Atheist-Christian debate like a commercial
Was watching Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort today debating Atheists Brian and Kelly “Sapient”.
My impression: Cameron and Comfort (C&C) weren’t intent on proving God’s existence. It was a commercial for their “Way of the Master” ministry; an evangelistic effort. I would say that the atheists tore them apart, but there wasn’t really an attempt to debunk atheism on a scale that appealed purely to reason. Though billed as proving the existence of God without referencing the Bible or faith, Comfort spent nearly 2/3 of his opening comments doing precisely that. C&C looked bad only for having not done what they said they would do.
Although … at times I found Brian and Kelly (and some audience members) to be rather rude/insulting. On that level C&C were good Christian ambassadors.
The rest of the debate will be added tomorrow to the ABC News site, and something on Nightline tonite. I may have more thoughts and reflections after seeing that. And, I’ll probably have some more direct answers to things raised but not answered by C&C.
Oh … let me provide a bit of an answer — though not an exhaustive one — on the “who made God?” question, which C&C didn’t seem able to answer. Brian and Kelly brought up that one could believe the universe, rather than God, always existed. Well, that contradicts science that says that the universe has a beginning; so if you believe the universe always existed, then you can’t believe science.
Ultimately, there has to be a “something from nothing” argument on either side, because in the observable universe we know that all things have a beginning an and end; creation needs a creator. Perhaps it was a “random quantum fluctuation” that caused the universe to be. But, given that such has never been directly observed, it takes just as much faith to believe in that as it does to believe in God.
For those that want to explore these matters more seriously, check out William Lane Craig’s writings and debates.
[tags]debate, atheist, christian, god, faith, news, blasphemy, evangelism, kirk cameron, ray comfort, william lane craig, catholicsphere[/tags]
It’s still not completely decided in the scientific community if the universe had a beginning or not. Even if it were decided that our universe had a beginning, the larger picture of total reality, which includes all energy, universes, etc. might exist without beginning. Also keep in mind that something-from-nothing, though unknown in our universe might be a natural occurrence outside of the universe (where time doesn’t exist and thus cause-effect breaks down).
Of course the reality is we just don’t know. Atheists accept that simple fact and take the honest position that comes from it–that of lacking belief. There is no faith required to consider the various explanations that might explain our reality. However it does take faith to decide one particular explanation IS true in the face of the reality of our ignorance–and this is what theists do. And that is a dishonest (or ignorant) position in my view.
MystryBox said this on May 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Science doesn’t say that matter or energy had a beginning. It says there was a big bang from a singularity that was extremely dense and hot which lead to the universes current condition. Matter and energy may have always existed in some form or other prior to that.
wayne said this on May 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
MystryBox:
Based on your criteria, atheists have exhibited bias or intellectual dishonesty (or both) in order to arrive at position that dismisses a potential explanation.
If you cannot decide whether any one explanation is true, then likewise you cannot decide that any option is off-the-table which cannot be disproved.
Even if it is put forth that atheists say “I won’t believe because I don’t know”, you should be able to see that in the eyes of a believer that seems a very irrational position. Irrational because of the consequences of being incorrect. In fact, even a believer (at least in the early stages of faith) might say, “I don’t know for sure, but I’ll accept over the alternative”. That seems the more logical position.
That said, let me just say that its not the best reason for belief, but it at least makes belief worthy of serious contemplation.
Matt said this on May 9th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Wayne:
Has science ever directly observed anything which has always existed? I don’t think its possible that it ever has. Therefore, it must deduce that all things that exist have a beginning — which was one of the premises in Aquinas’ arguments for a First Cause (along with something that MystryBox mentioned: something existing outside of the natural universe).
Of course this is an oversimplification.
Matt said this on May 9th, 2007 at 9:01 pm