“Does God Exist?”…Debate Review

Ok…after watching the “Does God Exist?” debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort representing the Christian front and Brian Sapient and Kelly representing the Atheist front, one thing became crystal clear to me…Ray Comfort should be quiet and let Kirk Cameron speak. I found Cameron made more “logical” sense and sounded much more informed than Comfort.
I watched and listened carefully (and was quite embarrassed at times for both sides) hoping that Cameron and Comfort could do what they claimed to be able to do.

And In This Corner…
Comfort and Cameron claimed they could ‘prove 100% scientifically that God exists without the use of faith or the bible‘…they failed miserably. Why make such a bold claim and then fail to follow through with that claim? Was it just so they could get a national TV audience and show just how uninformed and ridiculous Christians can look? One of the first things that Comfort did was to use the Ten Commandments in trying to prove his point…Uhhh…Hello…The last time I checked the Ten Commandments ARE in the Bible. Well…at least he didn’t use the banana to prove his point this time….he used a Coke can instead. 🙂

And In This Corner…
Brian Sapient and Kelly seemed much more prepared than their Christian counterparts, albeit they too could not inconclusively prove that God doesn’t exist.

The thing that urks me about this whole thing is that most Atheists believe that for one to believe in God is ‘not logical, irrational, and just plain stupid’ as stated by Sapient and Kelly. How can believing in evolution or the big bang theory be logical? There is no scientific proof…just theory and speculation.

The best thing about the whole evening was Martin Bashir. He was much more informed , logical and rational than either party, and was really trying to get the original question answered….by anyone!

Watch the debate…if you have time…then come back and let us know what you think. But please…keep it civil and interesting!

Click here to watch!


About Jimmy Eldridge

I am a husband, a father, a son, a brother and most of all, a follower of our most gracious savior Christ Jesus. Who are you following?

8 thoughts on ““Does God Exist?”…Debate Review

  1. Hi,

    I think Comfort proved that God exists. He said that just like every building has a builder, every creation has a creator. The universe is far too complex to have happened by chance. If a can of Coke can’t come about by chance, how much more ridiculous to think the universe happened by chance. At this point Ray was only expanding on Romans 1:19-21.

    After Comfort spoke, Sapient said that he’s not even there to prove that God doesn’t exist. He was only there to poke holes in what the Christians said.

    Certainly based on substance Comfort and Cameron won.


  2. Bill,

    I understand what you are saying…my point is that both he and Cameron said they can prove 100% scientifically that God does exist without using the bible or faith…in this respect…they did not prove scientifically…they used speculation…not proof.
    The problem I have with this is that all they succeeded in doing was giving atheists ammunition.
    If you say to me scientific proof..show me scientific proof…not just speculation and a coke can.

  3. Hebrews 12:3 says, we believe in Creation by Faith. The bible never seeks to prove God’s existence, it assumes it. We cannot prove scientifically that God exists. If we could, we would not need faith. Jesus said that all men will know we are his disciples by our love for one another not our really cool arguments against the atheist.
    Jimmy, you are so right, their position takes as much faith as ours. I appreciate what Cameron has done over the years and the steps he has taken to share the Gospel and live according to Scripture (it cost him his job on Growing Pains) but this seems to me to be something of a fool’s errand.

  4. I agree…that is why I don’t understand why they would make such a claim if they can’t back it up.

    Was it just a publicity stunt? That is my thought!

  5. I’d like to think it was earnestness gone awry. Two guys who sincerely want to share the Good news making a decision that lacks some wisdom. Love hopes all things…

  6. I was squirming while I watched this when it aired. They really did fail miserably. the whole argument is stupid though, regardless of there being no proof of evolution or whatnot… we exist.

    To those that argue there is no God, where’d the energy and material for the big bang come from? They have faith in some “force” existing before the universe did, just as Christians believe that God did.

    The difference is that these people, enthralled with their own self worth mock the idea that there could be a God because, well… they feel it’s a cop out and the easy way of rationalizing things.

