WLC and Sean Carroll debate
May 12, 2014 at 9:21 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2014 at 9:22 am by Freedom of thought.)
Has everyone seen the debate? It's been out for a few months now.
Here
I've recently re-watched it to appreciate how much Sean completely obliterated WLC. WLC is a notoriously vigorous and highly skilled debater, I am really surprised how the debate went given Carroll is not even a debater. But I guess if you have the facts on your side, it's easy to win. Not to mention he was on his home turf (cosmology). Sean responded to almost all of WLC's points, and wasn't oblivious most of the time nor avoided engaging with the arguments with the usual atheist debaters who go up against WLC, like with the Hitchens debate (that debate was atrocious for Hitchens).
WLC was definitely not on the science either, and has been misusing the BGV theorem for years. Sean set that straight by pointing out it doesn't prove a beginning, but I doubt WLC will make changes to his arguments or the apparent evidence for his arguments (as usual). It was also hilarious watching him desperately grasp at straws towards the end with the model Carroll proposes, by saying "you see here in the middle of the diagram, it shows a beginning there!". Carroll dismisses this immediately for the BS that was, and I almost felt sorry for him.
Here
I've recently re-watched it to appreciate how much Sean completely obliterated WLC. WLC is a notoriously vigorous and highly skilled debater, I am really surprised how the debate went given Carroll is not even a debater. But I guess if you have the facts on your side, it's easy to win. Not to mention he was on his home turf (cosmology). Sean responded to almost all of WLC's points, and wasn't oblivious most of the time nor avoided engaging with the arguments with the usual atheist debaters who go up against WLC, like with the Hitchens debate (that debate was atrocious for Hitchens).
WLC was definitely not on the science either, and has been misusing the BGV theorem for years. Sean set that straight by pointing out it doesn't prove a beginning, but I doubt WLC will make changes to his arguments or the apparent evidence for his arguments (as usual). It was also hilarious watching him desperately grasp at straws towards the end with the model Carroll proposes, by saying "you see here in the middle of the diagram, it shows a beginning there!". Carroll dismisses this immediately for the BS that was, and I almost felt sorry for him.
