The ABC Debate: Comments Please

[Servant222]

This is a thread for Christians who took the time to watch the debate between Christians Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort versus atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly.

Here is the link to the entire on-line video: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3156022

There is another thread on the Theology forum for this at http://www.christianforums.com/t5332621-face-off-does-god-exist.html, but I would like to reserve this thread for comments related to the scientific aspects of the debate as they relate to a Christian.

So what did you think?

 

[juvenissun]

This is a thread for Christians who took the time to watch the debate between Christians Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort versus atheists Brian Sapient and Kelly.

Here is the link to the entire on-line video: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3156022

There is another thread on the Theology forum for this at http://www.christianforums.com/t5332621-face-off-does-god-exist.html, but I would like to reserve this thread for comments related to the Creation vs Evolution aspects of the debate.

So what did you think?

Have something from nothing is logically impossible to prove.

Now we think the universe will NOT collapse back to singularity. The time we know is a straight line, not a loop. This recognition enhances the believe of creation.

 

[Servant222]

So by our narrow definition of science, a single event like the creation of the Universe can't be measured or repeated, or the Universe Factory examined, so it can't be real.

So that infinite order and complexity that we see from the flowers at our feet to the stars in the heavens above us must be a figment of my imagination.

Yeh right.

Thank you God for giving me eyes that can see, and a brain that can reason.

 

[Mallon]

I really don't think ABC could have picked worse people to defend the atheism/religeous viewpoints. They certainly couldn't have picked more extreme vocalists. The Cameron/Comfort team was especially appalling. "Croc-duck"? "Bull-dog"? Talk about doing Christianity a huge disservice.
The atheistic folk, whom I haven't even heard of, didn't fair much better, in my mind.

 

[Servant222]

Talk about doing Christianity a huge disservice.

I agree. And that is why it is so important that people like yourself with specialized knowledge continue to patiently take the time to explain the science to fellow Christians. Please don't get discouraged- souls are at stake.

The atheistic folk, whom I haven't even heard of, didn't fair much better, in my mind.

Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Assyrian]

Did someone in ABC watch Kirk Cameron's banana video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 and think "Here's some who can really make Christians look like idiots"?

 

[hithesh]

So what did you think?

I thought it was an utter embarrassment. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort seem like nice guys, but they made fools out of themselves by their poor understanding of science.

A transitional form: A frog with Bull Horns?

 

[Servant222]

Ray Comfort started the debate by holding up a Coca Cola can, and then a copy of the Mona Lisa, and then making the point that we absolutely know these items are made by an intelligent process- that never in a million years could a Coke can be accidently formed, filled with liquid, and then labelled. So if a Coke can is clearly not an accident, then how could the infinitely more complex Universe be an accident? This is the "watchmaker" argument- a watch implies the work of an intelligent watchmaker.

Brian and Kelly responded by saying that one can investigate the production of a Coke, one can watch the process of an artist producing a masterpiece painting, but that the process that created the Universe cannot be seen or repeated- we can't go over to the Universe factory and see it in action.

I thought that Ray's opening presentation was quite convincing, but would like to hear from those of you who are scientists whether his argument is scientific and, if not, exactly why not. In essence what Ray was saying is that, statistically, the order in the Universe is proof positive that it wasn't produced by accident, so therefore, it must have been created.

 

[Servant222]

This point is important to me because the realization that the world and all its natural beauty could not possibly have been the result of an accident is the earliest recollection I have as a child- and the first recollection I have of believing in God. I remember at the time thinking that the notion of an accidentally-formed universe was absolutely preposterous- that, of course, it had to be created by God.

 

[crawfish]

Thanks for the link.

I don't like Cameron/Comfort's methods. Their confrontational style is designed to polarize, not evangelize. Whatever truth they might communicate is wrapped in a disturbing message.

 

[Citanul]

In essence what Ray was saying is that, statistically, the order in the Universe is proof positive that it wasn't produced by accident, so therefore, it must have been created.

