Dr. Craig is a liar.

[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?