Kirk Cameron to Prove God's Existence Scientifically on ABC's Nightline

[Flannel Boy]

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/385522925.html

Cameron ("Growing Pains" sitcom and Left Behind movies) will speak on what he believes is a major catalyst for atheism: Darwinian evolution. The popular actor stated, "Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory. The issue of intelligent design is extremely relevant at the moment. Atheism has become very popular in universities--where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings. Cameron will also reveal what it was that convinced him that God did exist.

"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," Comfort added, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.

 

Kirk's evidence

[Madrun Badrun]

 

[CajoleJuice]

Funny, I just watched that banana video for the first time in a while last night.

[Madrun Badrun]

what banana video?

[Candyflip]

I'm so fed up with people. So sick of everyone. Between reading that giant White Nationalist forum and shit like this, I can't comprehend how even now people this ridiculous are still breathing.

[Flannel Boy]

what banana video?

Kirk Cameron proves that evolution is wrong with the help of fruit!

By the by Ashley Olson will prove that the mind is independent from the body on Dateline.

[Flannel Boy]

Father Mike http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[Phoenix Dark]

 

I do not support this

[Flannel Boy]

I do not support this

Oh, no?

[Phoenix Dark]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not

[Cheebs]

it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.

[Phoenix Dark]

it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.

How does that disprove the existance of a higher being though?

[Cheebs]

it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.

How does that disprove the existance of a higher being though?

I believe in God sir but cameron rambled about evolution, and creationism has no logical claim for the lack of human fossils alongside dino's other than "god placed them there to tempt us".

[Phoenix Dark]

it is scientifically proven that dino's did not live alongside humans within the same time frame thus negating the creationist viewpoint leaving only evolution as the alternative.

How does that disprove the existance of a higher being though?

I believe in God sir but cameron rambled about evolution, and creationism has no logical claim for the lack of human fossils alongside dino's other than "god placed them there to tempt us".

Has he actually said that? I've never heard that argument before you made it last week. It's very good in fact, and I honestly can't combat it

[brawndolicious]

You don't look for a solution with science, you just look at all the scientific possibilities for a problem and scientists only look for those possiblities because that's their job.

He didn't use fucking wild bananas.

[Phoenix Dark]

I can't wait to see this "undeniable" evidence. Personally I have a feeling it'll be embarrassing. Not as much as Banana-Gate, but close.

You don't challenge evolution with the Bible. You challenge it with science, and you have to have an understanding of the theory. There's no denying certain aspects of evolution, especially ones that can be clearly demonstrated like bug's resistance to sprays.

[captainbiotch]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.

He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.   

*I'm an athiest*

[Phoenix Dark]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.

He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.   

*I'm an athiest*

Yeah, I got that jest, and I've heard it for some time now. There is a lack of morals in this country imo, but I don't think that is what caused the shooting. You don't have to be a Christian to have the morals to realize shooting 32 people for nothing isn't "right". 

[captainbiotch]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.

He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.   

*I'm an athiest*

Yeah, I got that jest, and I've heard it for some time now. There is a lack of morals in this country imo, but I don't think that is what caused the shooting. You don't have to be a Christian to have the morals to realize shooting 32 people for nothing isn't "right". 

Not having moral absolutes means there is no good or evil.  Actions can be judged on whatever grounds value is placed on, if it is emotion, then emotion can justify killing 32 people.  To a psycho.  To most people, it'll just justify whatever stupid whimsical shit they feel like doing that day.

[Candyflip]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not

How does disbelief in a creator take faith?

[Phoenix Dark]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least.

He isn't blaming it on evolution necessarily, but on the predominant athiestic philosophies of today, which lack moral absolutes - they justify ethics on emotional or social grounds, which change with the wind.   

*I'm an athiest*

Yeah, I got that jest, and I've heard it for some time now. There is a lack of morals in this country imo, but I don't think that is what caused the shooting. You don't have to be a Christian to have the morals to realize shooting 32 people for nothing isn't "right". 

Not having moral absolutes means there is no good or evil.  Actions can be judged on whatever grounds value is placed on, if it is emotion, then emotion can justify killing 32 people.  To a psycho.  To most people, it'll just justify whatever stupid whimsical shit they feel like doing that day.

It's been confirmed that Cho was indeed a psycho.

[Flannel Boy]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not

If there is an absence of evidence for a given entity we are left with no reason to believe such an entity exists. The lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns doesn't make people agnostic on the issue of unicorns. Nobody claims it is a matter of faith. Yet God is different?

What would evidence that God does not exist even look like? The failure to find any evidence for God's existence is evidence that there's no reason to suppose such a being exists. There is no evidence that an elephant is sleeping in my room, this lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe that there is an elephant in my bed.

