ABCNews Nightline Faceoff: Can Kirk Cameron Proove that God Exists?

[Textcritic]

The debate between Cameron and Ray Comfort of "Way of the Master" and two representatives from the "Rational Response Squad" squared off in a 30 minurte debate on the topic of God's existence. It will be aired this evening, Wednesday 9 May on ABC's "Nightline".

The internet feed of the debate is available at Nightline's webpage, but I will likely watch the broadcast tonight.

Thoughts?

[habernac]

fata

See wackjob Cameron thread here:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...hlight=Cameron

[Burninator]

I think we had a thread about this before, and the basic conclusion was that nothing new will surface except the same tired old arguments. But I think I will check it out none the less.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Nice to see Kirk bouncing back and getting another acting gig.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Nice to see Kirk bouncing back and getting another acting gig.

he's doing a terrible job though, completely unbelieveable

[AC]

From the clips I have seen, Kirk and Ray do a pretty terrible job (as expected).

Doesn't take too long until they mention and quote from the bible, despite their original claim that they could provide irrefutable scientific evidence WITHOUT mentioning the bible.

They show no attempt to provide scientific evidence, and it appears their primary goal was simply to gain another medium in which they could preach their message from.

The few arguments I saw contain stating that since you can look at a painting and assume a painter was required, teh same can be said for the universe.... as well as talking about the ten commandments and morals.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

From the clips I have seen, Kirk and Ray do a pretty terrible job (as expected).

Doesn't take too long until they mention and quote from the bible, despite their original claim that they could provide irrefutable scientific evidence WITHOUT mentioning the bible.

They show no attempt to provide scientific evidence, and it appears their primary goal was simply to gain another medium in which they could preach their message from.

The few arguments I saw contain stating that since you can look at a painting and assume a painter was required, teh same can be said for the universe.... as well as talking about the ten commandments and morals.

That's been their methods all along. Even on the videos on their website all they do is go around asking people about evolution (random people not evolution scholars). As soon as the person can't answer or explain how something happened they go "AH HA God must exist!". Or anytime an actual scholar says "the way we think it happened..." they do the same thing.

[Cowperson]

Fanatics against fanatics . . . . . the painting analogy was simply stupid though.

It was pretty funny at the end when a shell-shocked Kirk Cameron was standing there and Ray was saying, paraphrased:, "You have to understand Kirk has been pretty sheltered, he's never really seen this kind of animosity, a crowd of atheists . . . . ."

Obviously, that's exactly the kind of crowd Kirk needs to be standing in if he's a true advocate.

Here's the Nightline page where you can look over the debate and leave comments.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

Cowperson

[Eagle Eye]

Wow some of those comments are hilarious

Like this one

"There is so much evidence that God exists that you would have to be insane not to see it. It is impossible to even imagine that this world in all its complexities one day was created from a dust particle and "bang" here we are. Is it a coincidence that we are the perfect distance from the sun that we may all survive? Come on... We were stratigically placed here by a loving God."

or this one

"The fact that these atheists are so bitter towards God proves that they believe God is real. If God were fake, why would they be so bitter at someone who doesn't exist? I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but I don't spend my entire life disproving his existence. No, these so-called "atheists" do believe in God. That's why they're mad!"

[CaptainCrunch]

I really strongly disliked both sides, there was very little civility in this debate from all sides, and the audience was comprised of the lowest common Jerry Springer denomination.

I never begrudge people thier faith, and I have a ton of respect for people that do believe in a god, in Jesus and the holy ghost, and if they want to center thier lives around thier beliefs and if it makes them better people then all power to them.

But the two idiots from the National Response Squad were sitting thier in all of thier smugness, calling Cameron an idiot under thier breath, really kind of pissed me off. Not because they attacked the mans beliefs, but because they resorted to personal attacks.

And the woman in the audience with the cancer question who couldn't respect anyone enough to shut her mouth and listen to the answer.

