Face-Off: Does God Exist?

"Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off No-Holds Barred Battle Over the Existence of God" Martin Bashir

"Proving the existence of God is actually a lot easier than you think," said former child star Kirk Cameron, minutes before taking the stage for the "Nightline Face-Off."

It was a warm Saturday night in New York City as a mixed crowd of atheists and Christians converged on Calvary Baptist Church in midtown Manhattan for the first "Nightline Face-Off." And it wasn't long before temperatures began to rise inside the auditorium.

The question for our debate was "Does God Exist?" and both sides went at the issue with a series of passionate declarations and critical attacks on the arguments of their opponents. It was a clean but unflinching contest.

Former child star Kirk Cameron and his evangelist colleague Ray Comfort had pledged to prove the existence of God, scientifically. Cameron and Comfort run an organization called the Way of the Master, which comprises a Web site and cable television show, all focused on preaching what they say is the truth of Christianity.

Cameron opened the debate by addressing the crowd:

"Hi, I'm Kirk Cameron and my partner and I Ray Comfort come to you tonight not as molecular biologists or rocket scientists, but simply as an author and an actor, and we want to do two things that fly in the face of convention. One, we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith. And secondly, as a former atheist myself—an evolutionist—I want to pull back the curtain and show that the number one reason that people don't believe in God is not a lack in evidence, but because of a theory that many scientists today believe to be a fairytale for grownups."

They were confronted by the might of the "rational response squad" in the form of unabashed atheists Brian Sapient and his comrade, a woman who goes by the name of Kelly. They had been included in a previous "Nightline" report, telling the story of the Blasphemy Challenge in which they invited atheists to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit by posting videotaped denunciations on their Web site.

Comfort saw the piece on the Blasphemy Challenge, and he immediately e-mailed "Nightline," saying, "We would like to challenge them to a public debate. & Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't."

Sapient had this to say when he addressed the crowd at the debate:

"I want to start off by thanking ABC, Kirk and Ray and the audience for their ears and their participation of the discussion of this magnitude. The Rational Response Squad was formed to respond to irrational claims, and the most wildly held irrational claim are the ones offered by religion. Ray and Kirk have agreed to offer scientific proof that god exists without invoking faith of the Bible, and we are here to respond to those claims."

For more than 90 minutes, they battled over the main arguments of evolution, historical evidence and the existence of God. The audience, which was divided between Christians and atheists, asked penetrating questions, and there were also a number of contributions submitted by viewers at ABCNEWS.com.

It was a no-holds-barred debate that was well worth watching.

Part 1

Part 2

I got 11 minutes in and Comfort has provided a lot of rhetoric, various fallacies and a clear inability to understand what the other side actually believes. Does it get better?

Yeah, I actually watched this a couple weeks ago. Kirk Cameron and this Ray Comfort character really just came across as incompetent. So these segments just kind of further solidified my atheistic beliefs.

facepalm2

Kirk, Kirk, Kirk...

you can't prove that you exist, but you can't prove that you dont. this will ultimately lead to nowhere. You can't prove that god exists or doesn't exist either.

He excists because we imagine him to, he exists in our minds alongside Santa for example but if you mean a physical or perhaps even a non physical entity that has a will of its own then no, he does not exist in that respect

Originally posted by Burning thought
He excists because we imagine him to, he exists in our minds alongside Santa for example but if you mean a physical or perhaps even a non physical entity that has a will of its own then no, he does not exist in that respect

Clearly the debate isn't over whether or not he exists as a concept in our minds.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
you can't prove that you exist, but you can't prove that you dont. this will ultimately lead to nowhere. You can't prove that god exists or doesn't exist either.

Yes yes, a subjective perspective of reality means we can never literally "prove" anything, etc. etc. It doesn't mean that we can't determine which is a more likely scenario. Like a round earth v. flat earth debate. We can't prove anything for certain, but clearly one is more probable based on evidence. Theists, most at least, don't think they prove God exists. They believe in God. Big difference. So too with atheists. They can't prove God's nonexistence, but they don't believe in one, and think they can show why it's the more tenable position.

So the debate isn't fruitless, because you're working from a flawed premise. Or if you insist that it is, then any argument in the history of existence is equally as fruitless, as nothing can ever be perfectly determined.

....

I've seen Kirk and Friends talk before. I don't feel like losing more brain cells. Unless they use the banana to prove God again. That sh*t was priceless.

uhuh

I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something. Science supports the first claim, not the latter.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something. Science supports the first claim, not the latter.

Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

Besides, even if your claims were true there, making the leap from "something" to that something being "God" or "Christian God" is monumentally huge, and not supported by anything logical. It's like maybe there's a number written inside a particular book, and you want it to be 4. Even if I then tell you there's definitely a number inside of it (which we can't know because the book is closed) we can't assume it's a 4 just because you want it to be. It could be any number (i.e. any god, creative force, intelligence, etc.) and may not exist at all. Awful analogy, granted. Or maybe not. Hopefully I've made my point.

"Science" doesn't support anything, btw. Specific studies provide evidence that provisionally supports certain conclusions.

Originally posted by Digi
Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

As I recall quantum particles instantly destroy themselves because they appear in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As I recall quantum particles instantly destroy themselves because they appear in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Sounds about right. I didn't want to fall over myself trying to remember the details so I just alluded to it and referred him to more reliable sources.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As I recall quantum particles instantly destroy themselves because they appear in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That produces energy though.

Yeah . . . huh

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron get eviscerated in this debate, by Kelly especially.

With the way Kirk's career turned out, I'd think he would have remained and atheist.

Originally posted by ushomefree

I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something. Science supports the first claim, not the latter.

Originally posted by Digi

Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

If matter has been observed being created and destroyed -- and documented mind you -- why is my view "kinda not true"? Can you elaborate, please?

Originally posted by Digi

Besides, even if your claims were true there, making the leap from "something" to that something being "God" or "Christian God" is monumentally huge, and not supported by anything logical.

Something creating something is logical. Nothing creating something is not logical. Need we really have a discussion over this?

Originally posted by Digi

It's like maybe there's a number written inside a particular book, and you want it to be 4. Even if I then tell you there's definitely a number inside of it (which we can't know because the book is closed) we can't assume it's a 4 just because you want it to be. It could be any number (i.e. any god, creative force, intelligence, etc.) and may not exist at all. Awful analogy, granted. Or maybe not. Hopefully I've made my point.

I'm sorry, my friend, this is an awful analogy. No pun intended. I understand you were trying to make a point, but try another.

Originally posted by Digi

"Science" doesn't support anything, btw. Specific studies provide evidence that provisionally supports certain conclusions.

I beg to differ! Because of science, open heart surgery, launching satellites into orbit and ZR1 Corvettes are possible. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by ushomefree
If matter has been observed being created and destroyed -- and documented mind you -- why is my view "kinda not true"? Can you elaborate, please?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Something creating something is logical. Nothing creating something is not logical. Need we really have a discussion over this?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'm sorry, my friend, this is an awful analogy. No pun intended. I understand you were trying to make a point, but try another.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I beg to differ! Because of science, open heart surgery, launching satellites into orbit and ZR1 Corvettes are possible. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I would argue that God does exist -- on the simple matter that something produces something, not nothing produces something.

Originally posted by ushomefree
If matter has been observed being created and destroyed -- and documented mind you -- why is my view "kinda not true"? Can you elaborate, please?

K. It's not true. Clearer?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Something creating something is logical. Nothing creating something is not logical. Need we really have a discussion over this?

'cept when matter does come from nothing. Absolute nothing is an unstable quantum state, you know.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'm sorry, my friend, this is an awful analogy. No pun intended. I understand you were trying to make a point, but try another.

Mind telling me why it's bad? I said as much because it was worded in a convoluted manner, not because it doesn't make my point. It's perfectly analogous to the illogical jump you're making. Mindship's post above says the same thing in simpler terms.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I beg to differ! Because of science, open heart surgery, launching satellites into orbit and ZR1 Corvettes are possible. What are you talking about?

It's a semantics thing that bugs me. Speaking in general terms about "science" or "statistics tell us..." (another common one). Science isn't an entity that has a say about matters. Individuals, studies, and tests do.

Originally posted by Digi
Kinda not true. Matter has been observed being created and destroyed. Quantum particles and whatnot. A quick google search or read-through of a few chapters of any good astrophysics book will confirm this.

Besides, even if your claims were true there, making the leap from "something" to that something being "God" or "Christian God" is monumentally huge, and not supported by anything logical. It's like maybe there's a number written inside a particular book, and you want it to be 4. Even if I then tell you there's definitely a number inside of it (which we can't know because the book is closed) we can't assume it's a 4 just because you want it to be. It could be any number (i.e. any god, creative force, intelligence, etc.) and may not exist at all. Awful analogy, granted. Or maybe not. Hopefully I've made my point.

"Science" doesn't support anything, btw. Specific studies provide evidence that provisionally supports certain conclusions.