I often despair at the rank dishonesty of WLC's claims, but here his woeful misrepresentation of physics and cosmology gets it's just comeuppance.
Enjoy...and watch him squirm
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Wow, Carroll destroyed him
It's worth pointing out that the KCA is deeply flawed anyway,, and it is of course not an argument for the existence of a deity, only for a first cause. WLC simply assumes a deity as that cause by literally defining it into existence, special pleading and all. This is all fairly pitiful from a man who has professional philosopher on his CV, but it's his risible claims about physics, cosmology and his misrepresentations of the big bang theory that are the real jaw dropping nonsene.
As you say Carroll didn't spare him even the pretence of dignity, but then why should a scientist in good standing listen to someone blather on with complete BS superstition based on pure assumption all the while trying to masquerade it as having scientific gravitas. What's hilarious is the number of armchair apologists who trot out his woeful cosmological, ontological and teleological "arguments" who appear to be completely unaware of how woefully bad these are.
Sadly, despite the smack down from a real scientist, I suspect WLC walked away from that debate smugly convinced he is still right.
You cannot defeat stupid.
WLC is precisely the case we are, as atheists, challenged with. His model of the universe is as his psyche limits him to embrace, support and promote. He is wholly convinced of his perspective and cannot be moved towards questioning himself. He is indoctrinated, or drunk, with himself and theism is his best model to relieve his insatiable need to be desired as a man with a purpose, given to him by and for a higher purpose. That higher purpose is his AI, be it a god-construct as mankind currently envisions it, or in some other form. Currently man believes the god-construct because it bids him to pay a simple fee in the form of wor$hip to attain a greater ultimate form. Religious memes take that burden on and perpetuate (for the fee) the dream for him.
The universe versus the multiverse slays the constructs mankind's precious little knowledge bids him to perceive and create for himself as a purposeful role for his brief life. It completely confounds the singular realm, where he thinks he dwells under a singular god, by suggesting that he does not dwell there but rather belongs to a greater cosmology. That kind of challenge, the fathomless expanse of knowledge certainly unattainable and therefore surreal, is so mind and god boggling that it's seen as a greater fantasy than his own god-thinking.
I concur. He's too emotionally invested in his belief to approach the topic with anything approaching an open mind.
WLC had some talks with Lawrence Krauss where he made claims regarding physics and astronomy that are just flat out wrong and moved Krauss to introduce a 'Bullsh*t' buzzer for their final debate/talk.
He is almost as bad as a flat earther/space denier, making claims that are on the whole completely ridiculous.
What I find most surprising is how woefully poor his philosophical arguments are, given his credentials. I am given to understand he is widely considered a very well educated and talented philosopher, even outside of theism. I don't see this reflected in his use of arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument as one example. In debates he just repeats his claims ad nausea and ignores any answers as if they haven't happened.
In my limited experience that isn't surprising: the more credentials a philosopher has, the more pitiful their arguments are. I had a professor of philosophy (PhD from U of Chicago) tell me that if two functions have the same output, for a single input; they are the same function. To make that a bit easier to understand; he was saying that if two lines cross at a single point, they must be the same line.
To be honest I live in the UK so escape the worst of theistic apologetics. However I am acutely aware of how, for example, the repackaging of creationism as intelligent design have been motivated by their inability to get their superstitious flimflam any kind of scientific recognition or foothold in state education, have resorted to a propaganda campaign so dishonest it would make Joseph Goebbels blush. I understand they are now even creating their own "scientific" journals to pretend their vapid flimflam has been scientifically peer reviewed. It seems that "lying for Jesus" is not considered a sin at all.