You are NOT on the DirtyGreek.Org homepage. Please CLICK HERE to go there.
Well, you can see video of the debate here and here, if you really want to. However, I don't know if it's worth your time.
The premise of the debate was that Kirk Cameron (show me that smile again) and Ray Comfort (bananas are the atheist's nightmare) said they could prove, scientifically, the existence of god. They also said they could do it without using the bible or faith. Well, in that, they failed. Comfort failed in the first few minutes by discussing heaven, hell, and the ten commandments. He even quotes the bible - even though the whole point was NOT to quote the bible. The RRS didn't do a great job - there are much better atheists for this job - but they still won.
Comfort and Cameron did what they shouldn't ever try to do - prove god using "science." You can't prove god using science; you'll always lose. If you want to believe in god, you can't use science as proof. For instance, they made the "there's no paint without a painter, and there's no building without a builder, etc" argument. The RRS responded that by that logic, since god exists and is perfect, he also must have had a creator. That's true, using the Christians' arguments, but what was their response? "God doesn't count in that argument, because god is outside of time." The intellectual vapidity of such illogical arguments makes my blood boil.
The point of the debate was that Cameron and Comfort said they could offer scientific proof that god exists while not relying on faith or the bible. The RRS said they'd be glad to debate them on their points. Cameron and Comfort were there to prove their points, and the RRS was there to argue against their points. There was almost nothing in that entire debate that involved "arguing opinions." They were arguing science - Comfort and Cameron using mangled, faith-based and bible-based pseudoscience and the RRS trying their best to inject logic into the debate. I must say, however, that I was actually impressed with how LITTLE it involved opinion.
I think it's clear, once you've watched this "debate," that Comfort and Cameron never intended to prove god's existence scientifically, even though that's specifically what they said they were there to do. In fact, their reason for the debate was to get free airtime to preach on ABC. In that respect, they won, and they probably scored some converts or at least got close.
|
