Can Ray Comfort really prove God exists?
May 3rd, 2007 | Published in Biology, Current Events, Evolution, Religion, Science | 70 Comments
Ray Comfort, author of Hell’s Best Kept Secret and God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, is challenging two atheists to a debate. Comfort claims he will prove the existence of God without using the Bible or speaking about his faith. The debate is sponsored by ABC and will be recorded on May 9th.
Many Christians are really excited about this. Ray is their hero and they think he’s going to blast these guys out of the water. Well, I’m a Christian and I’m not excited about the debate. I’m not excited because I don’t think it’s possible for to "prove God" without talking about faith.
Scientifically, we can at best say God’s existence is probable, but we can’t prove his existence like we can prove the existence of gravity. Belief in God requires more than our scientific evidence. It requires philosophy, testimony, experience, science, theology — all built upon an adequate epistemology.
However, Comfort says he will present "undeniable scientific proof" for God:
"I am amazed at how many people think that God’s existence is a matter of faith. It’s not, and I will prove it at the debate – once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists."
If you know anything about Ray Comfort, this isn’t surprising. He’s been claiming he can prove God in three minutes for a while now. But I guess this is the real showdown. He’s going to do it "once and for all." It appears he is going to reveal new scientific proof that only he knows about.
But of course that’s not going to happen. Comfort isn’t a scientist. He’s an evangelist whose ministry produces gospel tracts such as "The Wallet" that tricks people into picking them up.
How has he been "proving God" in the past? Consider his most popular example, what he calls "the atheist’s nightmare." He picks up a banana and shows it to the audience. He shows how it has a "non-slip surface," how it fits so well in our hands, how it has an easy-access tab. That, he says, proves there is a God. (Actually, it proves man is pretty good at domesticating wild bananas.)
What? You think I’m kidding? I wish I was. Here’s the video if you want to see it yourself:
Of course they’re not just going to leave it at proving God’s existence:
[Kirk] Cameron will use the event to also speak out against evolution, which he thinks is not credible and a major contributor to the growth in atheism.
"Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that’s preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I’m embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory,” said the former television star in a statement. “Atheism has become very popular in universities – where it’s taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn’t be surprised when there are school shootings.”
So they’re going to prove God with "undeniable scientific proof" and at the same time show that evolution is "unscientific." I fear this will be one embarrassing debate.
Update (May 11): If you are interested, you can watch the debate here. Unfortunately it was worse than I expected. Even though Ray said he was not going to use the Bible or talk about faith, he went into his predictable 10 commandments-based gospel message. He gave no “undisputable scientific evidence.” It was, in other words, a classic bait-and-switch technique.
Ray offered three arguments for God’s existence: argument from design, the existence of a conscience, and conversion to Christianity. As you will immediately notice, none are undisputed. The design of our world can be explained through evolution. Our consciences have not been scientifically proven. Conversion is not a scientific argument at all. This was a very weak case for God’s existence combined with a simple gospel presentation.
In fairness, neither side had strong arguments or seemed prepared. The atheists were amateurs at debate (especially Kelly the Atheist) and were often inconsiderate when Ray and Kirk were speaking. But Ray and Kirk were the losers in this debate, because they did not offer what they promised (undisputable scientific evidence) and used what they said they would not (faith and the bible).
In the end, both sides rely on faith. Brian the Atheist said he knew that matter and the universe are eternal, yet he criticized Ray for knowing God was eternal! Both of these positions require faith. Neither theism or atheism can claim to have “undeniable scientific evidence.”
For those interested in serious arguments for God or what a real debate looks like, these two books may be helpful:
- Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig
- God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm (#)
So do pineapples or coconuts, for example, disprove the existence of God because they’re not ergonomic, and are hostile to human ease-of-use? That argument should have been thought through a little better…
I was always under the impression that faith is a necessary part of belief in God. You are absolutely right in that it requires so much more than science. He’s playing right into the world’s worship of “science.” Without the Bible, he might as well be proving the existence of any number of other gods.
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm (#)
Jimmy: It really is a terrible argument!
May 4th, 2007 at 3:05 am (#)
I agree with you that Comfort’s claim is over the top, I certainly don’t agree with his apologetic framework.
But at the same time, his framework is not entirely unfounded – there is scientific evidence for God. He is meeting atheists at their own game. If one can swallow the epistemic framework that atheists operate from then one ought to also be able to swallow Comfort’s epistemic framework.
Of course I disagree with the whole epistemic framework that either side operates from, but I still admire his efforts.
I just don’t like how this post seems to poke fun at this “embarrassment” of a Christian brother while letting the even more absurd atheists, who would engage him in debate, off the hook. It seems to me that whether we agree with him or not, we should be praying for Comfort to have wisdom to respond well and truthfully rather than scoffing at his foolishness. He is a brother in Christ.
Regarding the banana argument: I think the claim is merely that a banana indicates intelligent design (which it indeed seems to do, although not quite in the way he asserts). I don’t think it follows from his argument that since other fruits are not as ergonomically designed, God does not exist. From his argument, it would merely follow that God is not always a very good creator (hence the problem of equating good design with human ease of use).
Nevertheless, he does indicate some things that legitimately point to a designer, such as the fact that the banana has a peel, a definite structure (5 ridges), changes color according to its ripeness, provides sustenance to organisms operating by cellular respiration, and does not explode when it is opened. Even the fact that these five elements should come together in the by-product of one organism is strong evidence of a creator. The odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically high.
Anyways, all this is to say that I agree with this post in principle, but not in its tenor
May 4th, 2007 at 9:29 am (#)
I’d agree with much of your concerns, but you said that gravity can be proven… Is this really true? Yes, it can be predicted. If I drop a pencil and it falls to the ground, then the best I can do is say that if the conditions are exactly the same the next time and there is not outside force that operates differently, then it will fall to the ground again. But to prove gravity, one really has to prove a lot of yet-unproven philisophical assumptions. Does gravity really exist? Do we really exist or are we just a figment of someone’s imagination? (I’m not arguing that, but just trying to show that proof isn’t really something that operates very well in the scientific realm). Science is good at predicting, but not so good at proving.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:47 am (#)
I think we should save our criticism of Ray Comfort until after the debate, if necesarry. Ray Comfort may just be an evangelist without the credentials of a scientist or philosopher (gasp) but he is a servant of God with a great passion for the lost. This isn’t Joel Osteen we’re talking about.
Ray’s claims to prove the existence of God without the Bible or faith are really quite simple. It’s called general revelation and Paul talked about it in the first three chapters of Romans. Of course, general revelation alone can only condemn and not save. That’s where specific revelation comes in. Even the most evil, inhumane and, dare I say, faithless human being is aware of the existence of God. That knowledge is written on his heart. Atheism is merely an attempt to supress that knowledge.
