Sara, that was precisely the point. If you demand that everything have a creator, then it is special pleading to say that God does not. An eternal universe or multiverse theory has fewer ad hoc requirements than a God theory.

This is a linguistic fallacy. Just because you can call them "laws" does not imply that they have anything to do with the laws we have to regulate society. This is simply bad grammar.

"Natural order" implies not "supernatural". So why would we need a supernatural entity to keep natural order. Your argument here is nothing but a bald assertion. Please take us through the logic that brings us inevitably to your conclusion.

Not all cultures believe in deities. And every culture comes up with ideas about God that are coincidentally tied to the aspect of nature that is most important to them. Forest-based cultures had tree gods. Water-based cultures had water gods. Virtually every culture had sun gods. In the 20th century, the Pacific Island cultures had Cargo Cults built around the planes that dropped cargo out of the sky.

One thing all cultures (and all animals) have in common is a desire to not die. It is quite expected for belief in an afterlife to develop in response to this natural survival instinct. Let's just hope we can get a handle on it before it ironically ends our chance at survival.

I just want to chime in and say Congradulations!! I must admit I was embarrassed for Ray and Kirk. But as someone else suggested, their arrogance made them underestimate how informed and intelligent you both are.

Yes, but the argument used by Sapient was the 1st law in relation to the universe, not the Earth. I believe Sapient was stating the since the God is supposedly eternal, why can't the universe be. The reason the universe couldn't be eternal is because of the 2nd Law. I was wondering why this wasn't addressed.

I never said he did. In fact, he was quite adamantly against a "Personal" God. Though it seems only logical that if God existed at all and made personal beings (i.e. humans) that He too would be personal.

Yes, but that isn't the point. The fact that most humans believe there is a Higher Being regardless of their culture is still very telling.

You asked for clearfication of entropy (2nd law). I'm not understanding where you are getting the universe can't be eternal argument.

When Eistine refered to "God" he was refering to the natural order/laws of things was he not?  I think it was a mistake to coin the term god, as made abundantly clear by the misleading references to him believing in a divine being.

Wow.  Am I late to this party or what?  Six pages of comments!

However, that makes my congratulations no less sincere.

Kelly and Sapient, you have done us all very proud. 

We can now truly imagine how public discussions/debates like this will be in the future.  Eyes will be opened and more people will start thinking for themselves. 

Again, congratulations on a job WELL DONE! 

The 'rational subtitles' were a nice touch.
I especially liked the bit where you called them on their fear tactics.
I think that as you become more and more public, the 'fear tactics' will perhaps be one of the most important. Christian defenses rely heavily on the believer's intuition, and 'loving God sends people to hell' is a difficult concept for even the most devout believer's intuition to accept. In Strobel's book, A Case for Faith, he eventually admitted that he couldn't personally make sense of it and appealed to the truth of the rest of the Bible that we must accept beliefs we do not fully understand.

Fear of hell is also one of the major blocks between a Christian and an honest assessment of their faith. Keep up the good work!

Because that statement is a fearful one for many people. They've grown reliant on their infantile certainties. I believe it was agreed upon long ago that the greatest fear to man is the unknown.
Otherwise, perhaps some people are just too conceited to accept that their existence is NOT in fact the centrepiece of the universe.

The only other rationalising of the God concept I can concieve is that, if there is a supreme being with a human-like personage, then that being can be appealed to, as Theists often attempt. This gives them the comforting illusion of having some measure of control over that which they, in reality, have none.

You determine what is natural and what is supernatural, without the need to provide any reasoning therefore?

Indeed a God does exist, Her name is Sara.

Why do you draw this arbitrary line between the universe with all of its contents and God? Why not just draw the line between the multiverse and the universe? As I stated previously, a multiverse theory has fewer ad hoc assumptions than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal God. A multiverse can simply "be" with no anthropomorphic qualities or consciousness whatsoever.

The scientist need not assert anything. You are adding an unnecessary complication. I could assert that the laws of nature cannot operate without supernatural snot in the first layer of heaven parallel to our dimension based on my understanding of the muccous matrix. I see no reason for anyone to buy this, however, since it is a completely unnecessary and unhelpful idea.

