Dizzy, at Veritasdomain.wordpress.com was kind enough to post answers to my last post criticizing Ray Comforts Huntington Beach video.
First of all, thank you dizzy for your response and very well thought out rebuttal, also thanks for making it point by point, certainly makes response easier.
I am gonna do this like we normally do around here, post what Dizzy did, just copy and paste it from THIS LINK and then respond to it, my responses will be in Bold whilst Dizzy’s text will be in Italics.
Dizzy: Thanks for your post. Since you were kind enough to make a passing reference to veritasdomain as another Christian blog, I thought I’d answer your critique of the debate point by point.
For 0:10 you mention that it’s sad to to start off a video with fear mongering. However, pointing out that Ray Comfort is trying to “peddle” fear doesn’t prove anything but your opinion. “You’re not crazy if they’re really out to get you.” Likewise, it’s not mongering, if hell exists.
Me: At this point in the video I am not really trying to prove any point at all, it is my opinion, as a former apologist of this very faith that the tactic of fear mongering results in a less than productive faith (through experience mind you) in some situations. You are right though, if hell DOES in fact exist i guess it wouldn’t be fear mongering as much as it would be just trying to save someone…the problem with that is that Mr. Comfort is propagating fear of something he can’t prove does indeed exist-if he or anyone can prove that it does then I welcome you to do so. You make a good point none the less, and I truly don’t question the MOTIVES of Mr. Comfort, but his method of delivery is lacking here—as well as his logic.
D: For 0:30 you say he has a problem with definitions. Your answer that modern science defines creation “as a universe that is” isn’t a definition at all. Nor is it science. What kind of experiments did modern science conduct to determine that the universe is a “being or a state of existence.” How many universes did you test? What was the mean and standard deviation from the mean? Your explanation (not definition) deals with the metaphysical, therefore is philosophical not empirical in nature.
In your second paragraph, you can’t make up your mind. On one hand, you say creation is bad evidence of God. On the other hand, you say that God expects you to believe without providing any evidence. If you think God “did a really bad job,” you cannot say he didn’t give any evidence, only that you don’t like the evidence God provided.
Me: My point isn’t really centered around my own definition here…my point is that creation-as a word, is just a descriptor of the things we see in our universe and the universe itself…not that it is a standard definition, but that when science discusses creation as a subject they don’t mean “that which was created by a creator”. I think i made that point very poorly before and I apologize for that. My argument is that just because we call it a creation doesn’t mean there was a creator…which is the logic that i interpret Ray as following here…the thought that because we exist there must have been a creator is metaphysical in nature, entirely, because you can’t simply apply one logical conclusion (IE; a painting has a painter) to another, entirely different situation (ie: creation)
Regarding the second paragraph, Gods lack of provision and evidence is doing a bad job of providing evidence…thats all i am really trying to say there.
D: 0:53 Proving you can find out the building’s architect and name of the construction company doesn’t disprove the analogy. On the contrary, more power to you, you illustrate his point.
Me: Can you, in fact, meet the creator and prove that he created all this? unless you can I haven’t proven any of Ray’s points at all…
D: 1:55 I’m also not planning on breeding like rabbits. But that is not relevant. Neither is your plan to not breed like rabbits.
Me: Good because I personally think we are in the midst of a rather overwhelming population crisis….I’m no Rosicrucian but having 17 kids is a bit on the irresponsible side if you ask me.
D: 2:04 Calling someone a liar isn’t an ad hominem if he is one before God. Neither is calling someone an adulterer or murderer at heart.
Me: God’s existence is what is in question here, following the rules of a being that is of questionable existence doesn’t make sense to me when you are debating those that totally reject his existence. I still believe this to be an Ad Hominem because it is an attack on his character in front of a crowd of onlookers…he might as well say, “who you gonna believe, this murderer or me?”
D: 5:15 By Comfort saying “you will think about this” is not the same as touching people or causing people to fall backwards. Nor is it hypnotism. Getting people to reduce their skepticism isn’t “converting” people.
Me: Comfort isn’t making people fall backwards in a literal sense, no, but he is most definitely implanting thoughts into their heads…which is what hypnotism and magnetism is essentially. Once again, I don’t think that Comfort is such a depraved man that he is doing this Intentionally, it is the way of the evangelist–I know from experience, but he is doing it whether he knows it or not. It can be a very effective technique.
D: In your second to last paragraph you also fail to understand definitions. Defining birds as cause and effect is not a definition.
You also try to make the distinction between accident and chance. However, Ray Comfort wasn’t arguing or implying the birds flying over was accidental. This isn’t an example of a “Christian fundamentalist not understanding what he is detracting against” but an example of a red herring.
Me: Cause being reproduction and effect being baby birds, ad nauseum, my definition works just fine. Defining reproduction and the process of evolution as “accidental” is as ignorant as saying I accidentally got a girl pregnant when i had relations with her and did so without protection-that my friend, is no accident. Simply using the word Accident to describe or detract from evolution is a pain to Comfort because it makes him look like he may not know what he is talking about.
once again, thanks for the dialog here. If you want to rebutt please leave a comment or link us to your blog again.