Anyone who has ever witnessed to an atheist knows of the two common roadblocks. They go something like this.
“I believe God exists because the Bible says so.”
“Good. I believe the Easter Bunny exists because my mother said so.”
“But, I just believe. I have faith.”
“So do I.”
You get the point. Ray isn’t attempting to disciple or even present the Gospel without mentioning faith or the Scriptures. All he plans on doing is proving that God exists in a way that gets around those roadblocks. I expect some version of The Watchmaker Theory to be used – creation proves the existence of a Creator.
Anyone who is familiar with Ray’s ministry knows that it is built around sharing Christ in a Biblical and God-exalting manner. This is why folks like John MacArthur and Ravi Zacharias support his ministry. I think believers should do the same and pray for their brother.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:53 am (#)
I’m not sure about their argument, but I do know this…
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” – Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)
Have a great day,
M.N.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:58 am (#)
Thanks for the post Joshua! In light of …
1 John 2:23 “No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.â€
1 John 4:15 “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.â€
1 John 5:1 “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.â€
2 John 1:9 “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.â€
… my question is this: If we point sinners to the existence of God and not to the Cross, what have we accomplished? We want sinners to repent and cling to Christ, not be convinced merely convinced of divine existence.
I’m not supposing we should disengage the debates. Certainly not! The church must continue to engage culture (and atheism is a growing segment of our cultural fabric in America). I’m arguing that a successful debate cannot be defined as the persuading of others of the existence of God. Rather, God is here, He is angry towards sin every day and sinners must bow and repent from their sin. Especially when we enter the philosophical and academic centers of the world God calls us to follow in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:30-31).
If we have not (by God’s grace) persuaded skeptics to the Cross, neither have we persuaded them to God. The Cross — not Deism — is the goal.
Tony
May 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am (#)
Robert and Jay: I’m not saying I think trying to convince people God exists is wrong. I am saying it is silly to say we can present “undeniable scientific proof” for God, because it makes us look stupid. We’re also playing on their terms and thus lose. It’s better to talk about the whole gamut of “proofs” of God’s existence (including the need for faith) and not pretend we have some kind of magic science solution.
Aaron: That’s a good point, but what kind of repeatable tests can you do for God? Almost all arguments for God are based on design or logical deductions. Gravity (and it’s force) can be “proved” with experiments by any of us. So I think we can certainly say we have “undeniable scientific evidence” for gravity. But we can’t say that for God.
Tony: That’s a good point, but in order for a person to believe that Christ is God, I think they probably have to believe God exists. I know there are many schools of thought on this, but that’s what I think anyway.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am (#)
The Bible does state in Psalm 19 that:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. (Psa 19:1-3)
And in Romans chapter 1, it says:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [i.e., to all people] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:19-20)
If these scriptures are what Ray Comfort is referring to, then I would have to agree with him that it is possible to prove that God exists. The Bible tells us that God’s existence has, in fact, been clearly revealed in His creation. However, this does not mean that the godless will agree with Ray or that they will concede the fact, especially in a public forum. For the Bible goes on to say in Romans 1 that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. In other words, the truth is out there, but men deliberately suppress the truth.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:46 am (#)
Julie: Believing in God because of the Scriptures or because of some kind of innate understanding is much different from “undeniable scientific proof.”
May 4th, 2007 at 10:52 am (#)
Josh, I understand your logic. But if Comfort convinces the skeptic that a god exists and that skeptic becomes a devout Muslim, what has been gained? Without Scripture this is where the debate ends … a god exists now go follow the divine path you choose (Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, etc.). I don’t see how a pastor/evangelist can ever content themselves in separating the Cross (and Scripture) from the existence of God. As Scripture shows, the two cannot be separated. Maybe I’m missing something here (I admit to a lack the braincells compared to many bloggers) but it seems odd that the church is growing content with Cross-neglected responses to atheists. It seems the church view evangelism more as mere intellectual persuasion rather than seeing sinners on their knees in repentance to the holy God of Scripture. The two cannot be separated. Tony
May 4th, 2007 at 11:35 am (#)
Tony says: “[if a] skeptic becomes a devout Muslim, what has been gained?”
I would say that truth has been gained, even if other falsehoods are embraced. Even if it’s the wrong god, that’s better than no God, right? It’s like asking, “What has been gained from someone believing the earth is round or that the sun is in the center of the earth?” Truth has been gained, even if it is incomplete truth. I think that counts for something. I know not everyone agrees.
I understand your concerns about being cross-centered, but I think there is a time and place for debate on essentials — maybe without bringing Jesus into the debate, because that makes things a lot more complicated, especially for a formal debate. (That is, it opens up issues like biblical inspiration, the historical reliability of the new testament, the deity of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, authority of eyewitnesses, contemporary evidence, etc.) There are and should be debates about those things, but not in a formal debate about the scientific evidence for God.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pm (#)
Josh, I’m sure there are non-Christian philosophers, biologists, etc. that can prove a god exists. However, when a pastor or evangelist no longer seeks to terminate everything upon the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 2:2) but is content to let his Bible remain closed, I think there is a serious concern (and a bad precedent set for other pastors/evangelists). Does he not then become a mere “debater of this age” (1 Cor. 1:20) persuading blindfolded sinners with the wisdom of men rather than the illuminating power of the Gospel? We want sinners to find life, and life is found in the Gospel.
“The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:22-24).
The message of the pastor and evangelist is that we find God by honoring His Son and His Son’s Words. By honoring the Son and His Words, sinners find life!
I appreciate the discussion, Josh. Much respect and many blessings to you my friend! Tony
May 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pm (#)
Tony, I’m in agreement with you about pastors and evangelists in their regular teaching. I’m just not willing to say they are obligated to talk about Jesus at every occasion.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pm (#)
Each and every time we engage unbelievers on the topic of religion and neglect the Cross — either by accident or (as in this case) by design — we have withheld the only message of life to a dead soul. We are not talking about ignorant minds that need convincing, we are talking about blindfolded souls, darkened to spiritual truth, enemies of God, in need of God-given life in “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.”
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:3-6).
The veil is removed by, and life given through, the Gospel.
Again, thank you for this discussion, Josh! Tony
May 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm (#)
Let’s put it this way: I have a lot more respect for Ray Comfort and all he has done to further the Word of God than those who would shoot him down before the debate even begins from atop their little soap-box that does what to evangelize to the world? Very encouraging, Josh! You set quite the example.