    Amazingly, if you do a little research, you’ll find a sweeping movement cropping up in the scientific community that embraces the ancient astronaut theory, which basically says we were put here by aliens.

    More and more the press seems to be embracing this concept. Think back to how ga ga they went over some distant planet that may or may not be able to sustain life. Heck, they showed pictures of what the planet might look like, even though the thing was picked up by radio telescopes and in reality, no one knows anything about the planet aside from it’s location.

    Slowly but surely we will see science gravitating towards this concept because… well, because they’re sick of not being able to answer where we came from and to them, anything is better than sitting back and thinking God kicked off the big bang by speaking “Let there be light”

  7. Please remember that I’m not against Christianity or reglion in general (although I must admit sometimes I am, because religious conflicts are the root cause of much evil in our world). Nor am I arguing against the virtuous teachings of Christianity, but its false premise (the Bible’s divine origin), absurdities, atrocities, and injustices contained therein. Religion involving any chosen deity on the right side of morality, will have positive emotional impact on our lives. Any postive belief system which parallels our intrinsic sense of right and wrong, will result in positive emotional (and physical) impact.

    In the short history of our existence, what makes us so sure that we modern-day earthlings finally “have it right (Christianity)?” Past civilizations were also convinced they had it right. The Greeks worshipped multiple deities – we now know better. Humans were sacrificed in the name of religion – we contemporary humans now know better.aSomeone of their respective period proclaimed it so (multiple deities, sacrifices, etc.), and everyone else followed. Then, at some future point in time, their paradigm morphed into something more sensible; they (or their descendants) eventually learned better. So, how do we know that one day, millenniums into the future, any given civilization won’t look back at ours (like we currently look back at the Greeks and other ancients) and say, “Look, this is what those ancients believed in.” Why would we think, in the short history of our existence, that our followers will not, indeed, learn better?

    Fear of social and divine retribution, as well as the self-imposed retribution of guilt (sometimes to a suicidal degree) can be and is, for many people an overwhelming deterrent to thorough investigation and objective evaluation of the Scriptures. Religion is handed down to us throughout the generations. Predisposition to blind acceptance of Christianity and other religions is in our genes. It’s instillled in our psyche from an early age.

    This is the same fundamental reason Muslim extremists adhere to an inhumane doctrine of terrorism and torture. It’s been handed down, to them, across the generations since the 7th Century inception of Islam, when Muhammad went to the Mountain, smoked a little grass, then decided he was going to be Allah’s right-hand man. It’s what has been taught to them, and this is germane to understanding why so many in our society accept Christianity without objective scrutiny – it’s what has been handed down to us, and unquestioning acceptance, of it, is the right thing to do.

    When I was finally compelled to investigate the existence of God, I began with an online resource, an electronic version of the Bible. I searched for the word *kill*. Don’t remember how many there were, but only one instance used in the context of advocacy would have been too much, for me (Thou shalt not kill?). Not what I had been led to believe God was all about. A rather telling observation, in my book, is that killing in biblical times was not exactly atypical as the way of their relatively lawless world, and this is exactly the kind of thing that would be found in journal-style writings of that period.

    God, according to the Bible, is supposed to be perfect in every way, in addition to other concepts presented, like omnipotent, omniscious, and omnibevolent, not an advocate of war and/or murder. How could He advocate killing any of his children, whether they’re his chosen people, or not. Chosen people? A god playing favorites? Not what I thought God was all about.

    Exodus 20:13Thou shalt not kill.
    Exodus 32:27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour (this is only one of the contradictions found in the Bible, but one of the more significant and telling, me thinks).

    I just always figured this book was the word of an omnibenevolent, supernatural being. Now, after only cursory examination, it’s apparent to me that this book was written by someone(s) with all the same personality characteristics (jealousy, rage, revenge , etc.) of an earthbound mortal (the evidence is in the Bible), not an omnibenevolent superpower. Truth is, Jehovah shares personality traits with some of our world’s worst war-mongering, murderous, and barbaric dictators, including Muhammad (the evidence is in the Bible…and the Qur’an).

