WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2014, 07:58 PM
WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
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
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
For completeness / future reference, see also earlier comments on the topic.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
04-04-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(04-04-2014 07:58 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  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

We talked about this debate here :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ry-21-2014
Carroll is great. But I'm very prejudiced. I had him for class. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-04-2014, 08:28 PM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(04-04-2014 08:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  For completeness / future reference, see also earlier comments on the topic.

Smile

I like the Many-Threads Interpretation! Wink

But really, oops! Sorry about that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2014, 09:14 PM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(04-04-2014 07:58 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  ...two excellent debaters.

Um, no. Craig is a POOR debater, a fucking One Trick Pony, and his only trick is to CHEAT. SEE: Gish Gallop


Quote: Craig held his own...

I doubt that seriously.


Quote: and I appreciate him nailing the theistic approach to cosmology.

Do you also spend hours admiring the "beauty" of a festering pile of dogshit, perchance? Really. I mean that.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
04-04-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(04-04-2014 09:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 07:58 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  ...two excellent debaters.

Um, no. Craig is a POOR debater, a fucking One Trick Pony, and his only trick is to CHEAT. SEE: Gish Gallop


Quote: Craig held his own...

I doubt that seriously.


Quote: and I appreciate him nailing the theistic approach to cosmology.

Do you also spend hours admiring the "beauty" of a festering pile of dogshit, perchance? Really. I mean that.

Actually Craig didn't even bother to even BEGIN to answer Carroll's points, I thought. If you write them down, one by one, he never replies. Just keeps repeating his "Well if you think it makes sense that the univese just popped into existence ... bla bla bla". Back a while, I really had no clue who Little Billy Craig was , and I watched the Ehrman debate, and was astounded he got away with this :
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ight=Craig (see post 39).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2014, 02:13 AM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
I really don't find the fantasy vs reality debates all that interesting. Its when you have to tell someone that this is reality and the other person isn't an inmate at the local nut house. That I find interesting

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 02:08 PM by Pickup_shonuff.)
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(04-04-2014 09:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Um, no. Craig is a POOR debater, a fucking One Trick Pony, and his only trick is to CHEAT. SEE: Gish Gallop
I guess you're entitled to that opinion. But most people, especially those who have debated Craig, disagree. He's even been called a "professional debater," I believe by Dawkins. So yeah. I think that means he is anything but a "POOR debater."

Quote:
Quote: Craig held his own...

I doubt that seriously.
Did you watch the debate? I doubt that as well.

Quote:
Quote: and I appreciate him nailing the theistic approach to cosmology.

Do you also spend hours admiring the "beauty" of a festering pile of dogshit, perchance? Really. I mean that.

If it just so happens that the history of mankind has largely been spent contemplating and disseminating to others "the 'beauty' of a festering pile of dogshit,'" then yeah, I can appreciate understanding what it is that compels many of them to do so. Don't get so angry at learning opposing viewpoints. Knowledge is your friend.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(04-04-2014 09:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 07:58 PM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  ...two excellent debaters.

Um, no. Craig is a POOR debater, a fucking One Trick Pony, and his only trick is to CHEAT. SEE: Gish Gallop


Quote: Craig held his own...

I doubt that seriously.


Quote: and I appreciate him nailing the theistic approach to cosmology.

Do you also spend hours admiring the "beauty" of a festering pile of dogshit, perchance? Really. I mean that.

I agree. I dislike the guy. I doubt that he really believes the crap he comes out with. He's just going through the motions and pocketing the money. Thanks for providing the link to gish gallop.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 10:47 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2014 10:55 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: WLC debated Sean M. Carroll a few weeks ago on origins and Kalam Argument
(05-04-2014 11:49 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 09:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Um, no. Craig is a POOR debater, a fucking One Trick Pony, and his only trick is to CHEAT. SEE: Gish Gallop
I guess you're entitled to that opinion. But most people, especially those who have debated Craig, disagree. He's even been called a "professional debater," I believe by Dawkins. So yeah. I think that means he is anything but a "POOR debater."

When Dawkins said that, it was to deride WLC because he was constantly badgering Dawkins for a debate. To which Dawkins replied along the lines of "well, that would looks great on Craig's CV" but not his, and that Craig was nothing more than "a professional debater". The guy is a clown, he doesn't even understand (or purposely straw-mans) what atheism is...







(05-04-2014 11:49 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 09:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I doubt that seriously.
Did you watch the debate? I doubt that as well.

Honestly, I haven't watched this one. I've seen his debates against Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Carrier, Avalos, and Krauss. He does poorly in all of them, relying more on tricks than honest debate. Whenever Craig can control all of the parameters of the debate (the exact format, Craig goes first, no QA), and if he's allowed to stick to his script (which has changed little in 30 years), then he can appear to 'win' the debate by way of the Gish Gallop or other tactics.

Watch a debate were he doesn't have such control, like his debate with Harris; and he gets his ass handed to him. Harris did not rise to Craig's bait, kept to his points, pointed out Craig's bullshit without dwelling on it, and royally embarrassed him in the QA section. Craig is all show and bluster, but there is no substance to be had.



(05-04-2014 11:49 AM)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:  
(04-04-2014 09:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Do you also spend hours admiring the "beauty" of a festering pile of dogshit, perchance? Really. I mean that.
If it just so happens that the history of mankind has largely been spent contemplating and disseminating to others "the 'beauty' of a festering pile of dogshit,'" then yeah, I can appreciate understanding what it is that compels many of them to do so. Don't get so angry at learning opposing viewpoints. Knowledge is your friend.


That's Taq, he doesn't always play well with others. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: