Ray and Kirk decided to hold a logical debate on ABC's Nightline, claiming to prove the existence of God, scientifically, without mentioning faith or the Bible. "Proving the existence of God is actually a lot easier than you think," says Kirk. Responding to their claims are two atheists, Brian Sapient and Kelly, from the Rational Response Squad.
After watching all of the videos on ABC News' website, it is clear to me that Ray and Kirk were slaughtered. Brian and Kelly were spot on in the discussion, and knocked down almost every bit of "proof" that Ray and Kirk brought forward. Watch the videos for yourself here and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Honestly, I felt really bad for Ray and Kirk. Their intention for this was out of love for people, but their argument was flattened like a house of cards. And the funny thing is that I agreed with almost every argument that Brian and Kelly were stating, even though they are atheists. In regards to logic and science, they were right on.
The problem with this debate is that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically because we use natural law as our grounds for science, and God is supernatural. He is outside of the dimension of our natural laws.
Here are some of the problematic points that I came up with when listening to the debate:
- Personal experience isn't scientific. Kirk Cameron shouldn't have brought in his "personal experience" to the debate because nobody can argue about a personal experience. Since it is something specific that only you have experienced, then why is that relevant to a debate about logic? They were supposed to come with proof, but then resort to personal experience to uphold their argument.
- Was "Creation" really created? One of Ray's arguments were that all creations must have a creator. One example was that a painting must have a painter who created it. Brian stated his reason for why this is a flawed argument, but I thought about something else: What about people who don't believe that we are actually "Creation?" What if we were just "formed" like Evolutionists believe? You can't use the argument of "If there's a Creation, then there must be a Creator" against people that don't believe that it has been "created" in the first place. They believe that it formed by random chance, and that the universe is infinite. So the argument is irrelevant.
- Like I briefly mentioned above, God cannot be proven scientifically. Science is logical. However, Christianity isn't logical at all: God came to Earth in the form of a man (no scientific explanation), named Jesus, born of a virgin (no scientific explanation), was perfect, was crucified, died, then rose again (no scientific explanation). That doesn't seem logical to me. It actually sounds pretty crazy. The definition of "miracle" is an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. How can you have a debate using logic when God Himself is NOT logical at all? He's supernatural.
Overall, I appreciate Ray Comfort's heart for non-Christians headed for hell (according to the Bible), and I appreciate him making it clear that God will reveal Himself to those who seek God out with genuine intentions. Hebrews 11 (ESV) says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. ... By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible," [Emphasis added]. Ray Comfort knows the Bible very well, and gives many examples of evidence that the Bible is true.
But he went about this debate all wrong. He even mentioned the Bible in his argument after he said that he wouldn't. It's a mistake to take this onto network television and then get knocked down by logic. God can't be proven by science. In the end it just comes down to faith. Not science.
Photo from ABCnews.com