This forum was closed on October 1st, 2010. However, the archives are open to the public and filled with vast amounts of good reading and information for you to enjoy. If you wish to meet some Wardrobians, please visit the Into the Wardrobe Facebook group.

Kirk 'Groaning Pains' Cameron to debate Atheists

Kirk 'Groaning Pains' Cameron to debate Atheists

Postby Ward » April 27th, 2007, 5:47 pm

Ward
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Apr 2005

Postby Ward » April 27th, 2007, 8:58 pm

Ward
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Apr 2005

Postby Jservic2 » May 2nd, 2007, 12:45 am

Jservic2
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Jul 2006

Postby alecto » May 2nd, 2007, 2:24 pm

I've visited the Living Waters site a few times and, all other things aside, it seems to me to be designed to sell stuff. There are a lot of links to materials produced by the organization that are being sold for far more than production costs. If you really had Faith, why make people pay more than they had to to learn about it. It doesn't sound like evangelism to me, it soulds like anti-Christian predation on the Church. Also, answering the original post: if Kirk Cameron really has a proof for the existence of God, why is he waiting around sensationalizing it for TV, rather than posting it to every web site he can so he can end the debate once and for all? His actions are those of an actor and a salesman, not a teacher. In any case (now bringing in everything I left aside to begin with) the whole site sparkles with modern American pseudo-evangelism. If they had something new, I don't think they would look like something that is already so common. Probably, the only thing this will do is give Richard Dawkins more stuff to complain about (if it does anything at all).
Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Ward » May 5th, 2007, 2:52 am

Ward
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Apr 2005

Postby alecto » May 9th, 2007, 7:43 pm

I just saw a 2 minute clip on the ABC Nightline web site in which a member of the audience suggests cancer as a refutation for the argument from design. Apparently Ray Comfort had said that the eye (etc.) could not be as well designed as it is without Divine influence and the audience member wondered how cancer fit into this well-designed body. (I.e. she did not think the body was well-designed, therefore no conclusion followed). Ray Comfort refused to answer it directly. He fell back on original sin, without realizing that this in turn erases the argument from design (i.e., if you believe the Fall changes Nature itself and not just our will, then by that declaration Nature is not God-made therefore there is no possibility for an argument from design.) This is a well-known issue in philosophy for both "camps". The audience member didn't close her argument either. I still don't expect anything new out of this. He could argue from beauty I suppose or bring in the Laws themselves, or bring in Natural Ethics like C.S. Lewis, but I don't have high hopes. I'll still probably watch it though.
Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Guest » May 11th, 2007, 8:07 pm

Comfort and Cameron were soundly defeated in this debate. Their opponents were not any more "logical" but they were better prepared and stayed on topic. Cameron drifted off into anti-evolution and both he and Comfort were unprepared for the arguments of the atheists. How hard would it have been to research the common arguments that atheists put forward?

I don't think that trying to argue for the existance of God without faith is a good idea in the first place. But if you're going to have the argument, I don't think these are the apologists you want representing theism.

- Dan -
Guest
 

Postby Ward » May 12th, 2007, 12:40 am

Ward
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Apr 2005

Postby Jservic2 » May 15th, 2007, 6:23 am

Jservic2
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Jul 2006

Postby Leslie » May 15th, 2007, 11:54 am

"What are you laughing at?"
"At myself. My little puny self," said Phillipa.
--Rumer Godden, In This House of Brede
User avatar
Leslie
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby chad » May 17th, 2007, 3:18 am

I know Ray and Kirk personally, I got to work with them for a few years, and I agree with much of what was said here about them. I sure wish that they would not move into the realm of apologetics without proper education and study. It seems like if ever the evangelical church has moved out of the anxious refuge of anti-intellectualism, his has lept just as recklessly into intellectual vice - specifically the sin of intellectual dishonesty. And I am so grieved that this sin is not more openly addressed by Christian leaders. I suppose it is because many "Christian leaders" are still unaware of this vice as such. What do you all think?
User avatar
chad
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: California

Postby moordarjeeling » May 17th, 2007, 4:52 am

moordarjeeling
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Apr 2007

Postby alecto » May 17th, 2007, 4:22 pm

Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby alecto » May 17th, 2007, 4:36 pm

Sentio ergo est.
User avatar
alecto
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Leslie » May 17th, 2007, 4:55 pm

Another problem (as I see it, anyway) with the "well-designed but fallen" argument is that we have no direct physical evidence of unfallen design. Outside of theology, we have only the sense that disease and death are an affront to life, and it is only theology that suggests that these were not part of the original design.

One could perhaps try to draw out the argument that we instinctively know that disease is evil, along the lines of Lewis' argument about the universal moral law in Mere Christianity. But it can easily be argued that disease runs counter to the instinct for physical suvival, and thus that there need be no supernatural explanation for our hatred of it.

Really, Comfort and Cameron could have done much better by steering clear of physical design entirely, and presenting the arguments from MC; but the prevailing debate of creation/design vs evolution is perhaps what they are most familiar with.
"What are you laughing at?"
"At myself. My little puny self," said Phillipa.
--Rumer Godden, In This House of Brede
User avatar
Leslie
Wardrobian
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

Next

Return to Religion, Science, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered members and 15 guests

cron