I'm afraid I cannot see that as equally plausible. My theory is a predictable outcome of evolution. Your theory is only plausible if you already accept the likelihood of a god, a theory for which I can find no scientific support. Now if all cultures had exceeding similar ideas about God, that might lead credence to your theory. But even then we would have to look at our natural desire to persist after death and see if that impulse would logically lead to the commonality of belief.

My arguments are based on what we can know. I don't need to prove materialism since all I am claiming is that what we see is what we get. You are supplementing my concept with a god. So the burden is on you to prove that the universe cannot make sense without adding this additional complication.

Thank you for the cordial dialogue.

I don't demand that everything have a creator...only that which is contained in (and including) the natural universe. Since God is not contained in or subject to the natural universe, He doesn't require a creator. For Atheists to speculate that the universe is somehow eternal (in spite of the 2nd Law) is to move the universe itself outside of the natural into the supernatural and seems to be its own form of special pleading

Actually, I thought it made quite a bit of sense. I merely gave an alternative view to what the poster claimed was the human ability to manufacture a god. And I don't really see how my explanation is in any way "primative reasoning". But I don't fault you for your denial, that's the only answer you could give in light of your belief system.

I am still kind of confused about this whole entropy thing.  So I understand that the second laws says entropy of an isolated system can only increase or stay the same.  Systems that are not isolated or are “self-organizing systems” are different because they have energy flow. So plants and animals take energy make food and give waste heat back to the environment.  This is how systems maintain or even increase order and have low entropy.  It’s all because of the energy flow right?  So is the universe an isolated system?  Is there anyway to tell?  Is the only qualification to be a non-isolated system energy flow?

Yes, an isolated system is isolated from energy. The only energy in the system is the energy of the system itself. No energy is leaked out to it's surrondings.

The entropy of a system is related to the energy. Remember my ice explanition? Well, If I was in the North pole, the water is already ice. This is because it lacks heat. There is no energy to excite the water molecules enough for them to be in the liquid form, and hence they are naturally in the solid form. So if I wanted to change their state (in this case from solid to liquid) I would need to do work.

The reason why I draw the line between the universe and all of its contents and God is because it would be illogical for anything to create itself. If God were somehow contained within the material, then He would have to have created Himself (which is impossible). Nor could the universe have formed itself.

Multiverses are just as ad hoc as you claim God is. I know that you like that explanation better because you feel it is simpler from a materialist's view. But I think that God is a simpler and more thorough explanation for the formation of the universe.

For example, pure materialism cannot explain how the universe arose from nothing by itself and formed personal beings. That makes less sense to me than believing that a Personal God made humans in His image.

Well, if you were trying to explain the origin of snot, your explanation makes more sense than saying snot came from nothing by its own power and is eternal (which is analogous to the materialists' explanation for the origin of the universe).

Yes, it is the predicable outcome of evolution. But you again, must begin with the premise that materialism is true from the onset and then go on to make theories based on that premise. Evolution is the best theory that fits within this paradigm.

I, obviously, don't see materialism as the sole plausible theory for the origin of the universe, so pardon me if I reject some of those theories that heavily rely on it.

That's a very convenient position for the materialist. However, it may be entirely inaccurate to assume that the universe is all there is, ever was or will be. As I already stated, it seems illogical to maintain that the impersonal universe produced personal beings. Materialism cannot begin to explain why we seek to relate to eachother without reducing our relationships to meaningless interactions. I doubt you tell your loved ones that your interactions with them are nothing more than biological impulses that are necessary for your survival. Most people want to think that there is more meaning to life than materialism provides.

You know, I really hate to say this, and I'm sure it has already been mentioned... but slips of the tongue like "way more better" are incredibly dangerous. I say this before going through the all the pages here because repeating it can only help to stress this point:

Improper grammar drops an air of ignorance onto everything you say, and many people immediately disregard anything surrounding a sentence that isn't spoken "perfectly". The basic thought goes along the lines of "if they can't be bothered to learn to speak properly why should I believe they bothered to look into the facts?"

Certainly being on national TV is incredibly stressful, and I'm sure that contributed to the relatively few slip-ups... but it leaves a lasting impression. A person unable to convey the ideas elloquently will often be ignored outright. How many of you read the four paragraph ravings of the lunatics that post to the forums of richarddawkins.net written without a single carriage return?

There are a great many people who rely solely on language to recieve information, having verbal intelligence that greatly overshadows their logic centers. These people often *cannot* follow an argument when it involves a slip up, they end up perseverating on the mild blips rather than paying any attention to what is actually said. Most people in my family functions in this way, and it seems a great deal of the more "influential" people from previous generations do as well (you know, before it became "hip" to talk like a drunken hobo?).

That aside, great job holding it together out there. It was astounding to see the two you were "debating" resort to verbatim arguments used in their previous videos as if they hadn't already been dismissed in a reasonable way. They remind me a great deal of the "popular" defenders of mormonism who, when confronted with the lack of horse fossils, suggest a continent wide plague that somehow ate away all the old bone matter as well as the elephants, carts, goats, et. al., regardless of how many dozens of times people have told them face to face the reasons that such an explanation is not possible.

Hello,

I am new to your site and I am waiting to see the whole debate on tv in an hour. I wish I could see the whole version anywhere right now. It is good of you to admit you made a couple of mistakes, of course Ray and Kirk did too. We are all humans and not perfect. I believe in God and I love factual science. The problem for both sides is that there are too many theorys and not enough facts. I was recently reading the wikipedia articles about Origin of Life and Abiogenesis and the last I saw they were very good and unbiased. I would recommend them to anyone. I am really looking forward to some good honest discussion with you all and I hope we can keep it factual and also discuss it like mature adults. (Name calling doesn't advance anyone) We should all be looking to continually advance our personal knowledge for the sake of humanity as a whole, this means being open minded to everything as long as it is rational. Enough blabbing and I hope to talk to you all soon. 

An actor and an evangelist got stomped by a couple of kids who have, seemingly, very little practice in oratory on such a stage. Funny. Again, dogmatics, stay away from science; just say I've decided to believe. I have faith my belief is right. Its the end of the discussion. But to try to make the Zeus story, the Horus tale, the Dionysus legend, the Mithras claim, or the YHVH submission a scientific claim is patently stupid. Oh, btw, outside the obivous absence of scientific credulity, it would be interesting to explore Kirks commitment to so-called research of the various re-casting of the Bible and the choices to include and leave out various dogmatic pronouncements, and the other evangeiist's commitment to the idea of blashpemy on the one hand, and then his assertion of the story of Moses and God as the foundation for the notion that God's name is I am; Well, if Gods name is I am, or YHVH, or Chief Rocker, or whatever, then how am I blaspheming by saying god-damnit?

These guys are too easy.

First of all, Brian & Kelly, thank you very much for actually accepting this "challenge"!

 I've only watched the short clips available non-chronologically at the abc nightline website, but still it's so obvious to the naked eye that their "evidence" was totally destroyed, not even scientifically valid.

I hope abc won't edit the debate in the favour of the ID baboons. Seems like an impossible task anyway Anyway, I am very happy to see the topic discussed on national TV, and I hope people will be inspired to use their rational minds a little more in the future.

Thanks for putting in your effort!

(and for overlooking my poor english, I'm Norwegian)

Hi..

I was not enthusiastic about the idea of debating these two. It gives them credibility they dont deserve, and given their lack of a coherent argument, you could have won by not saying anything at all!

Having seen a good portion of the video, I have to say you guys did a great job! As dumb as these guys act, they are very experienced public personalities and could have steamrolled you with Ray's high-pressure car salesman act or Kirk's teen star charm.

They didnt.. you came prepared and showed what sad delusional people they actually are. It was obvious that they werent used to talking to anyone with a triple digit IQ. I almost felt sorry for them .. but then I remembered just how much damage they could do if they had a chance.

congrats!

Leave it to the person who wishes they knew more about physics to come in bearing a possible solution.