Really Nightline becaume the Rivera show last night, the only thing that we were missing were hemaphordite Klansmen, and incest related amputee albino cousins.

Personally, I don't think that there has to be absolute hard proof that god exists for people to believe in him.

There's an old line, that sometimes you just have to have faith.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But the two idiots from the National Response Squad were sitting thier in all of thier smugness, calling Cameron an idiot under thier breath, really kind of pissed me off. Not because they attacked the mans beliefs, but because they resorted to personal attacks.

Actually, I think the gentleman atheist fanatic called Cameron "numbnuts" under his breath at one point . . . . . and I have to admit I burst out laughing because it was so unexpected.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Actually, I think the gentleman atheist fanatic called Cameron "numbnuts" under his breath at one point . . . . . and I have to admit I burst out laughing because it was so unexpected.

Cowperson

I don't know Cow, I've always been taught that even if you don't respect a mans beliefs you respect the man for having his beliefs.

And when he called Cameron Numbnuts, which was an obvious play for the camera and Glory, It came across to me that this guy was about to make a weak point, and was trying to cover it up.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know Cow, I've always been taught that even if you don't respect a mans beliefs you respect the man for having his beliefs.

And when he called Cameron Numbnuts, which was an obvious play for the camera and Glory, It came across to me that this guy was about to make a weak point, and was trying to cover it up.

We will differ on the interpretation . . . . . Cameron said something goofy (my bias) to the audience and the "numbnuts" comment seemed spontaneous, a surprised ejaculation at low volume and addressed to his sparsely dressed colleague rather than the audience in general.

Certainly disrespectful but, let's face it, both sides entered the debate having no respect for the positions of the other.

Nor should they . . . . . obviously no one can prove God doesn't exist anymore than they can prove he - or she or it - does.

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I saw a few things in this "Debate" that I found quite interesting from both sides.

Firstly, why the hell would these guys want to debate with the people from the rational response squad. Why not try to have this dabate with people who actually have some background in evolution, or any science for that matter. Of course you're going to get a debate that spirals into personal attacks when you are debating with people who's best response is "I'd rather burn in hell, then worship a megalomaniacle god in heaven". Stick to the subject people, opinion shouldn't come into a "Scientific debate" and in that sense Kirk and the banana lovin yahoo next to him got what they wanted, to portray the athiests as angry and bitter.

Secondly, Kirk and the BLY used the analogy of the painting as evidence of the painter, and so this can logically be extended to God creating the universe. Okay fine, let's say I accept your arguement as correct. For this to be a "Scientific" arguement as you claim it to be, then it must apply in all cases. Therefore if we can conclude that God exists by this principle, then we can also conclude that someone created God. Since God exists, this is clearly evidence that God had a creator, and that means that God's creator had a creator and so on. But then who created the Creator's Creator's Creator? When your premis breaks down that easily there is something wrong with it.

Finally, I laughed my ass off at the bullfrog, and the crocoduck. Those were gold. Nothing like completely misinterpreting one piece of a theory, and then comming up with an absurd picture to prove the theory wrong. Come on guys, if you really want to have a "Scientific" debate, at least show some intrest in keeping it scientific.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I saw a few things in this "Debate" that I found quite interesting from both sides.

Firstly, why the hell would these guys want to debate with the people from the rational response squad. Why not try to have this dabate with people who actually have some background in evolution, or any science for that matter. Of course you're going to get a debate that spirals into personal attacks when you are debating with people who's best response is "I'd rather burn in hell, then worship a megalomaniacle god in heaven". Stick to the subject people, opinion shouldn't come into a "Scientific debate" and in that sense Kirk and the banana lovin yahoo next to him got what they wanted, to portray the athiests as angry and bitter.