And how very mature of you to condemn Ray’s banana spoof when he has, in fact, many times admitted that it is tongue-in-cheek. It does get people to thinking, it opens the door for talks in the natural world that can then springboard into the spiritual word, putting people at ease before leading them throug the good news. But yes, your approach is better to simply make a snap judgement about something with which you are ignorant.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pm (#)
Thanks, Rich! I think my approach is better, too.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pm (#)
I am very familiar with Ray and his ministry. It is hard to argue with someone who has given his life for the gospel. This man shares the gospel with more people in a day than most Christians do in a lifetime.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:58 pm (#)
Hi Rick, no one is disputing Romans 1:20 — it just doesn’t count as scientific evidence.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:43 pm (#)
I think many of you are assuming that Ray will not refer to scripture at all. Ray has debated aetheists before and always uses the debate as a springboard to the gospel. This is not some mere attempt to get on TV just for the sake of attention. He plays the intellect game only for a time and then he begins to deal with the conscience using the law. He is basically using Romas 1-3 as his template for the gospel.
Ray will use this opportunity to declare the gospel on national TV. If he does not then we can criticize him.
May 4th, 2007 at 10:05 pm (#)
Perhaps despite dwelling on what people fear about the interview, let’s instead commit the whole thing to God in prayer, and allow Him to move on the viewers.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what Ray says. A Holy God is on the line here and I’m sure He is aware of that. We should also be aware that Ray didn’t say he was presenting the Gospel and the Cross, only simply that God existed.
While challenging two atheists to a public debate is not something all of us would feel entirely comfortable with, at least Ray is out there (and perhaps he will end up with egg on his face) but let’s remember that God is more than capable on working through hearts without flashy tricks or convincing arguements. It’s the Holy Spirit (and not some debate) that leads us to repentance.
I’ll be praying that God will use the outcome of this to allow people to be convicted of something bigger than themselves and then to allow the Spirit’s wooing to explore the Cross.
May 5th, 2007 at 3:34 am (#)
We had a prof at Texas A&M University (Whoop!) try this in a lecture back in the day (Walter Bradley, Mechanical Engineering).
It was good bull on the one hand, but the talk was so bogged down in scientific detail about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Plank’s constant (and perhaps even Avagadro’s number) that many of us got tired head quite soon.
Only the science students with a flair and interest in philosophy really were jazzed in the debate aspect of it.
We Christians were looking for a little something for our arsenal and I’m sure that’s why many are stoked over this.
Hey, apologetics are nice to have and perhaps even needed on some level, but we know you can’t argue anyone into the kingdom and unless they’re born again it’s all mumbo jumbo to them any way. They won’t believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved because He does not appear as worthy of such to those who love the darkness and hate the light.
May 5th, 2007 at 4:38 am (#)
The Return of Banana-Man! It’s always good to watch self-rightous fools demonstrate their stupidity for an audience. A little cruel maybe, but no more than they deserve.
As an atheist and ex-theology student, I’d be very interested to hear a new “rational” argument for believe in a deity. Not that it will be new, or rational. Some possibilities:
* If you don’t believe you’ll go to hell.
* If you can’t disprove god’s existence, you must believe.
* Christianity is the biggest religion in the world, so it must be true. But only my version of it.
* If god didn’t exist, humans couldn’t come up with the idea of him. (The Cartesian argument).
* Darwin was inspired by satan.
* There’s no such thing as an atheist. You just don’t realise you already believe.
* So who made the universe then, eh?
Or will it be…
* I will prove god exists and agrees with me about everything by talking about soft fruit for 13 minutes.
You may wonder, Mr Sowin, why I’m secure in my atheism. It’s because christians keep trying to persuade me with arguments like these.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am (#)
Kapitano: I’m curious: why are you “secure” in atheism instead of agnosticism? How can you know there is no God?
May 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pm (#)
Kapitano,
Come on over here and try out some of your atheism.
It does amaze me that you hear those arguments. I’ve never head them and hope you never will.
“that it will be new, or rational.”
Interesting you dismiss Comfort’s argument without even hearing it, as irrational. You obviously have no interest, so why stop by?
May 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm (#)
Whether you agree or disagree with Ray over bananas, it takes major coconuts to take the stand he does for Christ. I can’t imagine why any brother in Christ, truly filled with the love of Christ would post this type of criticism. Yes, Ray is bold in what he claims. Good! It makes people take notice. And I rather like his ‘tricky tracts’. Bottom line is this, most of us professing Christians should only hope to have half his passion for the lost. So go ahead and criticize him and Kirk or their methods if you wish to, I’ll be praying for him…
May 5th, 2007 at 10:23 pm (#)
FJ: The issue isn’t about passion or boldness for Christ. It’s about whether God can be proved through “undeniable scientific proof.”
May 6th, 2007 at 12:31 am (#)
God exists because the contrary is absurd. No so-called atheist can have epistemic certainly about *anything*. Man, starting from himself, can never reach an absolute. Therefore, the atheistic world-view cannot account for the laws of logic nor morality nor anything else on God’s earth.
Yet, all men *already* know about the existence of God. They show this by the use the laws of logic every time they write on a blog to defend their absurd worldview. They live in a Theistic world every day of their lives. And, for the man denies this postulate, I would also assert that Scripture also says that all men are liars.
To debate the existence of God purely on a scientific level is to grant already rebellious men a platform for which they may flaunt their supposed autonomy. This is less than commendable.
May 6th, 2007 at 2:43 am (#)
Praise God for Ray Comfort!! I was really saddened to see so many posts criticizing a man that I have seen transform so many lives by teaching people (including me) how to share the Gospel biblically and effectivly. I can not even begin to testify of the doors that God has opened up since I have faithfully shared the gospel the way Ray and Kirk teach, according to the Law of Moses!
Unless you experience it, it can not be described in words…. but you KNOW without a shadow of doubt, founded in the Word of God that you are enpowered to share the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit according to the Word of God, when you see the countenance of the lost soul you are sharing with, change…. you see the light come on in their eyes, like never before! (This includes people that I’ve spoken to that call themselves Christians).
May God have mercy on your souls for speaking outside of love toward a fellow brother in Christ.
Don’t we have enough of the world against us as it is??
Just state the facts, but share the truth in love!
May God bless his debate and may the Lord Almighty open the eyes of understanding of all those watching and listening to the debate so that GOD MAY BE GLORIFIED!!!
May 6th, 2007 at 4:00 am (#)
Jeff Downs wrote:
Come on over here and try out some of your atheism.
Some remarkably well worked out ideas, based on patently false premises. Atheism is not a belief system, atheists are not amoral (nor are christians notably moral), and ethical imperatives don’t need to be ultimately grounded in an unquestionable (and arbitrary) authority, any more than they need to be grounded in the structure of the universe.
Still, I have occasionally wondered if there was a word for attempts to deduce all reality from tortured readings of scripture. Thanks to you I now know it’s called “Scripturalism”.
Interesting you dismiss Comfort’s argument without even hearing it, as irrational.
Comfort is a crank and an idiot. He just happens to be a fundamentalist crank and idiot, so some fundamentalists feel obliged not to treat him like what they know he is.
Is it conceivable that Comfort’s latest argument is actually brilliant? I suppose it is. But everything else I’ve heard him say is the opposite of brilliant. If I listened respectfully to every new idea put forward by someone with an unbroken track record of blithering stupidity, I’d be wasting my time 99.999% of the time.
There’s a discussion of inductive reasoning from experience at the blog you link to.
You obviously have no interest, so why stop by?
It’s true I have little interest in the futile sophisms that some theologins and evangelicals like to persue. Trying to reconcile a collection of Mesopotamian folk tales with each other and with observed facts known to contradict them is an exercise in surrealist hermenutics – fascinating as a game, but completely useless.
However, I am interested in the psychology of belief, philosophical questions of epistemology, and the political issue of what happens when lunatics (religious or otherwise) gain power.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:05 am (#)
Josh Sowin wrote:
why are you “secure†in atheism instead of agnosticism? How can you know there is no God?
I trust you are familiar with the Burden of Proof?
If someone tells you the moon is made of cheese, it isn’t up to you to believe them until you find some good reason not to. It’s up to them to justify their statement. If they can’t, or their justification doesn’t make sense, you reject the notion – at least until such time as they present a good justification.
I spent much of my teens and twenties searching out people who said things like “God is love”, “God created the universe” and “Without god in your life, you can never be happy.”, and asking them for good, solid reasons to believe them.
The third statement is empirically false. The second is supported only by very weak philosophy (the ontological and cosmological arguments), and as for the first, no one seems to know what it means.
I have never come across a logical, clear argument for the existence of God. I have never found a definition of “God” that was both meaningful and internally consistent, never mind testable.
I even trained as a catholic priest, reasoning that professional theologins and deep believers would have some insight. I’m sorry to say none of them did. Not one.
Some of them developed abstruse personal versions of christianity, stating that God is the universe, God is beyond notions of existence and non-existence, and, in one case, God lives on the planet Venus. When pressed to explain what these statements meant, or to justify them, they simply couldn’t. Theologins could give lessons in handwaving and waffle to politicians.
I had dozens of discussions with them which ended with “You can’t apply reason to God – he’s bigger than that. All you can do is accept that he loves you, and obey him. Or rather, obey the priests, because although no one can grasp the will of God, the church says they can. And if you don’t he’ll send you go to hell”.
Now, some people misunderstand the Burden of Proof, and demand justification for negative statements like “God is not love”, “God did not make the universe” and “God does not exist”. They think that, because I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, I am compelled to start believing in him. It is a little difficult to prove the existence or non-existence of something you can’t describe.
More importantly, if you do invert the Burden of Proof for questions of christian theology, you also have to do it for every other theology. Can you scientifically prove Ganesh doesn’t exist? You can’t? Then he must!
In fact, you’d have to invert it for every question, meaning you and I are required to believe the American government engineered 9/11 an an excuse to go to war – simply because we can’t prove that such a massively unlikely event definitely didn’t happen.
Well, I suppose you could argue that the burden of proof can be inverted, but only in cases involving the christian god. Why? Because God makes all the rules, and all the exceptions to the rules, so he can invert the principle. At least, he can if he exists, and we can prove he exists if we invert the principle for him.
This is no better than the pastors who tell you “We know the bible is inerrant because it says it is. And if it’s inerrant, then it’s inerrant about it’s inerrancy”. Yes, I’ve met them too.
There is a somewhat shorter answer to your question. I don’t believe in Jehova for the same reason you don’t believe in Vishnu. An atheist is just someone who can see through one more religion than a believer.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm (#)
Atheism is not a belief system…
You can deny this all you want, but of course it is. While there are various strands (or systems) of atheism one may bring to the table it is certainly a belief system.
You dismiss Comfort as a crank and an idiot. I see you want to discuss these thing on “rational” grounds, but your rationality (i.e. dismiss by name calling) is different from mine. I’m not interested in playing this game.
But, if you have the time, perhaps you can offer us a really rational position, as to where ethics are grounded.
May 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pm (#)
Kapitano,
Thanks for the long answer!
I think you are right that just because someone cannot prove something exists that means it exists. I find that argument absurd. However, just because there is not proof for something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, either. For instance, men could not prove atoms existed for a very long time, even after it was suspected. That did not mean they did not exist, yet they could not be proven. There are many examples like this.
That is why atheism seems like a strange position to me. So many people believe and have believed in some kind of god — certainly a majority of the people who have ever lived and even now a majority of people claim to believe in some kind of god. Now, that doesn’t mean it is right, of course. But that should at least make us uncertain whether we can really be sure they are absolutely wrong.
May 6th, 2007 at 2:51 pm (#)
Jeff Downs wrote:
atheism…is certainly a belief system.
An art collector tells you he doesn’t collect sculpture. What does this tell you about what kind of art he does collect? Nothing.
A diner in a resteraunt tell you he’s a vegetarian. This tell you what kind of foods he will not order – steak, leg of lamb, chicken curry etc. What does it tell you about what foods he does like to eat? Nothing. Does he like bean sprouts, or toft? The information you have gives you no way of knowing.
A man tells you he does not believe in any kind of god. What does this tell you about his position on the war in Iraq? Karl Rove is an atheist and he seems to support it. What does a man’s atheism tell you about his view of abortion? It doesn’t. Pick any issue – including religious freedom, prayer in schools, or the historical reality of Christ – and the atheism of a group will not generate a consensus within it.
Your confusion stems from the (correct) observation that commitment to an epistemological rationalism – where belief comes from evidence and reason as opposed to authority and faith – generally leads to the rejection of religion.
This does not mean that all rationalists are atheists, or hostile to religion. And it certainly doesn’t mean they’re all consistent in their rationalism. Nor does it mean rationalism is the only path to atheism – some people are just raised that way.
And nor does it mean that only atheists are capable of adopting a rationalistic attitude. The best theologins are models of careful thought and rigour.
Atheism itself is a belief system in the same way that “somewhere that isn’t New York” is a place.
May 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pm (#)
Josh Sowin
You’re absolutely right that truth and evidence are two completely seperate things.
Galileo had a weak telescope and one page of (incorrect!) calculations to prove his theory. The Church had whole libraries and hundreds of experts on their side. Though ironically they didn’t have the bible on their side.
Fifty years ago it was a mystery how bats could navigate and bees could fly – yet they obviously did, whether or not we knew how. I still occasionally hear people triumphantly declare that scientists can’t explain how bees fly, and therefore deny that bees can fly at all! Apparently this proves that science is a religion, which in turn proves that it’s wrong. [insert emoticon of rolling eyes]
Yes, unbelievers can be idiots too.
Your second point though, that mass belief increases plausibility, seems demonstrably wrong.
In the 1930s it was the official “truth” in all America that marijuana produces instant insanity and death within a month. In reality you’d need to smoke three times your own bodyweight in pure cannabis to overdose fatally, except the smoke would kill you first.