    Ever notice how demanding of worship Jehovah is?
    Ever notice how demanding of worship third world dictators are, with their pictures on billboards all over town?

    As big a worship-demanding and jealous ego as God apparently has, seems pretty clear to me if anyone like Muhammad was attempting trespass into Jehovah’s turf (which Muhammad did in more ways than one), Jehovah would’ve snuffed out this imposter in a heartbeat. Support for this kind of postulation is found in the Scriptures and is not merely a product of my bias.

    Aside from the virtuous teachings, what makes Jehovah any different from a terrorist? Both are apparently egomaniacs who go around killing at will; even their methods are essentially not all that different – the evidence is in the Bible, and the supernatural one of that pair demands, ‘Do as I say, not as I do’. What god would direct members of his flock to murder other apparently not-so-favorite members of his flock? Not exacty an equitable and omnibenevolent god, in my book.

    Why the “faith game” instead of just presenting the rules and consequences, accompanied by a convincing display of His existence? (would result in a much higher incidence of winners, for the “game”). Assuming that any type of game would be an appropriate method for God to enlist followers, wouldn’t an omnibenevolent god want to maximize the number of winners, and minimize the number of losers who will spend eternity in Hell? “Hell” – sure seems, to me, a rather cruel punishment for an omnibenevolent god.

    Me thinks if I were an omnibenevolent superpower capable of engineering such a complex world as ours, I could surely devise a plan guaranteeing myself plenty of worship, without simultaneously condemning any of my children to eternity in Hell. On the other hand, if I were a mere mortal of the biblical era trying to explain the unexplainable, and recognized the need for spiritual law & order in an, otherwise, spiritually lawless and chaotic society, a Heaven & Hell concept would be a convenient and powerful incentive, indeed.

    So, how am I expected to believe in such a god who is not so perfect and god-like by my standards, but more to the point of my contention with the divine status of the Bible, how am I supposed to believe in (much less worship), a god who is not so perfect and god-like, as claimed in the book itself. Anyone’s answer to that question first requires disregard for the above-mentioned contradictions (and others found in the Scriptures), but is also dependent on their own definition of that man-made word “God”, and just as important, how they justify to themselves, that definition. Mitigation is especially needed if you allow Him any imperfections, and if you do allow Him imperfections, then you’re in direct contradiction with the Bible’s own portrayal of God being perfect in every way.

    To me, it couldn’t be any more obvious that these books (Qur’an and the Bible) were written by mere mortals without any external, divine influence guiding their hands. In the case of Muhammad, his own wife made the rather telling observation of how convenient his revelations always were to his religious and personal goals. In the case of the Bible, there was apparently a similar motive at work by at least one of the biblical authors, which resulted in a “chosen people.” In other words, what mere mortal-type biblical author would not have selected his own kind as the chosen people?

    The positive value of Christianity in our lives and society is obvious, but the Bible as being the work of God, as God is represented in the book itself, just doesn’t hold water. There are also publications out there (at least one that I know of, authored by research partners “Freke & Gandy”), that reveal discovery of credible information (referenced with appropriate bibliography), relating the existence of a historical, spiritual figure whose story roughly parallels and predates the story of Jesus. The story of Jesus plagiarzed? This kind of stuff the press doesn’t dare touch for obvious reasons, and many Christians won’t entertain even only the possibility of such blasphemous tales, but will dogmatically deny pure logic and evidence, rather than risk that kind of upset in their lives, especially those so entrenched in the lifestyle.

    Why does God permit the destruction of life, limb, and landscape (not to mention the resulting suffering of victims’ loved ones) with weather calamities, when according to the Bible, He has the power to stop them? Not what I thought God was all about

Comments are closed.