God's Existence To Be Proven!!!!

[Montez]

Since we're below our quota of religion discussions at the moment....

http://www.christianpost.com/articl..._Challenges_Atheists_to_Bible-Less_Debate.htm

NEW YORK – A prominent Christian best-selling author is asserting that he can prove the existence of God without using the Bible, and has challenged two atheists to a debate.

Ray Comfort, author of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, alongside fellow Christian and actor Kirk Cameron (Growing Pains) will butt heads with two ardent nonbelievers using only scientific fact in a debate sponsored by ABC. Comfort says that the evidence will “absolutely” confirm that there is a God, and he will not speak about his faith.

"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," explained Comfort in a statement, "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.”

The debate is in reaction to the “Blasphemy Challenge” that started late in 2006. The two creators of the movement encouraged all people to tape themselves with a short message that will “damn themselves to hell.” Participants must recite the line "I deny the Holy Spirit,” and then upload their video onto YouTube.

Comfort and Cameron felt that these two would be some of the most difficult people to convince that God does indeed exist, so contacted them about having a discussion.

ABC has said that they will film the debate, which will take place on May 5 in New York City, and will stream it live on their website as well as use footage for their program Nightline. Martin Bashir, co-anchor of Nightline, will moderate the event.

Cameron will use the event to also speak out against evolution, which he thinks is not credible and a major contributor to the growth in atheism.

"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,” said the former television star in a statement. “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.”

Comfort felt impelled to hold the debate, because he is worried about the state of Christianity around the world, especially in Europe. According to a Zukerman study, in Sweden as many as 85 percent of the population are non-believers; Japan has 65 percent; France with 54 percent; and 44 percent of British citizens do not believe in God.

The Christian writer also noted that there is a genuine attack against Christian beliefs, more than other religions.

"[T]here is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God,” concluded the author. “Why would so many be so bitter against Christianity in particular? Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi? We made our own video clip and posted it on www.Hollywoodblasphemy.com to expose why."

Comfort has spoken at several atheist events, one in which he was a platform speaker at the 2001 convention for the American Atheists, Inc.

 

[Brother None]

Uh-oh, and this mere hours after we unbanned alec. Bound to be trouble, heh.

also, I'm going to assume his "scientific debate" is going to be more paradigm-locked attempts at proving the unproveable.

I actually think it's a mistake of religious people when they "lower themselves" to the level of their opponents. You're a faith, and people come from the outside demanding that your faith has to fit their perception of what is true and what isn't, and that it must follow their logic.

Why play their game? What do you care? The paradigm is different and there's no reason to believe you can prove something which requires a different belief-structure.

Ah well.

Evolution is unscientific.

Evolution is indeed unproven on a macro-evolutionary scale. It's also more or less unprovable on a macro-evolutionary scale. On that scale, creationism is as valid a scientific theory.

My argument is that given two equal and equally unproveable theories, I prefer the one of which I know the pre-set motivations of formulation weren't to prove the formulators beliefs.

Discuss.

 

[Wooz]

Uh-oh, and this mere hours after we unbanned alec. Bound to be trouble, heh.

My thoughts exactly. I'm beggining to think Montez did this on purpose.

Evolution is indeed unproven on a macro-evolutionary scale. It's also more or less unprovable on a macro-evolutionary scale.

Care to develop?

My argument is that given two equal and equally unproveable theories, I prefer the one of which I know the pre-set motivations of formulation weren't to prove the formulators beliefs.

The difference being that evolution has been proven on minor, local scales (See: Galapagos), and there's substantial genetic evidence we have a lot in common with other primates.

Whereas the scientific proofs that God created men out of mud are, uhm.

Zilch.

 

[Brother None]

Care to develop?

How? There is no possible experimental test possible for evolution on a macro-level, unless you want to populate Mars and see what it does in the coming 1000 years.

Technically, I think abiogenesis is even still unproven, but I might be wrong.

The difference being that evolution has been proven on minor, local scales (See: Galapagos), and there's substantial genetic evidence we have a lot in common with other primates.

Whereas the scientific proofs that God created men out of mud are, uhm.

Zilch.

I'm not talking about where man came from, I'm talking about Creationism as an evolutionary model. To explain what we've seen on a macro-evolutionary scale, they're more or less scientifically equal, as far as I know, because there are models that fit both that can explain all macro-evolutions that have been proven.