God offers no explanatory power, makes the universe less coherent, and many of the traditional definitions are inconsistent. There is NO reason to believe such a being exists.

[Madrun Badrun]

Father Mike http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

O shit I've seen that before.  lol.  can't wait for ABC show. 

[Flannel Boy]

Father Mike http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

O shit I've seen that before.  lol.  can't wait for ABC show. 

It will be kind of painful.

[Phoenix Dark]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not

If there is an absence of evidence for a given entity we are left with no reason to believe such an entity exists. The lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns doesn't make people agnostic on the issue of unicorns. Nobody claims it is a matter of faith. Yet God is different?

What would evidence that God does not exist even look like? The failure to find any evidence for God's existence is evidence that there's no reason to suppose such a being exists. There is no evidence that an elephant is sleeping in my room, this lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe that there is an elephant in my bed.

God offers no explanatory power, makes the universe less coherent, and many of the traditional definitions are inconsistent. There is NO reason to believe such a being exists.

The problem with your analagies is that you're comparing beings of weight and matter (physical things we can touch and see) to something that is not physical. We simply don't know whether there is a higher being or not, and it's not hard to imagine why we wouldn't find evidence of his existant.

Can we definitely say there is no such thing as life in outer space?

[Phoenix Dark]

[youtube=425,350]aLqQttJinjo[/youtube]
hm

[Flannel Boy]

Blaming the school shootings on evolution teaching is beyond a stretch, to say the very least. It'll be interesting to see how they "prove" god exists scientifically. Personally I don't think it's possible to prove he exists or doesn't exist through science - which is why I find many of these "I proved God doesn't exist" types to be annoying. No one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being doesn't exist. Likewise, no one can say without a shadow of a doubt that a higher being does exist. It comes down to faith on both sides, whether athiests will admit it or not

If there is an absence of evidence for a given entity we are left with no reason to believe such an entity exists. The lack of evidence for the existence of unicorns doesn't make people agnostic on the issue of unicorns. Nobody claims it is a matter of faith. Yet God is different?

What would evidence that God does not exist even look like? The failure to find any evidence for God's existence is evidence that there's no reason to suppose such a being exists. There is no evidence that an elephant is sleeping in my room, this lack of evidence is reason enough not to believe that there is an elephant in my bed.

God offers no explanatory power, makes the universe less coherent, and many of the traditional definitions are inconsistent. There is NO reason to believe such a being exists.

The problem with your analagies is that you're comparing beings of weight and matter (physical things we can touch and see) to something that is not physical. We simply don't know whether there is a higher being or not, and it's not hard to imagine why we wouldn't find evidence of his existant.

Can we definitely say there is no such thing as life in outer space?

Quick name all the beings that exist that are not composed of matter:

...


Just because the concept of God is often defined as a being that is beyond space and time, there is no reason to suppose there is an actual spaceless being. That is, 'spaceless being' is a vacuous predicate that does not denote a single being. It is doubly vacuous because there is no evidence such property could even be had in principle.


There is evidence that would lead one to believe that life on other planets is likely (billions of planets, evidence that life once existed on the closest planet to our own). There is no evidence that would lead you to believe that there is omnipotent and omnibenevelant being. Just the opposite (see Hume and Epicurus).

[Phoenix Dark]

I believe in nearly every legendary beast.

[Flannel Boy]

I believe in nearly every legendary beast.

ok

[Phoenix Dark]

If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them

[Flannel Boy]

If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them

Good thing for you that, according to a new study, IQ and wealth are not correlated.*



*study is bunk

[demi]

I think there is life in outer space. I doubt our planet is the only one being inhabited. This whole God thing is another story, though.

[Phoenix Dark]

If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them

Good thing for you that, according to a new study, IQ and wealth are not correlated.*



*study is bunk

yeaaaaahhhh

[Candyflip]

If I was rich I'd spend my money looking for them

Good thing for you that, according to a new study, IQ and wealth are not correlated.*



*study is bunk

(Image removed from quote.)
yeaaaaahhhh

[Lonestar]

That fucking video gets me everytime.   

[CajoleJuice]

That fucking video gets me everytime.   

Behold! THE ATHEIST'S NIGHTMARE

[Cheebs]

I believe in nearly every legendary beast.

big foot? you believe in big foot?

[Scurvy Stan]

If science is a lie than how would using science prove anything since the proof is lies!?

[Flannel Boy]

If science is a lie than how would using science prove anything since the proof is lies!?