For centuries good christians in Europe believed that witches existed and that witchcraft worked – some still do, but not the bits about eye of newt and flying on brooksticks.
Indeed, it is commonly believed that it used to be commonly believed that the earth was flat. You only need to walk a few miles to realise that the horizon curves away from you at roughly the same distance, wherever you are. But I suppose it’s easier to believe the people of the past were too dumb to notice that, than to quesion what everyone “knows”.
In any case, if numbers of believers suggests probability of truth, then Buddhism is about as likely to be true as Christianity, and Islam is getting more likely by the day.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:02 pm (#)
Kapitano, I’m not necessarily saying that mass belief increases plausibility, though many cases, of course, could be cited where mass belief was true against minority challenges.
Maybe this is a better way to put my point: Many people throughout history and today believe in God and claim to have had interaction with him. Some might be crazy, others might be lying for some advantage (like money or power). But many are sincere.
How can atheists tell them they are wrong, just because it doesn’t fit with their experience or philosophy? Unless they can prove the believer’s experience and logic is wrong, it seems best to say “I don’t know whether what you say is true or not. I suspect not, but I can’t know for sure. I’ve never experienced anything like that, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t.” Who knows, maybe if you had the same experience as they did, knew the same people, read the same books, thought about the same things, etc., you might believe the same things they do.
Good discussion, thanks for contributing.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:58 am (#)
I wish I had been one of the first to respoond. I know this will be lost somewhere on the list. First of all, the banana thing: This isn’t a serious argument from Ray, it’s more or less a tonque-in-cheek poke at atheists. If you knew Ray’s sense of humor, you’d understand.
Secondly, atheists typically argue that you cannot prove God with the bible or personal testimony because it is subjective and circular. All Ray is doing is saying, “All right, you want some kind of empirical truth, here it is.” Then he goes on to point out the incredible, unarguable evidence of a highly structured universe. He also points out the lack of evolutionary evidence which I’m sure you agree with.
Again, if you are familiar with Ray at all, you know that this is really all about getting as many people, viewers, media, etc. to have their eyes on the debate for one reason only. To preach the gospel to them. That’s it! Ray is aware as I’m sure you are that the power to convert is in the gospel alone. THAT’S biblical.
Robert
May 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am (#)
Robert, that argument is not “tongue-in-cheek.” Comfort devotes an entire chapter to it in his book, God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists (see Chapter Two: Banana in Hand). He uses it as an argument for God’s existence and as evidence of design (he also uses the Apple). It doesn’t poke fun of atheists at all. The only reason it’s funny is because it’s absurd.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:13 pm (#)
Robert, it wasn’t lost and I agree with you. Ray will definitely preach the Gospel in the midst of pointing out the absurdity of atheism. That’s the real point.
Josh, re: the banana, I don’t believe it’s absurd. For one, I’m quite fond of them. Second, Ray’s point is simply to show (in the unique way that his mind thinks) that even some of the smallest and simplest items in God’s creation are in fact so perfect for mankind that they can hardly be construed as an accident. Historically, since I was curious, the earliest mention of bananas go back at least 6 centuries BC. In other words, they came with creation like tires on the car, and not through man’s great agricultural achievements.
Again, we should stop the banana bickering and start praying for our brothers.
That’s my 2 cents…
May 7th, 2007 at 1:25 pm (#)
The problem, FJ, is that if modern bananas are an argument that God exists and cares for us, what about pineapples which don’t have easy-access tabs and are too large to fit in our hand? Or watermellons that are neither? Or plants that kill us if we eat them? Or plants that have spikes and hurt us? Does that mean God doesn’t exist because they’re not made “perfectly” for man’s convenient use? Or should we deduce that God hates us because of these plants? It’s the same horrible argument.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm (#)
Josh, I hear what you’re saying, but at the same time your argument means we can never point to the wonderful things of creation (as evidence of the creator) because bad things also exist. As an example, we wouldn’t want to point out how perfect and perfectly necessary oxygen is for our next 30 seconds because an atheist will remind us that somewhere on this planet there are natural gasses that could kill us.
In that same video you linked, Ray said the “whole of creation” testifies of God’s genius in design. In that respect, he constantly points to many apects of creation, not just bananas. Your blog post however has neatly packaged him inside that one argument (totally unfair) as if that were his only point.
Bottom line, you and I can agree to disagree, but Ray remains of the great evangelical leaders of our time and I will continue to support him and lift him up. There’s nothing more to say. The last word is yours if you choose. Peace – FJ
May 7th, 2007 at 5:20 pm (#)
I’ll leave one. Maybe those other fruits are effected by the fall. Just like we are no longer perfect. I will check out the chapter in Ray’s book. One thing for sure. He and Kirk will be sure to preach the gospel.
Rob
StreetFishing
May 7th, 2007 at 5:38 pm (#)
“Again, if you are familiar with Ray at all, you know that this is really all about getting as many people, viewers, media, etc. to have their eyes on the debate for one reason only. To preach the gospel to them.”
Pragmatism. This is one of the plagues of the so-called American church.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:03 pm (#)
just because you can’t see God it doesn’t mean he’s not there…i think Comfort used a good example with the banana, if we just evolved and the banana just evolved there isn’t a high possibility that 2 completely different things could evolve to fit so perfectly together, there would have to be a higher designer in there to put 2 and 2 together,
an example- say there’s a huge river between 2 pieces of land and some one a couple of hundred years ago decides that he wants to be able to get from 1 land to the next so he starts designing and the designer he is he comes up with a great plan that he’s sure will work so he gets a couple of his buddies and gets them to build the bridge and yet to this day the same bridge is still there and your mom is born and she decides well since the bridge was there when she was born it must have just always been there and since she believes that you start to of course if the bridge was there before I was born it’s been there forever and that’s just the same with God and creation just because the earth was here before you were born doesn’t mean it just came from no where or practically no where there was an intelligent designer for the earth just like there was for that bridge
i think another problem is public schools, this country was founded on God and Christian principals and there trying to take Him out of our schools and that’s wrong, they teach the theory of evolution in schools like it’s fact and the fact is they can’t really prove evolution, evolutionists do there work based on guesses and theories to try and prove their theories which isn’t right, i think they should teach both evolution and Christianity in public school’s as “theories” not saying evolution is wrong and just leaving christianity out of it
and another thing if we evolved from monkey’s why are there still monkey’s today, they say it’s cause it takes so long for them to evolve but say your grandma has a monkey and she dies but the monkey live and your mom takes it in and she dies but yet the monkey still lives and you end up with it and after a few years with it, it dies- it didn’t change into anything it just dies so then what how do you prove that I’m pretty sure any monkey you do that with the same thing will happen
just look around you how can you see something so beautiful as a garden full of roses or something so cute as a puppy or even something so complex as the human body and say everything just popped out of no where- people should really think about what there doing before they try to make something so unrealistic sound so factual……
May 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm (#)
I hate to point out the obvious, but praising a banana for its rounded tip which offers easy entry into the human body has certain secondary connotations which may distract easily led people away from a consideration of Scripture.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm (#)
Brothers,
For a great debate between a trained Christian apologist/philosopher versus an athesitic Scientist see the following web page and listen free to the Bahnsen vs. Stein Debate.
http://www.debategod.com
There are 2 parts and a full transcript. I wish Ray had this material in hand/
It is excellent discussion that gets to the heart and core of this issue: worldviews and presuppositons. Bahnsen gives an excellent challenge to the god worshippers of science in both a rational and yet very Biblical format. He demolishes Stein in the debate as witnessed by both christians and non-christians.