Sara was mentioning that it was 'common sense' that something couldn't create itself, and that the Second Law of Thermodynamics implied a First Cause/Creator. I'm here to try to smash that claim.

Has anyone heard of J. Richard Gott? He's a professor of physics at Princeton University, and in 2001, wrote a great book called "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe". If you're into that sort of thing, I'd pick it up from your local B&N. Anyhoo, what I'm driving at is in Chapter 4, "Time Travel and the Beginning of the Universe".

For those of you who'd like to read what I'm talking about, here's a link:

Can the universe create itself

The exact points worth mentioning are on pp. 186-190.

What he drives at is that the Universe could have been its own creator through time travel; that the geometry of the Universe is constructed in such a way that through quantum tunneling effects, the Universe could have been in an infinite time loop of no size until it inflated into existence (the Big Bang). He goes on to point out that this is why we cannot go backward in time, because to go backward in time would imply that we could go back into said time loop before the Big Bang and cause a reaction of an infinite energy buildup.

So, I've produced (albeit roughly) a theory that involves the Universe coming into existence without a Creator. The kicker is? Gott's a theist. I'll probably bludgeon his quote, but the gist of it is "I have no theological axes to grind. People can make of this what they will. I believe that a self-creating Universe doesn't answer the question of why a self-creating Universe would exist. I do admit that the repercussions of my work may be troubling, but maybe that is what the Universe is supposed to be."

For the physics buffs out there, I went ahead and tracked down the actual paper - times like this, I wish for improved math skills.

Here's the abstract:

And the actual paper itself (you need Adobe Acrobat)

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9712/9712344v1.pdf

Hope this gives people some food for thought.

{edit - fixed link length} 

You are using an anthropomorphic model of "creation" and observing, rightly, that the beginning of the universe (if there was one) couldn't have been anything like that. What you have to remember is that under the extreme conditions of the Big Bang, time, space and all the physical laws were probably broken down to quantum effects, or something even more chaotic. It may very well be completely off base to talk about one thing leading to another in this scenario.

You can think it, but you're wrong. In order to use God as an explanation for anything, you have to introduce dozens of elements for which you have no explanation at all and for which there is no evidence. Multiverse theory stays entirely within the empirical evidence that we have, and proposes a theory that works with the observed facts. In order to postulate God, you have to throw out numerous established scientific facts. 

This isn't about what makes sense to you, it's about facts and truth. The fact is that no one knows how the universe could have come into existance, and it appears that the question itself might not even make sense. Your personal God, on the other hand, makes no sense from any perspective that draws on the real world for a basis. It is pure fantasy. 

If time started along with the rest of the universe, then how can you say that anything which preceded the first instant could have affected anything which follows? 

You have no choice but to accept materialism unless you want to abandon rationality. You have no evidence for the existance of immaterial things, and no explanation for how such things could interact with the material world. Further, your entire concept of immaterial is incoherent and describes nothing. You might as well say that we need a theory of flimflamgibberjabber because you aren't happy with the incompleteness of science. News flash: your impatience with our ignorance doesn't make it go away. 

You just can't seem to separate your desires from real fact. It doesn't matter how much people want to pretend that love makes the universe go 'round - it just isn't so. Our thoughts and feelings have nowhere else to come from except our brains. And the entire Earth filled with all the passion that has ever existed amounts to less than a subatomic particle in the whole scheme of the universe. Our feelings mean nothing to anything but ourselves.

As for the things that "it may be inaccurate to assume," that can include everything we think we know. So what? Does that mean knowledge is a free-for-all with no boundary between fantasy and reality? Guess I won't have to stay up late Christmas Eve this year, since Sara tells me that Santa will come if you just want him to enough.  

Your entire argument for immaterialism boils down to wishful thinking and not wanting to believe things that aren't fun. Some of us take our worldviews more seriously.

Wow! ABC/Nightline producers must be in cahoots with Cameron & Comfort. They really tried to do a total hatchet job on RRS while building up Comfort and his online business.