 

[Wooz]

How? There is no possible experimental test possible for evolution on a macro-level, unless you want to populate Mars and see what it does in the coming 1000 years.

True, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the possibility that the evolutionary processes that have been proven to happen on a smaller-scale model are similar on a larger scale.

I'm not talking about where man came from, I'm talking about Creationism as an evolutionary model.

Creationism is an evolutionary model?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. As far as I remember, it would imply that God created all species simultaneously, at some point in the past. Which would invalidate the fact that new species have been created by man, not to mention the massive amounts of dating carbon-14 fossils, the reptile origin of birds, eckcetra.

to explain what we've seen on a macro-evolutionary scale, they're more or less scientifically equal, as far as I know, because there are models that fit both that can explain all macro-evolutions that have been proven.

Would you mind describing them, or giving a link to a detailed description of said models?


On another note, the subject reminds me of the Polish government's new policy on education (yes, creationism, amongst other brilliant ideas), but also reminds me of this:

 

[Brother None]

True, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the possibility that the evolutionary processes that have been proven to happen on a smaller-scale model are similar on a larger scale.

I didn't say that, I said it didn't prove it.

Creationism is an evolutionary model?

Sure. No matter what Wikipedia says, Creationism isn't actually limited to either theist or Biblical Creationism, it isn't just "God put all men on earth, period", it's also a model that can not be disproved (and don't forget, in science anything is valid until it is disproved) as long as there is only micro-evolutionary evidence for Darwin's model.

That's not to say I believe in Creationism, certainly not as it is expounded by muslim and Christian extermists, but neither am I capable to state that the model his been disproved on a macro-evolutionary level.

Would you mind describing them, or giving a link to a detailed description of said models?

I honestly don't feel like it. Wikipedia might explain it to some level, for all I know. I'm not exactly well-read on this, anyway, and since there are way too many models of Creationism, I'm sure there are also plenty of dumb contradictory ones.

 

[SuAside]

"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," explained Comfort in a statement, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith.”

and I equate believing that there is a god and above that believing that you know what such a supreme being would want you to do makes you a pompous ass.

“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.”

zomg! atheism leads to school shootings!

great... another thing to complete the list of rock music, short skirts, tv, videogames, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Comfort felt impelled to hold the debate, because he is worried about the state of Christianity around the world, especially in Europe. According to a Zukerman study, in Sweden as many as 85 percent of the population are non-believers; Japan has 65 percent; France with 54 percent; and 44 percent of British citizens do not believe in God.

wow! Sweden must have a shitload of school shootings! i bet they all wear kevlar to school.

oh, wait, they don't.

I'm going to assume his "scientific debate" is going to be more paradigm-locked attempts at proving the unproveable.

i'd like to see him try without going "it's in the bible so therefor it is true". should be entertaining.

 

[John Uskglass]

This is silly. The only thing they have to gain is giving Atheism more exposure then it deserves. What do they think they have to gain?

 

[Sander]

Kharn: You're making blanket statements about a very broad set of theories versus one very specific theory. Unless you can actually specify which single theory you are referring to here, it's rather pointless to discuss anything.

For instance, one Creationism theory asserts that a God created the earth etc. and then set evolution in motion. Which can't be disproven.

Evolution, on the other hand, *can* be disproven and it has been tried often enough. No one's succeeded so far, because every micro-scale experiment has come out in favor of evolution, and there have been no micro-scale experiments that disproved it.

Also:

My argument is that given two equal and equally unproveable theories, I prefer the one of which I know the pre-set motivations of formulation weren't to prove the formulators beliefs.

And Creationists don't/didn't have the pre-set motivations to prove their own beliefs?

 

[Brother None]

Kharn: You're making blanket statements about a very broad set of theories versus one very specific theory. Unless you can actually specify which single theory you are referring to here, it's rather pointless to discuss anything.

But I'm not referring to one theory, I'm referring to a set of models that is inclusive of many different kinds of Creationist theory and often, but not necessarily used to prove the existence of God. I kind of don't feel like doing an exposè, so I won't be hurt if we don't "discuss anything"

And Creationists don't/didn't have the pre-set motivations to prove their own beliefs?

