Well, Bill, it's been almost 10 years since your debate with Sean Carroll and nearly 500,000 people have watched that

exchange on YouTube so it continues to be an influence.

He was recently interviewed by Neil degrass Tyson and they were complimentary of you despite

their obvious naturalistic disagreements.

Let's look at some excerpts from that interview, but first, Bill, perhaps you can once again reflect on that

influential debate.

This was a debate on the existence of God and modern cosmology.

And I prepared extremely hard for this debate.

I talked to quite a number of physicists about the arguments that I was going to be

offering Red Sean Carroll's literature carefully to interact with it. I even brought up things in the debate

that he wasn't aware of. For example, Aaron Walls theorem concerning the generalized second law of

thermodynamics and the implications for the beginning of the universe and

offered a critique of Carol's model of the university developed with Jennifer Chen,

his graduate student, and he did not respond to that critique in the debate. In the debate I decided I would defend a very modest contention, namely that the existence of God is more probable given the evidence of contemporary cosmology

than it would have been without it. Now that's almost a no-brainer. You almost don't need to argue for that. It's so obvious.

Just think of 19th century physics before the discovery of the Big Bang and the origin of the universe at a point in the finite

past or the discovery of the fine tuning of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature. I think clearly

God's existence is more probable given the evidence of contemporary cosmology

then it would have been without it.

But one thing I didn't anticipate in the debate

is the degree of authority that is an aura around a professional scientist like Sean Carroll.

I'm not impressed with that aura myself because as a philosopher I realize that

...