Blessings,
Bob
May 10th, 2007 at 5:25 am (#)
Joshua I have worked with Ray in Santa Monica
you are incorrect in your characterization of the banana argument
it is tongue in cheek just like the coke can illustration
these men do law gospel preaching not presuppostional apolgetics
maybe you should contact Ray to verify this– he is accesible
i think this is an unfortunate post
i think we should do better than critique when they do more wrong than we even do right
May 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm (#)
So sad that people don’t understand what Ray Comfort is doing.
I got a chance to watch the debate and was extremely impressed with the respect from the Christians and the disrespect from the Atheists. Bringing Kelly to the debate was a very foolish move to say the least. She seemed either confused most of the time or like a spoiled teenager would say something without any evidence and the atheists in the crowd would clap and cheer.
Comfort and Cameron did an excellent job in explaining the axiomatic proof of God. The reasons why Atheists didn’t want to find God. And expounding on the disease of mankind.
I didn’t realize how delusional the atheists would be, at one time Bryan Sapient said that everyone was a transitional form. Which is against science. Kelly even stated that the micro biologists were unanimously for evolution which is a ludicrous.
The gospel was preached and many seeds were sown, Glory to Christ.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:10 pm (#)
Logan: Sure, we all know what Ray is trying to do. He said he would do one thing (provide “undeniable scientific proof” without faith or the bible), but instead used it as a pedestal to preach his gospel. I call that bait-and-switch. It is dishonest and embarrassing.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:29 pm (#)
Response to Josh Sowin: Watch the first 13 minutes when Ray Comfort is giving the opening statements. He did present evidence without faith or mentioning the Bible. He used the evidence of Creation, the reality of Conscience, and Conversion which produces the knowledge of God experientially.
The first two are proof of God without Faith or the Bible. He did prove God without Faith or the Bible AND he did prove God WITH faith and the Bible with the third one. I’m not aware of anytime he said he would use evidence without faith and the Bible, he said that He CAN give evidence for God without Faith and the Bible.
The following is a report from ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Christian Worldview Network Reporter Attends Big Debate on Existence of God
The Atheist -vs- Christian Debate Provided Clear Evidence God Exists
A debate occurred recently on the existence of God, on the evening of Saturday, May 5th, 2007, at the Calvary Baptist Church in New York City. The event is to be broadcast in it’s entirety on ABC News Now, May 9th at 2pm, EDT, and again on Nightline at 11:35pm.
The debate was moderated by Martin Bashir, the “Nightline” anchor.
For the Christian perspective we heard from Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron of the Way of the Master. For the Atheists we heard from Brian Sapient and his co-hort “Kelly.” Each argued their perspective viewpoints on the question of the existence of God and answered questions put to them from the ABC News Now website, and audience respondents.
The ill-conceived notions of the debating Atheists made for a confusing and downright silly set of arguments. The platform for the debate had seemed simple enough but it proved to be too much for Brian Sapient and the young woman, who asked to be referred to as simply “Kelly”, due to her stated fear of “reprisals.” Brian and “Kelly” were so weak in their claims; they often resorted to making outrageously false statements. “Kelly” made the laughable comments like claiming all micro-Biologists unanimously agreed evolution is a provable fact, while Brian comically professed there are hundreds of transitional life-forms at the Museum of Natural History there in New York City!
I was at the debate as a reporter getting responses from the opponents and the crowd for the Worldview Weekend website ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com. My aim was to hear what the goals of the debaters were and to know whether the attendees believed their intended outcome had been accomplished. As many expected, Brian Sapient haughtily claimed victory while Kelly claimed offense, her best “argument” for the evening being an obviously staged “ward-robe malfunction”, performed only feet in front of her Christian mother. Her stunt aroused the Atheists in the crowd to hoot like drunks in a bar; causing many to violate the Seventh Commandment right there in a Church. If Kelly and Brian’s intention was to be irreverent and to cause others to stumble in sin, they succeeded only with the Lost, their own people. The Christians had respectfully looked away giving her time to recover herself honorably. The lack of respect Kelly showed for the place she was in and for those she and Brian were supposed to be debating didn’t really surprise the executive member of the church, but had, instead, saddened him to see these Atheists could not have shown more civility and professional respect. But such was the tone from the Atheist side during the whole debate: derision, sarcasm and irreverence for a subject 90% of Americans hold dear: They were their own worst enemies.
But, thankfully, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron ignored the pandering of the “Squad” members with judicious alacrity, even applauding their opponent�s ridiculous points. Ray explained very clearly the three points of the Christian argument for the proofs of God in his opening statement, repeating them often as the “intellectuals” seemed not to be able to understand. Ray and Kirk explained the evidence of Creation decrying a Creator; the evidence of Conscience professing a Rule Giver; and the scientific facts of the Bible proving out over the centuries to be wholly accurate, all demonstrating the genius of the claims Christianity makes. Kirk even pointed out some of the smartest men ever to walk the earth similarly acknowledged the same evidences: Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, and Copernicus, among others. Although Einstein was not a Christian he openly acknowledged the evidence of a Designer in the design. Most notable to this author is how Stephen Hawking has also acknowledged the same proofs as being hard to ignore.
Yet the atheist arguments proved so ludicrous as to be laughable. The idea that, “we are all transitional life-forms” was so illogical the ABC moderator, Martin Bashir, had to stop and call them on it, amid jeers and laughing form the largely Atheist crowd, ridiculing them for even attempting such nonsense.
All the debaters, except Kelly, felt further debates of similar formats would be helpful and worthwhile; Kelly’s comments proved as juvenile as her actions.
Frankly, though I agreed with Tiffany Gelpi of ChangeYourCampus.com that the debaters did not change each other’s minds, I was happy to note one of the Atheists I had previously interviewed that night, later asking me poignant questions, all alluding to his considering the claims of Christianity seriously in his tone and apparent appreciation for the claims Ray and Kirk had made for the proofs of God’s existence and our resulting moral turpitude.