That's because evolution is a pseudo-science. --Kirk Cameron and Phoenix Dark

[Phoenix Dark]

If science is a lie than how would using science prove anything since the proof is lies!?

It would be like nothing becoming something

[Yeti]

I believe in nearly every legendary beast.

big foot? you believe in big foot?

 

[Flannel Boy]

We have Kirk's proof. He ditches the banana for a can of coke.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14055

His associate uses William Paley's watchmaker argument, but replaces the watch with a can of coke! It's 2007, stop being so silly!



A coke can is designed
The universe is more complicated than a can of coke
Therefore the universe was designed, and it was designed by God.

lol

[captainbiotch]

 

[etiolate]

"Soda makers put a tab on top of soda cans, so God thought thats a good idea and put a tab on bananas"

wtf

This is really dumbed down.

[Mupepe]

"Soda makers put a tab on top of soda cans, so God thought thats a good idea and put a tab on bananas"

wtf

This is really dumbed down.

[Scurvy Stan]

I hope this is a joke.

[Flannel Boy]

bump for PD

[Phoenix Dark]

Thank you omg

Ok, my question: Basically Kirk brings up the tired argument about the watch looking complex, therefore it was created, therefore it has a creator, etc; he used the idea of a camera instead though and compared it to the eye, but you get it: same thing.

It's not hard for me to see that this is a fallacy, despite my biases. But how would you respond to that claim? I'm watching the debate right now and it seems like both sides aren't that capible of explaining their postions

[Flannel Boy]

Thank you omg

Ok, my question: Basically Kirk brings up the tired argument about the watch looking complex, therefore it was created, therefore it has a creator, etc; he used the idea of a camera instead though and compared it to the eye, but you get it: same thing.

It's not hard for me to see that this is a fallacy, despite my biases. But how would you respond to that claim? I'm watching the debate right now and it seems like both sides aren't that capible of explaining their postions

Since I'm lazy, I'll copy and paste what I posted at OA


We can posit a camera maker because we know through experience how cameras are made. We have no such experience of the universe. We have no experience of universe-makers like we have of camera-makers or watch makers. Furthermore cameras are made by many people working at once, if one is to follow the analogy to its logical conclusion, then the universe was created by many intelligent beings. Also since the universe contains many imperfections (that is unless you consider parasites, cancer, and natural disasters to be perfect) we can conclude that the designer(s) is not perfect either.

All the above criticism were made by Hume, almost 300 years ago!

The biggest problem with the analogy is that we know a camera needs a designer because it is an artifact, created by human beings. There is no evidence that the universe or the eye is an artifact. We distinguish an artifact from a natural object not by the end of the object, for a hammer and a rock can both be used for the same end, but by the evidence of the machinery and the materials from which the objects are made. There is no evidence that eyes were created by an intelligent designer, but we have plenty of evidence that it was created by a natural process over hundreds of millions of years.

[Phoenix Dark]

Thank you omg

Ok, my question: Basically Kirk brings up the tired argument about the watch looking complex, therefore it was created, therefore it has a creator, etc; he used the idea of a camera instead though and compared it to the eye, but you get it: same thing.

It's not hard for me to see that this is a fallacy, despite my biases. But how would you respond to that claim? I'm watching the debate right now and it seems like both sides aren't that capible of explaining their postions

Since I'm lazy, I'll copy and paste what I posted at OA


We can posit a camera maker because we know through experience how cameras are made. We have no such experience of the universe. We have no experience of universe-makers like we have of camera-makers or watch makers. Furthermore cameras are made by many people working at once, if one is to follow the analogy to its logical conclusion, then the universe was created by many intelligent beings. Also since the universe contains many imperfections (that is unless you consider parasites, cancer, and natural disasters to be perfect) we can conclude that the designer(s) is not perfect either.

All the above criticism were made by Hume, almost 300 years ago!

The biggest problem with the analogy is that we know a camera needs a designer because it is an artifact, created by human beings. There is no evidence that the universe or the eye is an artifact. We distinguish an artifact from a natural object not by the end of the object, for a hammer and a rock can both be used for the same end, but by the evidence of the machinery and the materials from which the objects are made. There is no evidence that eyes were created by an intelligent designer, but we have plenty of evidence that it was created by a natural process over hundreds of millions of years.

What if we discovered some type of creation unknown to us, something never seen before. Would it be logical to assume that it had a creator, or that it just appeared?

[Van Cruncheon]

it would be logical to operate from the position that we don't know shit and shouldn't be surprised when proof of our ignorance is revealed. accepting that, the basic tools of science can be engaged to determine how it originated.

home schooling may have provided all the answers, pd; the real world, however, does not.

