Dr. Craig is a liar.

[RoadRunner79]

---

So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

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.