Uh, yeah, that was my point, that's why I prefer Darwinist Evolutionary teachings to Creationism.

 

[Sander]

But I'm not referring to one theory, I'm referring to a set of models that is inclusive of many different kinds of Creationist theory and often, but not necessarily used to prove the existence of God. I kind of don't feel like doing an exposè, so I won't be hurt if we don't "discuss anything"

The problem is that the set of models is rather broad and the only real constant in them is 'God created something'. Which is hardly worthy of being called a theory.

Uh, yeah, that was my point, that's why I prefer Darwinist Evolutionary teachings to Creationism.

Whoops. I thought you meant the other way around.
*shrugs*

 

[Brother None]

The problem is that the set of models is rather broad and the only real constant in them is 'God created something'. Which is hardly worthy of being called a theory.

What? Dude, the constant in Creationist theories is not that "God created something", that's just theist Creationism. The constant is that abiogenesis never happened (and Wikipedia agrees in my assertion that abiogenesis, one of the cornerstones of evolutionary teachings, has never been proven), or, in other words, that there is some "start" of biological life that can not be explained by Darwin's models, a "point of creation" if you will.

That's usually ascribed to "a higher being", but that's not inherent of the theory. The problem is, of course, that the theory was more or less created and promulgated exactly because it is used in the form of Theist Creationism. But it certainly isn't the constant in the theory, the constant being that a "point of creation" happened, versus abiogenesis.

 

[alec]

I read the posts and started laughing out loud, waking up my neighbours and pet gerbils.
'Who cares?' I said. 'We're humans. We're too stupid, too limited to see the big picture anyway. We cherish those few fragments of reality that we think we've solved and we do our utmost best at trying to finish the rest of the puzzle until, one day, we find out that even those tiny fragments we thought we had figured out were wrong to begin with.'
I zapped through the channels, but stopped when I spotted a low-fi erotic thriller. A man with more muscles than I have hair, was fucking a big-boned blonde.
"Fuck her up the shitter!" I yelled. "Suck her toes and spray-paint her face with your cum! Eat her arse out and taste her butt-juice!"
The muscled man didn't do any of those things. He copulated with the blonde, all decent and women-friendly, and had breakfast with her on the patio the following day.
"God is my saviour," I said. "May the Holy Spirit descend upon me and nurture my veins with the oil of the heavens."
Nothing happened. And I got bored.
Five minutes later I was playing with myself whilst humming "Mars", one of my favourite Holst tracks ever.
My cum spat out like a volcano in action. A little drop caught my left eye and left me blinded for a while.
"Holy Mary, virgin of the celestial realm," I said, "may my semen feed you and make you stronger than you ever were before."
God laughed. And all was good.

 

[Magus Zeal]

"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,” said the former television star in a statement. “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.”

And there we can pinpoint the exact point when Kirk Cameron loses all credibility.

Comfort felt impelled to hold the debate, because he is worried about the state of Christianity around the world, especially in Europe. According to a Zukerman study, in Sweden as many as 85 percent of the population are non-believers; Japan has 65 percent; France with 54 percent; and 44 percent of British citizens do not believe in God.

Fact: The US is the ONLY country where the majority of the people believe in Creationism. If we are the ONLY country that has the majority believe that...then we are the minority in the world. Doesn't that say something?

"[T]here is something more sinister here than a few people not believing in God,” concluded the author. “Why would so many be so bitter against Christianity in particular? Why aren't they making videos that blaspheme Buddha or Mohammed or Ghandi?

Easy. Buddha's not a deity, Ghandi is an idealist (and frankly with the way Christianity has been, they do "blaspheme" against him) and Mohammed...well...they are.

 

[Sander]

What? Dude, the constant in Creationist theories is not that "God created something", that's just theist Creationism. The constant is that abiogenesis never happened (and Wikipedia agrees in my assertion that abiogenesis, one of the cornerstones of evolutionary teachings, has never been proven), or, in other words, that there is some "start" of biological life that can not be explained by Darwin's models, a "point of creation" if you will.

That's usually ascribed to "a higher being", but that's not inherent of the theory. The problem is, of course, that the theory was more or less created and promulgated exactly because it is used in the form of Theist Creationism. But it certainly isn't the constant in the theory, the constant being that a "point of creation" happened, versus abiogenesis.

