Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort will debate two atheist (The Blasphemy Challenge people) tonight on Nightline. I look forward to the debate and your commentary. Here’s what they have to say about the debate:
Perhaps you think that anyone who says that he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer. Maybe, like most people, you believe that the issue is a matter of “faith.” Then we must be dreamers, because we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible. Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate. - Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron
We are dedicated to responding to irrational claims — such as the ones being put forth by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that they can prove the existence of God scientifically. We are here to prove that not only can they not do that, but that it cannot be done using the scientific method and the knowledge available to us today.- The Rational Response Squad
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
if the bible is not being used, it should be atheists vs. theists. they are not only defending christianity, they are defending islam, hindu, judaism, and any other of the creationist religions.
I wonder if Cameron and Comfort believe in Romans 1 and Psalm 19?
Whoa, before our brothers get bashed, realize that they were asked to give an argument for the existence of God without using the Bible or the word “faith.” But if you listened closely they said that God can be proven by Creation, conscience… and the Gospel.
Kirk may not be a terrific apologist, much less a presuppositional apologist, but I thank God that he is sharing the Gospel.
Very loving and understanding ending Pastor Jason.
The truth is no matter the debaters I do not expect more than I saw from the atheists. 1 Cor 1:18-25 says that to the unbeliever the message of the Gospel is foolishness and that is how the atheists saw it. This does not mean we should not present the Gospel but at the end of the day we need to present it not in a fashion that the world desires, not using the word of God and with scientific (whatever that is) proof, but in a way that simply delivers the message. Since it is God, through the message, who will change the atheist’s view of the message from foolishness to truth it is the message that is of utmost importance not the debate itself. I do realize that at the end of the day the good of these debates is not so much with the debaters but in the hearts of those that heard the message, which is why the gospel has to be delivered.
I blogged about this a couple of times over at my place, but didn’t get a chance to see the program. Anyone know how they faired?
Fred
I commented on this several weeks ago: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/04/giving-up-christianity-in-order-to_19.html
I commented on this several weeks ago: http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/04/giving-up-christianity-in-order-to_19.html
If you missed it I have the link to the video posted on my blog.
I watched the “debate” on Nightline, but was disappointed that only excerpts totalling about 10 or so minutes airtime were shown. The rest was pre-debate and post-debate commentary and hype.
That said, I found Cameron and Comfort most gracious in their answers to the atheists’ questions of them.
In considering the whole issue of presenting the Gospel without “faith,” the premise is wrong, I think. Even atheism requires “faith” to believe it.
At one point, Comfort showed a painting to demonstrate that its existence supposed a painter, supporting the argument of creation necessitating a Creator. To which the atheist responded (in essence) “then who created the Creator?”
To me, this just demonstrates the limitation of human minds more than a “logical” debate, since even the atheist’s argument presupposes the “chicken and egg” argument of which came first. For the atheist would continually need a creator to a creator to a creator… ad infinitum.
Frankly, I was disappointed with the whole thing. Probably because, although I wasn’t expecting any “results” to be shown, what I saw was discouraging – many, many angry people (not on the side of the believers). It was terribly sad, but did compel me to pray for them.
I was most saddened by the atheists’ challenge to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and how many people they showed who have taken up the challenge.
Saw the debate, Atheists 1
Christians 0
“Kirk may not be a terrific apologist, much less a presuppositional apologist, but I thank God that he is sharing the Gospel.”
I really did not see the Gospel presented in the debate. In their instructional videos, it is not presented either. There is an emotional appeal made to the conscience, unforturnately this is exactly what we have come to expect or “revivalistic” preaching. There question program is nice. But where they fail is the straight forwardness of the Gospel. It would really help if they would explain to those who reject the claims of the Gospel, that the reason that they do is because they cannot hear it. This would go far to explaining to those being proselytized just what it means to be born again, something that Cameron and Comfort never seem to get around to.
IMHO, well not very humble, their gospel falls far short of, “You cannot hear the word of God, because you are not of God.”
I was amazed that the two did not use more of the techniques of their videos. The logic and deductive means that they normally employ would have answered the Squad more easily than the methods and answers they chose. For instance, the arguement from silence, or ignorance of the omnicient knowledge of existence is the answer to Paschal’s wager. Why did they not pursue the irrationality of betting on what cannot be known? Their other problem is the “gap.” There is no way to establish cause, simply by observation of the effect. That is exactly what evolutionists do. The problem lies in the premise, not the conclusion. No evolutionist, nor atheist believes in an uncaused cause. They believe in intelligent design, it is the nature of the designer that is in question. Cameron and Comfort fail as establishing the transcendental precisely because they begin with the elemental. For two Christians, they should know that we cannot climb to heaven to bring Christ down. There is no means of proving transcendence from the natural.
Fred:
It was not pretty–they really were left wanting and it was very disappointing. You can see the entire “debate” at ABC News and go their Face Off section and watch about eight or so separate video clips. It really is embarrassing how they handled this issue. Here is the link: The Cameron/Comfort Atheist Debate
Jason:
You said, “they were asked to give an argument for the existence of God without using the Bible or the word “faith.”
