Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC *OFFICIAL*

http://www.rationalresponders.com/node/6653 is the official location to engage Sapient and Kelly about this video and debate.

The Rational Response Squad recently was asked to respond to claims that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron could prove that god exists without invoking faith or the bible. Comfort and Cameron failed at this claim. This reel is the highlights as seen through the eyes of the RRS. The entire 1.5 hour debate is available at http://www.ABCNews.com

You may distribute this video and upload this video to your own youtube account under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Ray
• Comfort
• Kirk
• Cameron
• Kelly
• Brian
• Sapient
• Rational
• Response
• Squad
• God
• debate
• Christian
• atheist
• atheism
• science
• faith

[cmadison93]

@cmadison93

X=ABC

x does not necessarily = YYY

X=universe, ABC=states of affairs, components of universe, parts, etc.

x=properties of universe, Y=property of ABC (cause and effect in this case)

[cmadison93]

@4IDHero

Thank you.

This is the fallacy of composition. To assume that because these states of affairs has property Y doesn't mean X also has property Y. X=A,B,C, but x(property of X) does not necessarily equal Y,Y,Y.

The universe must be the negation of these? No.

If X doesn't have the same characteristics, then the characteristics of X=/=characteristics of A,B,C

[mzyzer19]

I wonder if Ray and Kurt felt like they needed to hug Kelly and Brian

[mzyzer19]

First god lived on the top of a mountain then in the sky and know outside of space and time. outside of space and time by definition is nonexistant.

[mzyzer19]

It's funny when Comfort is explaining the painting painter argument how many times he has to look down at his notes to explain such a easy concept (which is false) my five year old could do a better job.

[4IDHero]

@FLASK904 "This is science, and its either true or its not."

Science provides us with explanations of the natural world, and science provides us with rational probabilities, or in logistical lingo "inductive" knowledge, science is very useful in determining origins and positing hypothesis and theories to explain the data we have; BUT science can't give us a scientific method on how to conduct ethics, such as we can't put the moral truth "it is wrong to torture babies" in a test tube.

[4IDHero]

@FLASK904 "burden of proof is irrelevant. One cannot argue that I believe in God therefore he exists and the other person has to prove contrary, nor can you say that I don't believe in God and therefore he does not exist and you have to contrary."

Actually the burden of proof is more relevant than you think. Both claims (theists and atheists) are on polar opposites; both are in contradiction; therefore identifying who shoulders the burden of proof is essential to one's claim.

[4IDHero]

@cmadison93 I can say that positing quantum mechanics and observing the quantum level of things and applying it to the whole universe, therefore the universe was uncaused, therefore it exists infinitely...I can say that this is the fallacy of composition, where Y is observed, and Y = QM. Then you say X=Y, therefore the universe was uncaused.

[4IDHero]

@cmadison93 "You are taking what is true of some or even all of the individual parts of the universe (doesn't matter the definition of 'parts') and saying it applies to the whole."

No philosophical theist that I know of argues like that. We don't say "because we see cause and effect everywhere, therefore the universe was caused." But, we do however, abide by the classical laws of logic, and the rule of inference and form a deduction to conclude rationally, the universe was caused.

[4IDHero]

@cmadison93 "2=1+1

2 does not necessarily have the same properties as 1, to say so is simply the fallacy of composition.."

If X comprises of ALL states of affairs, and all states of affairs has property Y=cause-and-effect, then wouldn't the X=Y? What is 2? In other words, the numbers represent? If X doesn't have the same characteristics as A,B,C; then X must be the negation of A,B,and C; which reads - X = A,B,C,...etc.; which is a contradiction.