The point of this debate was not to prove the Christian God is the Only God, though Ray and Kirk did this very well in my opinion, but rather that the proofs of God existing are so obvious as to engender foolishness to deny the evidence .
I believe, as many who saw the debate in person did, the representatives for Christianity did exactly what they had set out to do, providing real evidence for logical consideration on the existence of God. After all, believing God exists is the precursor to the saving process, the Conscience spurring the sinner on to a reasoned Fear of God, to an understanding of His righteous Judgment, to a humbled repentant saving faith in Jesus, as their Savior, LORD and God.
I left the Atheist, who had sought my opinions out, now an admitted Agnostic, with the same comments Ray and Kirk left the viewers of this debate considering…
IF the claims of Christianity are true, that there is a God, a Designer plainly seen in the design of His creation; IF your Conscience decries a Law Giver you are accountable to; IF the Scientific, Prophetic and Moral claims in the Bible do indeed not only show that God IS but who that God is, and what He expects you to do, THEN…
WHAT DO YOU DO NOW?
Like the man at the feet of Jesus, Ray and Kirk’s arguments leave the sinner asking, “What must I DO to be saved?
If you seek God with all of your heart you will find Him…
(Deuteronomy 4:29)
Patrick Burwell
OnlyJesusSaves.com
Footnotes:
(1) Atheist Debate
(2) Deuteronomy 4:29
May 11th, 2007 at 7:18 am (#)
One bro brought a word of correction on Jt’s blog… I receive it- I was simply frustrated and I agree that sweeping generalizations do not help that being said…I don not know anyones heart but I exhort with tears that we pray and ask the Lord are we making excuses for our comforts and avoiding going outside the camp and bearing the stripes of Christ
this the Early Church only do relational evangelism?
May 11th, 2007 at 11:46 am (#)
So, supporters of Ray Comfort are now saying that he’s really joking when he presents his cretinoid “banana” argument – although he gives no hint of this himself – and what he’s really saying is:
* The universe is complex and structured
* Therefore it must have been designed
* Therefore it must have had a designer
* Therefore this designer is identical with the christian god.
Two highly questionable inferences, and one that makes no sense at all.
It’s interesting that believers now feel obliged to “prove” their belief with science and reason, and interesting that the arguments they produce are all so weak. Whatever happened to simple Faith?
It used to be considered a virtue to have a strong faith that didn’t rely on worldly knowledge and precise thinking. Now, the faithful seem to think such a way of being religious is somehow insufficient and even cowardly. It’s very strange, because faith which bypasses reason can’t be attack by reason (or other faith), but faith which relies on reason is very vulnurable, as Ray Comfort inadvertantly shows.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm (#)
the word is tongue-in-cheek not joking
he making fun of atheism
do you understand bro?
May 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pm (#)
That’s an interesting thing to say, Scott, because if it’s true then Comfort’s position is even weaker than it appears. He’s not supporting faith, he’s not arguing against atheism, he’s making fun of it.
You seem to think mocking atheism is somehow profound and insightful, but I doubt you think the same about mocking christianity.
Last time I checked, giggling at an idea is not a persuasive argument against it, and neither is winkingly putting forward absurd arguments you don’t actually believe simply because they annoy your enemies.
You’re essentially calling Comfort an internet troll. And admiring him for it. As a defence of christianity, that’s pretty weak. And as an example of good christian behavior…well, it isn’t.
May 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pm (#)
I hang my head low today.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:52 am (#)
The Lord looks at the wicked and laughs the fool says in his heart there is no fool
Answer a fool according to his folly…lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Hence tongue in cheek–its a foolish argument in the same way that atheism is foolish…in the same way than and coca cola can is proof of evolution…http://ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html
the title proof that atheists exist is tongue in cheek as well…maybe all of us should stop debating and go out and share our faith tonight?
May 12th, 2007 at 8:17 am (#)
Take heart! If we ever start doubting our own existence, we’ll always have Snack Packs and Lunchables to prove ourselves with. I’d say, they’re even more convenient than bananas.
May 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm (#)
Abraham is that you makin fun of Ray too…jeeze wht is the world comin to…im gonna go eat a banana…and listen to Bahnsen
May 19th, 2007 at 6:57 pm (#)
Listening the recap of this debate on wayofthemasterradio.com I learned two things. First, Comfort gave Brian a copy of his notes some time before the debate. Brian and Kelly knew exactly where he was going to go with the debate.
Two, Ray said that he could prove the existence of God without using faith. He didn’t say anything about the bible. This was only brought up by Brian. Interesting huh?
May 19th, 2007 at 8:37 pm (#)
Chris,
You’re mistaken that Ray never said he wouldn’t use the Bible. In the press release from Living Waters (Ray’s ministry), it says:
Also in their “newsblast” they say:
If they denied this in the radio broadcast, I would be really surprised. I hope you simply misunderstood.
Josh
May 25th, 2007 at 3:04 pm (#)
I think I see the problem. In Ray’s opening remarks of the debate he didn’t mention the bible. However he had written this everywhere and it was probably announced that way. Ray’s backing I think was this angle. He proved without faith or the bible that God exists by using the if there was a painting there must be a painter. This is simple and profound at the same time. Yet sometimes I feel that it is so simple that we overlook it or we don’t put much weight into it. I won’t be one to say that Ray and Kirk have it all right. I won’t even begin to speculate who “won” the debate. I will say this though… I believe that the Gospel was clearly presented at this debate to millions of viewers. I also believe that we can use this debate as a springboard to proclaim the good news to people without being ashamed.
The source for my comment earlier should be located in the archives at http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com look for may 09 hour 2… it is a free download.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:13 pm (#)
I just love the way you Christians quote bible passages in your argument to the existence of a god. If I don’t believe in a god, then why would I respect a bible quote?
Wake up you religious fools! We evolved. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Except it. The bible starts of false by claiming the entire universe was created in 144 hours only 12,000 years ago.
Let’s see 4.5 billion year old earth compared to a biblical 12, year old earth. I can look through a telescope and see galaxies 120,000,000 light years away! That is PROOF the bible is full of crap!
There are fossils on earth that are billions of years old. More PROOF!
Life can evolve to what it is today over “BILLIONS’ of years dummies.
Ray Comfart is just taking your money away from you. He’s a bussinessman. Trying to make money.
You are all fools! You believe in an invisable man in the sky like ancient humans did.
Wake TF UP!
October 14th, 2007 at 4:13 pm (#)
In responce to your article;
Well, I’m a Christian and I’m not excited about the debate. I’m not excited because I don’t think it’s possible for to “prove God” without talking about faith.
Faith is the only way to God, I know from experience.
Like Professor Richard Dawkins I set out to find the truth about God, but unlike him, I found it.
Everything Richard says about the historical aspects of man, his religion, his politics etc, is true,yet he overlooked one important part of the equation; he forgot about God.
