ABC Debate - Does God Exist?

[Guest]

I got an email today saying that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are working with ABC on a debate (Does God Exist?) with a few atheists. I was wondering if anyone has heard anything about it.

[Guest]

The debate can be seen on the Nightline website on Wednesday May 9th from 1-2 pm EST.

[Guest]

A 100-year-old Baptist church in the heart of New York was the venue Saturday for an ABC debate on the existence of God. Actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort "faced off" against two atheists from the "Rational Response Squad," in a debate moderated by ABC Nightline's Martin Bashir.

"We were delighted ABC gave us the opportunity to present our case," said Comfort, "but we were taken aback by the aggressive nature of the debate. The audience was evenly divided between believers and atheists. The believers were very polite and quiet, while the atheists were extremely vocal. 'Nasty' is an appropriate word. We felt life a couple of goldfish in a pool of hungry Piranhas, and were getting a sense of what the early Christians must have felt in a Roman coliseum."

In the debate, Comfort presented proof for the existence of God, while Cameron offered evidence to show that the theory of Darwinian evolution is unreasonable and unscientific. They pointed evolutionists to www.IntelligentDesignVersusEvolution.com, where they're offering $10,000 to anyone who can provide a genuine, living transitional form supporting evolutionary claims. The debate also addressed such questions as "Who made God?" and "What about the heathen in Africa who've never heard about God?"

"The atheists made it very clear they didn't like what we said," Cameron explained. "They were full of mockery and sarcasm, belittling the many great scientists and intellectuals who recognize the existence of a Supreme Being. But the average American isn't viciously anti-God. In fact, polls show that more than 90 percent believe in His existence. Our hope is that the program will cause people to think deeply about the evidence presented, and challenge them to consider this most important issue of life."

While Comfort and Cameron will have to wait until Wednesday to see what the public thinks of the debate, they report that they've already received encouraging email from one audience member who commended their presentation: "Good job last night! Although I received my invitation to the show via the atheist camp, I must confess that I was impressed with the two of you (and that I was embarrassed by at least two atheist audience members, whose hostile questions bordered on heckling--I admired your calm and courteous responses). ...I find the 'Design means there was a Designer' argument to be perfectly logical. I just have yet to come across convincing evidence that this Master Designer of the Universe inspired the Judeo-Christian Bible.'"

Another encouragement, Comfort added, was that both mothers of the two atheists in the debate are Christians--one of whom was in the front row of the audience. Comfort stated, "Both sincerely thanked us for our stand, and said that they were earnestly praying for us."

The entire debate will be streamed Wednesday, May 9, at 1:00 p.m. EDT ( 10:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/, then again at 2:00 p.m. EDT (11:00 a.m. PST) on http://abcnews.go.com/abcnewsnow/, and an excerpt will be aired that night on ABC's Nightline.

We will have the debate available for viewing online from our video sharing accounts. The videos will be available for viewing after ABC streams it live on their website Wednesday, May 9. You can visit the following link to find the video when it is available. Keep checking after ABC streams it live.

http://www.wayofthemaster.com/abc_debate.shtml

[Guest]

I watched the first bit of the debate. I will have to catch the rest later.

I can give my initial impression though.

I have to say, I think that the "creation shows that there is a creator" argument, is as far as I can tell, fallacious.

I am afraid Ray Comfort is begging the question there. The athiest does not believe that the world is a "creation", so the argument won't work. Ray proceeds to use as part of his proof, that which remains to be proven, namely that the world is a creation.

Of course, if he could show that, then the argument would be valid.

I don't think that the "conscience" argument is valid either, because it's completely subjective. It's really not an argument at all, so far as I can tell, but an appeal to emotion, which is again fallacious.

I get the feeling tht Ray, uses these types of things to share the gospel, more than to show that the faith is rational. He did this when he debated the American Atheists Inc. president (his name escapes me). When he does this, while the gospel is preached, it is kind of discredited by his fallacious arguments, which kind of defeats the purpose.

I was also disappointed with the atheists. I am sure atheists everywhere are cringing that they are being represented by these guys. Their whole presentation was riddled with sarcasm. Also, they are horribly ignorant of what Christianity teaches, evidenced by the "who created God" and "you can murder all you want and still go to heaven" arguments, and erecting rediculous straw men like "God is exempt from logic" (as if Christians think God can make a square circle, another God, or exist and not exist at the same time?). These guys were simply chosen because of their "blaspemy challenge" publicity stunt, and not becuase of any qualifications that they have to enter such a debate.

