Underseer
Contributor
6:39 synopsis including highlights:
[YOUTUBE]M1c_GlAjvy4[/YOUTUBE]
Full debate:
[YOUTUBE]X0qKZqPy9T8[/YOUTUBE]
William Lane Craig did a re-wording of the Kalam Cosmological argument that he's built his entire career around. Basically, he re-worded Kalam, played fast and loose with a few equivocation fallacies (e.g. "confusing" different philosophical meanings of the word "create") to make it sound like modern physics supports the claim that a god exists.
Since the average Christian doesn't actually understand science very well, he has been wildly popular with Christians, because they can give each other WLC books and say "See? Modern physics proves that god is real and that Christianity was right all along!"
Since he was mostly arguing with philosophers, he got away with making bad claims about physics for a very long time, but it was inevitable that physicists would eventually note that someone got famous mischaracterizing physics. Needless to say, trying to use his usual arguments on an actual physicist did not go well for Craig. Despite what Christians believe, they don't actually know more about physics than physicists.
WLC's various confrontations with physicists went so badly that he was eventually forced to try and refute Einstein's relativity with a syllogism.
[YOUTUBE]Ao4N50Ia3QE[/YOUTUBE]
So the time line is:
WLC tries to borrow legitimacy from physics to bolster an apologetics argument [ent]rarr[/ent] physicists explain to him why his arguments are bad [ent]rarr[/ent] WLC tries to disprove a cornerstone of physics with a syllogism, ignoring all available evidence [ent]rarr[/ent] WLC then decides it's a good idea to have a public debate with Carroll
His previous arguments with physicists went so badly that he was forced to try and disprove relativity, and he still agreed to have that debate with Carroll because he knows the average Christian will watch the above debate and think Craig won the debate, and probably won't look into the results of any of his previous debates with physicists.
[YOUTUBE]M1c_GlAjvy4[/YOUTUBE]
Full debate:
[YOUTUBE]X0qKZqPy9T8[/YOUTUBE]
William Lane Craig did a re-wording of the Kalam Cosmological argument that he's built his entire career around. Basically, he re-worded Kalam, played fast and loose with a few equivocation fallacies (e.g. "confusing" different philosophical meanings of the word "create") to make it sound like modern physics supports the claim that a god exists.
Since the average Christian doesn't actually understand science very well, he has been wildly popular with Christians, because they can give each other WLC books and say "See? Modern physics proves that god is real and that Christianity was right all along!"
Since he was mostly arguing with philosophers, he got away with making bad claims about physics for a very long time, but it was inevitable that physicists would eventually note that someone got famous mischaracterizing physics. Needless to say, trying to use his usual arguments on an actual physicist did not go well for Craig. Despite what Christians believe, they don't actually know more about physics than physicists.
WLC's various confrontations with physicists went so badly that he was eventually forced to try and refute Einstein's relativity with a syllogism.
[YOUTUBE]Ao4N50Ia3QE[/YOUTUBE]
So the time line is:
WLC tries to borrow legitimacy from physics to bolster an apologetics argument [ent]rarr[/ent] physicists explain to him why his arguments are bad [ent]rarr[/ent] WLC tries to disprove a cornerstone of physics with a syllogism, ignoring all available evidence [ent]rarr[/ent] WLC then decides it's a good idea to have a public debate with Carroll
His previous arguments with physicists went so badly that he was forced to try and disprove relativity, and he still agreed to have that debate with Carroll because he knows the average Christian will watch the above debate and think Craig won the debate, and probably won't look into the results of any of his previous debates with physicists.
