most technically detailed debates I've ever seen. Frankly, I came away impressed by both Craig and Carroll- Craig, because as a philosopher talking cosmology with a professional cosmologist, held his own very well. I don't think Carroll could hold a candle to Craig if the topic was philosophical.

But I also was impressed by how effortless Carroll's responses were. I even thought he might have won.

Until I read commentary by Luke Barnes and Aron Wall, as well as follow-up discussion by Craig. It really seems like Carroll was a bit sneaky in areas and (unintentionally) misrepresented things or went off the rails on a number of issues.

But I haven't come to a conclusion on the debate. I won't until I map out the discussion, anyhow.

Here's a link to Aron Wall's reflections: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/thoughts-...ig-debate/

Thank you. I very much enjoyed reading Dr. Wall's blog entry; it was most helpful to look at Dr. Carroll's arguments through the lens of a skeptical theist who had a direct impact on the debate through citation. 

On the other hand, I think the opposite of what you've claimed here is true: WLC appears to me to have pulled "sneaky" debate tactics to give the appearance of having better arguments than he did. I say this as both someone who debated in college and as someone who has often gritted my teeth, in my own field of biology, as I watch Creationists using tactics like repetition (pretending your argument wasn't just refuted by your opponent, simply through the method of repeating it with an air of confidence; it should not work on an audience, but it does) and making references to models/theories that sound  good but which have been destroyed by newer methods of research, or which appeal to the layperson but are easily spotted as fallacious to experts, usually because the argument of the Authority to which they cite has been misstated by the debater. (WLC does this with Dr. Wall's own paper, according to Dr. Carroll.)

While Carroll may have relied on pushing what he feels to be the more-accurate model (and a case can be made that he has biases inherent in his reasoning, by which he came to these conclusions, but we cannot know) on the authority of his skill as a physicist and mathematician, I don't know if you could call it "sneaky" or "going off the rails". He did step outside the parameters of the debate topic, as he tried to address arguments against theism that have bothing to do with cosmology, and WLC corrected the course by calling him out on it; this is standard in a debate forum. But this gets into a basic problem: if a cosmologist can't rely on his authority as a cosmologist, and he can't go outside the field of cosmology, he is extremely limited in how he can address issues presented to him for refutation.

However, most of these discussions are well above my "pay-grade" because I am not a physicist, and I don't think four semesters of college physics courses will cover the calculus necessary to ensure that the authorities to which I cite are any more reliable than those relied upon erroneously by WLC.  As such, it is somewhat moot to even attempt to have a discussion on the level such a topic would require. As my signature below indicates, I don't feel a need to physically disprove the possible existence of any potential theistic deity. It would be a huge amount of effort and, in the end, we'd just be spinning our wheels. What does miff me is when people come here and point that argument, which is literally going on between some extraordinarily bright minds at the top of their fields, and claiming that we must "account" for it in order to be intellectually-fulfilled atheists.

If you wish to discuss evolution, genetics, or environmental/ecological science, I am happy to have as in-depth a discussion as you could desire. I also enjoy a high level of amateur apologetics, and have a minor in History, so I can for instance discuss why some of the claims made by Dr. Wall in his post, regarding "the fact" of the stories in the Bible, are horse hockey. But if you're just here to back up Keisha in an attempt to provoke a pointless fight about fine-tuning and "apparent" (yet unnecessary) reasons for a Creator to have done it, you can just go and find a middle finger to sit and spin on. I've had enough  of that kind of Christian Apologist ChrAp.