..
I can't think of a single theory that doesn't use either abiogenesis or a higher being, so that's where my remark came from.

Besides, the theory that something *didn't* happen is hardly worthy of a theory either.

Also, Wikipedia agrees with the assertion that the constant in Creationism is God creating something. But regardless, the difference between 'God created something' and 'Abiogenesis never happened' isn't that big in practice.

 

[Brother None]

Besides, the theory that something *didn't* happen is hardly worthy of a theory either.

You mean alternative-to-big-bang theories are invalid because they say something didn't happen?

Also, Wikipedia agrees with the assertion that the constant in Creationism is God creating something. But regardless, the difference between 'God created something' and 'Abiogenesis never happened' isn't that big in practice.

Wikipedia can bite the big one. The constant is that there is a point of creation, not that there is a higher being that did this. The fact that Creationism is best known because of Bible-thumpers doesn't change that.

 

[Sander]

You mean alternative-to-big-bang theories are invalid because they say something didn't happen?

Er...what?
No, they're valid because they offer alternatives. A theory that just states solely that something didn't happen isn't worthy of being called a theory, and a set of theories with a single constant being that something didn't happen is a tenuous relationship at best.

 

[radnan]

boy am i gonna be sorry i got into this thread ... now ...

i dont think creationism is a valid theory for anything - by itself it is a neat little filler of ignorance for all the gaps in our knowledge of the world - but in human hands it is an instrument that promotes ignorance and attacks rational questioning of the world around us

i think it has always been a part of us as a a vital tool of human cognition

but the church formal form... is itself intelligently designed by its makers -and has even evolved along side human society adapting to counter scientific knowledge which it viewed as malignant to religion - spinning and creating new interpretations to adapt ...

it is not neccesarily its basing on ignorance and quite frankly irrationality that bothers me .. it is how it is used to appeal to those who would base their entire worldview on their religious beliefs to see things as threats without questioning creating false enemies to fuel its fervour. i'm not saying it does this conciously i'm saying it does so because it is rational for it do so in order to protect itself .. its survivalistic .. evolutionary even

what i see in creationism and the evangelistic militants in the us is not religious spirituality - which is very dear to me ... but religious zealous ignroance which i can easily tie into the same kind of ignorance that breeds terrorism - so in a way ... creationism promotes terrorism - a dogmatic hate towards an entity which you do not understand and because of your beliefs are forbidden to understand ...

i'm not an atheist, i'm not a catholic or orthodox, my school form card used to say muslim but thats something else .. i gtg now ... will be back later ...

 

[TheWesDude]

1) in the end darwin abandoned evolution because there were too many unexplainable gaps that indicated a higher power and extremely fast complex mutations.

2) the bible says god created the earth in 7 days... how long is a day to god? ( this is the precept for what i have heard called " crevolution " an idea that evolution happened but guided by a higher power )

3) there are far too many problems with evolution on the larger scale with extremely complex mutations/adaptations happening almost instantly. the largest example of this that i have seen is sight.

4) creationisim is not a theory as it is unscientific, it is a belief structure.

 

[Sander]

1) in the end darwin abandoned evolution because there were too many unexplainable gaps that indicated a higher power and extremely fast complex mutations.

No he didn't. Darwin *did* say that he believed in God, but he never disbelieved in evolution.
And besides that, the validity of Evolution is neither proven nor disproved with Darwin's convictions.

2) the bible says god created the earth in 7 days... how long is a day to god? ( this is the precept for what i have heard called " crevolution " an idea that evolution happened but guided by a higher power )

3) there are far too many problems with evolution on the larger scale with extremely complex mutations/adaptations happening almost instantly. the largest example of this that i have seen is sight.

There is no problem with sight evolving at all. This is all derived from the out-of-context quoting of (again) Darwin, where the quoters fail to quote the *next* sentence that says it is entirely possible since the intermediate stages are likely to evolve. The eye works because there are cells that react to light, and it's very likely that such cells evolve since they've been to shown to exist in rudimentary form in plants as well. These cells then evolved into sending signals, after which the brain evolved into learning to interpret these signals. There's nothing implausible about this.

4) creationisim is not a theory as it is unscientific, it is a belief structure.

Theistic Creationism is a belief structure but people pretend that it is a scientific theory and try to argue it on those terms.