Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

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?

First, regarding your favorite part, WLC, says "...all of the models that Dr. Carroll has mentioned have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning of the universe.[24] Alex Vilenkin says flatly, “there are no models at this time that give a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”[25] footnoted as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

and later on... "Dr. Carroll does hold out hope that quantum cosmology might serve to restore the past eternality of the universe; but I would say that not only is there no evidence for such a hope, but I would agree with Vilenkin that if there is a quantum gravity regime prior to the Planck Time, then that just is the beginning of the universe. 

So when we come to your favorite part with Alan Guth, what does he say: “I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning. It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows.” what is he really saying. That his theorum avoids a beginning? (no) That he considers the quantum gravity regime prior to Planck time to be eternal? (perhaps) That he realizes that the question cannot be answered by science? (possibly). 

"Dr. Carroll says you can have quantum descriptions of the universe that are eternal, and that is certainly true, but the question is: why would the universe transition to classical spacetime just 13 billion years ago? It could not have existed from infinity past in an unstable quantum state and then just 13 billion years ago transition to classical spacetime. It would have done it from eternity past, if at all."



Additionally, WLC also reviewed the transcripts and summarized it this way: 

Let’s sum up this portion of the debate. The causal premiss

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

does not presuppose any particular analysis of the causal relation but was deliberately formulated to be as neutral as possible in that regard. So Carroll’s charge that it assumes an Aristotelian concept of causation (the tenability of which remains moot) is vacuous.

(1) is also consistent, as Carroll comes to admit, with the universe’s being self-contained in the sense that a complete physical description of the universe can be given at any time t. So Carroll’s repudiation of a transcendent cause on the basis of the completeness of physics is gratuitous.

I have offered three arguments in support of (1). First, it is grounded by an obvious metaphysical first principle that something cannot come into being from nothing. If Carroll’s naturalism requires him to flout this principle, then his view, being worse than magic, heartily deserves the incredulous stare. In the end, however, Carroll, by adopting a tenseless theory of time according to which beginning-to-exist does not imply coming-into-being, does not, in fact, flout this first principle. Given this first principle, a tensed theory of time is sufficient for (1). The question then for Carroll becomes two-fold: (i) what justification can he offer for a tenseless theory of time, and (ii) is (1) true even on a tenseless theory, that is, is a tensed theory of time merely a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for (1)? Those questions remain to be addressed.

Second, if something can come into being without a cause, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not do so. Carroll might try to avoid this argument by appealing once again to a tenseless theory of time. But it is not evident that this argument will not also work even on a tenseless theory. One may simply re-phrase it to remove any reference to temporal becoming: if something can begin to exist without a cause, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not do so.

Third, we have overwhelming inductive evidence in support of (1). Carroll’s attempt to subvert this inductive inference by pointing out that two features of immanent events, namely, their being temporally embedded and explicable in terms of natural law, do not apply in the case of the universe’s beginning to exist fails to show that these features are necessary conditions of the requirement of causal explanation. Indeed, it is unintelligible why being located at a first moment of time and being naturally inexplicable would enable an event to occur without a cause. A common condition shared by both immanent events and an initial cosmic event is beginning to exist, and it is this commonly shared condition that is plausibly sufficient for the need of causal explanation. Hence, the inductive inference goes through.

So we have good grounds for affirming (1), whereas Carroll’s proffered defeaters of (1) are either inconclusive or outright failures.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/some-refl...z45v3y1x9O