They only used clips showing atheists as mean and angry (lady yelling, Sapient uttering criticism, frowning atheists, etc.), while the soft spoken Cameron and Comfort were doing their usual comforting proselytizing bullshit to the brain dead sheeple. And absolutely nothing from that lengthy and superb presentation made by Kelly at the podium! WTF is up with that? Just shows that religion is all about appeals to emotion, and nothing about facts, reason, and intellectual honesty.  In watching the raw debate video, it's clear Sapient and Kelly blew them to pieces!

And then the poor beaten up Christian boys get to cry and whine about those mean and angry atheists in the audience who upset them so. Fuck Nightline! After watching that slanted piece, I'd say atheists have damn good reason to be angry!

I just finished watching the Nightline edit and I must say, I'm growing tired of how slanted anything having to do with television is nowadays. Especially these news-magazine types of shows that cater to conservative audiences.

 Nonetheless, I'm pleased that RRS is getting this exposure and I'm glad for the inevitable dialogue that will come out of this.

 Congratulations, Brian and Kelly. I hope RRS continues to make waves!

I've been a long-time lurker of the website, your youtube page, Dawkins' pages, etc.  Though most of my friends and family know that I am an atheist, I still feel somewhat closeted simply due to the fact that I feel I can't hold open discussions about it with anyone (except for my atheist college friends whom I unfortunately seldom see as of late).  I often hold my tongue in surface discussions of anything godly so as to avoid any deeper confrontations that might become unsightly.

After checking the Rational Responders' youtube account, I found the video compilation of highlights from the debate, and my interest was immediately piqued.  When I told a friend about the debate to be shown on Nightline, she said that she felt it was old hat, but I respectfully disagreed.  While people may personally debate within themselves about such subjects, I can't say that I've seen televised many debates (at least on American television) about subjects as important and big-questionish as this one.

 I'd like to say congratulations to Brian Sapient and Kelly for what was a spectacular performance.  As a public-speechophobe myself, I can't even imagine debating in front of a crowd of people with the knowledge that millions may view your every move on national television.  But I do know that upon dipping oneself oneself into an experience multiple times, you come out pretty hard-coated, and eventually, the fears (especially the irrational ones) become easier to deal with.  That being said, this was a great first widely televised performance of what I hope will be many.  I could only wish to be as eloquent and articulate (and witty) as Kelly and Brian in my discussions.

I must admit, however, that I was not as pleased with ABC's editing of the debate.  Bashir's narration described the tone of Brian and Kelly's arguments as mocking, but it's hard not to mock when it seems like Ray is the host of an infomercial and Kirk is holding up photoshopped animal pictures that I couldn't, being of sound mind, show to an elementary school class in defense of faith.  I was also displeased when they ran the audio from Brian's mic in reaction to the pictures being shown (I think I heard "numb-nut"?  haha).  It painted a picture that atheists are naturally without compassion for those less enlightened.  In fact, Ray and Kirk described the audience as being full of "angry atheists" in their post-debate interview.

I fully realize the need for ABC to soften the blow-out and make it seem that both sides brought to the table valid arguments, but let's get serious!  A coke-can??  wtf?  I kept wondering, where was Ray's beloved banana?  So, I guess as much as the broadcast made Brian and Kelly seem like ruthless bullies, it made Ray and Kirk seem like total evangelist kooks.  But the difference is that Brian and Kelly aren't bullies.  I just wish they would have shown the Occam's razor bit with Ray and Kirk himming and hawing mouths agape in defeat.

 I've read a few of the comments on here about the debate.  Some felt it might have been a mistake for the RRS to have even agreed to debate with those two transitional evolutionary forms.  I know that it has personally envigorated me in my non-belief, and I have seen that other atheists have come out of the woodwork because of it.  And of course, a nationally televised debate over the subject might at least get people questioning what they believe (or don't believe).  And I think this debate might open the door for many more like it.

 Cheers, Brian and Kelly, for a job well done.  And I personally thank you for being an inspiration.

You guys did a great job! Hope you can get on more talk shows. Stick to the facts and you can't go wrong.

P.S. Kelly is such a hottie!

double post