So did Kirk Cameron prove the existence of his god? any god? I missed the "debate"- should I take it on faith?

Answer 1

Nope. Kirk only proved his deep romantic love for Bananaman.

Answer 2

The opening statement was a great one, about the evidence of a creator. The point was well made and strong. But I would never shy away from the Bible is such an arguement. Those that understand it will see that it is necessary to understand the subject.

Of course the Atheists would agree to have a debate without it. But I will not hold it against them for wanting the balance directed in their favor.

But the fact remains, there is a plausible arguement in the effort to explain creation as having a creator. That arguement is avoided by Atisests throughout the arguemnet, except for the often asked, 'then who created the creator" part. And they handled that answer very easily, but needed the bible to do so.

So I give the Christian effort an "A" for effort. But perhaps a "D" for agreeing to leave the Bible behind, and then using the knowledge that they gained from the Bible to explain things. If they would have not used the wisdom in the Bible, I would have given them an "F".

Answer 3

He and his seat-mate managed to embarass themselves pretty thoroughly. Thier only non-biblical argument was the old argument from incredulity: "The universe is so complex it MUST have had a creator!"

Not one shred of non-biblical evidence, which was the exact opposite of what they claimed they would be bringing to the table.

"One, we'd like to show you that the existence of God can be proven, 100 percent, absolutely, without the use of faith."--part of Kirk Cameron's opening statement.

Answer 4

between the state-of-the-artwork recommendations used by using way of great Christian theologians is that of "the floor of Being." this theory shows no longer that God is the fact of themes present, yet that God is the muse for the existence of all themes. God is better needed to present themes than the rest. So needed to the existence of all themes is God, that God might appropriate be seen the muse upon which themes exist, the floor their being. to declare that God is the floor of being or being itself, is to declare that there is a few element we are in a position to journey it is so particular touching directly to the character of being that it tricks at this needed actuality upon which all else relies. The words "floor of Being" and "Being itself" are honestly an comparable theory. Tillich used the two at distinctive situations, and distinctive theologians alongside with John McQuarrey pick "Being Itself," yet they actually talk to an comparable theory. Now skeptics are continuously asking "how can god be being?" i think of of this question comes from the indisputable fact that the term is devious. The term "Being itself" factors one the impression that God is the actual fact of "my existence," or the existence of my flowerbed, or any merchandise one might desire to care to call. Paul Tillich, on the a number of hand, stated explicitly (in Systematic Theology Vol. I) that this would not discuss with an existential fact yet to an ontological status. what's being stated isn't that God is the fact of the being of a few particular merchandise, yet, that he's the muse upon which being proceeds and upon which contraptions take part in being. in distinctive words, because of actuality that God exists continuously, no longer the rest can finally finally end up without God's will or theory; and because there won't have the means to additionally be a means for any being without God's theory, all opportunities for being upward push up interior the "techniques of God" then wherein have God is easily "Being Itself." i think of of "floor of Being" is a much much less puzzling term. God is the floor upon which all being relies and from which all being proceeds.

Answer 5

Suze Orman says that you should put down 20% down on a house when you buy it or do people who miss debates but want to be petty without knowing any facts judge people.

Answer 6

He blew the competition away with his enhanced picture of a "bull frog"...does that answer your question?

All of the same stuff that is said every day on this forum...nothing new...

You know there is a painter if you see a portrait, so there must be a creator of us as well and all that jazz.

Answer 7

Not even close. Also he said he could do it with out bringing up faith or the bible. He failed on both accounts. I saw the debate. Believe me, the you tube tape didn't need to be edited to favor atheist.

Answer 8

I never thought it possible, but I actually overestimated Comfort and Cameron. It was a train wreck of 'Biblical' proportions.

Answer 9

As a Christian, I was very disappointed in the Christian representatives. If that's the best they can do, then we should all become Atheists.

Answer 10

lol!

I saw it on you tube but it was edited and had bad sound. I'm sure it was one sided editing. I loved the 30 second silence though. From what I saw they could not have done too good.