Ray Comfort to debate atheists

First of all the passage you wish to debate is a parable, in which the spiritual standing of the individual is not explicitly discussed, you are assuming he is a believer, I consider him an unbeliever, but regardless, if we discuss that text here we will get off thread. The issue is Ray Comfort's debate with an atheist, and staying on topic, I still think it is wrong to call him a fool, whilst extoling the apparent virtues of atheists

 

I've never exolled the virtues of these particular atheists.

The only atheists who I give any credence to are the ones who accept that they are going as much on faith as is the saved individual. They are still in error, in my opinion, but realize that they can no more prove there is no God than anyone else can prove that there is.

Ray Comfort uses circular reasoning, which has no basis in logic, but takes a presupposed conclusion, then picks things that "proves" his point. In the example of the banana, the atheists can use the same picture to "prove" evolution, with as much credence.

Instead of looking and acting foolish, he (or someone more capapble) should use Scriptures to show that there is no contradiction between Scriptures and provable scientific fact.

Everything beyond that is opinion and is based on faith. What that faith is based upon then becomes the point of the debate.

That's why I will never debate the existence of God, and it's a fool's errand to do so. It is impossible to prove that there is a God or that there is no God.

And taking lies and suppositions based on pseudo-science such as AiG does only destroys the credibility of fundamental Christianity.

Science used to be based on the assumption that there was a God, so many scientific discoveries were made because if God made it, it would be orderly. Now, science assumes that because it's orderly that God cannot exist.

Why do you suppose things changed?

I contend that it's people like Ray Comfort, AiG, and others who have driven people away from God in their misguided zeal for God. We need to present truth instead of half-truths and distortions.

Circular reasoning does not prove truth.

 

I contend that it's people like Ray Comfort, AiG, and others who have driven people away from God in their misguided zeal for God. We need to present truth instead of half-truths and distortions.

You're right on H of G. There is no doubt that they mean well but their fruit is bad.

 

Bad fruit according to you?

 

Yes Webdog.

The fact that one perceives himself to be defending truth - or the fact that one is arguing against one who mocks the truth does not automatically validate his argument.

I have a degree in biology and teach some of it to med students. The AiG arguments appear contrived to me. Frankly I would be ashamed to use most any of that stuff in a debate against an atheist. Why?

Consider this...

The atheist assumes that scientific empiricism and logic are the only keys to knowledge. Thus they construct models of the universe which don't presuppose God.

To try to "prove scientifically" that God exists or that creation occurred 6000 years ago is to admit that the atheist's model is valid - namely that human logic is the supreme arbitrator.

I think it is no accident that God has not allowed us "proof" of the veracity of His word.

That is where faith comes in.

And faith contingent on proof is not faith.

 

Very well said. And as a result the church has lost its Holy Ghost power.

 

From the article at the link provided:

As far as the athiests are concerned, I doubt it.

I am not sure exactly who is going to win the debate. If someone is an athiest, how can they be convinced that there is a God? All of the athiests I have encountered don't believe in anything they can't see, hear taste, or feel.

Regards,
BiR

 

I believe in God, and I'll tell you right now that I would lay money that Ray Comfort will not be able to prove the existence of God. (With "God" being defined as the deity we generally refer to as God the Father. I can prove there is a "god" in the general sense.:laugh

Why would I do that? Well, I don't gamble. This would not be gambling. (Of course, it would be akin to taking candy from a baby, so I guess I better not put any money on it.)

There are no contradictions between Scriptures and scientific facts.

If you want to debate atheists, instead of trying to prove the existence of God, which is unprovable in this life, show from Scriptures where there are no contradictions.

 

A false premise will always yield a false conclusion. As you have rightly concluded that for the Christian the existence of God is accepted by faith, not a matter to be academically debated and proved.
Having said that, you logically contradict yourself by seemingly accepting the false premise of Dawkins: "a universe that does not have and does not need a creator."

1. Whether it is the universe or life itself--all things have an origin. To delve in the origin of the universe and the origin of life is outside the realm of science and is in the realm of the metaphysical. It requires faith. There is no possible scientific way to have any empirical evidence of the origin of the universe. The closest we can come is the Intelligent Design theory, and that points to a Creator. Needless to say, even that requires faith. Whether it is the Big Bang or God, it requires faith. The study of origins is a study in a religion; a religion that requries faith. It is faith in "scientism," or a faith in the living God that the Bible that describes for us. We have that choice. I would rather put my faith in the God of the Bible than in Dawkins or any other silly theory that cannot be supported by science, only blind faith unsubstantiated with facts.

 

They don't believe in microwaves?

 

DHK,

I think you misunderstood my statement. Dawkins and indeed most modern Darwinists start out with the belief that the universe can be explained in its entirety using a system of biological development (evolution). He sees no need for God.

I never said he was right - but rather that his arguments are internally consistent since he starts out with the premise that God is not needed and continues in that presupposition. For Comfort to claim to prove God scientifically is to admit tacitly that his (Dawkins') rules are right.

 

The only science that Ray Comfort would have is the refutation that what Dawkins is trying to prove is not science. It is religion. Dawkins has entered the realm of the metaphysical and gone outside the boudaries of science--knowledge gained by observation. There was no one there to observe the origin of the universe. Therefore it does not fall into the realm of science. It is easily refutable either by logic (a science), or the simple refutation that it isn't science, but a religion requiring faith.

 

Atheists start out with the premise their is no God and then look to science to prove it.

 

Consider the "science" of logic.
"There is no God" is a universal negative, a logical fallacy, which is impossible to prove. To declare such is a totally illogical statement since it is impossible to look for God everywhere.

 

Well said!:thumbs:

 

Scripture disagrees with you:

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

An atheist doesn't find God for the same reason that a thief doesn't find a policeman.

 

Well said!:thumbs: