WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument

[Mudhammam]

I just finished watching this debate from earlier this year. I think Sean M. Carroll did a phenomenal job, far better than Lawrence Krauss did against Craig. In this debate, the issues are laid out by two excellent debaters. Craig held his own and I appreciate him nailing the theistic approach to cosmology.

That said, having the two issues laid out, it's clear to me that theism as one of the many speculative models out there is the least interesting and offers no predictive value. It's an utterly fruitless thought experiment--ultimately, pointless speculation--on par with the brain in a vat.

It's a long debate (two hours) but if questions of Cosmology interest you, specifically in the framework of naturalism vs. theism approaches, this will be worth your while:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

[tor]

Carroll dissected Craig like a surgeon. But Craig will keep saying the same bullshit over and over while his followers will cheer.

[Mudhammam]

Basically, yeah. I think Craig has good questions and valuable skepticisms about current models--just not any interesting answers or even attempts at any solutions.

[tor]

Basically, yeah. I think Craig has good questions and valuable skepticisms about current models--just not any interesting answers or even attempts at any solutions.

Craig and skepticism don't mix.

[Mudhammam]

Basically, yeah. I think Craig has good questions and valuable skepticisms about current models--just not any interesting answers or even attempts at any solutions.

Craig and skepticism don't mix.

He's skeptical about anything that disagrees with "the witness of the Holy Spirit regarding the fundamental truth of Christian belief." That usually doesn't produce any intelligent, must less useful, results, but in this debate I thought his skepticism raised some good questions that, if properly addressed, can make current models of cosmology stronger and better understood by an audience such as myself. One question that he raised which I thought was good: if the Universe is eternal, such as in the Quantum Eternity Model, why or how did the classical physics of space-time begin to take effect 13.8 billion years ago and not infinitely long ago?

[MindForgedManacle]

One of the few debates Craig has lost. I thought we had a thread on this, but oh well. Carroll did well.

Anyway, it's the Quantum Eternity Theorem, not Quantum Eternity Model. :p To answer you're question, classical physics of spacetime did not take effect 13.81 billion years ago.

[Angrboda]

My comments on it are here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-24992-po...#pid637697

[Mudhammam]

To answer you're question, classical physics of spacetime did not take effect 13.81 billion years ago.

I just mean why did the "big bang" happen (as Carroll said, "the first moment in time") if there was nothing but eternal quantum fluctuations or whatever before (?) then. I didn't hear Carroll address that question. Maybe the answer is "we don't know." I'd be okay with that. There's a lot of shit we don't know, much less the creation of the structure of reality.

[MindForgedManacle]

I just mean why did the "big bang" happen (as Carroll said, "the first moment in time") if there was nothing but eternal quantum fluctuations or whatever before (?) then. I didn't hear Carroll address that question. Maybe the answer is "we don't know." I'd be okay with that. There's a lot of shit we don't know, much less the creation of the structure of reality.

I know Carroll has addressed this point in other talks and I'm certain I recall him addressing it a couple of times in the debate. The answer he gives - which I would tend to agree with - is this: If you have a very well corroborated, self-contained cosmological model that fit the data, then there is nothing else to explain. If you, like religious apologist do, ask the question "Why that model?", then all you're really doing is presupposing the ontological truth of a controversial philosophical principle called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which has many problems. Further, it really seems that all asking that question implies is that one does not want to accept that there may be brute facts.

[Mudhammam]

I just mean why did the "big bang" happen (as Carroll said, "the first moment in time") if there was nothing but eternal quantum fluctuations or whatever before (?) then. I didn't hear Carroll address that question. Maybe the answer is "we don't know." I'd be okay with that. There's a lot of shit we don't know, much less the creation of the structure of reality.

I know Carroll has addressed this point in other talks and I'm certain I recall him addressing it a couple of times in the debate. The answer he gives - which I would tend to agree with - is this: If you have a very well corroborated, self-contained cosmological model that fit the data, then there is nothing else to explain. If you, like religious apologist do, ask the question "Why that model?", then all you're really doing is presupposing the ontological truth of a controversial philosophical principle called the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which has many problems. Further, it really seems that all asking that question implies is that one does not want to accept that there may be brute facts.

Ah, yeah okay I do remember that bit. I don't think it's ultimately a satisfactory answer but at this point it works. Even if a model eventually develops that explains all aspects of the Universe's internal structure, I still think the question "But why THAT? Why THIS?" is worth pursuing and something humans will inevitably seek to understand further.