Ray Comfort is a quack.
It may not be the most Christlike thing for me to say, but the man drives me nuts. I believe his heart and desire for God are absolutely sincere, but have you seen this? How can you take this man seriously after that?
Now he’s going to debate God’s existence with the founders of The Blasphemy Challenge website. (HT: Matt)
I encourage you to read what Matt says about this debate. Here’s a sample:
If God could have been proven, Jesus probably would have done that, and if not Jesus, the disciples or the early church. If God was able to be proven without a doubt, it removes our ability to choose. God wants us to accept His gift of salvation freely, if it was known to be a fact that He was there, we lose our freedom because He is the only option. The Bible never speaks of the necessity of proof, it speaks of the actions and the faith of God’s followers. Now, as suggested in the previous paragraph, I want to make it extremely clear that I don’t think this is a blind faith. There is plenty of reason behind faith, but it is faith none the less. And moreover, the Bible speaks of faith in a positive light and not something that we should be sad about “only” having; I don’t need certitude to be convinced (and any scientist should be completely on board with that because how often is something entirely certain?). Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.
He also touches on the website previously mentioned, and wonders what the merits of this kind of debate are. In all honesty, I think this is going to end up as one more thing that atheists can use to laugh at theists. It will be entertaining, for sure, but I think it may do more harm than good.
But we’ll see.
It will be interesting, but Ray is not wrong about proving God is real. Once you realize that there is no such thing as “proof beyond all doubt,” that proof is “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” then virtually every field of science has for two generations been amassing more than enough evidence to prove Creator God is real.
The “scientists” who still deny it are living in the 19th century.
“In all honesty, I think this is going to end up as one more thing that atheists can use to laugh at theists.” I agree. I have a feeling most atheists won’t be taking this very seriously.
I’m not even sure the Christians will…judging from our responses, at least.
Here’s my thing… If there is a Creator God, then why wouldn’t He have been able to make a banana to fit the human hand? However, that’s not enough to convince any athiest, etc. to turn toward God. It’s like trying to use scripture to witness to someone who doesn’t believe in the infallibility of the Word of God. Even Paul, on Mars Hill in Rome, used Roman theology to witness there, not Hebrew theology. That’s where I think his problem is.
You forgot one thing: Everyone’s hands are different! And, I’m sorry, but that is the stupidest Christian insult I have ever heard.
Why would you even take a chance on going to hell, etc., IF there WAS a savior, and IF there was any kind of alternative to going to hell. You may not think hell is such a big deal, but it is described as a “Lake Of Fire” and “Pain beyond understanding.” So why even take the chance?
I know every Christian has wondered about the existence of God sometime or another, so you MUST have also wondered about the reality of God and that he may be real sometime in your life.
Once you realize that there is no such thing as “proof beyond all doubt,” that proof is “proof beyond reasonable doubt,” then virtually every field of science has for two generations been amassing more than enough evidence to prove Creator God is real.
Can’t believe I missed this comment first time round…
Mark, you’re right that “proof beyond all doubt” is not a useful standard. However, “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is worse – it just throws a bit of subjectivity (what constitutes “reasonable”?) into the mix.
Thus, the standard used in science is that of falsifiability. We can’t prove that scientific models are true – but we can prove that they’re false. Every time we test a model for falsehood and it survives, its credibility rises. By contrast, God is completely unfalsifiable – He avoids all exposure to concrete evidence.
I’m happy to be proven wrong here. If you can come up with a predictive model of any part of the universe that includes God, I’ll gladly change my stance. Please note that predictions must be non-obvious, concrete and testable.