I could be wrong, but I do believe from all that I read that it was Ray Comfort who not only sought out ABC and wanted this debate, but that also he was the one who set the ground rules. Meaning: (paraphrased) “I can 100% prove the existence of God scientifically without using the Bible or relying on my faith.”
When you watch these clips, it is amazing that he and Kirk never once presented any scientific evidence as they claimed for the existence of God. In the end, it really was an effort in futility. He should have gone into the debate presenting accurately the biblical record and backing it up with science as to the existence of God ultimately pointing them to the gospel.
Tragic that it did not unfold that way.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong and happy to stand corrected.
I thought the Atheists won the debate, sadly. It was one of those things where as I watched I could just feel my heart sinking and stomach slowly turning in knots. Comfort did have a few good points but I think they were simply out of their element. Cameron and Comfort are evangelists not apologists, and I honestly like a lot of Comfort’s teaching on evangelism. However, they simply didn’t win this debate and really should have had they been more studied apologetically.
From what I saw, I think Ray and Kirk did okay. Amazing I see where some atheists thought ABC favored the Christian side in the debate. I think many Christian bloggers have been too hard are Ray and Kirk. Could they have done better? Well, yea but I am not sure many others could have done much better in such a debate.
Steve is right that I think Comfort and Kirk goofed in not presented much if not any science. He actually quoted the 10 commandments at the beginning.
I don’t think the atheists did any better and I think across as arrogant and spoke. The audience heckled them when RRS denied Jesus ever existed. They also used silly straw man arguments and really stumbled on what is the source of morality in much the same way Comfort and Kirk stumbled on the Scientific question of The Second Law of Thermodynamics. (oh, my head hurts!)
Who won? I call it a draw.
Please consider carefully so that you are not missing the point in Ray’s proposing this debate. Don’t let that country boy demeanor fool you, Ray is brilliant.
Ray comfort is a full time street preacher. For open air street preachers the hardest part of the whole endeavor is drawing a crowd. No crowd -no preaching, it’s that simple.
On the street Ray will deliberately bait someone into becoming a heckler. Why? Because hecklers attract crowds of people. Ray does not fear hecklers they are his means to an end.
Ray (in his brilliance) found an opportunity to draw a huge crowd. Millions of people would tune in to ABC Nightline to watch him propose to give irrefutable evidence for the existence of God. Ray has his crowd.
Ray knows (for Scripture informs him) that he does not need to prove to people that God exists, because God has already said that He has proven Himself to ALL people
What may be known about God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God. Romans 1:19-21
Ray’s job as a faithful evangelist is not to try to prove God to them as if God’s Word were mistaken and they really didn’t have any idea that God existed. His job was to remind them of the truth that they already know but are supressing in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18
Then, as the evangelist that he is; he moved to using the law of God as it relates to their (the millions of viewing audiences)consciences to show them that they are sinners in need of a Savior.
The whole thing was brilliant. They did not lack the ability to refute Sapient and Kelly’s arguements (I have heard their rebuttals to such flimsy arguements as those) but rather were not allowing themselves to be sidetracked from their purpose.
They had just enough sound arguements to give a humble heart hope, while still managing to stay on target. Consider the eternal ramifications of winning a debate on the existence of God versus taking the opportunity to share with millions of people the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
My hat is off to Ray and Kirk -well done thou good and faithful servants.
I have to agree with some of the other posters. “Disappointing” and embarrassing. Afte watching Ray Comfort’s “banana” video, I have a hard time taking him very serious.
Jason, sorry for my delayed reply. In response to your third comment, I would say that such a scenario is anti Christian. To supposedly “give an argument for the existence of God without using the Bible or the word ‘faith’” is to argue like a non-Christian because it rejects Christian presuppositions from the outset. It assumes that there is neutral ground, which there is not.
It is clear that the debate was meant to cater to the atheists, not the Christians. Personally, I would not enter into this type of debate because it is exactly what the atheist wants.
Jonathan, I think you have misunderstood what I have said.
Jason, I was not applying the rules of the debate to your understanding of apologetics. Sorry if it came off that way.
I WATCHED THE DEBATE I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE GOD EXISTS USING SCIENCE. HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NOT A GOD. GOD IS NOT OF THIS WORLD HIS WAYS ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN OURS HIS THOUGHTS ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN OUR THOUGHTS, IF ALL WE DO IS ARGUE WITH OUR OWN HUMAN SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS, WE ARE DOING GOD AN INJUSTICE. GOD IS REAL! GOD IS JUST! HE IS A FAIR GOD AND JUST AS THE BIBLE SAYS HE GIVES US ALL FREEWILL TO CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN HIM OR NOT TO. IN THE END IT IS UP TO US. I HOPE THAT ALL THE CHRISTIANS OUT THERE WILL JOIN WITH ME AND MY CHURCH AND LIFT UP THESE PEOPLE IN PRAYER. JESUS DIED ON A CROSS FOR US ALL AND LOVES ALL OF US DEARLY.. I PRAY THAT ANYONE WHO IS UNDECIDED ABOUT GOD WILL GIVE GOD A CHANCE AND I KNOW THEY WILL FIND THE TRUTH.
I AM VERY PROUD OF KIRK AND RAY FOR GOING INTO BATTLE IN THIS DEBATE TO PROVE THEIR GOD IS REAL! THANKS FOR STICKING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOREVER, AMEN.