Secondly, Kirk and the BLY used the analogy of the painting as evidence of the painter, and so this can logically be extended to God creating the universe. Okay fine, let's say I accept your arguement as correct. For this to be a "Scientific" arguement as you claim it to be, then it must apply in all cases. Therefore if we can conclude that God exists by this principle, then we can also conclude that someone created God. Since God exists, this is clearly evidence that God had a creator, and that means that God's creator had a creator and so on. But then who created the Creator's Creator's Creator? When your premis breaks down that easily there is something wrong with it.

Finally, I laughed my ass off at the bullfrog, and the crocoduck. Those were gold. Nothing like completely misinterpreting one piece of a theory, and then comming up with an absurd picture to prove the theory wrong. Come on guys, if you really want to have a "Scientific" debate, at least show some intrest in keeping it scientific.

I actually would have rather seen this the god side being debated by actual Theologists instead of a couple of evangalists, because they would have debated from the fact that there are only two truths when it comes to religeous studies 1. God Exists 2. I am not him.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I actually would have rather seen this the god side being debated by actual Theologists instead of a couple of evangalists, because they would have debated from the fact that there are only two truths when it comes to religeous studies 1. God Exists 2. I am not him.

I agree, but that wouldn't be interesting, because rational scientists, and theologists, have kind of come to a truce. They let each other belive there own beliefs on whether or not there is a God, and they just go about their own way.

The Theoogist thinks there is a God, but he lets the scientists keep trying to figure out the way the universe works because they know it won't disprove the existance of God.

The Scientist thinks there is no God, but doesn't bother trying to disprove it because he knows he won't be able to convice the Theologist anyway.

But when you get Crazy, literal bible interpreting evangelicals, and zealous athiests, who look down on anyone with a little faith, the sparks are gonna fly, and that makes for good TV. Even if it produces very little in the way of understanding or tolerance.

[troutman]

Dawkins on the probability of God:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...l_b_32164.html

Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think, and here's why.

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

I think we can come close to proving that all the Gods we know of don't literally exist - that they were created by man. Whether or not there are (or were) some other kind of God(s) may be unknowable at this point in time, but according to Dawkins, this is a question we could answer scientifically in the future.

[JohnnyB]

What a depressing example of a debate on both sides. Both using flawed arguments, yet so consistently talking past each other that the flaws are never even confronted, or are confronted with more flawed arguments that totally miss the point.

What a horrible thing to watch!

[photon]

It wasn't a very good debate from either side, but Cameron and Comfort were TERRIBLE, at times looking stunned and having no idea what they could say.

The other guys didn't do a whole lot better.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally, I don't think that there has to be absolute hard proof that god exists for people to believe in him.

There's an old line, that sometimes you just have to have faith.

Well if there was proof, then it wouldn't be faith would it And in general I agree, the problem is that Comfort was saying they'd bring scientific proof of the existence of God, when all they brought was an infinite regression (creation means a creator, creator means a creator creator, a creator creator means a creator creator creator, etc).

If one's going to believe, then believe. But don't believe and then try to generate evidence using bad science to justify that belief.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Firstly, why the hell would these guys want to debate with the people from the rational response squad. Why not try to have this dabate with people who actually have some background in evolution, or any science for that matter.

Well mostly because people really in science won't lower themselves to this kind of debate, since it would in effect be saying that their position is legitimate. It's like getting a scientist to debate perpetual motion or debate the face on mars.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't a very good debate from either side, but Cameron and Comfort were TERRIBLE, at times looking stunned and having no idea what they could say.

The other guys didn't do a whole lot better.



Well if there was proof, then it wouldn't be faith would it And in general I agree, the problem is that Comfort was saying they'd bring scientific proof of the existence of God, when all they brought was an infinite regression (creation means a creator, creator means a creator creator, a creator creator means a creator creator creator, etc).

If one's going to believe, then believe. But don't believe and then try to generate evidence using bad science to justify that belief.



Well mostly because people really in science won't lower themselves to this kind of debate, since it would in effect be saying that their position is legitimate. It's like getting a scientist to debate perpetual motion or debate the face on mars.

On this board we respect the laws of thermodynamics