Really in the end, I think that everyone lost on this one. Of coure a real debate, with qualified opponents would not happen on ABC, because the people wouldn't be famous, and wouldn't merit them giving them airtime. With subjects like Paris Hilton's latest hairdo to worry about and all...

[Guest]

I have to say, I think that the "creation shows that there is a creator" argument, is as far as I can tell, fallacious.

I'm not sure why. We are here.
I don't think atheist believe the world always existed, I know I didn't. So both sides believe in some kind of "coming into being" or creation.
I think the focus moves to the purpose of existence. If the world and life came into being by accident, then why is everything so uniform? In other words, look at the position of the earth and moon in the solar system, the way life on the earth functions. All of it "works" together. If there is no reason for this, then why is it so? If one says that there is not logical reason, then that seems to defeat what everything in nature is saying about itself, if not to us as well.

Or put another way, if there is no purpose, then nothing in creation should make sense, because it would not have been designed. If one says "You're just noticing the natural laws of the universe at work" then that seems to beg the question of what is a law, why does it "work" and how did we recognize it? If the universe is random by nature, then how can it follow "natural laws"? Is this not a contradiction of the atheist view of the universe? I know they want it random and orderly at the same time, but I don't see that being logical.

[Guest]

I'm not sure why. We are here.

I'm not saying that I disagree with him, only that he is commiting the logical fallacy of begging the question.

He is stateing as part of his proof, that which remains to be proven.

Again, it is a matter of presuppositions. The fact that "we are here" does not prove that we were designed.

I agree that the world is designed. I don't think that the atheist has a good explanation for this either, it's just that Ray's is question begging in his argument.

Imagine if the atheist said, "the fact that we evolved proves evolution, I mean, we're here aren't we?, we must have evolved".

I don't think atheist believe the world always existed, I know I didn't. So both sides believe in some kind of "coming into being" or creation.

They don't have an answer for this, without resorting to the illogical "something came from nothing" which is on it's face, rather silly.

Is this not a contradiction of the atheist view of the universe? I know they want it random and orderly at the same time, but I don't see that being logical.

It is horribly illogical! This would have been a better track to go down in the debate. Showing first the irrationality of the athiest worldview, in pointing out things like this, and contrasting that with the rational Christian worldview.

Christians can account for the uniformity in nature, becuase we believe in a sovereign God who "upholds all things by the word of His power", therefore we have the necessary preconditions to assume the uniformity of nature, and thus laws. The atheist is backrupt on this point.

When asked to account for the uniformity in nature (the inductive principle) they will explain that matter has certain inherint properties which cause it to behave in a uniform way, etc..

What they never seem to realize is that this is simply a restatement of the question. It amounts to saying "nature is uniform because nature is uniform"!

[Guest]

Thanks for clarifying Derek. It's always an interesting topic because I used to hammer believers when I wasn't one. I like to try and think how I would have answered some of these issues that were never brought up to me when I was an unbeliever.

Imagine if the atheist said, "the fact that we evolved proves evolution, I mean, we're here aren't we?, we must have evolved".

Well, not really because that doesn't go back far enough and explain where the first living cells came from and why they would evolve.

I do think you make the same point in your next statement:

They don't have an answer for this, without resorting to the illogical "something came from nothing" which is on it's face, rather silly.

Now I have to find some time to watch the debate myself.

[Guest]

I just thought the whole thing was a waste of time and agree that neither party was the right one to have the debate -- isn't Ray Comfort known for criticising the evidential and presuppositional apologists and teaching only that you are a sinner in need of a savior, or am I thinking of someone else?

[Guest]

While I haven't heard the debate yet, Comfort's argument of design is actually quite strong, so long as it's presented in the right way. I present it thusly:

The laws of thermodynamics prove the universe is finite, which nearly all scientists agree with. Let's say the universe came into existence 15 billion years ago, which is the current model. We are now presented with two options:

1) The universe came into existence through a natural cause.

2) The universe came into existence through a supernatural cause.

Narrowing the field like this is the best way to start.

[Guest]

While I haven't heard the debate yet, Comfort's argument of design is actually quite strong, so long as it's presented in the right way. I present it thusly:

I am not sure how what you are saying resembles Ray Comfort's argument. You seem to present the beginning of an argument here.

It can be a good argument, when you critique the line of reasoning that says that the universe came into being by natural means, and showing the philisophical problems that presents, and then present our position in contrast. But merely positing, "there's a creation, so there must be a creator" is a question begging statement, and thus fallacious.

A fellow named Dustin Seegers wrote a good critique of the debate.

Here it is:

PART I
PART II

For those of you who have only been exposed to the "evidentialist" school of apologetics, this should be interesting, and Mr. Seegers approaches things from the presuppositional perspective.