The problem with trying to give a statistical proof that the universe was created is that you need to have some prior knowledge about various things. For example, in order to calculate the probability that the universe was created by accident given the order we see, you'd need to know the joint probability of the the universe being created by accident and us seeing order, and also the probability of seeing order.

There are other ways you could state the problem, but all those that I can think of right now (and it's Friday evening - I'm not prepared to think too hard ) involve the use of items like that. And there's simply no way of calculating those probabilities.

In general, the way you would determine probabilities of events occurring is to look at the results of past events/experiments. Which brings us back to the point about not being able to see or repeat the creation of the universe.

So to sum it up - it's not really possible to statistically prove the existence of a creator. You can argue that the evidence points to one, but I can't think of a way that you can realistically prove that one exists.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

This point is important to me because the realization that the world and all its natural beauty could not possibly have been the result of an accident is the earliest recollection I have as a child- and the first recollection I have of believing in God. I remember at the time thinking that the notion of an accidentally-formed universe was absolutely preposterous- that, of course, it had to be created by God.

In my opinion, the universe needs a random factor to it for Christianity to be correct.

Christianity depends on humans having free will to choose between right and wrong. Humans are so tied to the universe, that if there is not a randomness to the universe, then free will is an illusion, invalidating Christianity.

I believe that God gave not only us, but the universe itself free will, call it accidents, random events, whatever, but it is absolutely necessary for Christianity that the universe is free as much as we are.

 

[hithesh]

I thought that Ray's opening presentation was quite convincing, but would like to hear from those of you who are scientists whether his argument is scientific and, if not, exactly why not. In essence what Ray was saying is that, statistically, the order in the Universe is proof positive that it wasn't produced by accident, so therefore, it must have been created.

I don't think the way to lead anyone to Jesus is by telling them look how complex the world is, therefore their must be a "God." While this type of method might strengthen the faith of those who already believe, it does little for those who do not believe.

As an individual who has spent a lot of time with unbelievers, unbelief is not irrational, as us believers would like to assume. I myself was an unbeliever until recently, but my unbelief did not stem from science, but by christianity.

If I was to decide if God existed, by what I see in vocal christianity, that fills the airwaves of TBN, and radio, I would say that God does not exist also.

When I read the gospel for the first time, it was a life changing message to me, and one of sadness, because I wondered where has this message been all my life?

 

[Mallon]

I thought that Ray's opening presentation was quite convincing, but would like to hear from those of you who are scientists whether his argument is scientific and, if not, exactly why not. In essence what Ray was saying is that, statistically, the order in the Universe is proof positive that it wasn't produced by accident, so therefore, it must have been created.

I think there's some ground to be gained by arguing for the validity of God via ultimate cause/effect relationships or randomness or what have you. Miller certainly tried taking this route in his discussion of quantum physics in his book. It's important to remember that these are still philosophical/theological arguments, however, and not to mistake them for science. It is equally important not to trap yourself in a god-of-the-gaps argument, limiting God's creative powers to the distant, immeasurable past.

 

[gluadys]

In my opinion, the universe needs a random factor to it for Christianity to be correct.

Christianity depends on humans having free will to choose between right and wrong. Humans are so tied to the universe, that if there is not a randomness to the universe, then free will is an illusion, invalidating Christianity.

I believe that God gave not only us, but the universe itself free will, call it accidents, random events, whatever, but it is absolutely necessary for Christianity that the universe is free as much as we are.

I have held to this opinion since the 1960s when the Student Christian Movement at our university held a Mission Week. One of the seminars was conducted by a Christian chemist on the topic of Chance and Providence. It convinced me that a measure of chance in the universe was a necessary implication of creation and providence.

 

[lucaspa]

So what did you think?

The creationists are idiots and did a great deal of harm to Christianity!

You can't prove the existence of God by science. All you can do is discredit theism this way.

Trying to tell us that evolution is a "fairytale" is self-defeating. It sets God vs God, and God can only lose.

With "friends" like these, Christianity doesn't need any enemies.

 

[gluadys]

This point is important to me because the realization that the world and all its natural beauty could not possibly have been the result of an accident is the earliest recollection I have as a child- and the first recollection I have of believing in God. I remember at the time thinking that the notion of an accidentally-formed universe was absolutely preposterous- that, of course, it had to be created by God.

Of course a theistic evolutionist would never suggest the universe was accidentally formed and not created.

That's the real problem in this and similar debates: equating science with atheism, so it looks like a Christian must be anti-science.

It would be wonderful if ABC would organize a debate between atheists and theists who accept science. But most of the media want to exploit the controversy of the extremes and leave out moderate positions.

I relate to your childhood perception. Another reason I believe in God is that I could never accept that this beauty (and all the beauty of human art and imagination as well) was produced only to be finally obliterated in the ultimate heat death of the universe. Neither a meaningless beginning nor a meaningless end makes any sense to me.

 

[lucaspa]

Ray Comfort started the debate by holding up a Coca Cola can, and then a copy of the Mona Lisa, and then making the point that we absolutely know these items are made by an intelligent process- that never in a million years could a Coke can be accidently formed, filled with liquid, and then labelled. So if a Coke can is clearly not an accident, then how could the infinitely more complex Universe be an accident? This is the "watchmaker" argument- a watch implies the work of an intelligent watchmaker. ...
I thought that Ray's opening presentation was quite convincing, but would like to hear from those of you who are scientists whether his argument is scientific and, if not, exactly why not. In essence what Ray was saying is that, statistically, the order in the Universe is proof positive that it wasn't produced by accident, so therefore, it must have been created.

The atheists are just as dumb. They are misusing science just as badly. Science is agnostic, not atheist.

Ray set up a false dichotomy: accident or manufacture by an intelligent agent.

There is a third choice: unintelligent processes that are not "chance" but are not intelligent.

The order of the universe allows you to hypothesize that it comes because God created it this way.

BUT, there are unintelligent processes in the universe that give not only order but design. For instance, gravity is not intelligent, but it doesn't operate by chance and it gives the order we see in galaxies, stars, and planets. Chemical interactions give the order we see among molecules. Getting water from the combustion of oxygen and hydrogen is not accident, but it's also not manufacture by an intelligent entity.

Similarly, natural selection is an unintelligent process that gives the designs in living organisms.

 

[lucaspa]

In my opinion, the universe needs a random factor to it for Christianity to be correct.

Christianity depends on humans having free will to choose between right and wrong. Humans are so tied to the universe, that if there is not a randomness to the universe, then free will is an illusion, invalidating Christianity.

I believe that God gave not only us, but the universe itself free will, call it accidents, random events, whatever, but it is absolutely necessary for Christianity that the universe is free as much as we are.

It's not so much "random factor", but an open future. If the universe is strictly deterministic, then I agree that Christianity is toast. It's all a big sham and we are all puppets being controlled by the past.

However, one thing that keeps science agnostic is that you can have non-random unintelligent processes. Servant and Ray Comfort look at just 2 possibilities:

1. Random.
2. Manufacture by an intelligent entity.

They overlook that third possibility: non-random unintelligent processes.

Christianity, ironically, does not overlook that. Instead, a cornerstone of Christianity is that God sustains the universe. This is the idea that none of the intelligent processes work unless God wills them to do so.

Cameron is theologically ignorant -- dangerously so.

 

[Servant222]

The creationists are idiots and did a great deal of harm to Christianity!

You can't prove the existence of God by science. All you can do is discredit theism this way.

Trying to tell us that evolution is a "fairytale" is self-defeating. It sets God vs God, and God can only lose.

With "friends" like these, Christianity doesn't need any enemies.

Although I value your comment, I don't think it was necessary to use language that belittles a Christian brother, or for that matter, anyone.

I think you could strengthen your point by removing language that might be interpreted to be offensive (just hit the "edit" button). One test is to ask yourself "what would I say if I was face-to-face with the person I am talking about, and that person was my best friend?".