[brawndolicious]

the first thing we would take an interest in in a being we've never seen before would be whether or not it has a creator when we can't prove that for ourselves?

[Phoenix Dark]

it would be logical to operate from the position that we don't know shit and shouldn't be surprised when proof of our ignorance is revealed. accepting that, the basic tools of science can be engaged to determine how it originated.

home schooling may have provided all the answers, pd; the real world, however, does not.

What is that ignorance though?

I find it hard to believe that if we did indeed find an object so alien and unknown to us that we couldn't explain it's creation, it would be logical to believe it just appeared. But at the same time I understand your position that we could also say we don't know where it came from, and study it instead of jumping to conclusions right away - which, I'll be fair, is what I'm doing

[Flannel Boy]

What if we discovered some type of creation unknown to us, something never seen before. Would it be logical to assume that it had a creator, or that it just appeared?

Well obviously that depends on the object. Anthropologists and archaeologists have their own criteria and I'm sure they come against this problem all the time. The thing is, the universe is not in itself an artifact, that much we can be sure of. The universe can be explained through a natural process, and the positing of a God does not help explain the universe one bit.

What is that ignorance though?

I find it hard to believe that if we did indeed find an object so alien and unknown to us that we couldn't explain it's creation, it would be logical to believe it just appeared. But at the same time I understand your position that we could also say we don't know where it came from, and study it instead of jumping to conclusions right away - which, I'll be fair, is what I'm doing

Artifacts are created by beings with bodies that can manipulate natural objects. If we found an alien object, an artifact, that humans did not create, God would not be much of an explanation for the object in question.

[Candyflip]

I've actually got a question. Why's there always this war between evolution and creationism? I don't really understand how evolution entirely disproves creationism, or rather that it proves that we could exist without a god. I do not have a firm grasp on evolution by any means, but where did cells come from? How did all this shit come from nothing?

[Flannel Boy]

I've actually got a question. Why's there always this war between evolution and creationism? I don't really understand how evolution entirely disproves creationism, or rather that it proves that we could exist without a god. I do not have a firm grasp on evolution by any means, but where did cells come from? How did all this shit come from nothing?

One can believe in God and evolution. However one can not believe in creationism and evolution as the two positions contradict each other in many obvious respects.

[Candyflip]

I've actually got a question. Why's there always this war between evolution and creationism? I don't really understand how evolution entirely disproves creationism, or rather that it proves that we could exist without a god. I do not have a firm grasp on evolution by any means, but where did cells come from? How did all this shit come from nothing?

One can believe in God and evolution. However one can not believe in creationism and evolution as the two positions contradict each other in many obvious respects.

Yes, but how? Evolution strives to provide a logical explanation for the development of life, and how all life came to be. But so far all I've seen is how everything moved on from a certain point. Again, I'm not well versed on the subject at all. I'm reading the Blind Watchmaker at the moment.

[Phoenix Dark]

Artifacts are created by beings with bodies that can manipulate natural objects. If we found an alien object, an artifact, that humans did not create, God would not be much of an explanation for the object in question.

I'm not suggesting, or jumping to the conclusion that "God" created this artifact though. He wouldn't be the only possible creator for such an unknown artifact, correct?

Well obviously that depends on the object. Anthropologists and archaeologists have their own criteria and I'm sure they come against this problem all the time. The thing is, the universe is not in itself an artifact, that much we can be sure of. The universe can be explained through a natural process, and the positing of a God does not help explain the universe one bit.

When we talk of the creation of the universe we aren't talking about evolution, correct? Now that we are off the issue of evolution though, how is the creation of the universe explained? In the video it was suggested that it has simply always been there in one degree or another, and just has gone through changes from phenomenas such as the big bang. Why is it logical to suggest that the universe has simply been around forever, but illogical to suggest a higher being has been around forever? Both arguments seem to be based on the idea that a particular thing - a universe or a higher being - have been around forever, and have no beginning or (presumably) end

[Candyflip]

When we talk of the creation of the universe we aren't talking about evolution, correct? Now that we are off the issue of evolution though, how is the creation of the universe explained? In the video it was suggested that it has simply always been there in one degree or another, and just has gone through changes from phenomenas such as the big bang. Why is it logical to suggest that the universe has simply been around forever, but illogical to suggest a higher being has been around forever? Both arguments seem to be based on the idea that a particular thing - a universe or a higher being - have been around forever, and have no beginning or (presumably) end

Uhh, IIRC it's pretty commonly agreed upon that the universe did have a beginning, IE it didn't exist forever. "Something came from nothing." Remember Hawking's lecture?

[Human Snorenado]

Whoa look out everybody, Pee Dee was the homeschool valedictorian.