Trust me, I have travelled the same pathway as the Professor, but my journey lasted over 25 years: God exists.
One more thing: I am not religious, nor have I ever been, I can’t be, because I know God.
7th Knight.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pm (#)
Cameron and Comfort failed entirely and necessarily for the simple reason that if there are two worlds, natural and supernatural, the complexity or organization of the visible, natural world can tell us nothing about an invisible, supernatural one.
For those who believe that it does, it is simply a presupposition of belief (e.g., those who quote religious texts to prove their point).
As for Ethics, all the rationalists had to do was to point to thousands of years of Confucianist society in China or, for that matter, to the foundation of U.S. political philosophy which, at best, might be “Deist.” But being a “Deist” in the 18th century was alike to being an agnostic today or even an atheist.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 am (#)
Dear Joshua Sowin
During the brief moment that I looked at your web page, I was overfilled with grief and depression.As christians we are very good at killing our own.Why is it you make an effort to put another servant of Christ down.Ray Comfort even though I do not know him personally, I know that he is a true servant of God. He provides materials and information to Christians so that we can defend the faith.Even though the evidence is not as deep or as sound as you would like. Why is it that you would make an effort to put him down?I am sure he is pleasing his father in heven for he is being a good and faithful servant. But yet people like you who do not show love to this brother and his work, instead of supporting him you are putting him down.You sir should be ashamed.I hope you change.
P.s I am only 21 but I can tell that what you have done is not out of love.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm (#)
VERY GOOD POST! God is not glorified by the naivety of man. He is glorified by their faith despite His invisibility. Naive head nodding may produce the appearance of obedience but to truly “lose one’s life” to find it comes from faith that trumps all natural laws…not naivety. If God trumps natural laws than He himself is outside of those laws and those laws will never disprove Him. They certainly would not prove Him either because they simply become irrelevant.
When Jesus mentions casting a mountain into the sea he was explaining that a little faith trumps natural law. Not that we should expect to see mountains jumping into the sea. Obviously such a thing would undermine faith, because once it has been seen it would no longer require faith to accept. Therefore such a thing would not happen since faith is what really glorifies God, not moving a few atoms from one place to another. There is plenty of that happening every day all around us that most folks just ignore anyway. So what if Everest flips upside down? Did you see that giant fireball burning in the sky this morning? That was amazing!
The big bang theory is a very popular theory but it does nothing AT ALL to satisfy origin. Even if all the matter in the universe is squeezed into a space the size of a pencil point, or atom, or even if it was in a bread box, it still exists and its moment of origin, that moment when it went from nothing to something, is completely unexplained. In fact, the theory does nothing at all but change the universe’s location. Yes, atheistic scientists have to make the same leap of faith as a theistic scientist (and we are all scientists). They just leap in the opposite direction.
I see a spiritual law at work. If, as the Bible claims, we are spiritual beings our final decision to this question would ultimately be based on the condition of our spirit. Despite all the thinking and debating this is not a decision for our gray matter, it’s a decision of our spirit. In fact I believe that at any given moment whether a person claims with their mouth to believe God or not it means very little to what they will ultimately settle on as the condition of their spirit is revealed. If faith without deeds is dead, then the opposite is probably true, from true faith comes true deeds. The kind of deeds that are rooted in the will of God and endorsed by Him. The kind of deeds that may even look like miserable failures from a logical perspective, maybe even resulting in the death of the one involved. Maybe even death on a cross…. Those kinds of deeds change the world in supernatural ways. Supernatural because they do even more for the condition of our spirit than they do for our flesh. To God, it is the human spirit that matters. To gray matter, it is always about the flesh.
How many atheistic scientists would change their tune if I were to command Everest to flip upside down and it happened the moment I proclaimed it? Would that change of tune really mean any change has occurred in their spirit? I believe no. Therefore there is no more point in flipping Everest upside down than there would have been for the rich man from Jesus’ parable to return from the dead. Jesus’ miracles prepared the world to witness (and know) the ultimate miracle. His suffering, death, and resurrection so that tax collectors, prostitutes, and the rest of us who are unholy sinners would be free from the wages of sin which is death. The condition of our spirit is changed (because the sins of the flesh can no longer condemn our spirit) and ultimately everything we do after the moment that Jesus’ blood redeems us. Faith bears fruit, fruit that lasts, whether we get to see it in our lifetime or not bears little relevance other than experimental testability which again only undermines faith.
The Gospel is the most important truth science will ever discover
October 11th, 2008 at 3:43 am (#)
Hi. I’m an atheist.
I enjoy reading Ray Comfort’s blog very much, and was interested to see a debate involving him and Kirk Cameron.
I’m afraid the simple truth is that Ray Comfort is a highly mendacious person, and a discredit to intellectually honest Christians everywhere.
The flaws in his arguments have been pointed out on many occasions, and he completely disregards those criticisms. He misrepresents science, atheism and all other branches of religion, including Christianity, that are not his own particular denomination.
He has a superficially polite manner that masks a serious passive-aggressiveness and superiority complex.
I’m afraid that this manner of his often works to provoke opponents into insulting him by calling him an idiot. He’s not an idiot; he’s an extremely clever provocateur and manipulator. However, it’s worth taking note of the people who are willing to critique his arguments reasonably. Here is what I think is the best example:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=The_Beauty_of_a_Broken_Spirit%E2%80%94Atheism_%28Way_of_the_Master%29
It is possible that God exists and that Ray’s version of Christianity is true (to clarify: atheists generally define themselves as people who lack belief in religion, and therefore can list God’s existence as one of the many things that are possible but they don’t believe are true).
However, true or not, this does not change the fact that Ray Comfort misrepresents the truth, wilfully and repeatedly.
Thank you.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm (#)
Ok you guys havnt seen the full clip and what Ray is trying to explain, before he talks about the banana he says, “millions of years ago there was a puddle of brown sugary liquid, and after another million year it started to form a can and a lid and tab to open it. And there you go the first coca cola ever” of course he’s being sarcastic. But wat hes saying is that, that its stupid to say pop evolved obviosly people created it, but it has some of the same properties of a banana, the banana has a peel like the outside of a can, it has a tab to open the banana, same type of thing.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:21 pm (#)
Lighten up people. He’s using humor. I’m quite sure he doesn’t truly believe that he proved God’s existence in this way. He’s a comedian/evangilist. That’s what he does.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:55 am (#)
I believe Ray Comfort is correct in that God exists, but his ‘proof’ of God is only acceptable within a Christian worldview. A non-Christian or humanistic worldview will only allow certain types of evidences. In other words, both are conditioned with their own sets of axioms and ultimate presuppositions. The proof of God is that without God, there is no coherence to reality. Laws of logic, uniformity of natural law, and ethics cannot be accounted for. Without an absolute and universally binding source, they are non-foundational, but we know they are necessary to coherence in reality.