I post it so you might consider tuning into this telecast.
The Atheist -vs- Christian Debate Provided Clear Evidence God Exists
A debate occurred recently on the existence of God, on the evening of Saturday, May 5th, 2007, at the
The debate was moderated by Martin Bashir, the "Nightline" anchor.
For the Christian perspective we heard from Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron of the Way of the Master. For the Atheists we heard from Brian Sapient and his co-hort "Kelly." Each argued their perspective viewpoints on the question of the existence of God and answered questions put to them from the ABC News Now website, and audience respondents.
The ill-conceived notions of the debating Atheists made for a confusing and downright silly set of arguments. The platform for the debate had seemed simple enough but it proved to be too much for Brian Sapient and the young woman, who asked to be referred to as simply "Kelly", due to her stated fear of "reprisals." Brian and "Kelly" were so weak in their claims; they often resorted to making outrageously false statements. "Kelly" made the laughable comments like claiming all micro-Biologists unanimously agreed evolution is a provable fact, while Brian comically professed there are hundreds of transitional life-forms at the Museum of Natural History there in New York City!
I was at the debate as a reporter getting responses from the opponents and the crowd for the Worldview Weekend website ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com. My aim was to hear what the goals of the debaters were and to know whether the attendees believed their intended outcome had been accomplished. As many expected, Brian Sapient haughtily claimed victory while Kelly claimed offense, her best "argument" for the evening being an obviously staged "ward-robe malfunction", performed only feet in front of her Christian mother. Her stunt aroused the Atheists in the crowd to hoot like drunks in a bar; causing many to violate the Seventh Commandment right there in a Church. If Kelly and Brian's intention was to be irreverent and to cause others to stumble in sin, they succeeded only with the Lost, their own people. The Christians had respectfully looked away giving her time to recover herself honorably. The lack of respect Kelly showed for the place she was in and fo r those she and Brian were s upposed to be debating didn't really surprise the executive member of the church, but had, instead, saddened him to see these Atheists could not have shown more civility and professional respect. But such was the tone from the Atheist side during the whole debate: derision, sarcasm and irreverence for a subject 90% of Americans hold dear: They were their own worst enemies.
But, thankfully, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron ignored the pandering of the "Squad" members with judicious alacrity, even applauding their opponent's ridiculous points. Ray explained very clearly the three points of the Christian argument for the proofs of God in his opening statement, repeating them often as the "intellectuals" seemed not to be able to understand. Ray and Kirk explained the evidence of Creation decrying a Creator; the evidence of Conscience professing a Rule Giver; and the scientific facts of the Bible proving out over the centuries to be wholly accurate, all demonstrating the genius of the claims Christianity makes. Kirk even pointed out some of the smartest men ever to walk the earth similarly acknowledged the same evidences: Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, and Copernicus, among others. Although Einstein was not a Christian he openly acknowledged the evidence of a Designer in the design. Most notable to this author is how Stephen Hawking has also acknowledged the same proofs as being hard to ignore.
Yet the atheist arguments proved so ludicrous as to be laughable. The idea that, "we are all transitional life-forms" was so illogical the ABC moderator, Martin Bashir, had to stop and call them on it, amid jeers and laughing form the largely Atheist crowd, ridiculing them for even attempting such nonsense.
All the debaters, except Kelly, felt further debates of similar formats would be helpful and worthwhile; Kelly's comments proved as juvenile as her actions.
Frankly, though I agreed with Tiffany Gelpi of ChangeYourCampus.com that the debaters did not change each other's minds, I was happy to note one of the Atheists I had previously interviewed that night, later asking me poignant questions, all alluding to his considering the claims of Christianity seriously in his tone and apparent appreciation for the claims Ray and Kirk had made for the proofs of God's existence and our resulting moral turpitude.
The point of this debate was not to prove the Christian God is the Only God, though Ray and Kirk did this very well in my opinion, but rather that the proofs of God existing are so obvious as to engender foolishness to deny the evidence .
I believe, as many who saw the debate in person did, the representatives for Christianity did exactly what they had set out to do, providing real evidence for logical consideration on the existence of God. After all, believing God exists is the precursor to the saving process, the Conscience spurring the sinner on to a reasoned Fear of God, to an understanding of His righteous Judgment, to a humbled repentant saving faith in Jesus, as their Savior, LORD and God.
I left the Atheist, who had sought my opinions out, now an admitted Agnostic, with the same comments Ray and Kirk left the viewers of this debate considering...
IF the claims of Christianity are true, that there is a God, a Designer plainly seen in the design of His creation; IF your Conscience decries a Law Giver you are accountable to; IF the Scientific, Prophetic and Moral claims in the Bible do indeed not only show that God IS but who that God is, and what He expects you to do, THEN...
WHAT DO YOU DO NOW?
Like the man at the feet of Jesus, Ray and Kirk's arguments leave the sinner asking, "What must I DO to be saved?
If you seek God with all of your heart you will find Him...
(Deuteronomy 4:29)
Patrick Burwell
OnlyJesusSaves.com
1 comment:
How can a debate provide 'evidence' God exists? Evidence is a scientific term and a debate is an intellectual exercise. Who wins a debate proves nothing about the truth of the matter being debated. If it did, the debate in Newsweek a few weeks ago would have proved God does NOT exist, for the atheist won that one. The debate merely proves which contestants are better at debating, not who is right and who is wrong. Silly title. Silly presumtion.
Post a Comment